Re: Anonymity and multiple identities

thanks for the interesting points!


On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Flemming Bjerke <web@bjerke.dk> wrote:
> We also want to be able to circulate information
> to a larger group, and even publish some. Our problem is that if FSB finds
> out who we are, they will probably kill or at least threaten some of us. We
> could also think about a fedsocweb behind a new generation of wikileak.

sure, you would have to publish your findings under a code name ('Mr.
X'), and make sure that when you connect, you do so through Tor. But
after that, "Mr. X" is just a standard fedsocweb identity.

>> multiple identities, sure. subidentities, i think that's more like
>> audience control, right? so when you publish something you choose
>> whether you want to publish it to a certain 'group' or 'aspect' or
>> 'circle' within your list of friends.
>
> Yes, but including the distribution of information about me. A subidentity
> does have the same information about me as the super-identity - probably
> hierarchy thinking is not appropriate, but partial heritage of information
> from another identity as well as linking are.

ah right, yes this is supported by webfinger. different people see
different 'sub-identities' if they retrieve your webfinger record
while authenticating. if they don't authenticate, then they just get
the default public one.

> You are right. But, in the fedsocweb protocol, it should be a privacy option
> to let the users conceal their identity. Example: last time I tried to go on
> Facebook via Tor, I was not allowed access, hence Facebook has no high level
> privacy protection.

i agree all fedsocweb protocols should also work when connecting via Tor.


> Eventually, I hope you are right. But, as I read your Webfinger point, it
> was presupposed that there were no problems with public dissemination of
> personal information.

the public portion of the information about the profile of your 'Mr.
X' identity, yes.

it's true that current implementations of webfinger usually don't
distinguish between audiences, but that may change as we continue to
experiment with it.


> Yes, I fully agree, but there is another reason why people accept the
> intrusion on privacy: They don't understand the possible implications. In
> order to put such problems a little more on the agenda, it is important to
> classify Facebook, Twitter, etc. as having relatively low levels of privacy.

yes. this is user education. It's what http://tos-dr.info is doing,
you should join their mailing list if you want to help with that!

>
>> So if you choose to publish all your stuff anonymously or
>> pseudonymously then this issue is irrelevant. You can do that using
>> facebook over Tor and as long as you don't accidentally give away your
>> identity inside the content you upload, you'll be fine.
>>
>> But if you use a recognizable online identity, then you will and
>> should care about this. If i share my private data with my friends,
>> then i don't want a third-party listening in, and i don't want a
>> third-party to constantly try to make me accidentally overshare (see
>> e.g.
>> www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-might-not-like-it-but-you-and-facebook-are-worst-friends-forever-20120630-219rq.html
>> ). So for this I need what ToS;DR would call a "class A service". We
>> are opening up this possibility with fedsocweb, simply by opening up
>> the market for services you can choose from.
>
>
> Well, I could not read this from your 6 points.

ok then we'll add a paragraph about that! i'll do that at some point
and move it to the wiki.


Cheers,
Michiel

Received on Saturday, 7 July 2012 10:21:10 UTC