W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [saag] Liking Linkability

From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:30:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SQxy3GjKekrrCPikqRBt4z2PdzbOhzZUsDC6asZNSiu0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org>
Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>, Halpin Harry <H.halplin@ed.ac.uk>, public-identity@w3.org, saag@ietf.org, "public-privacy@w3.org list" <public-privacy@w3.org>, public-webid@w3.org
On 23 October 2012 10:58, Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org> wrote:
>
> Robin Wilton
> Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
> Internet Society
>
> email: wilton@isoc.org
> Phone: +44 705 005 2931
> Twitter: @futureidentity
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:44, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Not disagreeing with any of the above, but observing that:
>
> a) There's no particular reason you could not have an email per site
> as well as a key per site.
>
> b) Linkability it not, as you say, inherently bad. The problem occurs
> when you have (effectively) no choice about linkability.
>
>
>
> But it's very hard to use either of those mechanisms (separation through
> emails or keys) without giving some third party the ability to achieve total
> linkability. (In other words, both options remove effective choice).

I agree that emails are a problem, but not at all sure why keys are?
In the case of appropriate selective disclosure mechanisms, even if
there were a third party involved, they would not be able to link uses
of the keys. Also, if you insist on using linkable keys, then per-site
keys do not involve third parties.

On email, this is a soluble problem, but not without using a
completely different delivery mechanism.

>
> Yrs.,
> Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 09:30:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 09:30:42 GMT