Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mike Shaver Moves to Zero-Knowledge

Posted by Hemos on from the joining-up-with-new-folks dept.

Mike Shaver, who recently left the Netscape/AOL conglomerate, has apparently landed a job with Montreal-based Zero Knowledge. The press release has more details, but it appears that Zero Knowledge is privacy company which promises the ability to post, browse and all those good things anonyomously. Mike will be their Chief Software Officer, while continuing to work on Mozilla as time permits.

7 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. An (albeit old) article on zero knowlege systems.. by / · · Score: 4

    can be found here. The interesting part is this:

    The Zero-Knowledge software works using three servers, located at leased sites in scattered locations worldwide. Client software encrypts Internet access requests and information using three layers of public-key encryption software. Each of the three servers only knows part of the information needed to identify a user and the contents of an Internet session. Even Zero-Knowledge itself doesn't know the identity of the owner of particular pseudonyms, so it can't divulge that information if subpoenaed.

    Of course implementation is everything, but I'm all in favor of any step towards ubiquitous encryption and pervasive privacy.

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  2. Interesting news order by Paolo · · Score: 3

    Right below you have Mozilla getting PKI source, and then you have an ex-Mozilla going to Zero Knowledge. Why is this significant? ZK is the maker of the aptly named "Freedom" (from privacy invasion) software, which acts as a very interesting model of secure internet access. White papers are here, and they've truly redefined (or is it defined) a new model for providing inet access privacy. I wonder if Mike Shaver's old ties at Netscape/AOL would help in the distribution of Freedom...

    --
    "In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
  3. Models of security v privacy (slightly ot) by ardran · · Score: 4
    Some of you may consider this flamebait, but I'm serious.

    Things like ZKS make me wonder about what we are striving for in terms of privacy. There is the "real" world and the digital world -- is one meant to be an analogue of the other? Obviously, we want privacy because we don't want the digital world to be worse than the real world in certain ways. For instance, if we didn't encrypt credit card data during transactions, the digital world would be broken compared to the real when it comes to purchasing. Similarly, I want to be able to secure documents that I send to someone so that they are at least as good as taking certain "security" measures in the real world (registered mail, envelopes that aren't transparent, etc).

    There seems to be a distinction between the desire for online security (which seeks to emulate the security we can find in the real world) and the desire for online privacy (which seeks to surpass the real). There is no real-world equivalent to what ZKS proposes. If I walk down the street, people may not recognize me (unless they know me), but I clearly have an identity -- I can be distinguished from someone else on the street by a third-party observer, even though the observer may not be able to identify either of us. ZKS would allow me to walk down the street and appear identical to everyone else -- not just nameless, but faceless.

    Obviously, a lack of privacy dehumanizes; but couldn't an overabundance dehumanize as well? I'm interested in where exactly we're going with all this.

  4. Irony... by Gerv · · Score: 3

    Funny that, to get your internet "freedom" using Freedom.net, you have to be using the products and OSes of the software company in the world most opposed to freedom :-)

    Gerv

  5. Comic Book Store Guy says: by Zico · · Score: 3

    Worst. Name. Ever.

    Seriously, what kind of marketing wizard decided to name the company "Zero Knowledge". It sounds like a synonym for "Know Nothing." "Yeah, I know there are a lot of smart companies out there that we could work with, but that's so cliché -- we should team up with them Zero Knowledge guys!"

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  6. Re:porn by cicatrix · · Score: 3
    In the first case (child porn), you have to either accept that either you're going to trample on people's rights, or someone's not going to be as "safe" as they otherwise could be. I realize this sounds rather callous, especially in regard to children, but it's the truth. This (along w/terrorism) is one of the most often used arguments against privacy, especially on the internet. Of course, as soon as you start somewhere, you hit that lovely slippery slope fallacy--where does it stop? While a fallacy in a logical sense, people aren't always logical--far from it--so it applies, at least to some degree... Basically, it comes down to the question of how far are you willing to let the government (or anyone w/the resources to do so) pry into your affairs? Then ask yourself this: even if you say that things should stop there, why should your opinion of where to stop be any more of a limit than someone who draws the line at watching for people with "unhealthy" but perfectly legal habits?

    On the flip side of this, Freedom can make it safer for children by keeping any personal information away from prying eyes, specifially those of child molesters, etc. So now which is more important, protecting children from child molesters, or to make it easier to track child molesters? It'd also make it easier for the police to do stings in chat rooms, etc., because they can create a relatively untraceable pseudonym...

    On the happier and less controversial note of spammers, Freedom does reserve the right to pull 'nyms that are associated w/spam, etc.--a lot of spammers seem to be using either free email services until they get caught, or their own servers, so it'd get pretty expensive to pay $10/each for new names...

  7. Re:porn by Bearpaw · · Score: 3
    Right now spam, and to a lesser extent, e-mail hoaxes and threats are an ongoing problem. I can see this software as a possible tool for spammers and hoaxers.

    From their FAQ:

    How does Zero-Knowledge limit spam abuse of Freedom?

    Zero-Knowledge is very much aware of the possibility that our technology may be used by spammers to distribute unsolicited commercial email. To discourage this, Freedom attempts to limit the potential for spam through a number of measures:

    * Limits on the total number of recipients/newsgroups to which email may be sent on any day
    * Reduced limits on the total number of recipients/newsgroups to which email may be sent on any day for trial nyms
    * Limits on cross-posting to newsgroups
    * Limited lifespans for trial nyms, discouraging their use for spamming purposes
    * Internet users can block email from any particular nym

    Moreover, Zero-Knowledge has a 'no-spam' policy which it will try to enforce, and reserves the right to delete any nyms or restrict users ability to send email for spamming on the Freedom Network. That said, given Freedom's design goals of complete privacy, if an individual hides behind a nym to send spam via Freedom, Zero-Knowledge will be unable to determine the identity of the nym's owner or to associate a particular nym with any others owned by the same individual.