cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-04-19 - Re: SSL weakness affecting links from pa

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart)
Message Hash: 1edb47e356e9bf9ec325a9177b3306b03c33a66e30a6b3c9cbfe8ef55019625c
Message ID: <199704191434.JAA01685@homeport.org>
Reply To: <3.0.1.32.19970418230820.006527d8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-04-19 14:38:49 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 07:38:49 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 07:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart)
Subject: Re: SSL weakness affecting links from pa
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970418230820.006527d8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199704191434.JAA01685@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



	I'm suprosed no one has suggested paying people for
advertising.  If the Netscape folks would integrate digicash into
Communicator, then I could program my browser to only send referer to
sites that paid for the information, and rent cookie space.  Want your
cookie to live till 1999?  Thats 24 months, at 50 cents per month...do
you want to pay?

	These tools would allow users to set a value on their privacy,
and get the money from advertisers.  I know nothing encourages me to
buy a product like getting cold hard cash from the maker.

Adam

Bill Stewart wrote:

| >Of course there should be a toggle to allow users to turn off the 
| >referer field. I tried to get a recomendation to do this put into the
| >spec. People then started shouting at me saying that it was impossible
| >to enforce and so the recomendation shouldn't be there. 
| 
| Perhaps too much commercial advertising capability already depended on it?



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

Thread