W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Support for digital asylum / web-refugees (was Re: decentralised)

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:50:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1Xj=ao2iRoLwBxr4ZZqi_bNAfTnJ_6mSqc6OtjcnAugg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
A more realistic issue would be a change to terms of service either
directly or indirectly which leads a person to seeking change, particularly
where the identifier relates to other considerations such as a license
agreement...

With countries, people can seek asylum in another country.  Their is no
such thing as digital asylum seeking - and the issues relating to that can
be far less serious than one relating to asylum, such as choice.

If someone wants to stop using their service, they should have the right to
make that choice.

Companies love lock-ins. As a group seeking to build standards, we have no
role in providing support for a commercial company to produce commercial
lock-ins to particular companies via our work where it is advoidable -
imho...

Tim.h.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, 9:27 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 6/15/2016 4:31 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 14 June 2016 at 16:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 06/13/2016 07:33 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> ...
> >     >     Identifiers, such as those rooted in domain names like emails
> >     > addresses and website addresses, are effectively rented by people
> >     > and organizations rather than owned. Therefore, their use as
> >     > long-term identifiers is dependent upon parameters outside of their
> >     > control. One danger is that if the rent is not paid, all data
> >     > associated with the identifier can be made temporarily or
> permanently
> >     > inaccessible.
> ...
> >     > This is not a significant danger.  It's like saying the google
> could
> >     > lose google.com <http://google.com> <http://google.com> due to
> >     factors outside of their
> >     > control.  It wont happen, will it?
>
> Yes it will.  Not often and probably not to vast numbers of people, but
> of course it will happen.
>
> Literally no private organization has ever lasted forever and many that
> cease to exist do so suddenly and traumatically.  That's certain to
> eventually be a domain name registry, a domain name registrar, or a
> user's ISP.
>
> Even governments fail, of sometimes quite messily.  (cf, Soviet Union.)
>
> So an operational scenario that relies on perfect continuity of naming
> administration support is going to be one that is certain, at some
> point, to demonstrate catastrophic failure.
>
>
> > Yes user@host identifiers are vulnerable to his.  My sister actually got
> > locked out of her gmail because someone else tried to access it.
>
> And then there is /that/ scenario.  Different details from 'failure of
> the organization' but same effect on the user.
>
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC