- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:36:23 -0700
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, public-credentials@w3.org
On Mar 2, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > In regard to the two pseudo-anonymity attempts I drafted (reproduced after below, for comparison), I've realized that neither would necessarily be of direct interest to people in the Web Payment IG. Here's a third possibility that incorporates that: > > Indira lives in an Asian country and has written a book about FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). She was a FGM victim herself, and her book is about the small village she grew up in. Because of her fear of local retaliation (which could be violent), and fear of hurting people in her own family, she has transposed her book's characters and setting to a fictitious village in southern Egypt, a country which she knows has a high FGM problem as well. The book is selling well both in her country and worldwide via Amazon, but she has used an author pseudonym and needs a Credential that will allow the publishers, Amazon, and the banking system to deposit money into an account, and for her to get money out, without undue access being given to her personal name and location data. An alternative scenario might be a whistle-blower feeling retaliation. Gregg >> 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. > > > 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 15:36:56 UTC