- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:41:36 +0100
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, public-credentials@w3.org
On 2016-03-02 06:25, Steven Rowat wrote: > On 3/1/16 8:00 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: >> I don't disagree. The financial one was of primary importance in >> our first draft. Maybe you can craft a couple of other scenarios? > > I'll take a stab. > > Journalist: > Ahmed is a full-time journalist in North Africa who wishes to publish > video material of interviews with torture victims. His media employers > refuse to publish the material themselves because of government > threats. However they are willing to certify his credentials. He will > therefore publish the material himself using a pseudonym, and the end > viewer will know that the material was provided by a certified > professional journalist who cannot be identified for safety reasons. > > Scientist: > Rachel is a biochemist working for a large chemical corporation. She > has access to files dating back to the 1970s that show that the > corporation suppressed toxicity trial results. Rachel is has a PhD in > biochemistry, and is a member in good standing of the American > Chemical Society and other professional bodies. She would like to use > her verified credentials to give weight to her story, but would like > to keep her job. She would like pseudo-anonymity for when she is > making the information available to journalists, the public, or law > enforcement. Pardon the naive question (I haven't followed the credentials work in detail), but how is link between the credential and the documents it is supposed to be associated with? Anders > > > Steven > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Steven Rowat >> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> >> wrote: >> >> On 3/1/16 9:30 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com >> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> >> Manu Sporny: Please send feedback on the mailing list, the >> VCTF/Credentials CG/ or WPIG mailing list, whichever you have >> access to. ...[snip]... Manu Sporny: So also feedback on the use >> cases. >> >> >> +1 to Pseudo-Anonymity remaining as an "Essential" claim as now >> provided in the Use Cases document. I'd be very distressed if it >> was chopped for any reason. Glad to see it still there! :-) >> >> But... in support of that: to get future readers of the document to >> agree on its importance, I believe the single scenario given (June >> going to buy a bottle of wine and not wishing to divulge anything >> other than age) doesn't adequately convey the scope of why this is >> essential, society-wide. >> >> I'm thinking of the more specific 'protection from known danger' >> scenarios, such as: journalists reporting from countries that >> threaten them with death, scientists whistleblowing from corporate >> crime, novelists writing about their own dysfunctional social >> milieu. >> >> Any of these scenarios may be of large value to the society, and to >> work best, or work at all in some cases, they require that we can >> identify the origin of the conveyed information as trustworthy >> without needing the originator to broadcast publicly their personal >> contact information. >> >> June and the bottle doesn't convey those use-cases for me, although >> it's technically still a pseudo-anonymity. It's important also, but >> different. So I think we need at least one of each kind. >> >> >> Steven Rowat >> >> >> >> >> -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 05:42:33 UTC