Re: [saag] Liking Linkability

Hi Henry, Melvin, Karl and others,

As this issue has migrated to the public-privacy email list, would you like us to add it to the agenda for a PING call? We have a call this Thursday UTC 16, and the next one will be in November (date to be advised).

regards,
Christine and Tara


On Oct 15, 2012, at 3:46 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:

> Henry,
> (massive cross posting [bad], reducing to public-privacy)
> 
> Le 9 oct. 2012 à 09:19, Henry Story a écrit :
>> yes, but don't make linkability an a priori bad thing, since it is the most important  building block for creating distributed co-operative structures, and so to privacy.
> 
> I'm not sure people are making it a bad thing, quite the opposite. People love to be connected with others.
> 
> The issue is to make all these issues a set of binary constraints. I'm linked. I'm not linked. I'm not known. I'm known. etc. It's why I refer to a continuum of opacities from 0 to 1 when I talk about privacy.
> 
> What you seem to be talking about is 
> 
> The sealed shared communications of a group of people where people can be >= 2 at *an instant t*.
> 
> But this would be quite a too simple characterization of privacy. We live in time and… WE FORGET. This feature is also very important. The bi-directional linkability is about mutual exchange of tokens that we are talking again and again to the same person. Why it is important? Because through time, we LEARN to build trust with this other person. Little by little. Basically we create a box for privacy through time. It doesn't exist by itself. The more we have tested this mutual trust, the more we are eager to exchange in the context of this box. Sometimes there are small catastrophes. Breach of trust. But the good thing is that we know voluntary or not and depending on the people how to forget allowing more trials for trust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations, Opera Software
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 06:58:19 UTC