- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:02:19 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 27/06/2017 16:30, Adam Lake wrote: > > > On 6/26/2017 7:59 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> On 24 June 2017 at 00:38, David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk >> <mailto:D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>> wrote: >> >> I think that most of us have been assuming that VCs are always >> positive >> and confer some benefit on the subject. Common examples used by us >> have >> been passport, credit card, club membership etc. >> >> But what about negative VCs, such as a criminal record, 'points' >> on your >> driving licence, or failure to pay a bill on time etc. Subjects are >> going to be reluctant to present these to verifiers, especially if >> this >> would remove any benefit that they were hoping to obtain from the >> verifier's online service. In this case the VCs might be presented by >> someone other than the subject of the VC, and by someone not >> wishing to >> represent the subject of the VC. >> >> For this reason I would support the following alternative wording >> in the >> Terminology Playground >> >> ROLE_B is typically the Subject of Claims. In some circumstances, >> where >> the ROLE_B is not the Subject of the Claim, then ROLE_B must be >> able to >> prove that they are 'authorised to provide the claim'. This is a >> preferrable alternative to 'has the authority to represent the Subject >> of the Claims', as it covers the latter case as well as a third party >> providing negative VCs to a verifier. >> >> >> I think you've hit upon an incredibly interesting use case. >> >> One issue with centralized claims is that claims of a negative nature >> can be a point of failure when, say, the domain owner comes into >> conflict with the person who the claims about. >> >> For this reason businesses normally do not allow negative claims to be >> made to reduce that point of failure. >> >> However, there's another mode of the web where the claim can be >> independent of any central website or URL, just as, when the contents >> of a file is independent of that file itself. >> >> I think it's a really important use case and I have in our community >> heard many calls for such a system to emerge, but yet, we have not to >> date been able to solve such a use case effectively, at least in web >> 1.0 and web 2.0 type offerings. >> >> I'm optimistic that web technologies can deliver claims of any kind >> which become the ownership of the author, rather than, the publisher. >> >> I honestly think the web is screaming out for this as one of the most >> important use cases yet to be addressed. >> >> In our reputation community we have explored this quite a bit, and the >> issue becomes one of sock puppets flooding the eco system with >> negative claims ... the question remains as to how to analyses a web >> of claims and get the signal from the noise. From experience, what >> seems to be the case is that most actors are genuine, but a few try to >> game the system. It seems something of an arms race. I really look >> forward to innovation in this space, and one someone gets the ball >> rolling I think decentralized claims of this kind could be popular in >> a very viral way ... > It seems to me that claims are verifiable free speech. We all have the > freedom to say anything about anyone else, short of defamation. How we > get the signal from the noise is each person defining their own web of > trusted issuers through which level of trust per claim can be derived. this is a fundamental component of the model. > Can't a flood of negative claims be disregarded as noise? It is totally up to the relying party to decide, based on his trust rules David > > Adam >> >> >> >> regards >> >> David >> >> > > -- > Adam Lake > Business Development Lead > Digital Bazaar >
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 10:02:52 UTC