Breaking News
Design How-To

Relying on untrusted devices?

NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
eustace
User Rank
Author
re: Relying on untrusted devices?
eustace   5/5/2013 2:50:55 PM
NO RATINGS
One aspect of small settlements worth noting is the fact that they were small enough to make identity theft near impossible. This is no longer the case in a world 'village' for myriads of reasons. Privacy and anonymity remains the last defense at personal level until perfection (in a practical sense at least) of global identification and authentication technologies.

przem
User Rank
Author
re: Relying on untrusted devices?
przem   5/3/2013 2:24:05 AM
NO RATINGS
Privacy is a fleeting phenomenon---up to mid-19th century most of the population lived in small settlements where everyone knew everything about everyone else. The privacy emerged when large numbers of people moved into cities and formed anonymous crowds. What is happening now is just an end to this short period---the technology catches up with us and loss of anonymity and privacy is just one more consequence of the entire world becoming one huge village.

CMathas
User Rank
Author
re: Relying on untrusted devices?
CMathas   5/2/2013 5:41:03 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, that identification "catching you" is the fodder for many recent headlines. While I agree with you in theory, and I don't hide behind that anonymity of the Internet, there's a part of me that relishes the idea of, at times, not being quite so unique.

EREBUS0
User Rank
Author
re: Relying on untrusted devices?
EREBUS0   5/1/2013 11:08:08 PM
NO RATINGS
In a world of ever expanding numbers, the ability to hide from surveilance is easier in the cyber world than the real world. On-line, you can say you are anyone and there is little verification done. (One of the many areas I would change). In the real world you have to present photo ID and valid credit card, but when you throw in video surveilence, You or your clone leave a unique identification wherever you go. That identification can eventually catch you. So I am all for a tighter identification process on-line so that individuals are again unique. Just my opinion.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed