3 ms·

Maybe you do (as long as you pay, of course). Legal protection gives you recourse, but doesn't protect you from malicious adversaries. Shall something bad happe

Maybe you do (as long as you pay, of course). Legal protection gives you recourse, but doesn't protect you from malicious adversaries. Shall something bad happen - you'll lose your identity and will have to seek it back in a court. It's a sort of insurance. Also, that juridical sense isn't international. There are countries that seize or undelegate domains they can reach at whim. There are countries that block other zone domains, mandating Internet traffic filtering within a country. Legal sense doesn't mean a thing against rogue governments. To put it security: I really don't want to trust any other entity but myself to be a source my identities, and find any concept of trusted authorities to be hazardous. Seriously, how come we designed the whole damned network that when I come to someone's place why I happen to need some landlord to confirm (why?) that I am who I am? Isn't this is only a matter between myself and whoever welcomes me on their site?

xorcist 11y ago
> Shall something bad happen - you'll lose your identity and will have to seek it back in a court. That's true for every way to prove identity. For most use cases, it's a feature that you can get it back in court. See also "identity theft". > that juridical sense isn't international. There are countries that seize or undelegate domains they can reach at whim. In a way it's very international. It has never happened in the history of the Internet that one top domain organization has undelegated domains under another top domain. It is true however that you are always subject to your country's laws. But this system is international in a way that none of your other identities are: You can easily get a domain in another country, and that ownership is exclusively managed by that country's laws. > I really don't want to trust any other entity but myself to be a source my identities, That doesn't make for very useful names. I may assert that I am Barrack Obama. You will most certainly not agree. That limits the usefulness of self-asserted identitites. See also "Zooko's Triangle".
- drdaeman 11y ago
  > It has never happened in the history of the Internet that one top domain organization has undelegated domains under another top domain I also haven't heard of such thing. I have heard of few others, though. US had seized a few .com domains, and I doubt they cared about citizenship of registrar. Russian government had requested un-delegation of few .ru ones, and blocking any access (ISP-level) to many others across the world. Australian .oz ccTLD was moved to .oz.au. Yugoslavian .yu ccTLD is gone and doesn't exist anymore. It was once feared that .su would also begone, but it had survived for some weird reason, although - who knows - for how long? I think a few email accounts I had registered in early '00s are long gone, some with the very email providers. But I still have my old private key I've created a decade ago. That's what I know about the credentials. YMMV, of course, and - sure - I know a few peers who had lost their keys. > I may assert that I am Barrack Obama Sure, and while I suppose it's not your name, I bet there is not a single Mr. Obama in this world. Zooko's triange is fine, identity system doesn't need unique names - a natural one doesn't have those anyway. We don't require worldwide login (username) uniqueness, right? If for some reason we want to know it's real US President Obama who wrote a message or signed up on a site, we need an assertion on his identity from US Govt, don't see any issues with this. And, duh, I bet he has a few tamper-resistant tokens that hold some signed keys, to sign his mail and whatever. I would be very surprised if he doesn't.

xorcist 11y ago

> Shall something bad happen - you'll lose your identity and will have to seek it back in a court. That's true for every way to prove identity. For most use cases, it's a feature that you can get it back in court. See also "identity theft". > that juridical sense isn't international. There are countries that seize or undelegate domains they can reach at whim. In a way it's very international. It has never happened in the history of the Internet that one top domain organization has undelegated domains under another top domain. It is true however that you are always subject to your country's laws. But this system is international in a way that none of your other identities are: You can easily get a domain in another country, and that ownership is exclusively managed by that country's laws. > I really don't want to trust any other entity but myself to be a source my identities, That doesn't make for very useful names. I may assert that I am Barrack Obama. You will most certainly not agree. That limits the usefulness of self-asserted identitites. See also "Zooko's Triangle".

drdaeman 11y ago
> It has never happened in the history of the Internet that one top domain organization has undelegated domains under another top domain I also haven't heard of such thing. I have heard of few others, though. US had seized a few .com domains, and I doubt they cared about citizenship of registrar. Russian government had requested un-delegation of few .ru ones, and blocking any access (ISP-level) to many others across the world. Australian .oz ccTLD was moved to .oz.au. Yugoslavian .yu ccTLD is gone and doesn't exist anymore. It was once feared that .su would also begone, but it had survived for some weird reason, although - who knows - for how long? I think a few email accounts I had registered in early '00s are long gone, some with the very email providers. But I still have my old private key I've created a decade ago. That's what I know about the credentials. YMMV, of course, and - sure - I know a few peers who had lost their keys. > I may assert that I am Barrack Obama Sure, and while I suppose it's not your name, I bet there is not a single Mr. Obama in this world. Zooko's triange is fine, identity system doesn't need unique names - a natural one doesn't have those anyway. We don't require worldwide login (username) uniqueness, right? If for some reason we want to know it's real US President Obama who wrote a message or signed up on a site, we need an assertion on his identity from US Govt, don't see any issues with this. And, duh, I bet he has a few tamper-resistant tokens that hold some signed keys, to sign his mail and whatever. I would be very surprised if he doesn't.