Re: Restricted storage

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:20:28PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > > Then you break the Flexibility requirement. I don't see a valid
> > > reason to do so. If you want to break a requirement, you have to
> > > point out a strong need for it.
> > I did, but you cut it away:
> > > > I don't think it's useful to build a whole system of
> > > > sub-permissions on it, because it will only result in accidental
> > > > disclosure of certain parts (because the default is unrestricted.
> > > > Making the default opaque would solve this, but at a much too high
> > > > cost IMO).
> 
> You don't agree that default should be opacity and then think that
> flexible permissions would not be so useful because they would result in
> leaks. I don't think that is pointing a strong need to break
> Flexibility, but YMMV.

Given the new explanation of Marcus, that "Flexibility" was actually an
attempt to say "User freedom" in more technical terms, I think it is a very
strong point.  Opacity costs user freedom.  Making it the default only to gain
"flexibility" is a very bad idea, if the whole point of being flexible is to
get user freedom.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature