- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 17:07:40 +0200
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKEP+-Ho+APUuK2ZwP-B7nZF0jj5xc4rA+qPk_Uy70HNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 22 May 2014 14:55, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2014-05-22 13:03, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> On 5/22/14 12:55 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: >> >>> >>> Statements like "take full control of your online (Web and Internet) >>> Identity" may sound cool but has essentially no value since just about >>> all service providers have their own "identity system" which you >>> either accept or reject. The latter means you won't be able to use >>> their services. Calling this "take full control" is IMO quite a stretch. >>> >> >> You have full control of your (Web and Internet) Identity when the >> following hold true: >> >> 1. You control the Identifiers that denote You >> 2. You control the Identity Cards that Describe You >> 3. You control the location of Identity Cards that Describe You >> 4. You control the Signature used to verify You >> 5. You control the control how Data is encoded for You >> 6. You control the ACL and Access policies for accessing stuff created >> by You >> 6. You can achieve all of the above from any platform You choose. >> >> > Of course! What I'm (indirectly) saying is that this doesn't apply to > - Government IDs > - Enterprises using AD > - Banks > because in those cases you are *assigned* an identity and what is behind > that is > completely out of your control. Your only option is not using the > services. But the web as a publishing platform allows you to annotate that ID however you want. Especially if all parties agree, at least in principle, that it belongs to you. > > > > Look, the architecture of the World Wide Web wasn't built for any >> particular industry. It was built to empower You! >> > > IMO, the web is just a network and can in similarity with most other > technology be used in good and bad ways. > > I regard "the distributed social web" as a positive development but I > also have severe problems with the proponents' lack of interest in > traditional uses since this is how Microsoft managed achieving a ZERO > market-share for their take on authentication in the consumer space. > Pragmatism you know :-) > > > > I notice you still don't send signed emails, why? I don't believe that >> has anything to do with a particular industry, or does it? :-) >> > > Well, I have actually been involved in this discussion since around Y2000 > but I don't want to go over this here... > > Anders > > >> > >
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 15:08:13 UTC