[Freedombox-discuss] Establishing Communication between Freedomboxes
On 07/02/2011 02:24 PM, ian at churchkey.org wrote:
> I think the best way to do this is through something like a dynamicDNS
> centralized service.
Can you explain why a centralized service is the right way to go here?
We have what seems to be a reasonable sketch of a proposal on the table
(from bertagaz) that would use globally-published (yet
locally-resolvable) mechanism via something very much like the current
sks keyserver network. This would provide a way to publish a set of
directory information without any one participant having the ability to
shut people down.
In contrast, a centralized service puts a level of power in the hands of
the maintainers of that service -- something that we're actively trying
to avoid, if i understand the goals of the project correctly.
For example, in your blog post, you explicitly outline a way that such a
service could effectively ostracize a spammer or advertiser (albeit
without outlining what the policy should be in a contested case). This
same mechanism could be used by a powerful adversary to de-voice and
isolate a dissenter or whistleblower.
When in doubt, we should avoid infrastructure with this kind of
centralized leverage. too much centralized power already exists in the
non-freedombox world. Let's not replicate those mistakes.
--dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1030 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110704/d720be0f/attachment.pgp>
Reply to: