OT: Social Networking, Privacy and Control
tbiehn at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 18:48:04 UTC 2011
At the end of the day Social Networks just want to make interactions as
natural as possible so they can continue to mine and monetize your
relationship data as you get more comfortable sharing the 'real you.' Anyone
who hasn't and has an interest in privacy, graph and content ownership on
social networks should check out the Diaspora project.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Christian de Larrinaga
<cdel at firsthand.net>wrote:
> You know I don't need Facebook to introduce (broker) me to anyone! I am
> more than happy managing my own relationships (gradations of trust
> included!) Oh and my friends are distributed in the real world as well!
> This works pretty well even without a "social network" or a "system". When
> the Diginotar certification authority was badly compromised I got a bunch of
> information from many sources using those protocols which span the standards
> sphere of the Internet each bringing information that I value at varying
> levels of trust and applicability. Between and in combination of all this
> input I was able to take action and remove Diginotar from my keychain. I
> could have waited for Apple to stir its stumps but didn't need to.
> All those independent distributed "trust brokers" did a fine job!
> thanks folks!
> On 4 Oct 2011, at 16:38, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > As usual, the underlying issue is one of trust.
> > Alas, I see no theoretical way that distributed systems like Diaspora
> > provide some of the functions that are core to systems like Facebook,
> > by virtue* (vice?) of the fact that they are distributed; there is no
> > Trust Broker.
Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> |
GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com<http://www.travisbiehn.com>
More information about the NANOG