Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Tagging WWW data to build decentralized systems

Expand Messages
  • Lucas Gonze
    But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the tweet was flushed out of the update stream? ... What if the owner of the encryption key
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 23, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the
      tweet was flushed out of the update stream?

      > [LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
      > http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]

      What if the owner of the encryption key signed that URI for some other
      reason? It seems like merely signing the URI only indicates a LOOK
      assertion when everybody who signs anything buys into the LOOK
      protocol.


      On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Robin Upton <lists2008@...> wrote:
      >> How would I use this on Twitter? Can you give an example?
      > I've never used Twitter, so I may be wrong, but I think that their URLs
      > are of the form http://twitter.com/USERNAME containing a bunch of recent
      > tweets and a bio. Better than tweeting it would be to just post it on
      > the bio, since otherwise it would drop off your page. To link your
      > public XYZ Key to http://twitter.com/gonze, you could create a LOOK as
      > follows:
      >
      > [LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
      > http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]
      >
      > and post it in the bio section. If you can only post text, you'd have to
      > just post text and suffer an ugly looking bio, but if they allow you to
      > post hyperlinks there, then you could tuck this crypto stuff out of the
      > reader's eye by having it as the href of a hyperlink. (Ideally, without
      > any anchortext - if could still be detected by software, which could
      > alert the user that someone with XYZ key wanted it associated with that
      > page).
      >
      > Robin
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Robin Upton
      ... Yes ... This is a very good point, Lucas. How about the following modification? Combine another URI (just to work as an identifier) with the URI: LOOK
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 23, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 06/24/2010 03:36 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
        > But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the
        > tweet was flushed out of the update stream?
        >
        Yes
        > What if the owner of the encryption key signed that URI for some other
        > reason? It seems like merely signing the URI only indicates a LOOK
        > assertion when everybody who signs anything buys into the LOOK
        > protocol.
        >
        This is a very good point, Lucas. How about the following modification?
        Combine another URI (just to work as an identifier) with the URI:

        LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" key="XYZ Key"
        value="[signed "meaning=http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner uri=http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]

        This complicates it somewhat, but
        i) Removes the possibility that keyholders had signed that for some
        other purpose,
        ii) Allows keyholders to add their own meanings.
        i.e. I could have a "Vote on this" page, inviting people to submit a
        LOOK in a textarea,
        either http://mysite.com/yeah or http://mysite.com/nay etc.

        Robin
      • Robin Upton
        ... Yes ... Very good point. How about this modification. Add a URI to the mix, e.g. ... Although adding complexity, it would: 1) Stop cut-and-paste creation
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 23, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On 06/24/2010 03:36 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
          > But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the
          > tweet was flushed out of the update stream?
          >
          Yes
          >> [LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
          >> http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]
          >>
          > What if the owner of the encryption key signed that URI for some other
          > reason? It seems like merely signing the URI only indicates a LOOK
          > assertion when everybody who signs anything buys into the LOOK
          > protocol.
          >
          Very good point.
          How about this modification. Add a URI to the mix, e.g.
          > [LOOK meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
          > (meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" uri="http://twitter.com/gonze") ]"]
          >
          Although adding complexity, it would:
          1) Stop cut-and-paste creation of other people's LOOKs,
          2) Allow people a URI to express what they mean
          So publishing a vote, people could submit

          [LOOK meaning="http://yoursite.com/etc/YEAH" uri="http://yousite.com/etc/votepage.html" ]
          [LOOK meaning="http://yoursite.com/etc/NAY" uri="http://yousite.com/etc/votepage.html" ]

          Robin
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.