seems like we keep walking in circles how do we allow users to identify themselves or each other, yet remain anonymous. The process of identifying a user, determining someone is who they say they are crosses the threshold and puts the said user at risk of being identified ect ect.
Yes, all aspects of freedombox should work to support user privacy, prevent identifying sources ect ect... though we cant keep pretending that we can identify a user without identifying them. The social networking is just one aspect of the freedombox, and some would argue its not a critical part because we could implement services that are already developed (Diaspora) and make modifications to enforce stronger privacy (if needed) and to work on our darknet/mesh ect ect. Im not sure why we keep talking about social networking. The guy that leaks information on a government, on a corporation, who posts information that a goverment is going to want to take down and arrest someone for .... these people should not be interested in a default associative property that is linked to the entire freedombox. The user should be in charge of setting up a pseudo-anonymous identity on service xyz. now, i know that the freedombox is going to be used by average individuals that are not interested in remaining anonymous for what ever reason. But lets not kid ourself, social networking is social networking... we can increase the privacy, make strong privacy relation policys, but posting your pictures and life story on a service is not in any way shape or form ... logical. we are not creating a cool new facebook, we are creating an entire new network that allows users to communication and preform operations on the net without fear of reprecussion or repression. And most importantly we are creating ways for users to use the Internet (if you would even call it that anymore) anonymously and that is not subject to centerlized services .. kill switches.. dns tdl blocks ect ect. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On 11-07-08 at 02:50pm, John Walsh wrote: > > At connection time, I should be allowed to opt-in to having my name > > published by a friend - it is my identity after all. > > > > I was also reminded about what I consider a major privacy flaw in all > > social networks. When you post to your wall you are posting to friends > > of your friends - you have no control over who sees your message on a > > friends wall. > > [snip] > > > Another wish of mine, would be that for each profile you can define > > your messages/content maximum degree of separation from you. > > > I recommend to pass such ideas (preferrably backed by code, obviously) > to the [group] that develops interoperability standards for federated > social networks! > > Last month was a coordination [meeting] in Berlin ([videos] available > for some parts), and a few days ago a [follow-up mail] seems to touch > this very issue (point #3). > > I believe discussing implementation details with the folks actually > implementing is much more productive than doing it here ;-) > > > - Jonas > > [group]: http://federatedsocialweb.net/ > > [meeting]: http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/ > > [videos]: http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/videos/ > > [follow-up mail]: > > http://groups.google.com/group/ostatus-discuss/browse_thread/thread/7f15df316d6c14d3 > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss > -- Thank you for your time ~Nathan nathan1...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
