On Oct 4 2013, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:46:59AM -0400, K???ra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:49 AM, carlo von lynX
<[email protected]
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:06:58PM -0400, K???ra wrote:
...
> you can finegrain the /trust for people from 0 to 9 which has some
> effects on how much the people see when they /whois you or /surf
> your profile. but the fact we have no GUI tools to show all of that
> graphically has kept people from actually playing around with that.
Does that mean that you can manage your trust of individuals from 0 to 9?
That seems arbitrary and rigid. Is there a way to set a level of trust to
it's a _degree, so it is a floating point number.
This is actually something I don't understand at all. That is,
technically I do, but I don't understand why it _should_ be done
that way in the first place.
But maybe that's because the permission handling was what started
the whole Askemos project in the first place. We found a nice
way to express permission using sets. (Users start owning a unique
set; they may transfer _strict_ subsets from any set the already own
among each other. That way nobody can accidentally ever relinquish
their full control, but it can express fine grained and rather
complex situations.
the public? Having different contact groups or "circles" as google calls
This for instance is - well I've been lying in the paragraph above.
The user starts out owning two sets: their personal set (a.k.a.
"human rights") _and_ a subset of some symbolic "public" right,
whereby this subset allows to read information marked as public
but it does not allow one not modify it.
the trust levels serve the purpose to recreate a facebook-like user
experience. if you want to use psyc in a more high security fashion
you can use it differently.
That's precisely where I don't buy into the idea that this can
be done using a single number.
Best
/Jerry
....
-- [email protected]
https://lists.tgbit.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/secu-share
