W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Should WebIDs denote people or accounts?

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:37:28 +1000
Message-Id: <3C48D2CC-7C6B-4E73-8A34-C3A6243466B7@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>


Sent from my iPad

> On 19 May 2014, at 9:59 am, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> I'd suggest that this is not a technical problem and cannot be addressed this way.
>> 
>> When you add reasoners in to the mix they can quickly determine that typographically different (personas/agents/uris) refer to the same thing, whatever approach is used.
>> 
>> Perhaps then the only way to combat this is to create the reasoning programs which do this, and release them freely to people so they can check their own data / persona's and quickly address any slip ups which reveal identity over persona's before it's published.
> 
> As you know, nothing about WebID forces you to include an Email Address in your WebID-Profile doc. In short, you never need to place anything in a WebID-Profile document that you don't want to be used in undesirable fashion.
> 
How useful is a blank profile document?  How about one with some fantasy entries,..

> When we generate WebID and WebID-Profile documents from YouID, we don't mandate anything. Even the fact that you have Twitter, Facebook etc.. accounts are optional in regards to the WebID-profile document we generate (i.e., we have an anonymity option). Thus, you don't have an IFP based relations for coreference oriented inference and reasoning. Likewise no foaf:onlineAccount or anything like that.
Other DRM services can work that way too.  It can be enabled, with no functionality.

> As you said, this isn't technical problem. Its a social matter. We just have to remember that we don't have to make public that which we see as a compromise to our ability to self-calibrate vulnerability. This is what we do in the real-world, and nothing changes that online, bar misunderstanding of technology specs etc..
> 
First issue with buying "someone" is that you'd need something to explain what's in that contract of sale.  I'd prefer to make that really difficult to do.  Obviously, if someone puts their own data together in the public domain, privacy laws are less meaningful.

DRM on media is simply the means to apply business rules.  How'd that go, any good examples you can think of?  

As technology professionals I believe we have a duty of care.  Different business models can apply to different circumstances.

Identity [1] is different to individuality [2] and the concept of accepting it's all good! we'll call it an agent [3] seems to be overly focused on the service provider in my opinion.

Timh.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuality
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent

> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen    
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 00:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:55 UTC