From: David Wagner <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:06:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [e-lang] Commentary on Wallach's "Extensible Security Architectures for Java"

In article <> you write:
>On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 22:25, chris hibbert wrote:
>> Jonathan: read Ping's words again.  He said "communicating conspirators 
>> cannot be prevented from delegating authority in any system".  As I 
>> read Ping's comments, that's exactly what he meant.  I don't think 
>> there's any reasonably charitable interpretation of Ping's words using 
>> the concept of "transfer"...
>Thank you for the correction. I think I got trapped by a convention of
>the existing literature, and maybe Ping wasn't following that
>convention. When the literature speaks of "delegating authority", it
>generally means "transferring a token that conveys authority" as opposed
>to the type of de facto delegation that we have been discussing. Given
>this context, Ping's words become open to misinterpretation in the way
>that I did.

For what it's worth, I read Ping's words the same way Chris did.
Maybe this was too ambiguous.   In any case, I agree that communicating
conspirators can't be prevented from pooling their powers, and this
interpretation seems to be enough enough to establish Ping's point. shap
e-lang mailing list