Third Party Research Articles

Efficient and feasible quantum private comparison of equality against the collective amplitude damping noise

In this paper, the new protocol for quantum private comparison of equality (QPCE) is investigated. Instead of using the entanglement, we only utilize the single photon to efficiently realize the comparison of secret information. Furthermore, a more feasible QPCE protocol, which can be successfully performed via the collective amplitude damping channel, is put forward. In our QPCE protocols, a semi-honest third party (TP) is involved. It is an appealing advantage in the practical implementation of protocol. Our QPCE protocols can resist various kinds of attacks from both the outside eavesdroppers and the inside participants, even the semi-honest TP.

Quantum Private Comparison Protocol Based on Cluster States

We present a quantum private comparison (QPC) protocol, enabling two players to compare the equality of their information without revealing any information about their respective private inputs, in which the four-particle cluster states as the information carriers are used. The presented protocol can ensure correctness, privacy, and fairness with the assistance of a semi-trusted third party (TP). Meanwhile, the participants including the TP are just required having the ability to perform single-particle measurements, which make the presented protocol more feasible in technique. Furthermore, the photon transmission is a one-way distribution; the Trojan horse attacks can be automatically avoided. The security of this protocol is also analyzed.

Efficient quantum private comparison employing single photons and collective detection

Two efficient quantum private comparison (QPC) protocols are proposed, employing single photons and collective detection. In the proposed protocols, two distrustful parties (Alice and Bob) compare the equivalence of information with the help of a semi-honest third party (TP). Utilizing collective detection, the cost of practical realization is reduced greatly. In the first protocol, TP gains the result of the comparison. While in the second protocol, TP cannot get the comparison result. In both of our protocols, Alice and Bob only need be equipped with unitary operation machines, such as phase plates. So Alice and Bob need not to have the expensive quantum devices, such as qubit generating machine, quantum memory machine and quantum measuring machine. Security of the protocols is ensured by theorems on quantum operation discrimination.

Comment on quantum private comparison protocols with a semi-honest third party

As an important branch of quantum cryptography, quantum private comparison (QPC) has recently received a lot of attention. In this paper we study the security of previous QPC protocols with a semi-honest third party (TP) from the viewpoint of secure multi-party computation and show that the assumption of a semi-honest TP is unreasonable. Without the unreasonable assumption of a semi-honest TP, one can easily find that the QPC protocol (Tseng et al. in Quantum Inf Process, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11128-011-0251-0 ) has an obvious security flaw. Some suggestions about the design of QPC protocols are also given.

A protocol for the secure two-party quantum scalar product

Secure scalar product serves as an important primitive for secure multi-party computation and has a wide application in different areas, such as statistical analysis, data mining, computational geometry, etc. How to collaboratively compute the correct scalar product result without leaking any participantsʼ private information becomes the primary principle of designing secure scalar product schemes. In this Letter, we present a secure two-party quantum scalar product scheme via quantum entanglement and quantum measurement with the help of a non-colluding third party (TP). Furthermore, the scheme is proven to be secure under various kinds of outside attacks and participant attacks.

A Protocol for the Quantum Private Comparison of Equality with χ-Type State

We present a new quantum protocol for comparing the equal information with the help of a semi-honest third party (TP). Different from previous protocols, we utilize the four-particle χ-type states as the information carriers. Various kinds of outside attacks and participant attacks are discussed in detail. One party cannot learn the other’s private information. The TP cannot learn any information about the private information, even about the comparison result or the length of secret inputs.

An efficient protocol for the quantum private comparison of equality with W state

We propose an efficient quantum protocol for comparing the equal information with the help of a semi-honest third party (TP). Our protocol utilizes the triplet W states and the single-particle measurement. A precise proof of security of the protocol is presented. The security of this protocol with respect to various kinds of outside attacks is discussed. Outside eavesdroppers cannot learn any information about the private information. The security of this protocol with respect to various kinds of party attacks is also discussed. One party cannot learn any information about the other's private information. The TP cannot learn any information about the private information, even about the comparison result or the length of secret inputs.

An efficient protocol for the private comparison of equal information based on the triplet entangled state and single-particle measurement

The central theme of this paper is that we propose an efficient protocol for comparing the equal information with the help of a third party (TP). We assume that TP is semi-honest, i.e., TP executes the protocol loyally, keeps a record of all its intermediate computations and might try to steal the players’ private inputs from the record, but he cannot be corrupted by the adversary. The security of this protocol with respect to various kinds of attacks is discussed. Our protocol utilizes the triplet entangled states and the simple single-particle measurement. The particles carried the secret messages do not be repeatedly transmitted. The players’ messages are divided into many groups. Sometimes, the protocol is already successfully completed, but all data are not compared. Thus, many time and huge quantum resources can be saved.

Secure quantum private comparison

We propose a two-party quantum private comparison protocol using single photons, in which two distrustful parties can compare whether their secrets are equal with the help of a third party (TP). Any information about the values of their respective secrets will not be leaked out even with a compromised TP. Security is also discussed.

