Users should not sign documents

The cool thing is that you are working on an ontology for conversations in a solid environment where contributions are on separate pods. I look forward to seeing it as it evolves :sun_with_face:

1 Like

Wait, what do you mean, “you deleted it”?

Is it not online? I have had hard times with my website, I need to know ^^

I edited that post. Its back now. I was not able to get to it last night for a while though. I was worried that you deleted it, so I’m glad to see you didn’t. I think what you’re doing is really cool :grinning:

Tangential, but on

In this regard, there is a little war with other web decentralization projects, and we need to showcase that our approach is the best.

Why do you have this perception? In any case, if you refer to the fediverse, the opposite is true: there is outreach for guidance and steering, common direction, but little response so far. The decentralized web needs convergance, not further fragmentation.

1 Like

No, I was thinking of non-linked-data approaches. This was indeed not clear, so I rephrased it.

1 Like

Thanks! :+1:

Hi @divoplade,

When you say

“If you have merged the data, you can count how many times the contribution is marked accepted, submitted and rejected, and on which graph it is marked as such.”

Does that mean that each participant keeps a graph of the conversation? I’m still reading through and trying to understand. Thanks for your patience!

1 Like

btw I started a new thread for this topic…

1 Like

I’m really quite alarmed with the assertion that users should not digitally sign documents. Ill effects of digitally signing a document is NOT a good reason for simply not signing any documents.

We live in a world of DeepFakes and pervasive fake news. The whole point of PKI (ok, you skip a lot of that. Let’s say “asymmetric cryptography”) is the same as for a wax seal on an envelope. You know that it was from a certain sender. And, you know that no one else has read it. In other words, it’s a solid assurance that it is tied to identity. It fosters personal responsibility. Yes, you should think carefully before digitally signing a document. And, it should be clear what that signature means. And, use a different key pair for signing and authentication (good practice). But, this enables personal responsibility on the Internet. It’s essential, today going forward.

This is funny, because your wax seal example demonstrates my point.

When you get a sealed envelope, you are certain that the message is from who you think. But once you remove the seal, it is not possible anymore to prove that the content of the message came from that person. Only you know it. This is good and desirable.

Which is why PKI (a.k.a. asymmetric cryptography) is MUCH better. Less vulnerable to steaming, too.

Yes, it is the wax seal for a modern age.

I must say I’m very passionate. I’m very invested in enabling “digital signatures everywhere” in order to combat fake news and to establish personal responsibility for news articles. It’s important that digital signatures play a role in “fixing the Internet”. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I do. It leads to more harassment and abuse. It leads to a mentality of “Don’t speak if you can’t take the responsibilities”, which translates to “Don’t speak if you’re not from the dominant class”, which is a very bad direction for the web.

So, you think that digital signatures can enable oppression of lower classes? I think just the opposite. I think that the senators who make back room deals are exposed in an environment where each of their actions is digitally signed and that signature is publicly visible.

I think that outside of some of these people, others are glad their activities are not recorded and exposed forever. In the contrary, I think Wikipedia is a great place to document the abuses of public figures.

What about digitally signing Wikipedia entries? More than just about anyplace else, Wikipedia needs to know that the information posted is accurate. That signature doesn’t need to be visible to the public (unless someone is personally taking responsibility for the content). But, the site administrators need accountability from contributors.

Wow. The ramifications of outing dozens of Moroccans didn’t have the effect that was desired. Instead, there was a huge backlash against those who were outed. Shouldn’t the person who outed them take responsibility for the collateral damage?

As for wikipedia: the authenticity of a document is verified by historical and journalism work, not by the signature of some random person. Why do you think signing wikipedia entries would make them more accurate? What if I signed an article that says I am always right, no matter what?

As for private signature, this it not good either, because a private signature can be made public and do its harm. This is the problem with the dating application. You need to share some data with strangers, but then you want this data to disappear in case a problem arises. Imagine if all gays in Morocco had to sign a document saying they are gay before being able to date. Now, a random person can make a list of gay people along with a proof that they are gay, sign it with some random key and now what? There are a lot more than dozens of gays in Morocco. The outing can strike them all, and the outer can still evade all responsibilities.

Regarding digital signatures, either I’m extremely idealistic (well, at least a little) or you are extremely cynical. The real effect of digital signature is likely to land somewhere in between.

I think the “in between” will be like PGP for e-mail: a very few people will still do that, while the vast majority of the rest will adopt a safer wax-seal-like approach.

(for email, this would be SPF records or DKIM headers, for instance.)