Hi Everyone,
I assume the "Freedom Social Network" will work similar to other social
networks. One thing I would like to see when you connect to someone either
via an invite or a request is to capture the relationship (one or many) from
each party's POV e.g. co-resident, sibling, friend etc. Each
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,
but
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 can
Hi James,
Thanks for your response
> 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 "fr
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" y
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Marc Manthey wrote:
>>> 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).
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
On Jul 1, 2011, at 10:41 PM, ya knygar wrote:
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.
because cisco bought it ?
http://www.cis
>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
> 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
...
> 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:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedi
...
> 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(
> 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
> tr
On 3 July 2011 00:58, John Walsh 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 important, I
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-
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 have a friend persona, a sibling
> persona etc.
>
On 4 July 2011 07:25, John Walsh 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 have a
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 defau
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
Submit a patch. Its open source.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Henry Story 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 freedom box is
-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 yo
>> 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 yo
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
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
wrote:
> 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 w
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 d
-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 p
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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, nathan nolast wrote:
> i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use (grandma can use it) rule .
of course they do.
propose a solution.
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
htt
>> (grandma can use it) rule .
>
> Can we please stop using "grandma" as the canonical non-technical user?
> The gender and age prejudice implicit in these statements only hurts
> efforts to build a diverse development community (and makes the
> community look like thoughtless jerks).
>
> If you d
On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, nathan nolast
wrote:
i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use (grandma can use it)
rule .
of course they do. propose a solution.
The questions is more " Who decide whitch path we go ".
maybe we shou
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Tony Godshall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, nathan nolast
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> i think keysignings violate lutzs ease of use (grandma can use it) rule .
>>
>> of course they do. propose a solution.
>
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM, nathan nolast 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
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth
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
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 p
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 aspec
On 07/08/2011 12:20 PM, nathan nolast wrote:
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/07/11 14:13, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 12:20 PM, nathan nolast wrote:
>> 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
>> le
Sébastien,
Comments follow inline, but I wanted to say before I begin that this
conversation seems utterly necessary to me at this juncture. I think
that you've presented a workable breakdown of the issues at hand,
though I hold that you've neglected one FreedomBox capacity that I
would consider e
> I only mean to say that I have some doubts
> about the efficacy of on-list conversation, because I do not see much
> participation from members of the TAC.
That's, i think, the consequences of using mail-lists (among other).
What i'm trying
to explain in "Discussion system for FreedomBox Foundat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
On 12/07/11 14:17, Isaac Wilder wrote:
> I think
> that you've presented a workable breakdown of the issues at hand,
> though I hold that you've neglected one FreedomBox capacity that I
> would consider essential.
>
Indeed it was m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/11 15:36, ya knygar wrote:
>> I only mean to say that I have some doubts
>> about the efficacy of on-list conversation, because I do not see much
>> participation from members of the TAC.
>
> That's, i think, the consequences of using mail-li
> 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
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well it looks like the recent news update on the foundation's website
gives answers to many questions. My apologies if I sounded too critical
in my previous posts.
I maintain the suggestion for the working groups, and if anybody is
interested in the p
47 matches
Mail list logo
