4 ms·
Jokes/nostalgia aside, you don't really even need fancy encryption mechanisms. All that's important is that you only use the internet to interact with trusted p
by brundolf 4y ago
Jokes/nostalgia aside, you don't really even need fancy encryption mechanisms. All that's important is that you only use the internet to interact with trusted parties, vs treating it as a public square where you can ~generally tell whether someone is a real person. A domain name, an email address, a social media username, etc are all as trustworthy as they are right now as long as you've verified the person is real through some non-digital channel first (or someone you trust has)
I think the public social internet will die (for anything other than entertainment), but the direct-communication internet will look largely the same as it does today
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago> as long as you've verified the person is real through some non-digital channel first (or someone you trust has) At some point though, we're going to want to see how far we can take transitive trust. I'm not sure what the case will be, but sometimes you wanna say "who's with me?" and hear more than your handful of meatspace friends.
- brundolf 4y agoYeah. I can see web-of-trust mechanisms similar to the ones Google uses to try and determine quality sites, or how Facebook used to be for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. There's some territory to explore here. But for the core, IRL connections, online communication should still mostly work as-is Interesting idea: a social network that attempts to verify that two people actually met as real humans in-person, to increase the trust you have in friends' extended trust networks
- mr_mitm 4y agoSpeaking of which, why doesn't Threema or Signal use the web of trust? They already have the key verification feature. Is it due to privacy concerns?
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoSignal didn't store your social graph on the server, it's only device side (privacy reasons). So a query for transitive trust would have to be implemented in a p2p way. I could see that becoming problematically combinatoric.
- mr_mitm 4y agoWe already have the digital channels in place. In Germany, the ID cards can do NFC and are part of a PKI. You can use them with your phone to prove that you are not underage, for example, and the other party will only get a signed boolean value. It's actually done quite well considering our state of digitalization. Of course that comes with a host of different issues in the context of our discussion, like destroying pseudoanonymity.
- brundolf 4y agoRight, but that's what I'm saying. You don't need any of that; the only thing you need to verify out-of-channel (i.e. in-person) is that "a real human exists and they've told me that x@y.com is their email address". From there on, regular internet auth/encryption is sufficient to ensure you continue interacting with that real human over email
- mr_mitm 4y agoGotcha. I think I would kind of welcome it if AI caused people to focus more on the offline world. Perhaps real life meetings will flourish because of this development. Perhaps artists will make art again for intrinsic reasons, because commercializing art will be even harder than it is now.
- flangola7 4y ago>A domain name, an email address, a social media username, etc are all as trustworthy as they are right now as long as you've verified the person is real through some non-digital channel first (or someone you trust has) Until they've been compromised. A bot could train itself on their messages and photos and emulate them.