Talk:Markus Kuhn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Markus Kuhn, has edited Wikipedia as
Markus Kuhn (talk · contribs)

This article was nominated for deletion on July 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Vanity entry

This looks like a vanity entry, and should be deleted. An encyclopedia should contain only individuals who have achieved fame, for example by their achievements. Editing wikipedia is a nice thing to do, but it doesn't justify an wikipedia entry. 147.188.192.41 17:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone puts it to VfD, I'll vote to keep; Kuhn is a notable researcher in the field. Look at the work on Soft Tempest for example - incredible stuff. — ciphergoth 12:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: I did not create my own entry. Others have quoted my work in several articles on computer security and standardization (see What links here) and found me noteworthy enough in these fields to have an entry. I'm honored by that. I got interested in Wikipedia when I found out that someone had created an entry for me. I did slightly revised my entry, and I hope that this revision will not be judged as a vanity edit. I chose as my user name my full name, gave a link to my home page, and have never made any efforts to act anonymously in my Wikipedia contributions. The vast majority of my edits are not related in any way to my own person. I see that there is recently a bit of a systematic witch hunting going on against wikipedia contributors who also happen to have an entry. This activity seems rather exclusively directed against those Wikipedia contributors who make no serious effort to disguise their identity. They are most easily identified, but also least likely to misbehave for the same reason. I think this witch hunt will only backfire. All it will result in is that

non-notable people who come to Wikipedia mainly to sneak in a vanity entry will end up being slightly more careful about covering their tracks;
notable people, get sent the message that their contributions to Wikipedia are not welcome.

The latter would be a big shame, because some notable people are knowledgeable researchers with decent writing skills, who could be of immense value to Wikipedia. Vanity entry witch hunters may want to consider second-order effects of their mission. Markus Kuhn 14:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to comment that I'm satisfied very well that the subject is notable in research on Tamper resistance and other security related topics. Whether or not he edited the article really doesn't matter much, and there are independent sources, news items satisfying his notability. Thanks. --Ragib 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media coverage

Following a recent call for references, here is the beginning of a list of some related media coverage that may or may not be of interest to editors of this article:

1996-11-18: Der Spiegel, 47/1996 (on tamper resistance and the DS5002FP attack)
1998-02-07: Washington Post, p H01 (on video eavesdropping)
1998-02-23: Der Spiegel, 9/1998 (on video eavesdropping)
1998-03-05: computing, p 1 (on video eavesdropping, also 1998-05-12)
1998-03-12: The Daily Telegraph, p 6 (on video eavesdropping)
2002-03-13: Times 2, p. 9 (on Audio CD DRM)
2002-03-16: New Scientist, p. 22–23 (on optical compromising emanations)
2002-03-23: New Scientist, p. 22 (on the NDS vs. Canal+ case, Chicago 1999 paper)
2002: FOCUS 12/2002, p. 159 (on optical CRT eavesdropping)
2002-05-28: Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. V2/11 (on optical CRT eavesdropping)
2002-06: Scientific American, pp. 18–19 (on the risks of Unicode domain names)
2003-11-22: New Scientist, pp. 30–33 (on leap seconds)
...