<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Distinguishing communities for fun and profit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/</link>
	<description>XML, identity, crafting, and other tangled musings</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pushing String &#187; Mutual authorization</title>
		<link>http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/#comment-2343</link>
		<dc:creator>Pushing String &#187; Mutual authorization</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/#comment-2343</guid>
		<description>[...] Now, because you&#8217;re a human, the technical methods for achieving this other half don&#8217;t necessarily look exactly like the methods used in the traditional half. For example, Liberty&#8217;s identity web services framework (which is normally a back-channel, machine-to-machine sort of thing) has what it calls an interaction service, which allows an identity service to check with a human to gain their consent in synchronous fashion before releasing information about them. Robin&#8217;s post linked above quotes Kim Cameron, who is commenting on the legal aspects of circles of trust: Now, perhaps I am just a man with a hammer who sees everything in the world as a nail, but the paper reinforced my thinking that the more our systems are built to guarantee that the user is the conscious agent of information release (rather than having this done on his behalf), the better privacy is served, and the simpler our lives become from a legal and policy point of view. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Now, because you&#8217;re a human, the technical methods for achieving this other half don&#8217;t necessarily look exactly like the methods used in the traditional half. For example, Liberty&#8217;s identity web services framework (which is normally a back-channel, machine-to-machine sort of thing) has what it calls an interaction service, which allows an identity service to check with a human to gain their consent in synchronous fashion before releasing information about them. Robin&#8217;s post linked above quotes Kim Cameron, who is commenting on the legal aspects of circles of trust: Now, perhaps I am just a man with a hammer who sees everything in the world as a nail, but the paper reinforced my thinking that the more our systems are built to guarantee that the user is the conscious agent of information release (rather than having this done on his behalf), the better privacy is served, and the simpler our lives become from a legal and policy point of view. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Superpat</title>
		<link>http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>Superpat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/archives/2005/06/06/distinguishing-communities-for-fun-and-profit/#comment-363</guid>
		<description>Libertines? :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Libertines? :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