Insurance in the Courts

ERISA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS PERMITTED TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM BENEFICIARIES FOR RECOVERY OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTIES Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1869,164 L.Ed.Zd 612, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3954 (Supreme Court of the United States, May 15,2006) Marlene Sereboff's employer sponsored a health insurance plan administered by Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. that was subject to and covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Marlene and her husband Joel were beneficiaries under the plan, which provided medical coverage and contained an Acts of Third Parties provision, stated that it applied when a beneficiary was sick or injured as a result of the act or omission of another person or party, and required those under the plan due to the medical costs of the injuries to reimburse Mid Atlantic for those benefits from [a]ll recoveries from a third party (whether by lawsuit, settlement, or otherwise). The provision stated that Mid Atlantic's share of the recovery would not be reduced in cases where the beneficiary did not receive the full damages claimed, unless Mid Atlantic and the beneficiary agreed in writing to a reduction. The Sereboff s were involved in an automobile accident in California and suffered injuries. The plan paid the couple's medical expenses. The Sereboffs also filed a tort action in state court against several third parties that eventually obtained compensatory damages for injuries suffered as a result of the accident through a $750,000 settlement of the tort action. During the pendency of the suit, Mid Atlantic sent the Sereboffs' attorney a letter asserting a lien on the anticipated proceeds from the suit for the medical expenses that Mid Atlantic had paid on the Sereboffs' behalf. As the lawsuit progressed, Mid Atlantic reiterated its position that it was entitled to reimbursement from any obtained by the Sereboffs from the lawsuit. After receiving the settlement funds, the Sereboffs and counsel took that position that Mid Atlantic's claim for reimbursement-which sought a refund for the approximately $75,000 it had paid in Sereboff medical bills -was invalid. In response, Mid Atlantic filed suit in District Court under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA, seeking to collect from the Sereboffs the medical expenses it had paid on their behalf. Mid Atlantic sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring the couple to retain and set aside the amount at issue. The trial court and the parties agreed to preserve $74,869.37 of the settlement funds in an investment account until the [District] Court rules on the merits of this case and all appeals, if any, are exhausted. On the merits, the District Court found in Mid Atlantic's favor and ordered the Sereboffs to pay Mid Atlantic the $74,869.37, plus interest, with a deduction for Mid Atlantic's share of the attorney's fees and court costs the Sereboffs had incurred in state court. The Sereboffs appealed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Because the Fourth Circuit and other United States Courts of Appeal were divided on the question whether § 502(a)(3) authorized recovery by an ERISA benefit plan under these circumstances, the Supreme Court granted review. The case presented the Court with an opportunity to consider once again the circumstances under which an ERISA fiduciary can sue a beneficiary for reimbursement of medical expenses paid by the ERISA plan in cases where the beneficiary has also obtained a monetary recovery for its injuries from a third party. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and in essence approved reimbursement under these circumstances, resolving doubts that had been raised by the Court's 2002 Knutson opinion, which had suggested considerable limits on an ERISA plan's rights to reimbursement. ERISA provides that a fiduciary may bring a civil action under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan. …

An efficient two-party quantum private comparison protocol with decoy photons and two-photon entanglement

Following some ideas of the quantum secret sharing (QSS) protocol (2008, Phys. Lett. A 372, 1957), we propose an efficient quantum private comparison (QPC) protocol for comparing information of equality with the help of a third party (TP). The protocol can ensure fairness, efficiency and security. The protocol is fair, which means that one party knows the sound result of the comparison if and only if the other one knows the result. The protocol is efficient with the help of the TP for calculating. However, the TP cannot learn any information about the players' respective private inputs and even about the comparison result and cannot collude with any player. The protocol is secure for the two players, that is, any information about their respective secret inputs will not leak except the final computation result. A precise proof of security of the protocol is presented. Applications of this protocol may include private bidding and auctions, secret ballot elections, commercial business, identification in a number of scenarios and so on.

A novel trust enhanced grid authentication mechanism

To improve trustworthiness in grid authentication, a novel trust enhanced grid authentication mechanism (TEGAM) is proposed in this paper where trust is divided into trust on grid entity (GE) and trust on third party (TP). In order to obtain precise trust evaluation on GE’s behaviors, trust on GE is further subdivided into trust as service consumer and trust as service provider. Details for the structure of TEGAM and related TEGAM-based authentication process are also given. Simulation results and property analysis show that, compared with current trust-based grid authentication techniques, TEGAM can not only help establish explicit and dynamic trust relationships among grid entities but also will significantly increase the efficacy of grid authentication.

