Hi Michael, On 11-05-09 at 02:39pm, Michael Blizek wrote: > I can see your point. However, a default of "no risk" would pretty > much mean that you do not share anything at all. While this might be a > sensible default, let's hope that this is not what most people want.
Yes, let's hope that. And make it dead simple for them to choose their own poison! > > Jim activates the box, is asked a few questions, and is then hooking > > up with his friends. > > > > What was he asked? Was he - up front - asked about risk level? > > Nope, that was not necessary, because anything that can be applied a > > default need not be asked - and the sensible default here is "no > > risk!" > > I am not suggesting that [risk level] is the first thing the user is > asked. I am suggesting that if the user want to share ressources, we > educate him about the risks involved - and let him choose what is OK > for him. I agree. My proposed meters are intended as aids for learning. > > First, Jim is asked the very minimal of personalizing his box: Give > > it a name! > > Why does the *box* need a name??? To be reachable. MAC address or IP number is less user unfriendly. > > Technically there is more to it - a cryptograhically unique blob is > > generated, which stays on the box for now but is used later as basis > > for e.g. WebID and GPG. If later creating additional names for > > other members of the household then more such blobs are created, and > > if later doing a reset then the blob(s) are erased from the box. > > You want to use the boxname as a random generator seed for crypto > keys!? No, I don't. But I want to ensure that the box I connect to next time is the same as the one I am now intimate with - not e.g. my brother swapping our boxes around for the fun of it (to pick a mild example). > > Next he is asked if the name is a) private, b) can be revealed when > > anyone asks, or c) is proactively promoted to the world. > > And you need this name for??? The box need that preference to help rank services offered. (Did you perhaps write above before finish reading my post?) > > Above he implicitly made choices affecting the risk level. The > > machine cannot know if he stupidly named the box after his > > creditcard pin code, but if he chose b) or c), we can start show a > > little "risk meter", still far down in the "safe zone". Jim can > > perhaps (depending on the UI) click on this risk meter to get to > > those questions on preferred risk level, but if not it is simply > > informed to him what his actions cause on the risk meter. > > Sorry, but I disagree. Making your name public and maybe even linking > it to your IP is something a would call very high risk. When > publishing stuff, the user has to evaluate the risk for himself. Not "your name" but "the name of your box". So you consider e.g. owning a domain name "very high risk"? I don't. I do consider it very high risk to own a domain name in combination with doing criminal (according to your government, if not to yourself) activities, but such _combination_ is a different matter. I consider "230V AC" as low risk, and "bath tub" as no risk, but "230V AC" and "bath tub" combined I consider a high risk. Please give examples of what you consider low, medium and high risk (not just shoot down my suggestions). > > There is a bunch (well, in first revision a rather tiny bunch, but > > still) of services on the box, and he is done when picking and > > activating at least one of those. > > > > The box need to somehow prioritize what to suggest first - to rate > > the services. Jim already tought the box a tiny hint about risk > > level in the answer of the exposure-of-name question. But too > > little yet. > > This might be a way if your goal is publication and communication. But > I do not see it fit for ressource sharing. How do you expect users to > do ressource sharing without doing any of the > publication/communication stuff? I fail to see it much different, and did hint about resource sharing. Please play along (not just shoot down): Describe how _you_ imagine ressource sharing being experiences by our friendly non-geek end-user. Perhaps your emphasis on solving some details you see as tricky might enlighten me on what you find weak in my draft. > > We don't wanna scare off neither Jim nor the friendly journalists > > checking out the potential doomsday machine, so by default we want > > to suggest some harmless services. > > The problem is rather that services which ask you to publish personal > data are far from harmless. If we do not want to scare people not to > do this, then who should? Let me try play along with you (even if I suspect that I disagree on the premise): our friendly non-geek becomes in danger if using the FreedomBox for blogging. Do I get that right? Then what do you consider sensible to offer our friendly non-geek? Let's talk about user experience that makes sense. > > If Jim chose a) as exposure-of-name, then e.g. Backup-of-PC would be > > proposed first, as that involves only himself and the box. > > And you need the name for... For reaching the box. MAC address or IP number is less user unfriendly. > Sorting lists of services by seemingly unrelated options sounds very > complex and confusing. Mixing ressource sharing into this will not > make it any easier. Why not group them: > > publication/communication: > - email server > - instant messaging/jabber server > - web site: static, blog, ... > - ... > They ask you for network configuration individually (e.g. (dyn)dns, > static IP, tor hidden service, pagekite, ...). > ressource sharing: > - tor server > - who should be allowed to create backups > - ... > They may need to ask you for incoming port, UPnP,... > backup: > - create backup now/scheduled > ftp, ..., use other FB for backup I see no contradiction. Makes perfect sense to me to provide the user with _both_ fuzzy (a.k.a. "complex and confusing") suggestions at an initial summary page (if we for a moment assume that we are talking about a web-based user interface) and _also_ provides a link to a page listing all available services, sorted by some sensible yet static grouping. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
