GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
13:59 Mar 12, 2015 |
English to French translations [PRO] Tech/Engineering - Telecom(munications) / Téléphonie mobile | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: FX Fraipont (X) Belgium Local time: 10:44 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +5 | découvrir qui se cache derrière un pseudonyme |
|
découvrir qui se cache derrière un pseudonyme Explanation: .. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2015-03-12 15:20:35 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- "When applying changing pseudonyms, one open issue is whether those pseudonyms should provide an unconditional anonymity, i.e., whether nobody should be able to identify vehicles (within the constraints outlined above)? The pseudonym solutions currently under discussion [13] in principal include the option that the provider of pseudonyms retains a mapping between an issued pseudonymous certificate and the identity of the holder of this pseudonym. If this is stored, the pseudonym provider could be required or forced to reveal the identify of a pseudonym holder in cases like legal disputes or crime investigations. Basically, pseudonym systems can be categorized with respect to their pseudonym resolution characteristics as follows: a) Technically possible and implemented: the system supports the solution and it is actively used. b) Technically possible, but not implemented: while it would be possible to implement a pseudonym resolution, it is not actively used. c) Technically possible, but constraint: while it is possible to resolve pseudonyms, there are technical constraints that prevent misuse of this mechanism. d) Technically impossible: the system is constructed in a way that effectively prevents pseudonym resolution. While current solutions fall in a) or b) – depending on whether the pseudonym-identity mappings are stored or not one can also envision mechanisms that fall into the categories c) or d). [16] discusses an approach that falls in category c). Here, pseudonyms can only be resolved under well-defined conditions, requiring the collaboration of a dedicated group of resolution authorities. Misuse by the pseudonym provider is thereby prevented. With small modifications, the solution can also be made a category d) solution that offers complete anonymity." http://www.preserve-project.eu/.../PRESERVE-D5.1-Deployment_... |
| |
Grading comment
| ||