Re: Informal poll: Identity use cases

On 05/22/2014 12:38 AM, Steven Rowat wrote:
>> Use Case: Using metadata that is the result of a transaction, 
>> discover attributes associated with the identity of participants
>> in the transaction.
> 
> -1, because I believe the word 'attributes' is not sufficiently 
> limiting -- it sounds like you're proposing a universal 
> information-gathering mechanism, for anybody who wants to sniff out 
> some interesting 'attributes' about somebody else. And we know lots 
> of people want to do that, both in government and in commerce.
> 
> I looked up where this was discussed (the second link you provided),
>  and the wording you had there was "Using metadata that is the result
>  of a transaction, discover the verified identity of participants in
>  the transaction."
> 
> That sounds better to me, and I'd '+1' that form. But I assume there
>  was some problem with that form, or you would have kept it?

We'll re-raise this during the discussion this week and see why we used
"attributes" instead. I don't quite remember and I agree with you that
it could be misconstrued to mean something we didn't intend.

I think all we were trying to accomplish was this:

The digital receipt contains the buyer and seller, both of which agreed
to have their public identifiers placed into the digital receipt (and
only the buyer, seller, and payment processor have access to that
information):

The buyer was: https://example.com/identity/steven
The seller was: https://example.com/identity/manu

Given this information, you can request information (such as a shipping
address) from Steven or Manu using the URLs provided.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 03:46:17 UTC