None that I know of. But maybe it's time for me to start putting something together.
I'll write up something tonight, and submit it to Slashdot in the morning. It may take a few days, but it'll (hopefully) be posted, and people can begin to tell me where this idea really needs work.
Not necessarily under the original proposal. Under the original proposal, only people have signed keys. Now, though, I can see where servers also need to have them signed.
And yes, I will freely admit that the idea needs work. But I wouldn't have posted the idea at all if I wasn't willing to work on it.
Agreed, that is a decent idea, but has one possible flaw in it: The Man In The Middle attack. A server sits between you and your goal. You send out your request to connect to this server for the first time ever. The MITM intercepts your request, re-encrypts your data to the server, and receives the response from the server, stores it, and then sends the server's response on to you.
You won't see the difference, or know that it's happening, but your every move is being recorded, with even less anonymity. Translation: Even worse than before.
However, as an option, if all servers ALSO had signed keys which could be checked, the mitm could be eliminated safely. This technique would also allow people to maintain their current levels of anonymity (which, while very low already, don't need to be reduced further.
Agreed, extremely complex. But not, by any means, intractable. Keyservers, at their heart, need only serve as much functionality as web servers. Because of the size of the packets which need to be transmitted (even some of the largest keys would be still be smaller than the average webpage), bandwidth would not be an issue worth considering.
Scaling, while an issue, is not as big of an issue as it is made out to be, I don't think. People are already used to searching on the web for a webpage. Extend this functionality to include searching the keyweb for the key you seek. Nobody said the process had to be 100% automatic (not yet, anyway) While it would take time to build a sufficient network of keyserves, I think it could be done. And, in the end, time is on our side with this issue, if we start now. If we simply start sending all of our emails signed (and encrypted, where possible), people can start to get used to the idea, and will ask questions. If we answer intelligently, we can get them willing to do the same thing.
As for how familiar is a nongeek... Currently, it's a pain in the rear to generate a key, get it distributed, etc. However, it doesn't have to be that way. A few simple installation wizard type of programs, and people can be merrily generating their keys and getting it registered. Signed is almost as easy after that.
Please, feel free to reply. While I'll admit to not being an expert on all the necessary ideas to make this work, I believe it CAN work, and would be the easiest way to defeat the whole PICS system, assuming we are too late to stop it from being implemented in the first place.
Geek has different connotations to different groups. To people in the computer field, it tends to mean somebody who is excellent with computers. To people in other walks of life, it tends to mean people with little or no social graces.
So, yes, I am using it with two different meanings. I'm trying to use the meaning which was used in the article.
As for why don't geeks have social graces, that becomes a circular definition (ie: Recursion (n) see recursion). While it is a valid reason, it doesn't explain it unless you already know it.
In this case, the people are trying to explain why geek geniuses, as a rule, have so few social graces. They've found something which at least provides a correlation (however weak) as to the why.
As other people have pointed out, there are a ton of other reasons why they could have so few social graces. From the other responses I've read, I'd have to take this report with a whole salt lick, instead of just one grain.
But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the association. It's very possible that people with a mild form of autism are considered geeks. No, I don't think they should be cured, provided they are happy with who they are. If, however, they want those social graces, shouldn't we try and help them understand why they might not have it, and help them find a "cure"?
Personally, I think it's an area worth further study.
Being very computer literate and being a geek are two separate things entirely. You can know everything there is to know about computers, but not be a geek.
Geeks, in the social sense, have little to no social graces. And that is the crux of the article: Why don't they have social graces?
The answer could be that they DO have a mild form of autism. I have no idea if the research is accurate enough to point that way. However, I will say this: People other than Mormons live in Utah. So, it's incredibly unlikely that all of the autistics he researched were Mormons.
I also didn't get that he was trying to justify the stereotype of "nerd" or "geek" (which, outside of technical discussions, are interchangeable). I saw him trying to figure out why one particular group appears to have the traits of a given stereotype. And, you have to admit that, by and large, the geeks/nerds of the world do have quite a few of those traits. Not the "normal" kids in school. The ones who everybody trips because they always fall in funny ways, and then "spaz" on everybody around them.
If the research is accurate (and from a cursory glance at some of the results, it seems like it could be), then we may have an actual explanation for why at least some portion of us are the way we are.
As an aside, from the sounds of it, you find geek to be an insulting term. I do not. I just wish I could get the people around me to understand that being a geek is, to some degree, a chosen way of life for me. And I rather like being one.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as promised, here's the first version of my Encryption How To. It's available at
http://216.17.163.212/Encryption-HowTo.p df.
Sorry for the delays, and the format. The format is there because it's only 0.1.
