On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 06:40:05AM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> discussed at www.erights.org are highly relevant. So my essential
> feeling here is that we have to have a two-level approach here. One that
> enforces "basic security" (which really means that it makes sure your
> system is not compromised) and one that is able to deal with (err...
> this sounds weird even to a non-native speaker but I don't know a better
> term...) "social security" in the way that gives other people directly
> or indirectly access to your environment and any kind of personal
> information.

Andreas, I don't know if it was intentional, but your use of the phrase
"social security" is wonderful. It's a perfect description of the security
issue which you are describing, and it is also the name of the the US
government system of collecting taxes to fund social benefits for
citizens late in life. US citizens tend to be rather doubtful about
the financial integrity of the system, and sometimes refer to it (only
partly as a joke) as "social insecurity."

You can find out out about the US social security administration at
<http://www.ssa.gov>, and you can find out what peaple really think about
it by doing a Google on "social insecurity."

Sorry about the off-topic reply, but I think that you may have coined
an important new technology buzz-word.

Dave