Re: [SocialSwarm-D] D-CENT: state of the art - not

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:44:22PM +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Almost all the academic work you cited was using social-networking
> based routing. IMHO reputation systems are a effectively a variant
> of social networking where the reputation is implicit rather than
> explicit as in social networking. In that way, you can consider
> client-server systems kinda the same thing where you pick a
> "trusted" server (trusted because you know the sysadmins, trusted
> because it's not down all the time, etc.). Again, all of these are
> basically non-technical solutions (reputation is a social rather
> than technical construct), but rely on social factors.

This is more of a political statement than a technical one.
You are arguing that Facebook and Google are legitimately
being entrusted by their users while their users to a large
extent do not feel like they really have a choice. Also they
would expect usage of these servers to be respectful of
constitutional rights, which technically isn't possible.
The abuse isn't even technically measurable.

Whereas you could imagine that people do not have a problem
to entrust the social graph with protecting social graph
information (aka transaction metadata), as that is a quite
reasonable choice they make in their daily lives each day.

> Feel free to bring it up with Roy and ping us back when Secushare
> starts getting adoption. But again, strictly speaking, p2p internet
> routing is out of scope for Web standards. You can always bring
> these kind of protocols up at the IETF, where they would both be in
> scope and have an outside security review.

In other words privacy and other constitutional principles
are out of scope for the W3C since the "web" as we know it
is architecturally unable to remedy to the problems at hand.
>From my point of view W3C is supporting illegal activity on
a global scale, so it should seriously reconsider its priorities.
I know that everyone has been acting in good faith and there have
been years of efforts to support concepts of privacy on the web,
but since last summer it should be clear that the entire approach
is fallacious and the question to pose yourself is, do you really
want to stand on the wrong side of history?

And no, don't tell me there are solutions to the problems that
are web-based as I haven't seen a single one of those stand the
test of scientific logic.

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 16:07:28 UTC