On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:53:46PM +0200, J?rg F. Wittenberger wrote: > On Oct 4 2013, carlo von lynX wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:46:59AM -0400, K???ra wrote: > >>On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:49 AM, carlo von lynX > >><[email protected] > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:06:58PM -0400, K???ra wrote: > ... > >>> you can finegrain the /trust for people from 0 to 9 which has some > >>> effects on how much the people see when they /whois you or /surf > >>> your profile. but the fact we have no GUI tools to show all of that > >>> graphically has kept people from actually playing around with that. > >> > >>Does that mean that you can manage your trust of individuals from 0 to 9? > >>That seems arbitrary and rigid. Is there a way to set a level of trust to > > > >it's a _degree, so it is a floating point number. > > This is actually something I don't understand at all. That is, > technically I do, but I don't understand why it _should_ be done > that way in the first place.
Well, seemed like a neat idea.. Maybe we're wrong. :) Not too late to change. > But maybe that's because the permission handling was what started > the whole Askemos project in the first place. We found a nice > way to express permission using sets. (Users start owning a unique > set; they may transfer _strict_ subsets from any set the already own > among each other. That way nobody can accidentally ever relinquish > their full control, but it can express fine grained and rather > complex situations. I didn't understand that, technically. > >>the public? Having different contact groups or "circles" as google calls > > This for instance is - well I've been lying in the paragraph above. > The user starts out owning two sets: their personal set (a.k.a. > "human rights") _and_ a subset of some symbolic "public" right, > whereby this subset allows to read information marked as public > but it does not allow one not modify it. Oink? > >the trust levels serve the purpose to recreate a facebook-like user > >experience. if you want to use psyc in a more high security fashion > >you can use it differently. > > That's precisely where I don't buy into the idea that this can > be done using a single number. Facebook does it with a boolean. Or so. No? -- [email protected] https://lists.tgbit.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/secu-share
