Re: [saag] Liking Linkability

On 10/18/12 11:34 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On 9 October 2012 14:19, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> Still in my conversations I have found that many people in security spaces
>> just don't seem to be  able to put the issues in context, and can get sidetracked
>> into not wanting any linkability at all. Not sure how to fix that.
> You persist in missing the point, which is why you can't fix it. The
> point is that we want unlinkability to be possible. Protocols that do
> not permit it or make it difficult are problematic. I have certainly
> never said that you should always be unlinked, that would be stupid
> (in fact, I once wrote a paper about how unpleasant it would be).
>
> As I once wrote, anonymity should be the substrate. Once you have
> that, you can the build on it to be linked when you choose to be, and
> not linked when you choose not to be. If it is not the substrate, then
> you do not have this choice.
>
>
>
>

Do you have example of what you describe? By that question I mean: 
implicit anonymity as a functional substrate of some realm that we 
experience today?

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen