consensus
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU/consensus] [SocialSwarm-D] 9. Multiple identity (was: Socialnet


From: Michael Rogers
Subject: Re: [GNU/consensus] [SocialSwarm-D] 9. Multiple identity (was: Socialnet_3.0 Meeting 24/25.8.2013)
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:50:36 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/08/13 13:23, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> 9) Multiple identity - you should be able to maintain multiple
>> identities
> 
> I was hoping to propose 2 aspects on this:
> 
> 9.1 _Privacy
> 
> _ It should be possible to log in to socialnet 3.0 without
> compromising a user's privacy.  For example, if I have a gmail
> address, there should be an option to log in without informing
> google.
> 
> 9.2 _Identity Freedom
> 
> _ No style of identity should be forbidden by design.   If a
> project says 'we only will accept GPG keys' or 'we only will accept
> email' or 'we only will accept http profiles' or 'we only will
> accept xmpp' or 'we only take psyc URIs' -- then you are going to
> get balkanization.  You have to be prepared to allow freedom rather
> than to censor.  It's appreciated that not everything can be
> programmed at first, but at least major ecosystems should be aimed
> to be supported.
> 
> 
> Is there anyone that cannot live with these two goals?

Hi Melvin,

There are situations where the two goals would contradict each other -
for example, logging into a system with a Facebook account is
incompatible with maintaining one's privacy.

Perhaps we should combine goal 9.2 (identity freedom) with goal 10
(protocol agnostic) to create a new goal 10: interoperability? As I've
already written on the wiki, I think it's premature to specify that
particular protocols (or client platforms, or login methods) should be
supported. Those are implementation details. We should focus at this
stage on goals that are relevant to users rather than implementers.

On the wiki I've marked several other places where I think we're
focussing prematurely on implementation details.

Cheers,
Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR/5+cAAoJEBEET9GfxSfMKG4H/0e8ida9veCllb8JOMIqyFRr
iYvLeom9nw3j8pkQdraIyz2cqvt36SPgfCVSD4yQ5IedIeFqtKZ1FCj53A0Ih0n9
AJr7JOmeIpEloNqJi9LWrg2avjcnlFuPHGKgkLToxPQtMfHya5wFRtCS7BHdPnI6
JjOrBKg8Oh/ddpI/rZSQqGg/I5x6ssjZp6KJQhE9AwvL0bdL6ucBV6X94NsNZyyf
76JtTbH8iqKA/G36J9PcJGBjKkkSva3JuHZuarAVlmj9zUkCrf3bedkGAa+87Sdr
zQptmeKGeHCft1uGt2ViM0hIgBzfXROiCLDTO0gL7/bgJs0e+U2Q7/CKLhQW2vs=
=1J4G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]