=?iso-8859-1?Q?Logos_as_petnames_(Was:_[cap-talk]_Firefox_and_identifiability, _small_steps_or__large)?=

[Tyler Close]

Since we (hopefully) seem to be fast approaching a consensus on the
anti-phishing function of the petname toolbar, I am going to branch out
to make a comment on the logo thread.

I am skeptical of the value of logos as petnames. My argument goes back
to the logic underlying the petname toolbar: avoiding name conflation.
A logo identifies an entity. A petname identifies a trust relationship.
The entity and the trust relationship are two separate things and the
user needs separate names in order to think clearly about them.

For example, I presented the petname toolbar at the last Hacker's
Conference. An audience member later remarked that she had used both
expedia.com and travelocity.com and though neither is an attacker, she
can never remember which one she likes. She liked that the petname
toolbar solves this problem, and so do I. Obviously using the
expedia.com logo to identify the expedia.com relationship and the
travelocity.com logo to identify the travelocity.com relationship does
not solve the problem.

To put things into our terminology, perhaps logos are better as
nicknames than as petnames.

Tyler