OT: One of the things I find interesting is that "zero knowledge" has become a buzzword. On the one hand it is frustrating, because when cryptographers say "zero knowledge" we mean something very specific and rigorously defined (a survey protocol cannot be zero knowledge because the results of a survey do reveal something about the respondents' inputs). On the other hand, the fact that non-experts are comfortable with the idea of using an interactive protocol to securely compute functions means there is one less mental hurdle to deal with when trying to deploy these technologies.
From the anonize paper [1]: “Our system is constructed in two steps. We first provide an abstract implementation of secure ad-hoc surveys from generic primitives, such as commitment schemes, signatures schemes, pseudo-random functions (PRF) and generic non-interactive zero-knowledge (NIZK) arguments for NP.”
Thank you, I had a client say that they are providing zero knowledge authentication system which didn't mean that you can prove that you're logged in, but without revealing your username (or something like that), but simply that you can login using public/private key.
