- From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:30:12 +0100
- To: Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org>
- Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>, Halpin Harry <H.halplin@ed.ac.uk>, public-identity@w3.org, saag@ietf.org, "public-privacy@w3.org list" <public-privacy@w3.org>, public-webid@w3.org
On 23 October 2012 10:58, Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org> wrote: > > Robin Wilton > Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy > Internet Society > > email: wilton@isoc.org > Phone: +44 705 005 2931 > Twitter: @futureidentity > > > > > On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:44, Ben Laurie wrote: > > <snip> > > > Not disagreeing with any of the above, but observing that: > > a) There's no particular reason you could not have an email per site > as well as a key per site. > > b) Linkability it not, as you say, inherently bad. The problem occurs > when you have (effectively) no choice about linkability. > > > > But it's very hard to use either of those mechanisms (separation through > emails or keys) without giving some third party the ability to achieve total > linkability. (In other words, both options remove effective choice). I agree that emails are a problem, but not at all sure why keys are? In the case of appropriate selective disclosure mechanisms, even if there were a third party involved, they would not be able to link uses of the keys. Also, if you insist on using linkable keys, then per-site keys do not involve third parties. On email, this is a soluble problem, but not without using a completely different delivery mechanism. > > Yrs., > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 09:30:40 UTC