Observations on "A Call for Reciprocal Negotiated Accountability" #1
Description
Three observations on the paper (the intent of which I fully support BTW):
-
In your description of "Privacy zealots" it seems as if you have bundled freedom of speech (censorship resistant blockchain) with the right to privacy. These are both hugely important, but also quite different. The right to live a private life, and the right to say what you think are worth discussing separately.
-
There is a pre-condition for success in the idea of signing and watermarking: we need data that is unsigned to be unusable or at least, much less valuable. If relying parties persist in enabling account creation, and service/product access on the basis that someone knows/has a lot of data about someone else, then identity theft and associated crimes will persist. Data aggregators and brokers don't care if data is signed or not, unless the use of unsigned data has some sort of GDPR'esque penalty (you have no provable right to use this data), we will still have the surveillance economy. The technology alone isn't enough for the tech to work, for this to work we need social, governance, and legal changes too.
-
In the "wire message" diagram I noticed that you added the explanation that the key was ephemeral and symmetric. It made me wonder what key types (asymmetric/symmetric) you are proposing elsewhere. I think it would be worth making that clear in the body text of the article.