- From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:34:05 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>, "public-philoweb@w3.org" <public-philoweb@w3.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-privacy@w3.org" <public-privacy@w3.org>
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.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 15:34:34 UTC