- From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:17:41 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Mouse <mouse@rodents-montreal.org>, "public-philoweb@w3.org" <public-philoweb@w3.org>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "public-privacy@w3.org" <public-privacy@w3.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 10/18/12 3:29 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >> I really feel like I am beating a dead horse at this point, but >> perhaps you'll eventually admit it. Your public key links you. Access >> control on the rest of the information is irrelevant. Indeed, access >> control on the public key is irrelevant, since you must reveal it when >> you use the client cert. Incidentally, to observers as well as the >> server you connect to. >> > A public key links to a private key. A public key or private key *is* an identifier. If there is a 1:1 mapping of public/private key pair to a user, and if the key pair is used at more than one place, then those places know it is the same user and the activities at each of those places is linked. > You are the one being utterly obstinate here. Not true … and I don't think that was a productive comment. > I encourage you to make you point with clear examples so that others can juxtapose your views and ours. Perhaps my explanation above makes the point clear to you. -- Dick
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 21:18:22 UTC