W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [saag] Liking Linkability

From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:06:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SS2cdB6QrWPPzH51L5vphiokZqBJ6nbJ4gOg2uFcwTYUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "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 18 October 2012 16:41, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 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?

That's what selective disclosure systems like U-Prove and the PRIME
project are all about.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 16:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:43 UTC