Re: Verifiable Barcodes

Dear Manu,

Thank you for your comments and the action taken. Let me just suggest the reading of this publication: FUD: a plea for intolerance <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/fud-a-plea-for-intolerance/> from Dinei Florêncio, Cormac Herley and Adam Shostack (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, June 2014) 10 years have passed but I find it still has valid points.

Best,

Luis MEIJUEIRO
luis.meijueiro@w3.org



   
CTIC Centro Tecnológico
C/ Ada Byron, 39  | 33203 Gijón  |  Asturias  |  España (Spain) 
Ph: (+34) 984 291 212  Ext. 810

> El 30 may 2024, a las 16:32, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> escribió:
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 2:53 AM Luis Meijueiro <luis.meijueiro@w3.org> wrote:
>> I encourage toning down the argumentative discourse a notch or two.
> 
> With reservations, I've removed the paragraph you identified in the
> CCG work item proposal.
> 
> I will note that the paragraph cited academic research papers
> conducted over multiple decades, used publicly available, government
> funded research data (U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers
> for Disease Control and Prevention), and other academic research
> papers that back up the statements made. I'm sensitive to referring to
> academic research and public data sources as FUD. That said, it's of
> little value to debate those citations and it would be a distraction
> to getting the work done to get embroiled in a debate about them.
> People will either find the work useful or not.
> 
> Let's just get the technology out there so people can have an
> additional tool to tell a fraudulent physical document from a real
> one.
> 
>> IMHO no single technology is guilty of anything, specially taken out of the context of interaction with other technological and human mechanisms of control in which it is being applied.
> 
> To be clear, I didn't say technology was "guilty" of anything. It's a
> strange concept, as you point out.
> 
> I hope it's obvious to all that a lack of deployed technologies do
> lead to harms in society (and the corollary that some technologies
> lead to secondary harms in society). Technologies are not binary in
> that sense, which is what I believe is your point, Luis.
> 
> At the risk of stretching an analogy, the introduction of seatbelts
> and airbags in vehicles (on the whole) reduced human suffering. So did
> the introduction of penicillin.
> 
> Clearly, securing barcodes are not going to have near that level of
> positive impact, but they're a tool in the toolbox that have concrete
> applications that I was trying to cite. Part of the questionnaire for
> CCG work items is to establish the need for the technology.
> 
> If you have a suggestion on what we could replace the now removed
> paragraph with to justify the work item, that would be quite helpful.
> 
>> Otherwise I support the research.
> 
> Thank you for your support, Luis. Let me know if you'd like further
> changes to be made.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>