Re: unlinkability

On 6 October 2012 12:03, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 6 Oct 2012, at 12:01, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6 October 2012 11:42, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 Oct 2012, at 11:39, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6 October 2012 11:25, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> >> (1) I think solves the unlinkability problem
>>> >
>>> > Can you explain what the unlinkeability problem is? Or for who it is a
>>> problem?
>>> >
>>> > 4.  Unlinkability
>>> >
>>> >    Definition:  Unlinkability of two or more Items Of Interest (e.g.,
>>> >       subjects, messages, actions, ...) from an attacker's perspective
>>> >       means that within a particular set of information, the attacker
>>> >       cannot distinguish whether these IOIs are related or not (with a
>>> >       high enough degree of probability to be useful).
>>> >
>>> > This is something Harry brought up.
>>>
>>> Can you explain why it is problematic. It is not because he brought it up
>>> that it is problematic right? Or is he someone who sets the standards
>>> of what is or is not problematic? Through what authority?
>>>
>>
>> Harry stressed that this was a key consideration to him.  As an
>> influential member of the social web (he was chair of the W3C Social Web
>> XG), I would consider his opinions important.  His complain was that he
>> raised this before, and that the webid group did not look at it.
>>
>>
>> But you have not summarised in your own words what his complaint is. So
>> how do you know we did not answer it?
>>
>>
>> If we, as a group, are able to address such concerns, or show that we
>> have evaluated them and proven then are non issues (for example in a FAQ),
>> it may help bring the benefits of WebID to a wider audience.
>>
>>
>> That is why I ask you to express in your words what the problem is, and
>> see if you can come up with an answer to the
>> problem. And indeed we should add this on a list of question and answers
>> that comes up.
>>
>
> I have quoted the passage cited by Hannes, Harry and others.
>
>
> yes, but you have to develop that passage and see how it applies to WebID.
> It is not an obvious passage at all, and it is not clear it applies at all
> to WebID.
>
> It's something we (as a group) have been asked to look at.  In truth, it's
> been quite a hard conversation to follow as there were many replies and
> points raised in a short period of time.  I dont know if unlinking the
> public key from the URI provides more 'unlinkability', it was just a
> suggestion.
>
>
>
> But it seems unclear to me that the concerns have been addressed.
>
>
> Well I did in fact answer that mail. But I am going to send out a new mail
> right now, to make sure it is clear.
>

Yes I saw, and Kingsley has made an argument on this too.

But that's no guarantee that an argument has been taken in.

I was reading this yesterday, which emphasises the challenges of
communicating persuasively

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/writing-wednesdays-2-the-most-important-writing-lession-i-ever-learned/


>
> Certainly there was no acknowledgement of that.
>
>
> By whome? By Harry? He never acknowledges mails that don't go in his
> direction.
>

It was Hannes and Harry that asked us to look at this.


>
> Perhaps it is the nature of mailing lists that it can be challenging to
> know when a consensus is reached or a problem has been solved.
>
>
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>