Re: unlinkability

On 6 Oct 2012, at 12:01, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 6 October 2012 11:42, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> On 6 Oct 2012, at 11:39, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6 October 2012 11:25, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (1) I think solves the unlinkability problem
>> >
>> > Can you explain what the unlinkeability problem is? Or for who it is a problem?
>> >
>> > 4.  Unlinkability
>> >
>> >    Definition:  Unlinkability of two or more Items Of Interest (e.g.,
>> >       subjects, messages, actions, ...) from an attacker's perspective
>> >       means that within a particular set of information, the attacker
>> >       cannot distinguish whether these IOIs are related or not (with a
>> >       high enough degree of probability to be useful).
>> >
>> > This is something Harry brought up.
>> 
>> Can you explain why it is problematic. It is not because he brought it up
>> that it is problematic right? Or is he someone who sets the standards
>> of what is or is not problematic? Through what authority?
>> 
>> Harry stressed that this was a key consideration to him.  As an influential member of the social web (he was chair of the W3C Social Web XG), I would consider his opinions important.  His complain was that he raised this before, and that the webid group did not look at it.
> 
> But you have not summarised in your own words what his complaint is. So how do you know we did not answer it?
> 
>> 
>> If we, as a group, are able to address such concerns, or show that we have evaluated them and proven then are non issues (for example in a FAQ), it may help bring the benefits of WebID to a wider audience.
> 
> That is why I ask you to express in your words what the problem is, and see if you can come up with an answer to the 
> problem. And indeed we should add this on a list of question and answers that comes up.
> 
> I have quoted the passage cited by Hannes, Harry and others. 

yes, but you have to develop that passage and see how it applies to WebID. It is not an obvious passage at all, and it is not clear it applies at all to WebID.

> It's something we (as a group) have been asked to look at.  In truth, it's been quite a hard conversation to follow as there were many replies and points raised in a short period of time.  I dont know if unlinking the public key from the URI provides more 'unlinkability', it was just a suggestion.

> 
> But it seems unclear to me that the concerns have been addressed. 

Well I did in fact answer that mail. But I am going to send out a new mail right now, to make sure it is clear.

> Certainly there was no acknowledgement of that. 

By whome? By Harry? He never acknowledges mails that don't go in his direction.

> Perhaps it is the nature of mailing lists that it can be challenging to know when a consensus is reached or a problem has been solved.
>  
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
>>  
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/