Please be gentle with it, since I'm only on a 256Kbps RADSL link.
I got the file made, but unable to post it due to a lovely firewall at work. So, I'll post it from home tonight, and give the URL once that's done.
None that I know of. But maybe it's time for me to start putting something together.
I'll write up something tonight, and submit it to Slashdot in the morning. It may take a few days, but it'll (hopefully) be posted, and people can begin to tell me where this idea really needs work.
Not necessarily under the original proposal. Under the original proposal, only people have signed keys. Now, though, I can see where servers also need to have them signed.
And yes, I will freely admit that the idea needs work. But I wouldn't have posted the idea at all if I wasn't willing to work on it.
Agreed, that is a decent idea, but has one possible flaw in it: The Man In The Middle attack. A server sits between you and your goal. You send out your request to connect to this server for the first time ever. The MITM intercepts your request, re-encrypts your data to the server, and receives the response from the server, stores it, and then sends the server's response on to you.
You won't see the difference, or know that it's happening, but your every move is being recorded, with even less anonymity. Translation: Even worse than before.
However, as an option, if all servers ALSO had signed keys which could be checked, the mitm could be eliminated safely. This technique would also allow people to maintain their current levels of anonymity (which, while very low already, don't need to be reduced further.
Agreed, extremely complex. But not, by any means, intractable. Keyservers, at their heart, need only serve as much functionality as web servers. Because of the size of the packets which need to be transmitted (even some of the largest keys would be still be smaller than the average webpage), bandwidth would not be an issue worth considering.
Scaling, while an issue, is not as big of an issue as it is made out to be, I don't think. People are already used to searching on the web for a webpage. Extend this functionality to include searching the keyweb for the key you seek. Nobody said the process had to be 100% automatic (not yet, anyway) While it would take time to build a sufficient network of keyserves, I think it could be done. And, in the end, time is on our side with this issue, if we start now. If we simply start sending all of our emails signed (and encrypted, where possible), people can start to get used to the idea, and will ask questions. If we answer intelligently, we can get them willing to do the same thing.
As for how familiar is a nongeek... Currently, it's a pain in the rear to generate a key, get it distributed, etc. However, it doesn't have to be that way. A few simple installation wizard type of programs, and people can be merrily generating their keys and getting it registered. Signed is almost as easy after that.
Please, feel free to reply. While I'll admit to not being an expert on all the necessary ideas to make this work, I believe it CAN work, and would be the easiest way to defeat the whole PICS system, assuming we are too late to stop it from being implemented in the first place.
Geek has different connotations to different groups. To people in the computer field, it tends to mean somebody who is excellent with computers. To people in other walks of life, it tends to mean people with little or no social graces.
So, yes, I am using it with two different meanings. I'm trying to use the meaning which was used in the article.
As for why don't geeks have social graces, that becomes a circular definition (ie: Recursion (n) see recursion). While it is a valid reason, it doesn't explain it unless you already know it.
In this case, the people are trying to explain why geek geniuses, as a rule, have so few social graces. They've found something which at least provides a correlation (however weak) as to the why.
As other people have pointed out, there are a ton of other reasons why they could have so few social graces. From the other responses I've read, I'd have to take this report with a whole salt lick, instead of just one grain.
But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the association. It's very possible that people with a mild form of autism are considered geeks. No, I don't think they should be cured, provided they are happy with who they are. If, however, they want those social graces, shouldn't we try and help them understand why they might not have it, and help them find a "cure"?
Personally, I think it's an area worth further study.
Being very computer literate and being a geek are two separate things entirely. You can know everything there is to know about computers, but not be a geek.
Geeks, in the social sense, have little to no social graces. And that is the crux of the article: Why don't they have social graces?
The answer could be that they DO have a mild form of autism. I have no idea if the research is accurate enough to point that way. However, I will say this: People other than Mormons live in Utah. So, it's incredibly unlikely that all of the autistics he researched were Mormons.
I also didn't get that he was trying to justify the stereotype of "nerd" or "geek" (which, outside of technical discussions, are interchangeable). I saw him trying to figure out why one particular group appears to have the traits of a given stereotype. And, you have to admit that, by and large, the geeks/nerds of the world do have quite a few of those traits. Not the "normal" kids in school. The ones who everybody trips because they always fall in funny ways, and then "spaz" on everybody around them.
If the research is accurate (and from a cursory glance at some of the results, it seems like it could be), then we may have an actual explanation for why at least some portion of us are the way we are.
As an aside, from the sounds of it, you find geek to be an insulting term. I do not. I just wish I could get the people around me to understand that being a geek is, to some degree, a chosen way of life for me. And I rather like being one.