consensus
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [GNU/consensus] [SocialSwarm-D] Fwd: FYI: Securing the Future of the


From: carlo von lynX
Subject: Re: [GNU/consensus] [SocialSwarm-D] Fwd: FYI: Securing the Future of the Social Web with Open Standards
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:57:28 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:27:44PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Yes, but the key is not the person.  The person has a key.  When you
> overload he key and the person to mean the same thing (known as an
> 'indirect identifier') you have to be quite careful.  The advantage of not
> overloading identifiers that the same identifier in one system means the
> same in another, which helps with inerop with other systems that might not
> have made the same design decisions as you.

Well, since there is currently NO system that fulfils all our privacy
requirements, there is nothing to interop to. I presume once there is
a tool that does everything right, it will be at the center of a big
bang - that means all variations will derive from it and thus be
compatible to it. All that went before will continue to fulfil its
niche jobs but slowly become irrelevant. Like Myspace. It doesn't make
sense to interop with something that is going to lower your degree of
privacy or security. It's like asking to downgrade the cipher. So the
challenge of interopability does not factually exist IMHO.

Lorea, for example, is doing a great job - but there is a danger of
getting prismed. If Lorea users want to go the next step, they simply
start using something like Retroshare in parallel to the Lorea websites.
There is no use in having any interop and thus damaging the
stronger security tool.

To me the question is, will Retroshare spark the big bang? Or does
gnunet with secushare have a chance? Or are we actually late and the
technology leading the way is already out there.. tor hidden services?
Or will something else along these lines appear out of nowhere?

In all of my thinking I am just hoping humanity will not once again
fall for some half-baked insecure solution.. like giving money to
heml.is. So that's the only scenario I am not taking into consideration:
the ability of humanity to settle for something that will not do the job.


-- 
»»» psyc://psyced.org/~lynX »»» irc://psyced.org/welcome
 »»» xmpp:address@hidden »»» https://psyced.org/PSYC/



reply via email to

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