Indeed, and in that dividing into actionable parts the problem is
consensus: consensus that we need to break it down into parts, consensus
on what parts, consensus on who defined the parts. To me this is
independent from mailing-list / other communication. IMO it should come
from TAC /
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 16:05 -0300, Sébastien Lerique wrote:
If the
Foundation and/or the TAC want to pull back and start planning as a
smaller group I'm fine with it (although I would have loved to be part
of that process), I think if done properly it would even serve the
goals better (as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/11 20:38, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 16:05 -0300, Sébastien Lerique wrote:
If the
Foundation and/or the TAC want to pull back and start planning as a
smaller group I'm fine with it (although I would have loved to be
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
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
i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use (grandma can use it) rule .
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.netwrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:43 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
Obviously a keysigning party is not
appropriate for people who want to be
anonymous. But
On 07/07/2011 02:41 AM, nathan nolast wrote:
i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use
I agree that current keysigning methods are cumbersome, primarily due to
the requirement that human beings have to cognitively process long
hexadecimal strings (large numbers).
I recommend reviewing the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/2011 02:43 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
anonymous. But I don't see why, if you've
verified a claimed identity in some other
reasonable sense you cannot sign someone's
key even if its pseudonymous.
You can sign a pseudanonymous key and
On 07/07/2011 02:36 PM, The Doctor wrote:
You can sign a pseudanonymous key and publish it. What you have to be
cognizant of, however, is the trust level of the pseudanonymous key (set
when the public key is signed), which ranges from 0 (no trust at all) to
5 (trust fully).
Urgh, this is not
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM, nathan nolast nathan1...@gmail.com wrote:
i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use (grandma can use it) rule .
Is it enough if people just sign their grandmas' keys?
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Hi Mike and Everybody
Friendika was mentioned in this thread but in a different
context, so I wanted to point out what we do for profile
personas. There may be some ideas you can use. It's a
distributed system, but has multiple profiles.
You can tailor any profile for any person or
Um... keysingings?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Key_signing_party
Not that they're particularly user-friendly :-(
Keysigning parties work well, but if pseudanonymity is your goal you'll
have to either accept a much lower trust rating from everyone there
because you won't
On 07/06/2011 02:43 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
Obviously a keysigning party is not
appropriate for people who want to be
anonymous. But I don't see why, if you've
verified a claimed identity in some other
reasonable sense you cannot sign someone's
key even if its pseudonymous.
i agree; given
On 4 Jul 2011, at 15:50, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
You dont need AX (attribute exchane), just use the HTML5 data
layer, which should be fine if freedom box is hosting a web server.
I looked at WebID a year ago and thought the idea was simple and brillant.
However, at the time, I thought
Submit a patch. Its open source.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
On 4 Jul 2011, at 15:50, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
You dont need AX (attribute exchane), just use the HTML5 data
layer, which should be fine if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/01/2011 11:14 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
Um... keysingings?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Key_signing_party
Not that they're particularly user-friendly :-(
Keysigning parties work well, but if pseudanonymity is your goal
On 4 July 2011 07:25, John Walsh fiftyf...@waldevin.com wrote:
Hi Melvin,
From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com]
Basically at myopenid.com you can create different Personas
(profiles of information), which you choose at the time you
login with
openid. For me you could
Friendika was mentioned in this thread but in a different context, so I
wanted to point out what we do for profile personas. There may be some
ideas you can use. It's a distributed system, but has multiple profiles.
You can tailor any profile for any person or group of people.
There is a
On 3 July 2011 00:58, John Walsh fiftyf...@waldevin.com wrote:
Behalf Of Tony Godshall
... 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
Hi Tony,
-Original Message-
From: apgodsh...@gmail.com [mailto:apgodsh...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Tony Godshall
Sent: Sunday, 3 July 2011 2:04 AM
To: fiftyf...@waldevin.com
Cc: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Relationship driven
From: J David Eisenberg [mailto:jdavid.eisenb...@gmail.com]
You might also want to investigate Friendika (1); I'm running
a Friendika server (2), and it also allows groups, though I
haven't worked with them extensively. The Friendika protocol
is documented and in the public domain (3)
...
Another concern for me is the project has a BSD license. Does this make it
incompatible with the freedombox project? Which licences does the freedombox
support?
...
The BSD license without the advertising clause meets all relevant
FLOSS definitions:
...
Friendika's documentation makes a good point that all communications do not
need to be reciprocal. Boy gives a girl his number allowing the girl to call
him, but the boy cannot call the girl until she gives him permission(her
number). I never thought of that use case.
...
Yes, I think
Behalf Of Marc Manthey
At the time you friend (connect) a profile instead of
Accept you
must choose a relationship(s) (sibling, parent, etc.) or
Ignore. The
same as facebook this relationship selection remains private. These
relationships can be based on XFN(1). This minimises
Behalf Of Tony Godshall
... 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
We can do it like Facebook. Everybody friends your profile
and you manually group them. The grouping is private in that
your friends don't know what groups they're in (and most of
the time, even if they've been grouped at all).
At the time you friend (connect) a profile instead of Accept you
please, take a look on XMPP initiatives for federated social staff
with security and privacy in mind.
XMPP is very flexible and mature stack of protocols, and, with all
respect, we'll need the flexibility.
i'll repost:
http://primarypad.com/OeMj2ZnZqo list,
there are - enough projects in various
because cisco bought it ?
that's only - one, small, outcome ;)
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
... 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
On Jun 29, 2011, at 9:28 AM, John Walsh wrote:
Families/individuals should manage their own personal identities
through their own domain name, but instead most people have Google
and Facebook manage their personal identities - nobody would do this
in the real world.
exactly john,
There are a few options in how we sort contacts into groups.
We can do it like Facebook. Everybody friends your profile and you
manually group them. The grouping is private in that your friends don't
know what groups they're in (and most of the time, even if they've been
grouped at all).
We
31 matches
Mail list logo
