[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_
From: |
Matija Šuklje |
Subject: |
Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_ |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:19:57 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r10; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) |
Dne torek 6. aprila 2010 ob 12:22:52 je Story Henry napisal(a):
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 10:53, Rob Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:05:32 -0400, Ian Denhardt
<address@hidden>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Here's the problem I see with this: I'm running a gnu social instance
on
> >>
> >> my own server, quite literally a PC sitting under my bed. How do you
> >> justify saying I can't make your name, as it appears on my website,
> >> running on my hardware, a link to anywhere I please? Supposing I
don't
> >> have an instance of GNU Social, I just have a website. should I not
be
> >> allowed to manually link to various people, who may or may not want
me
> >> to do so? It's possible it would be impolite of me, but ultimately
> >> there's a free speech issue there.
I'm all for free speech, but the thing is that legally as well as IRL you
get a clash of privacy vs. free speech. To put it in legalspeek: "One's
right extends only as far as another's begins."
I deliberately put a few quite pervasive methods as examples to provoke a
debate, because I feel this is most definitely one of the biggest problems
we have to solve.
> > Possible solutions:
> >
> > 1. Have "anti-tags" that the software respects by default. Or would
that
> > end up being a source of hilarity like Outlook message recall emails
to
> > mailing lists? They would making searching for embarrassments easier
than
> > simply leaving the original tag unchallenged.
> >
> > 2. Allow people to ignore tags from other instances on their instance,
> > and to not propagate those tags to other instances.
> >
> > 3. Require that tags are confirmed, and simply leave tags unconfirmed
on
> > the other instance if the tagged user declines to confirm them. This
> > avoids the embarrassment flagging problem of 1.
>
> Yes, this is a bit the way foaf:knows works. You can claim you foaf:know
> anyone. This does not require them to link back. For a third party an
> unconfirmed foaf:knows will have less weight (since people can claim
they
> know anyone).
I'm quite partial to a combination of solutions suggested by Rob Myers,
Henry Story, Odin Hørthe Omdal and Ted Smith.
From what I understand (note: IANAC IAAL[1]) it'd be possible to have a
trust-bases tag system by using FOAF for user2user trust, and GPG for
server2server (and user2user?) trust. The more trust a tag (or user) would
have, the more present it would be and vice versa.
Legally speaking there still can be a problem of e.g Aaron running and
maintaining a GNU Social instance where he (or e.g. Ben as a user hosted
on it) would write "Chantalle is a whore, here's a bunch of pics" with
photgraphic "proof" (whether true or fake). In some cases it's "just" a
tort, but in some cases stuff like that can be even a crime. Again: I'm by
far not against free speech, but although such stuff is (hopefully still,
albeit decreasingly!) borderline cases, we do have to take this potential
into account. The question is how do we handle it. Of course a possibility
would be to state in the ToS[2] that each user is legally responsible for
his/her own postings, but we'd have to check how far the host (e.g. Aaron)
can waive such responsibility in diverse legal systems.
That being said, it could be possible to solve the problem with some
_sane_ ToS and the trust-based tagging system. I agree not everything
should be solved by technology (and not everything should be solved by law
either). But the FOAF+GPG trust system seems to me like a good example of
technology offering a tool for the solution.
Such a system would also enable trust or reputation of a user and his
actions. It could be then up to each GNU Social instance or host (e.g.
Aaron) to decide whether to block users who have an abnormally low
trust/reputation, just show the users' trust/reputation and let other
users' decide whether they trust it or not or completely ignore the
reputation system.
The user reputation system can lead into another problem then. As happened
in Second Life, it could happen that mafia-like groups would form who
would blackmail people in order not to vote their trust/reputation down.
This, I imagine, can be avoided by only allowing trust/reputation to be
influenced by people marked as "FOAF:knows".
I hope what I write makes sense (see [1] again). I really don't want to be
the sourpuss, but I think such crucial issues should be tackled beforehand
...even if they have only limited connection to open source, they have a
huge connection with and influence on freedom on the internet!
Cheers,
Matija
-.-.-
[1] I Am Not (much of) A Coder, I Am A Lawyer
[2] Terms of Service
--
gsm: +386 41 849 552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: address@hidden
- [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Jason Self, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Jason Self, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Jake LeMaster, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Simon Fondire-Teitler, 2010/04/05
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Ian Denhardt, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Jason Self, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Rob Myers, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_,
Matija Šuklje <=
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/07
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/08
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Hellekin O. Wolf, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Rob Myers, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, elijah, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Melvin Carvalho, 2010/04/10