QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 26 2013, 10:47 PM)

That's true in a number of cases. A great many number of cases, actually. Frequently with discrete systems that are subcomponents of a larger system, there are very few reasons to employ some cryptographic component. At least today. Such a component isn't related solely to the privacy of data, either, as (I mentioned earlier) cryptographic knowledge plays an integral role in authentication.
However.
Whether or not there is a 'need for encryption' is really a question of implementation, not a blanket quality of directly connected devices.
Granted in the case of DNI, the path should go Brain->Wire->Device, you may be able to build a strong case for not needing an authentication method because you are operating under implicit trust.
However, first you must assume that despite that direct path there is no need for authentication. In 2013 that's frequently true. Is it still true in 2075? It's a world where people manipulate the matrix with their mind, afterall.
The predicament, though, is that I MUST NOT assume that. In fact, the direct connection and DNI implies the exact opposite: that authentication is NOT needed. People manipulate the matrix with their mind? That's an even better reason not to put your vital systems ON The matrix.
QUOTE
Personally, I don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that there's overhead necessary even for direct connections to establish trust. Especially since we've already handwaved so many elements of "science" to get ourselves here to begin with.
It's like, we've hiked the grand canyon. Why not go another yard?
So, to be clear, the question is not a matter solely of time. It's a matter of time as a function of processing power. The case being built is that the cost of W is dwarfed by the cost of that processing power.
So the place that your argument will be most effective is not network latency, but whether the fundamental need for distributed computing itself is valid.
This is a valid point for SOME ware/gear and its functionality. I just stated that this isn't a blanket voiding of the need for Matrix connectivity, per se. The point I'm making is that for a command as simple as "close" or "open" through a secure, direct, unencrypted, unobstructed channel is, by all rights and by all reckoning presented in shadowrun, barring outright lying about the rules on the part of the people PROVIDING the rules, always faster, and based on fundamental principles of the world and how it operates. While I might consider a rule or two poorly worded or maybe not entirely thought through properly (ala XBone's marketing and previously intended DRM practices), I'm not quite ready to consider them to be lying to us about the rules of the game they have themselves brought to us.
In the case that wireless signals DO defy the laws of time and space to make simple commands (such as Open or Close) travel faster, despite not needing that much processing power, and needing authentication and encryption to properly function over the wireless mesh network,...
1) this means the Devs have lied about, or at least exceedingly obfuscated, the way that time and space functions in Shadowrun, and
2) my runner is going to say "shove it, I'm goin' gambling" and making a tidy sum off of sending himself advice from the future.
I don't see either of those being rational, logical, or economically viable probabilities.
QUOTE
Again, if that's an argument that someone is making they can probably put it to rest as clearly it isn't going to make any traction. It certainly isn't an argument I'm making.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
However, it IS what you're discounting in the arguments that you make. Conductivity/energy transference is the core of the Online/Offline bonus discussion. Saying "Magic" means a mage will just dispell your technology, thus rendering all technology impotent in the face of magic. Saying "handwavium" means that you have no clue how to support your argument, argumentum ad magice or argumentum ad nihilum cover it (arguing on the basis of magic, or arguing on the basis of absolutely nothing to support your argument). In the face of arguments based in science fact, observable, rational, reproducible instances of physical law, topical expertise, etc., an argument based on "it's magic" or "I have no support for my claims" fall flat.
For another example/analogy:
Say we both had the goal of moving a vase in a hotel room from the wall nearest the window to the wall nearest the door. We're both given that task at the same time. I'm standing in the room right next door, with a direct, unlocked door between the two rooms. You, meanwhile, are standing outside the door, and not only do you need to get the key, you also need to solve a complex mathematical problem while you do. You'd have to take the elevator down to the front/concierge desk, asking people along the way to help you out with that math problem, take the elevator back up, input the answer to the math problem, and granting that your answer is right you can THEN use your key before you could handle that simple task. Meanwhile, I just have to open a door, walk over to the vase, move it to the other wall, and I'm done. Who will be faster?
The other hand, the cases I'm NOT arguing against Online bonuses for, is as follows:
We're in a hotel, same as before. I'm right next door to the room in question, same direct access. You're outside that door, same need to answer a complex math problem and get a key before you can enter the room. This time, however, is that there's a simple, unhackable interface in that destination hotel room, and the goal is to solve a SECOND complex math problem as fast as possible. I'm not allowed to leave those two rooms, I have no internet or special tools (I get pencil and paper). You don't get any special tools, either, but you can talk to people who DO have special tools or internet access.
So, for a simple command (Open, Close) or something that doesn't NEED to compute, I don't see this being viable, rational, or acceptable.
For, say, smartlink (complex algorithm to compute trajectory based on airspeed, wind, thermal, etc.), I can dig it.
to everyone: sorry for being so verbose... or would it be overscriptive?