Re: Use-Cases - pseudo-anonymity examples

On 3/2/16 1:57 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> I've spent some time today trying to put together a succinct set of
> concepts around considerations
> [snip]
> I think overall, a very complex area of consideration.

Agreed. :-0  .  But I was only attempting to make a tweak to an 
existing document that's on a tight time-line (a week or two), so 
perhaps your comments would be better in a thread of their own since 
they seem to lead to...months? of discussion.

Or as I just speculated in another post, my understanding (which may 
be wrong) is that:
"...the current goal is to get the Charter accepted (work protocol 
time-lines and use-case goals) ... "

So... any expansions of the material are to be discouraged. Including 
my own. ;-)

But I feel strongly about mine and will continue to make a case for 
ONE more use-case until I'm somehow appeased or stifled. :-)

Steven


>
> With regard to the recent case of a court-order and Apple Computers
> (vs. FYI); The concept of trust is being electronically tested in a
> variety of ways as a result.  Whether it be through the various
> opinions of what was said/requested, what the options were, or the
> specificity of the words used in the court and how they've been
> translated for subjective opinion by the world of internet users.
>
> IMHO, trust or trustworthiness relates specifically to the outcomes
> born by way of the assumption matrix which provides the basis in-which
> to form a position whereby an actor decides to 'trust' something, in
> relation to their needs for a specified purpose.  Should assumptions
> be poorly supported by claims that are made available in an
> accountable and specified way, unintended consequences; indeed,
> including significant harm - can be born through such misunderstandings.
>
> I'm not sure to what level we could aim to address that problem
> digitally; whilst simultaneously doing so in a manner that services
> pseudo-anonymity as best as is plausibly viable.  The idea of an
> infrastructure agent providing a 'yes'/'no' answers. is amongst the
> more important considerations.  I think also a means in which to
> 'rate' claims, may also be important.  If online university of some
> weird country issues a PhD claim for a quick $100, or a person can get
> their 'lord' prefix asserted to their name for purchasing 1 square
> meter of the moon, or some other bit of land; then it is different to
> the normalised consideration made by similar claim outcomes.  I'm sure
> a great deal of that is part of the ontological references produced by
> agents yet, perhaps important as part of the means to support an
> effective 'yes/no' anonymised response.
>
> IMHO: Usually in the real-work, the concept of trust relates very much
> to the concept of 'agreement', and as such is a symmetrical concept
> when applied in its true form. Asymmetrical trust is seemingly a
> distinct concept that better considers the concept of 'assertion'
> rather than the concept of symmetrical trust which relates to the
> concept of 'agreement', 'agreed fact',  'mutually agreed fact', or
> 'mutually trusted fact/s'.
>
> I also think we have an opportunity for human advancement should we
> improve our means for verification of claims, and that the means in
> which a person with the least financial means may present their case
> most effectively to a court of law to seek that mix between 'rule of
> law' and 'natural justice' , embodying so many other things; shouldn't
> be at the cost of personal liberty.
>
> SUMMARY
>
> I think overall, the realised definition of pseudo-anonymity would
> depend on the implementation strategy.  My hope is that the
> considerations above provide an array of (attack) vectors that may be
> considered in relation to the strategies that may be employed, and the
> cross-functional segmentation analysis that relates to the delivery of
> outcomes; and effective operational properties.
>
>     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
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 17:36:42 UTC