[Freedombox-discuss] Freedom Networking (was: DHTs and Names)
> (non-human-readable, OpenPGP or some other fingerprinting standard)
> 1) the freedombox itself could publish its own routing information (DNS
> records? something else?), signed by its own public key so that it is
> clear (and verifiable) how to reach the machine at the moment.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6091
may help, you may have seen the recent CA's fails,
by some innovations in this sphere that
would lead to increased Security,
this project may achieve trust and show that
the need is first of all - in security, privacy,
all these basics that - finally - securing Freedom.
> about whether we want human-readable names for
> the freedombox is quite clear to me: we do, and we must.
+1, we don't need the Darknet aura for end user,
not at all, i think.
> We need a reputation system. If I visit https://eben_moglen and see
> any indication it's crap, I should be able to thumbs-down on it.
> Enough people do that, and the and the fake host(s) is(are) voted
> away.
+1, since - some kind of this - likely to be implemented in SocWebs of boxes,
since - you may - additionally - achieve the hu-re domain with the account of
soc net -- somewhere there could be a start. Another way - is a separated
social project for ratings that correlates with the topic of Censorship i'v
started here a while ago.
> Anyone with good encryption chops know how one could do a DHT-based
> reputation/voting system?
maybe we could help Locker Project
(lockerproject.org/)> so
it would be integrated nicely into FBX then?
I have talked with Unhosted.org lead developer,
he's kind of up to the idea, however it is all more like
a challenging mission, that aren't being done by FBX TAC
or Community of this list,
as i see. So - we are seeking the place to discuss it all
and best i see is - hm, i don't see the nice place.
Maybe - make theFNF.org popular/collect and discuss
all there>?
I can't see that posting all the staff that being posted here -
is the nice practice. In fact - there are many people that gathered
for Freedom Networking but here is the FreedomBox projects mailing
list, isn't it? In fact - there are many initiatives that could and should
be collaborated with - for not inventing here. But FBX wasn't able to
govern, to organize all these for all the needs. The task of FBX foundation
is to release the FBX's isn't it? But there are enough of related systems
that aren't FBX's, by nature, but that are about to use and advance
on the software stack that FBX is about.
So - what we see - there are
people working on software that relates - but - FBXF - currently - doesn't
seem to be Organizing, Governing, Encouraging Collaboration beyond these.
Am i missed something?
the FBX TAC has the people.. guru's - but where is the Movement?
Is this list has gathered such a movement but isn't appropriate and
isn't able to work with the M?
FYI - i am not affiliated as an employee or a kind with the FNF or any other,
i am standing for interests of w3.org/community/ar first of all - as
there are the biggest need
for Security>>Freedom, i see. I am just building-up from the best i
see - the FreedomBases
-- hard and soft conception that is needed to store the Data, to
protect it as much as possible.
If the FNF would be the Foundation of Freedom Networking - in peoples eye's,
-- let it be under FNF brand, let it work and evolve there. If it is
FBXF, EFF, LibrePlanet,
Drumbeat -- whatever, who cares. The point is to develop -
collaborating with as much
existing projects in this sphere - as possible,
make the Freedom Networking available for humanity
at a large.
PS: http://www.seeks-project.info/ - another desirable system, from
Search side - related to rating.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<dkg at fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 02:09 AM, John Walsh wrote:
>> Do you think human readable names are important to FBX?
>
> Yes, undoubtedly; we want the tools produced by this project to be
> usable by humans.
>
> Whether the human-readable names are themselves global might be a
> separate question, though.
>
> A pure petname approach would provide human-readability to end users,
> but with the downside that third-party introductions would be impossible.
>
> A hybrid petname approach could allow third-party introductions while
> not claiming absolute global scope on the names in question (and
> allowing for conflicts in the namespace).
>
> For example (this is a hand-wavy sketch, not a concrete proposal):
>
> ?0) a freedombox could be known by the fingerprint of its public key
> (non-human-readable, OpenPGP or some other fingerprinting standard)
>
> ?1) the freedombox itself could publish its own routing information (DNS
> records? ?something else?), signed by its own public key so that it is
> clear (and verifiable) how to reach the machine at the moment.
>
> ?2) individual users could choose to publish (some of) their petname
> bindings in a way that is cryptographically verifiable, thereby creating
> third-party introductions with human-readable names.
>
> But the basic question about whether we want human-readable names for
> the freedombox is quite clear to me: we do, and we must.
>
> Regards,
>
> ? ? ? ?--dkg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
Reply to: