carlo von lynX: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:47:42AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: >> I have added "FederatedSocialWeb" as a project, which stands for the >> "W3C Federated Social Web Community Group". > > hehe.. http://secushare.org/federation
Well, I am tolerant regarding most of the views expressed on that page ;-) If I had to choose the name of the Community Group again, I probably would propose another more general one. Other decentralised or distributed approaches are welcome and represented in the W3C FSW CG. Changing the name was briefly discussed a few months ago but it is difficult and now would not make sense because the W3C is currently preparing a larger more official Interest Group which likely will simply be named "Social Interest Group". The charter is being discussed. BTW: As long as this discussion is taking place using a federated communication system I do not think that federation has become irrelevant. >> It is extremely >> likely that such a proposal will not lead to a positive result. If such >> a law is accepted it will contain legal requirements to implement >> backdoors in end-to-end encrypted communications for so-called "law >> enforcement" purposes. > > that is off the point. the point to make here is to make people > understand that a legislation that actually implements the > constitution is feasible. it's not about who manages to mess it > up in which way. of course the moment you have it in parliament > it will suffer from harsh attacks on its solidity.. but that > ain't new. and it only gets worse if you didn't even try. That does not convince me to support such a proposal. It is spreading illusions in the European Parliament not educating people. > the pirates have non-representative chair persons saying stupid things. Which by itself says a lot about the party. > where did he say anything like that? http://www.freitag.de/autoren/felix-werdermann/die-empoerung-ist-geheuchelt http://www.piratenpartei.de/2013/07/22/piraten-fordern-reform-der-geheimdienste-und-der-parlamentarischen-kontrolle/ > the official PP-DE position on > secret services is to abolish them, Really? Where? Even if such an "official position" exists it obviously is irrelevant in practice: The secret service supporter Bernd Schlömer is still chairman of the German Pirate Party. > web browsers are not suitable for private communications. they should > be used for accessing websites. They _are_ used for private communications. And I am not aware of any reason why they can not be sufficiently improved regarding security and privacy. > by making that clear in the design > requirements we work towards our goal, creating an alternative to > abusing the web for things it wasn't designed for. There are several good reasons why the (vast) majority of users does not want to install software in addition to a web browser to be able to communicate with others. Alternatives or design requirements which do not take that into account will not lead to a different situation. Cheers, Andreas
