Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #70, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2011-08-27T01:51:00Z (13 years ago)
Author:
davidsarah
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #70, comment 2

    initial v1  
    99The uri already has security properties built in: possession of the uri is both necessary and sufficient to access the file. If you don't want a search engine to make the file available, don't let a search engine see the uri.
    1010
    11 Now, that's a separate question from making for-human-eyes-only URIs. At the moment, since tahoe is not particularly widespread, tahoe URIs *are* for-human-eyes-only, since it would take a human to copy the results out of a web page and paste it into a tahoe client. But even if google got excited about crawling into a tahoe mesh to index the contents of all the tahoe URIs it discovered, it would probably be sufficient to remove the 'URI' suffix from a published tahoe uri: that would be enough to cause a tahoe client to reject the string as invalid.
     11Now, that's a separate question from making for-human-eyes-only URIs. At the moment, since tahoe is not particularly widespread, tahoe URIs *are* for-human-eyes-only, since it would take a human to copy the results out of a web page and paste it into a tahoe client. But even if google got excited about crawling into a tahoe mesh to index the contents of all the tahoe URIs it discovered, it would probably be sufficient to remove the 'URI:' ~~~suffix~~prefix from a published tahoe uri: that would be enough to cause a tahoe client to reject the string as invalid.
    1212
    1313Or, you could split the URI in half and send each side to someone via a separate channel.