[Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox threat model
In fact, the *primary function* of the freedom box should be tracking the
user's contacts and enabling authenticated email, IM, and other
communication.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net
> wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 12:23 PM, ian at churchkey.org wrote:
> > There is a scale, it goes from the worse case scenario where everyone
> > you interact with online knows everything else you do online, to the
> > best case scenario, where no one you interact with knows enough about
> > you to be sure that you are the same person from interaction to
> > interaction.
>
> Sorry to keep harping on this, but i don't think it's being heard (or
> internalized), so i'm going to keep on:
>
> It is *not* a best case scenario where no one you interact with knows
> enough about you to be sure that you are the same person from
> interaction to interaction.
>
> Such a situation would be an utter disaster for activists, dissenters,
> and the marginalized, who we should be trying to support.
>
> The goal (as i understand it) is to provide global communication to
> these good folks so that they can establish networks of community and
> collaboration over otherwise impassable distances.
>
> Without strong knowledge of identity across the global communication
> network, these communities are vulnerable to impersonation and
> infiltration by their adversaries.
>
> We want to ensure that people are in control of who they display and
> prove their identity to; we should *not* be in the position of making it
> impossible for people to establish long-term authenticated relationships
> with other people.
>
> --dkg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110628/d2fe9a49/attachment.html>
Reply to: