[Freedombox-discuss] Relationship driven privacy
> ... The?same principle?exist between a reporter and a
> whistleblower. The pseudonymity article suggests the technology exists to
> protect freedom fighters through unlinkable pseudonyms.
It's important, I think, to be able to extend the web of trust to
people we can identify and trust, not just the I met at a key signing
and confirmed his government ID, but also the guy who organized the
protest and wears the baseball cap and shades and owns the
freedomfigher997 at gmail.com e-mail address...
> Outside the FreedomBox network, I?will still need to access?websites?using
> the?insecure practise of username/password. ...
Not so insecure if the password is encrypted... indeed it may be more
secure than carrying around media containing your key, which may be
taken from you by an authority...
> ... I would like to see FreedomBox
> support OpenID and WebID i.e. the FreedomBox owner?is the identity manager.
> OpenID is in wide use, and has?"personas" which is similar to relationship
> profiles. WebID is more secure than OpenID, but AFAIK does not
> have?relationship profiles?and is not widely used.
Can you tell us more?
> Why can't new users?today create their own account?after passing a challenge
> test?using their personal information?? The challenge test would be
> performed on a device (MAC address registered?on server) in a secure area
> (identity check required for area access) and the user's personal
> information must already exist on the HR/owner's server (Web of Trust).
Well, that's opens our freedom fighter up for compromise, doesn't it?
Our oppressed hero probably wants all his activities done under one or
more pseudonyms...
> I am
> not suggesting FreedomBox do this, but wonder why?doesn't this WOT model
> exist already?
Um... keysingings?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Key_signing_party
Not that they're particularly user-friendly :-(
Tony
Reply to: