October 8, 2004

paris doors

aaa12345703.jpg
Yes, I am still in Paris.
Paris apart­ment buil­dings are inte­res­ting. To get inside the buil­ding you first need to pass through 2 doors– the outside street door and the inside court­yard door.
Say you are visi­ting a friend in Paris and you want to ring his door­bell. The door­bell is only on the inside, by the court­yard door. To ring that, first you have to get through the street door. The only way to do that is by pres­sing a five digit code (say, 12B45) known only by the peo­ple in the buil­ding and their friends and peo­ple they trust.
So if you have an apart­ment in Paris and you have a friend coming over for the first time, you’ll say to him, “I’m at 56 Rue de Wha­te­ver. My code is 12B45. Then ring my door­bell once you get into the court­yard.“
Unless you already know the code, you don’t get in. Only peo­ple who are already trus­ted get to ring the door­bell. Door-to-door soli­ci­ta­tions just don’t hap­pen.
A sim­ple method that works.
It’s Per­mis­sion Mar­ke­ting at its finest. Some­body should invent an appli­ca­tion that does the same for e-mail. Or perhaps other giz­mos that makes mass-advertising and unso­li­ci­ted mar­ke­ting pretty much impos­si­ble.
Perhaps something like a new daily code that chan­ges every 24 hours, avai­la­ble via RSS…?
I love Paris.
[UPDATE: 6pm]
Kim Polese intro­du­ced Spi­ke­source and sud­denly Fred Wil­son plans to sell his Mic­ro­soft stock.
We’re only just get­ting used to the idea of the recor­ded music industry being toast. Bill Gates being toast is a bit har­der for us mere mor­tals to get our heads around.
Wha­te­ver. There’s a fun new space that’s ope­ning up in the busi­ness world:
“Be the best in the world or die.“
Some com­pa­nies can handle that space; others can’t. Spi­ke­source obviously thinks it can, which is what’s dri­ving the current exci­te­ment.
Like the old song says, it ain’t whatcha do, it’s the way that you do it.
The pro­por­tion of com­pa­nies that have to be able to handle that space just in order to sur­vive (let alone grow and pros­per) is expan­ding at such a fast rate it’s star­ting to get kinda thrillseeker-scary etc.
[UPDATE: SATURDAY]
Hmmm… Coca Cola has star­ted blog­ging, it seems. Using Type­pad soft­ware, it seems. Quite an amu­sing story how it wasn’t password-protected at first, and how it was soon spot­ted by the outside world.
Somebody’s head is rolling at the moment, I am sure.
OK, I’ll shut up about blogs now.
I’m still in Paris. Having fabu­lous time. Dra­wing wee car­toons on the back of busi­ness cards and han­ding them out to sweetheart Mont­par­nasse wai­tres­ses.
Heh.

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

16 Responses to “paris doors”

  1. Larry says:

    I’ve been follo­wing gaping­void for a while, I think I found it though del.icio.us and Warren Ellis.
    I’ve been living in Paris for 6 months now. Your obser­va­tion today is the smar­test thing I’ve heard in weeks.
    Seems to me that cellpho­nes work simi­liarly, as there is no cen­tral direc­tory of num­bers. You have to give someone your code “phone num­ber” before they can inte­rupt you.
    If only “dia­ling emails at ran­dom” wasn’t so cheap and easily automated.

  2. I think that you have desc­ri­bed a low-tech public-key encryp­tion sys­tem. To apply this to email one would have the ser­ver reject any mail addres­sed to you that was not enco­ded with your public key.
    If I’m unders­tan­ding all the rami­fi­ca­tions correctly.

  3. cynthia says:

    there is an email ser­vice that does this…a few, actually, but the one i’m fami­liar with is earthlink’s spam bloc­ker – you send someone an email and if the per­son does not have you on a list of appro­ved email addres­ses, your email is redi­rec­ted to a spe­cial fol­der and you get an auto­reply with a link that takes you to a page where you fill out a form to request that the reci­pient add you to the list.

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Yeah, I know what you mean… Mailblocks.com and what­not. The Pari­sian solu­tion seems more ele­gant, somehow…
    Only peo­ple who read my blog know my email address because it’s the only place I give it out. My busi­ness card only has my gaping­void URL on it.

  5. Firas says:

    Peter: It’s actually sym­me­tri­cal encryp­tion (sha­red key) rather than any con­cept of a public or pri­vate key. Pretty inse­cure in com­pu­ter terms.
    In an asym­me­tri­cal sys­tem, you’d take the buil­ding num­ber, put it through a func­tion with your pri­vate key, enter that com­bi­na­tion, and the buil­ding would decrypt the com­bi­na­tion with your public key (that the inha­bi­tant already ente­red, sho­wing that you’re wel­come). The per­son inside the buil­ding wouldn’t need to pro­vide any of his pri­vate keys to let you in, just his key­ring of public keys, one of which should be yours.
    That’s how digi­tal sig­ning would be ana­lo­gi­zed, any­way. And it’s the clo­sest thing to what should be done (as someone at the door, you should be able to prove that you are who you claim you are.)
    I don’t see why you’d try to imple­ment asym­me­tri­cal *encryp­tion* – there is no mes­sage. You’d only use someone else’s public key if you’re sen­ding them infor­ma­tion that nobody else should read (only they should be able to decrypt with their pri­vate key).
    Sorry to ram­ble, but a sig­na­ture sys­tem sounds much easier to remem­ber than a new daily code via RSS. If your public key is in the building’s key­ring, and you have the pri­vate key to match that public key, you’re in. Just remem­ber your pri­vate key and you can get into any buil­ding with the same key. The down­side is of course that the building’s soft­ware can log exactly who came in when.

  6. hugh macleod says:

    Wow, there so many peo­ple rea­ding this post who are far smar­ter than me on this sub­ject. Heh.

  7. Firas says:

    A whi­te­list solu­tion (mailblocks.com) is what access cards are. Swipe your card through a rea­der and if your ID is autho­ri­zed to enter, you’re in.
    The rea­son public key sig­ning doesn’t work this way is that the card rea­der now knows your pass­word (ID) and someone who has access to it can get into other pla­ces only you should be able to.

  8. hugh macleod says:

    I hardly get any spam since I repla­ced the “dot com” bit of my e-mail address at the top of my home­page with the word “etc.“
    The “outside door”, in this case, is not a bit of tech, but the sender’s power of rea­son.
    Works very well :)

  9. nick says:

    seems like there would be a way in gmail to route (using fil­ters) any email that comes from a ‘trus­ted address’ — or an address you’ve already added to your con­tacts list — to your inbox, and the rest to trash/spam. I’ll have to play with that now…
    tho gmail does a pretty superb job of rou­ting spam away from me any­way. i get about 2 a month that should go to spam, but don’t. not bad con­si­de­ring how much my address is out there…
    great idea though.

  10. The funny thing is that most of the time when you don’t know the code, you give a phone call to your friend to get the code. Some time, your friend opens his win­dow and tell you the code let­ting all peo­ple in the street kowing this stu­pid code…
    Marc Joli­vet, who is a French humo­rist, has done a very funny story about this.
    French are this way ;-)
    (I’m French !)

  11. Katherine says:

    It’s not quite an access card solu­tion. A code, rather than a card, is easier to use (but less secure) because it isn’t tied to a phy­si­cal object. You can write it down, email it to someone, etc.
    Maybe the elec­tro­nic ana­log *is* sha­red key encryp­tion. Yes, that’s pretty inse­cure, but for this appli­ca­tion, who cares? You’re using the key to demons­trate that you have per­mis­sion to send the per­son email, *not* to secure the con­tent of the email.

  12. Ben Wharton says:

    On a com­ple­tely dif­fe­rent note to all of the above encryp­tion theory (Oh, the com­pu­ter science lec­tu­res come floo­ding back…) I’d like to com­ment on:
    “Be the best in the world or die“
    Cos it sounds cool. Like a Holly­wood high-concept movie. But like a high-concept pitch, there are very few Aliens out there (Jaws on a spa­ceship) and far more Aliens vs. Pre­da­tors (Aliens and Pre­da­tors do 10 rounds). I’m tal­king about the homo­ge­ni­sa­tion of indi­vi­dual expres­sion into the sin­gu­lar over-riding brand; one brand will solve all your needs; we know how you liked stuff before and now we’re gonna give it to you on a very big, very wel­co­ming plate.
    Inves­tors don’t look at cul­tu­ral wealth in terms of diver­sity, in the crea­tion of choice by sup­por­ting a mul­ti­tude of small busi­ness all making small, depen­da­ble pro­fits. No, they want huge growth to create huge returns. That’s where the mor­ta­lity rate goes up and the num­bers at the head of the food chain goes way down.
    Spi­ke­source shouts out proud about its ground-breaking way of brin­ging order to the new open source com­mu­nity. But isn’t it just doing the very same thing? Making life sim­ple for us sim­ple folk, let­ting someone else do the “hard work” — redu­cing the thought invol­ved, redu­cing the choi­ces we have to make — redu­cing choice?
    It never starts that way, but suc­cess breeds the desire for con­trol. Con­trol is sur­vi­val and you can’t con­trol sta­ying small.
    Dres­sing up age-old busi­ness stra­te­gies with hard-hitting, lapel-grabbing slo­gans may be the Ame­ri­can way, but it ain’t no para­digm shift in my book.

  13. hugh macleod says:

    It’s what the Chi­nese would call “Te”, Ben– Har­mony bet­ween thought, word and action.
    Of course, I agree with what you say. Any fool dime store ope­ra­tion can have “world class ambi­tion”. World class exe­cu­tion is far harder.

  14. Oh how funny that we have a thread of tech­no­logy when the solu­tion has to be based on per­so­nal inte­rac­tion. No tech­no­logy with out the per­so­nal deci­sion is going to work. Access to the door­bell was by per­so­nal choice.
    This thin­king is more about the per­so­nal con­trol of our infor­ma­tion than some arbi­trary soft­ware. Again right on

  15. hugh macleod says:

    “This thin­king is more about the per­so­nal con­trol of our infor­ma­tion than some arbi­trary soft­ware…“
    Agreed, Vic­tor. I just threw the tech out there as a pos­si­ble example…

  16. Sergey Brin says:

    hello!!! my name’s Ser­gey Brin. I like your site. BIG thanx… blog’s forever!!!