Insurance in the Courts

ERISA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS PERMITTED TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM BENEFICIARIES FOR RECOVERY OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTIES Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1869,164 L.Ed.Zd 612, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3954 (Supreme Court of the United States, May 15,2006) Marlene Sereboff's employer sponsored a health insurance plan administered by Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. that was subject to and covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Marlene and her husband Joel were beneficiaries under the plan, which provided medical coverage and contained an "Acts of Third Parties" provision, stated that it applied when a beneficiary was "sick or injured as a result of the act or omission of another person or party," and required those "receiving benefits" under the plan due to the medical costs of the injuries to reimburse Mid Atlantic for those benefits from "[a]ll recoveries from a third party (whether by lawsuit, settlement, or otherwise)." The provision stated that Mid Atlantic's share of the recovery would not be reduced in cases where the beneficiary did not receive the full damages claimed, unless Mid Atlantic and the beneficiary agreed in writing to a reduction. The Sereboff s were involved in an automobile accident in California and suffered injuries. The plan paid the couple's medical expenses. The Sereboffs also filed a tort action in state court against several third parties that eventually obtained compensatory damages for injuries suffered as a result of the accident through a $750,000 settlement of the tort action. During the pendency of the suit, Mid Atlantic sent the Sereboffs' attorney a letter asserting a lien on the anticipated proceeds from the suit for the medical expenses that Mid Atlantic had paid on the Sereboffs' behalf. As the lawsuit progressed, Mid Atlantic reiterated its position that it was entitled to reimbursement from any funds obtained by the Sereboffs from the lawsuit. After receiving the settlement funds, the Sereboffs and counsel took that position that Mid Atlantic's claim for reimbursement-which sought a refund for the approximately $75,000 it had paid in Sereboff medical bills -was invalid. In response, Mid Atlantic filed suit in District Court under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA, seeking to collect from the Sereboffs the medical expenses it had paid on their behalf. Mid Atlantic sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring the couple to retain and set aside the amount at issue. The trial court and the parties agreed to "preserve $74,869.37 of the settlement funds" in an investment account "until the [District] Court rules on the merits of this case and all appeals, if any, are exhausted." On the merits, the District Court found in Mid Atlantic's favor and ordered the Sereboffs to pay Mid Atlantic the $74,869.37, plus interest, with a deduction for Mid Atlantic's share of the attorney's fees and court costs the Sereboffs had incurred in state court. The Sereboffs appealed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Because the Fourth Circuit and other United States Courts of Appeal were divided on the question whether § 502(a)(3) authorized recovery by an ERISA benefit plan under these circumstances, the Supreme Court granted review. The case presented the Court with an opportunity to consider once again the circumstances under which an ERISA fiduciary can sue a beneficiary for reimbursement of medical expenses paid by the ERISA plan in cases where the beneficiary has also obtained a monetary recovery for its injuries from a third party. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and in essence approved reimbursement under these circumstances, resolving doubts that had been raised by the Court's 2002 Knutson opinion, which had suggested considerable limits on an ERISA plan's rights to reimbursement. ERISA provides that a fiduciary may bring a civil action under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA "(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan. …

LIVERSIDGE V. BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, A. C. EGERTON THIRD PARTY

LIVERSIDGE V. BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, A. C. EGERTON THIRD PARTY Get access Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 108, Issue 9, 1991, Pages 229–230, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/1991rpc229 Published: 01 May 1991

WHITHER THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN THE 1980s?

WHITHER THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN THE 1980s?

THIRD PARTIES: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

(1981). THIRD PARTIES: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. American Review of Canadian Studies: Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 37-63.

Nursingʼs Case for THIRD PARTY REIMBURSEMENT

Formerly coordinator for executive branch activities, Government Relations Division, American Nurses' Association, Wash., D.C., is now program/policy consultant at the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

The American Academy of Pediatrics Involvement in Health Care Financing

In what is considered one of the most important books of the past decade—Future Shock—Alvin Toffler1 describes the sickness that befalls an individual, an organization, or a nation when it is overwhelmed by rapid changes. He asserts that two actions must be initiated if "future shock" is to be minimized. They are (1) make the best assumptions possible about the future, and (2) undertake to control change. The health care field in the '70s faces many complex and difficult problems. Removing the financial barriers to comprehensive health care for all is but one of these formidable problems. Unquestionably, other problems involving the quality, quantity, efficiency and distribution of health care delivery require continued attention and should be resolved concurrently with the development of methods to finance comprehensive health care for all. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) COMMITTEE ON THIRD PARTY PAYMENT PLANS In October 1956 the AAP appointed a Committee on Medical Care Plans. This committee was active until 1962 and was then dormant until 1964. At that time, the Council on Pediatric Practice was established in response to urgings of a number of Fellows that more consideration be given to the problems of the practice of pediatrics and its socioeconomic aspects. The Executive Board charged the council to concern itself with the delivery by pediatricians of the best possible care for the greatest number of children. At its first meeting in 1964, the council determined that the two items needing most urgent attention were the development of standards for child health care and the problems relating to various third party payment health plans, both private and governmental.

Book Review: THIRD PARTY MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES by William Hesseltine 1962

Book Review: THIRD PARTY MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES by William Hesseltine 1962

NOTTINGHAM v. ALDRIDGE AND ANOTHER. PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (THIRD PARTY)

February 22, 1971 Master and Servant — Vicarious liability — Apprentices required to travel to detached place of work — No obligation to use own transport or carry passengers — Mileage allowance paid by employer if own transport used — Passenger allowance payable for carriage of fellow apprentice — Apprentice injured while being driven to work as passenger of fellow apprentice — Whether employer liable for acts of apprentice while driving — Whether acting as employer's servant or agent — Insurance cover for passenger carried “by reason of… contract of employment” — Whether insurers liable.