darobin / pup

Principles of User Privacy

pup

Principles of User Privacy

pup's Issues

Terminology: deceptive design practices

See the footnote on https://blog.mozilla.org/en/internet-culture/mozilla-explains/deceptive-design-patterns/

Commit history link is dead

It's https://github.com/darobin/pup/commits/gh-pages and should/could be https://github.com/darobin/pup/commits. I would have submitted a fix, but I cannot find this link in the source, so it might be a ReSpec problem?

Exploring digital and real world interfaces

OMG, it's teh @darobin ! Great work! :-) With that opening done, I'd like to explore a case at the intersection between the physical world and the digital world to see if this thinking can be applied there. I believe that it can, so lets go.

Say that two persons, then mutually a user and a first party decides to meet physically for a random sexual encounter, but known to each other entirely under their respective pseudonyms. The pseudonyms provide both with a layer of security, as if they initially find that the mutual trust cannot be established and thus if one decide to leave at that point, their identity has not necessarily been compromised.

Now, say that they record their consent and the conditions for that consent (e.g. both parties provide a verifiable credential that they have been tested recently for STD, that the male party will apply STD-mitigating contraceptives, etc). Then, say that the conditions for that consent is violated, then, at least in my jurisdiction, it becomes a punishable rape.

In this case, the consent, the conditions, the verifiable credentials etc., are all data, very sensitive data even and must be protected appropriately. The result of the physical encounter is not data.

I think that part of the process here is that a mechanism is needed so that the parties can be ensured that they can be re-identified, for example through a court order, and that they agree on those conditions before they enter a situation where this could happen.

The point of this exercise is to provide means to provide evidence in rape cases, as I generally reject the argument that if you plan a random sexual encounter, you've asked for it.

I suspect this will have much broader applicability than this case, and that it therefore needs to be a part of the conceptual framework, perhaps it even makes sense to talk about a "second party", i.e. a party that is trusted by both the user and the first party to make calls like this should things go really wrong. IOW, it is not always a good thing that on the Web, nobody knows you're a pup, errrr a dog ;-)