[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox 'bump/hi-five' challenge

Erik Harmon erik.e.harmon at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 20:00:50 UTC 2011

On Jun 24, 2011 1:26 AM, "John Gilmore" <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> In a decentralized network with cryptographic protection, each
> person's key should represent themself -- not their name, not their
> driver's license, not their address, not their passport.  They can be
> "Uncle Charlie" in one person's freedombox, and "Charles Knox, Esq."
> in another's.  In a third freedombox, the key could represent "Guy I
> met at fish dinner with JoAnn, March 2011".  Or "Chuck who I always
> see in the library on Tuesdays".
> The implication for FreedomBox design is that a user's key should be
> transmitted WITHOUT further identifying information.  Any identifiers
> for a received key should be provided by the receiving party.

I think there are two users with conflicting user stories here. The regular
user probably wants the assurances of legal identity and the web of trust.
The activist does not. They are both freedombox users. In different contexts
the same person may be one or the other. I don't think it's a good idea to
manage both in the same application, or at least not in the same keyring
however that may work. My two cents.

> Not automatically tying a key to a self-claimed identity, nor a
> government-issued identity, nor even a photo, will help freedom
> fighters stay free when the government grabs somebody and tries to
> find all their collaborators.  And I think it simplifies the security
> model, while still providing what our applications need, which is a
> way to identify someone at a distance [over the network] as a
> particular person who we have interacted with before.
> Of course, people are free to snap a photo, with permission, when
> exchanging keys; or to photograph the other person's business card
> or vCard, or type in a full name.  Or even a driver's license number.
> But this shouldn't be required, and I don't even think it should be
> the default.
> This concept is only a few weeks old; I could've missed some big
> reasons not to do it this way.
>        John
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110624/b1b8a170/attachment.html>

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list