<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: XAuth critiques</title></head><body>
<div>>>Single point of failure = NON-centralization.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I mis-stated this, sorry; omitted the "de" from
"decentralization".</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>OK, so now we're back to talking about reliability rather
than privacy? It's very hard to respond when the topic keeps
changing.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Privacy is a feature: when it fails (due to human corruption,
hackers, et all), the effects should be limited by design. (This is
basic damage control.) The single point of failure, in this case, is
about reliability only to the extent that we can rely on
"private" communications *remaining* that way: it's still
about privacy.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Akamai is a good approach (since the content is static, that
works), and local apps to import the JS to cache without contacting
any particular server is also a good mitigation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-Shade</div>
</body>
</html>