- From: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:46:41 +0200
- To: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Halpin Harry <H.halplin@ed.ac.uk>, public-identity@w3.org, saag@ietf.org, public-webid@w3.org, "public-privacy@w3.org list" <public-privacy@w3.org>
On 10/23/2012 12:50 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 23 October 2012 10:56, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Ben Laurie wrote: >>> >>> b) Linkability it not, as you say, inherently bad. The problem occurs >>> when you have (effectively) no choice about linkability. >> >> >> .. and when people convey or infer that there is no choice about >> linkability, when there really is scope to be as unlinkable as one likes >> within WebID. > > I have never disputed that - my point is that if I am as unlinkable as > I like I then have a fairly horrific problem managing a large number > of certificates and remembering which one I used where. > Wouldn't you say you have the same problem now with most, if not all authentication protocols? I still think it's easier to manage 100s of certificates compared to managing 100s of user/pass combinations. If it is a UI issue, then it can be made more intuitive. From what you say above, the WebID protocol itself is not the problem. Andrei P.S. I've been trying to follow this conversation and so far it's been a pain in the @$$. W3C should have a way to separate threads based on relevance to one's interests, otherwise it becomes very hard to be productive when you have to read though so many emails daily.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 11:47:39 UTC