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

Re: Use-Cases - pseudo-anonymity examples

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:41:36 +0100
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56D67D10.5040800@gmail.com>
On 2016-03-02 06:25, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 3/1/16 8:00 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I don't disagree.  The financial one was of primary importance in
>> our first draft.  Maybe you can craft a couple of other scenarios?
> I'll take a stab.
> Journalist:
> Ahmed is a full-time journalist in North Africa who wishes to publish
> video material of interviews with torture victims. His media employers
> refuse to publish the material themselves because of government
> threats. However they are willing to certify his credentials. He will
> therefore publish the material himself using a pseudonym, and the end
> viewer will know that the material was provided by a certified
> professional journalist who cannot be identified for safety reasons.
> Scientist:
> Rachel is a biochemist working for a large chemical corporation. She
> has access to files dating back to the 1970s that show that the
> corporation suppressed toxicity trial results. Rachel is has a PhD in
> biochemistry, and is a member in good standing of the American
> Chemical Society and other professional bodies. She would like to use
> her verified credentials to give weight to her story, but would like
> to keep her job. She would like pseudo-anonymity for when she is
> making the information available to journalists, the public, or law
> enforcement.

Pardon the naive question (I haven't followed the credentials work in detail),
but how is link between the credential and the documents it is supposed to
be associated with?


> Steven
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Steven Rowat
>> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>>
>> wrote:
>> On 3/1/16 9:30 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>> <mailto: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 05:42:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 05:42:34 UTC