- From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:32:47 -0400
- To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>
- Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKCYZhwTZZpzO7VjEm5gQ_hR9CFqcsWqOcYaD6nn-fb-tyG4Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Why I like web rings cuz I wanna party like it is 1999. But if a group of press is saying hey this press person is legit and they share a community I then trust that community. I follow the VC-EDU group best I can but I can also do the same thing with two ping backs and a third party ledger. On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:11 AM David Chadwick < d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info> wrote: > I think any solution that requires modifications to browsers is a > non-starter in the short term (if not the long term as well) as it could > take years for them to agree to making any changes. So you should consider > working with today's infrastructures and adding the minimum extra services > that are required to build an operational system. > > Scott, I dont believe that using existing PKIs provides insurmountable > problems. On the contrary, I think it is a solid bedrock on which to build > SSI > > Kind regards > > David > On 24/07/2021 00:47, Annette Greiner wrote: > > Scott, > Has there been any discussion with browser makers or others about browsers > possibly surfacing this data in their UIs? I could imagine browsers having > a control that lists the belongs-to claims that a site makes and indicates > whether they are verified by the corresponding domains. I don’t want to > specify the UI too much, but it could be something similar to the typical > lock icon in most browsers now. So the browser makers or platforms wouldn’t > have to decide anything about who to trust; they would just surface the > claims and whether they are verified, so that the user can evaluate based > on their own context of use. > -Annette > > On Jul 19, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Scott Yates <scott@journallist.net> wrote: > > Adam, (and friends), > > I looked really hard at a PKI solution for a long time, and the downsides > were insurmountable.. > > Probably the biggest problem that you can't get around is: Who decides who > is in and who is out? > > After beating my head against the wall for a couple of years, I came up > with trust.txt. It's a text file in the tradition of robots.txt and > ads.txt. In that file, press associations list their members, and members > list their associations. > > For example, the Texas Press Association's file is here: > https://www.texaspress.com/trust.txt and the file for a small weekly > paper in Hays has its file here: https://haysfreepress.com/trust.txt > > With those, anyone can build a crawler and an algo to get > confirmation about who belongs to whom. > > No one body has to decide who is "press" and who is not. Groups on their > own decide who is a member, and it's up to the platforms to interpret the > signal and decide that the Hays Free Press is just a bit more trustworthy > because they at least know that it belongs to the TPA. > > I'm now rolling this out to press and broadcasting associations in the > U.S., and hope to go international starting in the fall. > > After studying it for a long long time, I think this is as close as we can > get to a "digital press pass" that is consistent with the First Amendment > and an open, decentralized web. > > -Scott Yates > Founder > JournalList.net <http://journallist.net/>, caretaker of the trust.txt > framework > 202-742-6842 > Short Video Explanation of trust.txt <https://youtu.be/lunOBapQxpU> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:23 PM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail..com > <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote: > >> Credible Web Community Group, >> >> Credentials Community Group, >> >> >> >> I would like to broach the topic of “digital press passes” towards a more >> credible web. >> >> >> >> As envisioned, “digital press passes” could be provided to organizations >> and individuals utilizing decentralized public key infrastructure. >> >> >> >> Webpages could include URLs to their “digital press passes” in link >> elements (<link rel="press-pass" href="…" />). This information could >> also be encoded in documents in a manner interoperable with Web schema. >> News content could be digitally signed by one or more “digital press >> passes”. >> >> >> >> Upsides include: (1) end-users and services could configure which >> certificate authorities that they desired to recognize, (2) end-users could >> visually see, in their Web browsers, whether displayed content was from a >> source with a valid “digital press pass”, (3) news aggregation sites could >> distinguish content digitally signed by “digital press passes”, (4) social >> media websites could visually adorn and prioritize shared content which is >> digitally signed by “digital press passes”, (5) entry for new news >> organizations and recognition as such by existing services would be >> simplified, e.g., a new newspaper organization, the new news organization >> would need to obtain a “digital press pass” from a certificate authority. >> >> >> >> Downsides include: impact on citizen journalism, where users other than >> journalists desire to publish or distribute news content. >> >> >> >> Have these ideas been considered before? Any thoughts on these ideas? >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Adam Sobieski >> >> >> >> P.S.: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikifact >> >> >> > > -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2021 16:33:12 UTC