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

Re: Updated Verifiable Claims Use Cases document

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@truecred.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:57:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnBrG_yWqp-y6v8nbrmi=TznvMN00jyUE3q3o+6UM7+oRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
See inline response
On Jun 22, 2016 1:40 PM, "Steven Rowat" <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
>
> Shane, thanks for the quick and comprehensive reply.
> My comments inline.
>
>
> On 6/22/16 8:49 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> Hmm.   Neither.  In fact, I didn't know I dropped any scenarios from
>> the document.  I just did a complete walk through of the document.
>> There were two scenarios that fell through the cracks:
>>
>>     "Freedom?" is an online forum that encourages free discussion
>>     about issues controversial in Freedonia....
>
> > [snip] She shares her certificate with the forum,
>
>>     but limits it to only verifying that she is the holder of the
>>     certificate, that she is the subject of it, and that she is an aid
>>     worker. In this way she maintains her anonymity in this
>>     controversial forum while still being able to assist her fellow
>>     countrymen.
>
>
> This is the one I remembered, and AFAIK the only one where
anonymity/pseudonymity is illustrated.
>
>
>> Both of these have value... I will see where I can slot them (back)
>> in. While this is a substantive change, it is not introducing new
>> material (or at least not material that wasn't there yesterday) so I
>> am going to call it editorial+.
>
>
> Good. :-)
>
>
>> Now when you get down to trust... obviously there are a
>> number of problems with attempting to use an "identity profile" that
>> is not legitimate for any sort of official purpose.  For example. my
>> profile that describes me as Elmer Fudd will get me into a local Anime
>> convention, but is unlikely to allow me to open a bank account.
>
>
> Yes, this is the core of the issue, but I think your example doesn't
adequately represent pseudonymous use-cases, even in the past. In
commercial publishing, pseudonyms have been important and have had major
social effects; there are many  historic authors (journalists,
whistleblowers, fiction authors, musicians) that have used their publisher
as the person who could open a bank account for them when they were using a
pseudonym. This allows them to say things that aren't linked to their
private, local, legal identity.
>
> And this capability allows them to tell the truth to society as a whole,
when otherwise they couldn't (or wouldn't, because of the danger to
themselves or their immediate family or friends).
>
> I see this as an interesting possible use-case for the VC working group:
to try to figure out if it is technically possible for authors of all kinds
to issue various credentials about the underlying 'entity' (their legal
self), while retaining this historic capability of the author to be
pseudonymous and be paid -- whether they are 'self' publishing online or
not.
>
> Steven
I believe the use of a DID would satisfy this Use Case.

Eric
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:30 UTC