On 13.11.2010 4:38, [email protected] wrote:
> 2010/11/12 Matthew Toseland <[email protected]>:
>> On Friday 12 November 2010 13:08:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Gerard Krol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Ian Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I must agree with Matthew on this. Asking for a password is defending
>>>>> against someone gaining unauthorized access to their computer, but that
>>>> is a
>>>>> bit like closing the gate after the cows have escaped. If someone has
>>>>> access to your computer then you are pretty-much an open book to them
>>>>> anyway. All demanding a password does is inconvenience the user, it
>>>> won't
>>>>> thwart an attacker.
>>>>
>>>> This *is* a question of usability right? Users are used to entering a
>>>> password when logging in.
>>>
>>> With websites, perhaps, but not with their own software.
>>>
>>>> Writing usable software is often doing what the user expects instead
>>>> of what actually makes sense to us technical people.
>>>
>>> This is true, to some extent, but I don't think it should extend so far as
>>> creating completely unnecessary inconveniences, like demanding a password
>>> for no added security benefit.
>>
>> Yes, but this is confusing:
>>
>> If they set HIGH physical seclevel, they need a password to unlock the
>> client layer - probably including all the pseudonymous identities, but then
>> they log in without a password?
>>
>> This is somewhat counter-intuitive, maybe it *is* worth considering
>> one-client-layer-and-client-cache-per-identity, with the password optional
>> but used for encryption if present? Then we could get rid of the physical
>> security setup...
>>
>> The main difficulty is what to do with the other identities when we switch -
>> the user probably doesn't want to shut them down and stop their downloads
>> just because he wants to post as anonymous. So maybe this is a bad idea?
>>
> What we could do is:
> - either, having several identities tied to an account (so once the
> account is logged in, no need for a password for the identity, just
> choose which one you want to use); so, with this we have a separation
> between the account (1 per real user) and the identities (several per
> real user).
> - either, and I don't know how or if it is feasible, having several
> accounts which can run concurrently. Basically what you proposed (at
> least I think), but with the option for the user when logging out to
> keep the activities of this account running.
>
> I have a question regarding identities btw: how is it managed when we
> have several identities (do the identities share the trust list of a
> "main" identity? each identity has its own trust list? ...)
In WoT if trust lists are exactly the same, and change at the same time it would
imply that it's the same person, thus it would be a requrement to keep them
separate. You can connect one to another of course.
- Volodya
--
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
