Every user could publish a profile page that includes a photo and solicit endorsements from friends and family and link themselves into the family tree of all humanity. Two or more trusted entities would certify that the person claiming the account matches the photograph and/or other identifying information. This could be implemented with something as simple as netverify and/or competing services.
Obviously I must be misreading this... In order to use steemit, you want a photo of me in the near future, and have other verified people verify it is me in the picture? Even if a 3rd party "Validator" is the one to verify me and my personal photo or info sits on their hard drive somewhere?
Everything gets hacked on the internet. Everything. My photo, if not uploaded, never can get hacked, but it was never uploaded in the first place. I like that privacy.
How does this help free speech if I have to stick my face next to something I say that might be against the policies of govt, etc?
How would this deter doxing people, facial recognition by big brother, etc?
This is really pedaling backwards here.
I'm going to consider you are writing this tongue-in-cheek Dan to prove a point, maybe to someone else, who chronically thinks this is a great idea. This is really taboo thinking. I don't care how decentralized identity verification is... it's still a way to track, monitor, and corral people, which can be abused by a state entity at some point. If there is a will, there is always a way.
Not really, with an identity verifier they don't necessarily need to save that data; just verify it and sign it.
I see the "Hybrid solution" as just a thought exercise to get us to think about solving the problem in one way. It does not have to be perfect now. If "Hybrid solution" gains ground then that would obviously need to be addressed.
I think most agree about this.. But remember the anonymous layer. Any person take a picture and know your name, that is not a big deal; it is info that is widely available. It is only if you can tie that picture to activity that the person wants to keep private. Cryptography can provide a layer of separation between the two.
I disagree. It has to be perfect now. If it isn't it will be abused. If it isn't abused, it will be used by those who we don't want to assign rights to use it. (ie: state entity or corporations).
You cannot launch a system, get adoption and fix it later. It needs to be fixed and perfect before launch..
That's why the internet and email and spam and DDoS are so uncontrollable. They said "it does not have to be perfect now". What a mess has been created as a result. Especially when you have hardware devices as part of the system. You cannot easily change every operating system, every computer, every router, every firmware, every phone when you change interopability standards very easy.
The rush to launch proof of uniqueness in our lifetimes will not be solved.
To be fair, those systems were all designed during a time when every node on the internet was already well known and sysadmins had a duty to monitor abuse and nip it in the bud right away.
See also BOFH
If we attached civil liabilities to companies and their executives who failed to address abuse issues those issues would go away pretty much overnight. Otherwise it's just a cost center.
You can get the answer from the same post ^^^ ... (no?)