[11653] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Interests of online banks and their users [was Re: Cryptogram: Palladium Only for DRM]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ted Lemon)
Tue Sep 17 10:19:08 2002
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:57:13 -0500
Cc: David Wagner <daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu>,
cryptography <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>
To: Ian Brown <I.Brown@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CKEJIHDOBFKPAALJLELDOELJCPAA.I.Brown@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
> Relevence to the Pd debate is that banks may in future insist on remote
> attestation of users' software (however practically possible that is)
> so
> that they can attempt to dump yet more liability on their users
> ("Ladies and
> gentlemen of the jury, Mr Doe's claim that he did not authorise this
> transfer to a Caribbean account is obviously fraudulent as his Fritz
> chip
> proved to us that his system had not been compromised"...)
Banks typically aren't that sophisticated. Demand for this capability
probably will not materialize in time to save Pd, although there are
probably people working for banks who will claim that they want it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
