[cap-talk] Communicating conspirators (Re: Second ABAC Google talk is now up)

[John Carlson]

It seems to me that communicating conspirators is kind of like this:
"If I told you, I would have to kill you."  I can see the case where
you might tell one of the conspirators and lock them up in Pelican
Bay until they die, but then why tell them at all?  They would
be of no use to you locked up.

Does this make any sense to explain the communicating conspirators
problem?

I guess I am thinking of a case where I have insured that the object
can only talk to me, that the implementation of the object is  
transparent,
and I can see no way for the object to affect the state of an object
besides me.  Perhaps this is a stateless object with no information
to transmit?  Which makes the object useless?  Would a mathematical  
function
which only had parameters and no side effects qualify?  I am talking
about a function, not something implemented in the computer.  This
is pure thought, not something practical.  Maybe security will change
when we get quantum computers.   We need to be prepared.   Is there
such a thing as private state that can only be shared with one particle/
wave in physics? Entangled particles?

John