NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/cyberspa/954

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!tfish
From: [e-mail] (Tex Fish)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: representing Ice?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:39:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <HURH-260193231542@131.225.123.13>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 25

In article <HURH-260193231542@131.225.123.13> [e-mail] (Patrick Hurh) writes:
>
>It doesn't seem so odd that security would be broadcast into a visible form
>in cyberspace.  I agree that the best security is if the thief doesn't even
>know the data is there, but I think that would be near-impossible if we're
>talking mega-corps.
>
>Patrick

    I think the very idea of "broadcasting" the image of ICE is a
little farfetched.  It's an enormous amount of bandwidth. In my
conception, Cyberspace would be constructed at the terminal, according to
baisc data, not much more than today, and it would be end-user
configurable.  As to ICE: I don't think Gibson ever says that you could
see the ICE.  Indeed, in _Burning Chrome_ (the story), Bobby Quine talks
about how he "sussed" Chrome's ICE through a number of different sites so
as to avoid getting caught.  This leads me to beleive that appearances in
Cyberspace (according to Gibson) are just that: appearances, and that to
determine the "level" of ICE somebody had, you would actually have to
attempt to break into their system.

--
---->Tweety Fish        "I bought that chair, young lady,
---->[e-mail]     and you're gonna use it!"-MST 3K
---->These opinions are those of GO-FORCE and nobody else. Screw..