Notes - Burdens of Proof - page 224

53. Moni Naor and Benny Pinkas, “Visual Authentication and Identification,” in
Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO '97 , ed. Burton S. Kaliski, Jr. (Berlin: Springer, 1997),
326.
54. Tal Moran and Moni Naor, “Polling with Physical Envelopes: A Rigorous Analy-
sis of a Human-Centric Protocol,” Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2006 , ed.
Serge Vaudenay (Berlin: Springer, 2006), 89. See also Tal Moran and Moni Naor,
“Basing Cryptographic Protocols on Tamper-Evident Seals,” Theoretical Computer
Science 411, no. 10 (2010): 1283-1310.
55. In a similar vein, Fellows and Koblitz remark that “a number of fundamental
protocols, such as oblivious transfer and multi-party secure computation, can be
nicely demonstrated by means of ordinary playing cards. Note that these familiar
physical objects have a number of cryptographically useful properties 'built in': they
have a convenient means of randomization (shuffling), are uniquely identifiable,
and when face down, are indistinguishable.” Michael Fellows and Neal Koblitz, “Kid
Krypto,” in Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO '92 , ed. Ernest F. Brickell (Berlin:
Springer, 1993), 387.
56. Stanley L, Warner, “Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating
Evasive Answer Bias,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 60, no. 309 (1965):
63-69.
57. Judith A. Droitcour, Eric M. Larson, and Fritz J. Scheuren, “The Three Card
Method: Estimating Sensitive Survey Items—With Permanent Anonymity of
Response,” in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section
(2001). The paper describes the “three-card method” devised by the U.S. General
Accounting Office for surveying the particularly sensitive issue of legal status of
immigrant workers.
58. Moran and Naor, “Polling with Physical Envelopes,” 89.
59. The two approaches echo Agre's analysis of the systems design literature and
his identification of “two fundamental conceptions of users, or perhaps two organiz-
ing schemes for such conceptions, which I shall call the technical and the managerial .
Roughly speaking, the technical conception of the user has two facets: the world-
views of designer and user are assumed to coincide, and the user is understood to
be a component in a larger system. Thus the user's resistance to this arrangement
is understood as something external to the system and therefore as irrational. The
managerial conception, again roughly speaking, understands that the real object of
design is not just the technical artifact but the whole institutional system around
it; the user is understood as a human agent whose perceptions of the proposed
institutional arrangements become an object of inquiry an intervention in their
own right.” Philip E. Agre, “Conceptions of the User in Computer Systems Design,”
in Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces , ed. Peter J.
Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 67-68.