On 10/21/12 6:22 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>> I'm getting quite tired of this: the point is, you cannot achieve
>> unlinkability with WebID except by using a different WebIDs. You made
>> the claim that ACLs on resources achieve unlinkability. This is
>> incorrect.
>
> You're 100% correct here Ben, and I'm unsure why it's so hard to convey!?
>
> If you use the same identifier for more than one request, subsequent
> requests can be associated with the first request. An identifier here
> is any identifying, stable, information - key parts and URIs.
>
> If the issue is only unlinkability across sites, then you just have a
> keypair+uri per site. Or better, key-pair only, and that's associated
> with an identifier for the agent behind the interface.
>
> You're correct that ACLs won't cut it.
>
>
>
>
>
Nathan,
What is the subject of unlinkability ?
I am sure you know that Henry and I are fundamentally referring to
nebulous real-world entities such as "You" and "I". A composite key of:
machine name, user agent name, and a document referrer links != said
neboulus entity. Even further away in today world of multiple form
factor devices that interact with the Internet and Web.
There is no precise mechanism for electronically nailing down nebulous
entity "You" and "I". We aren't of the Internet or Web, so you can
apprehend us in person. At best you can speculate that we are the
subjects of tokens comprised of composite keys.
Unlinkability is subject to context fluidity and temporality once you
add neboulus congnitive entites (not of the Web or Internet) to the
equation. I believe you know this anyway :-)
--
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