[foaf-protocols] Important Video from Zeitgeist 2010 re. Linked Data and Privacy

[Kingsley Idehen]

Nathan wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> If you look at an ODS profile page we already offer 3 modes: public, 
>> private, group (which is where FOAF+SSL ACLs come into play).  The 
>> only thing we are adding is the application of this behavior to all 
>> items rather than a selection. Every Data Object in ODS is endowed 
>> with a de-referencable identifier, so we expect to be very granular 
>> re. FOAF+SSL.
>
> how are you handling the foaf:knows challenge?
>
> #me foaf:knows <my-friends.n3> .
>
> just doesn't float, we need typed documents or hints

Why depend on foaf:knows when there is more granularity in the 
Relationship ontology properties?

Ultimately, we are going to have our own data access policies 
(themselves graphs with inference rules enhanced navigability).
>
>> As for use and abuse, we need to connect HTTP logs to data space 
>> ownership. The referrer links can be sponged to figure out a whole 
>> raft of things including abuse (I tried to explain this to CC folks 
>> at Semtech 2009 last year, but don't know how much resonated with them).
>
> Logs is definitely one approach, and certainly useful in the mid term, 
> I guess ideally we'd have server side applications and people 
> identified by webid's which could then be logged / monitored / banned 
> etc; and on the clientside hopefully digital signatures will provide a 
> means of recognising client side apps.

Yes. its the recognition of "identity" and the power of this capability 
that remains bizarrely mercurial to most.

The "wilder beast or herd mentality" has completely overrun how people 
comprehend the effects of the Web.
>
>>> Indirectly, it also brought to my attention the importance of a 
>>> single channel of communication, or should I say a funnel of 
>>> communication which we can control - the web at present has multiple 
>>> disparate methods of communication from the standard email/xmpp 
>>> through to the plethora of social sites and comments where 
>>> communications can reach us, there is no notion of control, and most 
>>> importantly no notion of a universal filter or universal block - Mrs 
>>> Green cannot find a way to block all communications from her abusive 
>>> ex partner.
>>
>> If ex partner has verifiable identity, it makes things harder for 
>> him. If Mrs. Green is able to construct social-networks based on her 
>> rules she would be better off than she is today re. Internet and Web 
>> enclave.
>
> Hmm, I've always envisioned having a central URI that notifications of 
> messages get POSTed to, open to every(one|thing) with a webid to post 
> to, then Mrs Green could simply place the filter there - regardless of 
> how the message was originally sent, or how it is finally received, 
> that central notification stream / funnel could handle everything from 
> anti-spam to delivery rules, and through to filters.

I would say data spaces associated with smart agents associated with 
Mrs. Green. She needs a smart network based dash board.

Links:

1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7190175107515525470#
2. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html 
-- orthogonal but related to the real issue of network value
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen