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

Re: Use-Cases - pseudo-anonymity examples

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:00:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOBoTm=hBqZEWfKs8xXAZ2Xfn8Xjw7q4uUN_oXMvO4X1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
I don't disagree.  The financial one was of primary importance in our first
draft.  Maybe you can craft a couple of other scenarios?

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 3/1/16 9:30 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
>
>> Manu Sporny:  Please send feedback on the mailing list, the
>>    VCTF/Credentials CG/ or WPIG mailing list, whichever you have
>>    access to.  ...[snip]...
>> Manu Sporny:  So also feedback on the use cases.
>>
>
> +1 to Pseudo-Anonymity remaining as an "Essential" claim as now provided
> in the Use Cases document. I'd be very distressed if it was chopped for any
> reason. Glad to see it still there! :-)
>
> But... in support of that: to get future readers of the document to agree
> on its importance, I believe the single scenario given (June going to buy a
> bottle of wine and not wishing to divulge anything other than age) doesn't
> adequately convey the scope of why this is essential, society-wide.
>
> I'm thinking of the more specific 'protection from known danger'
> scenarios, such as: journalists reporting from countries that threaten them
> with death, scientists whistleblowing from corporate crime, novelists
> writing about their own dysfunctional social milieu.
>
> Any of these scenarios may be of large value to the society, and to work
> best, or work at all in some cases, they require that we can identify the
> origin of the conveyed information as trustworthy without needing the
> originator to broadcast publicly their personal contact information.
>
> June and the bottle doesn't convey those use-cases for me, although it's
> technically still a pseudo-anonymity. It's important also, but different.
> So I think we need at least one of each kind.
>
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 04:00:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 04:01:00 UTC