“Oprah warns her social media followers of online imposters: “It’s a fraud. Don’t believe it.” http://abcn.ws/2CU1GDa”
Just the latest in a long line of fraudulent Twitter accounts. How will that be different in the inevitable SAFE version of Twitter? Will it be easier or more difficult to fool readers?
Your identity on the SAFENetwork can be authenticated, even if anonymous. The genuine person can essentially present cryptographic proof that they are who they say they are, which cannot be spoofed by the imposter.
Not different at all because fraud is about tricking people, not tricking computers.
@Traktion is right about one thing. You can tell which safe account. That doesn’t mean you can tell which person.
On the internet, if you see a verified Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook account, if they have links, you can be sure those links are good too. If a singer has a page on her agent’s page, it’s the same. You can follow the leads, piece together what is real.
You know something is real because somebody you trust vouched for it.
“X trusts Y” Safe makes it easy to verify: a) X is really the person you trust, b) X really said that. c) Y is really the person you ask about. Very useful, but only one half of the problem. There needs an X you can trust and there needs a protocol so X can say “I trust Y”.
That you hold your data and can publish in different formats helps to announce an identity. If you have used a SAFENetwork account for years, then start publishing via safe Twitter or whatever, it can be the same identity as you use for safe forum, safe tube, safe book, etc.
By having a single, consolidated, identity, it makes it much easier for people to identify you.
That can be done today can’t it? What’s to keep someone from hijacking your identity on the new Twitter, such as what has happened to Project Decorum on the current Twitter?
You own all your personal data on SAFENetwork, so safe twitter will just be a window into your own, signed, data.
I suspect over time, trusting a new account will be like trusting an insecure web page. With SAFENetwork, all your data is like https and certification will be via reputation and trust networks.
Ofc, people will need to look for authentication infornation, like they look for the padlock in a browser now. Once that education sinks in, we should be in a much better place.
It can be done today to have a single, consolidated identity. You write “THESE ARE ALL MY ACCOUNTS” on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, anywhere. And then you list them. There. Single consolidated identity. Without safe network.
How do you prove it on safe network?
My original point: We need witnesses. Others who say “YES THAT IS THE PERSON” or “YES IT IS TRUE”. Safe network won’t do that for you. People will do that for you. Somebody you already trust.
Cryptographically. You sign all your posted data with your private key. The same private key that you used for your other apps (safe twitter, safe tube, etc).
Consumers of your public key to confirm they were signed by your private key, automatically, via SAFENetwork.
Glorify cryptography much? But I can post on my Twitter account Y: “This is my Facebook account: X”. Then I post on my Facebook account X: “This is my Twitter account: Y”. Same level of trust with no cryptography. (Few people do this but not because it’s hard.)
But you still don’t know who the person behind Facebook X and Twitter Y is.
I, an unknown person with a beautifully consistent virtual identity, can commit as much fraud as I want.
I think you are missing my point. You gain trust and reputation with the first app, then share that reputation with other apps. If you know person X on app1 is who they say are, when they sign messages from app2, you know it is the same person.
It is he building of reputation, which you can then use on all communication, that is the important bit.
Using clear net apps, I cannot do this. I have to trust that twitter, Facebook or whatever is not impersonating anyone. I also have to figure out if the account is genuinely the same person in the first place.
I don’t miss that point. I say that point is only part of the problem. You can solve this part the best but the other half is still unsolved.
Reputation doesn’t grow on tree. Most people are not Bill Gates. Small people need introduction.
Who is Traktion? Will I trust him or her with my money? Who is Norimi? Will you trust him or her with your money or your information?
Trust can be earned in real life because you can know the person and the person’s friends. The safe network is untraceable. You see an argument between two people. You accept one viewpoint. You don’t realize they are the same person. Putting together a play. To make you accept that viewpoint. There. Fraud.
You don’t need to know who I am. All you need to know is that the Traktion who has posted here for the last 3 years, is the same one posting on twitter. If every one of my posts here had been signed by my private key, the signing my twitter posts with the same key connects the 2 apps to my identity.
Now, if I wanted to prove my who my identity represents, I could take steps to do this. However, this may not be important; a whistle blower may not want to prove who they are, but want to prove their work is their own, etc.
I don’t need to know it on this forum. What happens if we start talking about money? Scam artists are good at building fake identities. Not this forum, not much money to win. Maybe I’m naive. Maybe there are many rich people here. Cryptomillionaires. Maybe private massages go between people: “Invest here, invest there. You know me, I’m Traktion from the forum.” Then you win 1 million dollar and 3 years on forum paid well. Hypothetically. For the story. I’m sure you don’t do this. But real identity matters when it matters.
Not debating your point. Debating that it solves the fraud problem. Alone. It helps to make the solution simple, but it is only one half of it. Social network with real people vouching for real people. “This is my friend. I trust him. If you trust me, maybe you can trust him a little too.” It is necessary. (Not for whistleblowers. I agree.)
This is a different issue to impersonating someone. Whether you trust Traktion or not, i could prove I was Traktion, where as someone else will find it much harder (without my private key).
Is the issue of impersonating an imaginary person very different? You build an identity. It looks like a person. It acts like a person. It’s consistent. But it’s fraudulent.
If you can’t steal somebody’s identity that’s good. Only one person will be cheated. One half of the problem is solved. That’s a great result! I mean it. But we need a solution to the other half too.
I think it means that you have to be careful who you trust. Unless a real person has a proven match with an identy, it could be a fake identity.
I suspect that those who need to associate themselves with their SAFENetwork identity will do so. The identity could then be trusted at a personal level. This would be great for those in the public eye. The reverse may be true for whistle blowers, etc.
Safe network is designed to be anonymous, untraceable. It is supposed to be impossible to know who I talk to. Unless they tell me. But are they lying? How to trust?
Yes! This is a common problem. I’m saying that all this time. We need a way to do it well.
See: I have a secret identity “Norimi”. And 3 others? (No, 17! Different name everywhere. Not lying.) I use them for different things. They are “me” but who me is not public.
But I have a public name too. My real name. I use it for things when it matters. If I marry. If I buy stocks. If I sell you my house. We can use government identification and lawyers. (Later, safe network will be government identification? Who knows.)
But there are other times when I want to know you are you and the only you, not a made up persona. My girlfriend knows I am who I am. Do I have a hidden wife? Kids? I said no. Is it true? That’s important! She must be sure she knows I am who I say.
So. We need a way that people can verify real identity. I know you, you know him, he knows her. Now I can trust she is a real person. Thing like that.