1996-01-30 - No FV supporters?

Header Data

From: Ted Anderson <ota+@transarc.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 23ea22fd248c57397376c1a104bc63fe3cfd8b89d08d10f4a90e133b2db9b2a4
Message ID: <sl3Z0jWSMV0_0L0U40@transarc.com>
Reply To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960130094017.9580A-100000@l0pht.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-30 19:32:32 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 03:32:32 +0800

Raw message

From: Ted Anderson <ota+@transarc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 03:32:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No FV supporters?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960130094017.9580A-100000@l0pht.com>
Message-ID: <sl3Z0jWSMV0_0L0U40@transarc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

I am rather shocked that after wading through hundreds of msgs of abuse
of Nathaniel and FV I haven't seen one message of support; but perhaps I
missed it.

I agree that the original post seemed very self-serving and was poorly
worded for this audience.  However, that doesn't excuse people from
reading it carefully and thinking about the implications.  FV has argued
time and again that their basic strength is that CC number aren't
available for systematic secretive purloinage.  The concern about
collecting CC# on a large scale is one of the argument given for the
importance of using encryption throughout the internet.  Otherwise
tapping the internet backbone has much the same properties.  I thought
we had already agreed that dumpster diving is a fundamentally smaller
threat to the CC system than backbone tapping.  FV is just pointing out
that another systematic weakness exists in the CC/internet scheme.

Whether this is a new, serious concern for internet commerce seems to be
a useful and important topic for discussion.  Fortunately, the
discussion, acrimonious as it has been has produced fruit.  It looks
like Weld Pond's suggestion of using a random imagemap is an effective
antidote.  Making the attack harder by an order of magnitude at least.

Ted Anderson