- From: Ian Smith <ian@vidicode.pro>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:55:49 -0600
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>, Kyle Den Hartog <kdenhar@gmail.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Data escrows are a reality because not every Big Data company will disclose as much as they know. We can build around reality or attempt to legislate a new one. I think data escrows are part of reality even if they don't have a place within the technical specifications. I would rather "bring them in from the cold" by including them somehow. How to include the Big Data Silos of the world is a huge topic, and I agree viability is a monumental concern but I think all we need in the near term is a "stub" for them to interface with and through. On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:38 PM Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > > On 5/17/19 2:30 PM, David Chadwick wrote: > > > > > > On 17/05/2019 18:10, Dave Longley wrote: > >> Yet another selective disclosure option would be a third party that > >> anonymizes the data and escrows it -- which I believe to be the most > >> viable option for preventing correlation whilst maintaining trust. > > > > But this overly complicates the trust model, introduces another party > > into the eco-system that the user and verifier have to trust, and is > > probably unworkable in practice due to the increased pain and very small > > gain it brings. > > It's another option that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and would be > useful to mention in the implementation guide. We could have a whole > separate discussion on its viability -- but that would take us quite off > topic. > > > -- > Dave Longley > CTO > Digital Bazaar, Inc. > http://digitalbazaar.com >
Received on Friday, 17 May 2019 18:56:23 UTC