[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Taler] [address@hidden: 'Oh, that's an idea...': U.S. parents respo

From: Jacob Bachmeyer
Subject: Re: [Taler] [address@hidden: 'Oh, that's an idea...': U.S. parents respond to China screen time ban]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 19:37:07 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090807 MultiZilla/ SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/

Jeff Burdges wrote:

On 6 Sep 2021, at 05:11, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
There is however a problem of authenticating the context, but what I’d suggest 
there is that TLS certificates embed whatever attributes like age the site 
requests. In other words, if a site wants over 18 then they must say so in 
their TLS certificate and users not over 18 could not create anonymous identity 
on that site because their own browser would not do so.
And how is this supposed to work with Free software? The user's program refuses to do what the user wants; this looks suspiciously like DRM.
Indeed, if the browser is free software, users could modify it to disregard the 
server's demands.

I already debunked Jacob's statement upthread:  You cannot modify a browser to 
make a zero-knowledge proof of a false statement.  It’s like forging a 

Your rebuttal is not your original statement. Your original statement was worded to imply that the browser would _refuse_ to do so rather than that the user would not be able to complete a zero-knowledge proof to validate the transaction.

I will defer to RMS on the possibility of this being not much better than DRM, or perhaps even worse if the server can now make demands that the user cryptographically _cannot_ discard.

-- Jacob

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]