On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:40:10PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > toad wrote: > >From Frost. Good idea? Bad idea? Given that we will have true opennet > >also? > > I think it's a great idea to introduce friends to one another in a > limited and relatively safe capacity, even if it's just for retrieving > ARKs and traversing NATs. Apart from the direct benefits of improved > connectivity, this would give people a way to test the waters before > making a fully fledged darknet connection.
Well, there are two mechanisms here: - I know A and B. I'm connected to A. A introduces my node to B. I verify a fingerprint value out-of-band with B ASAP. - Connecting to FOAF's to increase connectivity. (As semi-trusted peers, which don't propagate). > > For my own project, I've been thinking about how to balance the private > aspect of the darknet against the social aspect - there's unlikely to be > one answer that suits everyone, so the question is how to make it as > simple as possible for users to express their preferences. > > I suggest having three levels of visibility: private, friends only, and > public. It should be possible to assign a level to any piece of > information: a blog post, a blog comment, a shared file, an entry in a > friends list, or a node's address. Private should be the default. Interesting. > > Example 1: Alice writes a blog post and marks it "friends only". Alice's > friends can see it, but they shouldn't let their friends see it > (obviously this requires trust, like everything else on the darknet). > Bob, one of Alice's friends, comments on the post. Bob is marked > "private" in Alice's friends list, meaning that none of Alice's other > friends can see that Alice and Bob are friends, so none of Alice's other > friends are allowed to see Bob's comment. Carol, another of Alice's > friends, also comments on the post. Carol is marked "friends only" in > Alice's friends list, so Alice's other friends are allowed to see > Carol's comment. > > Example 2: Dave connects to Bob and asks to be marked "public" in Bob's > friends list. Bob marks him as "friends only". In general a friend > should be free to make things less visible than you ask, but shouldn't > make things more visible than you ask. However, there's no way to > enforce this - you have to trust your friends. > > Example 3: Carol shares a directory and marks it "public". This means > that anyone who can see Carol can see the directory. Carol is marked > "friends only" in Alice's friends list, so Bob can see the directory. > Carol shares a second directory and marks it "friends only". Alice can > see this directory, but Bob can't. > > It's possible to be more sophisticated, eg by creating groups and > filters, but in my opinion it's more important for the system to be > understandable than flexible. True. What's your project? Some of the above can and will be done in Freenet, via e.g. Thaw talking to Thaw on peer nodes over node-to-peer messages. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20061115/5ea36239/attachment.pgp>
