A couple years ago, I would be right there with you. But I see it differently now, which is why I’m trying out other tactics for a more “open data”-centric world (much like how our world is more “open source”). So with ibGib (NB the big scary privacy disclaimer), I am focusing more on two things primarily:
So, for example WRT identification, every ibGib (it’s like a “thing” or “datum”) is identified with at least one identity. And you can log in with multiple email addresses, “layering them” as more evidence of your identity - very much like claims-based identity. In the future, I’ll have more methods: OAuths most likely, but maybe not user/pass because it’s so weak.
As for content “guarantees”, most ibGib contain a sha256 hash of its data content (and ib and rel8ns), so a client could check this hash against the content to help battle tampering.
I’m working on other dynamics as well, but overall the goal is to get the data used for data analytics that is already being collected by the big entities “into the light” for use in a distributed information system by “the rest of us” in order to protect ourselves from the “secret police” mentioned in that article. In the end, it’s always possible for end users [*1] to privately encrypt their data, but then they don’t get the benefits that come with transparency.
So I personally think it’s more of a concern about governments cracking down on censorship. “Live in the Light” just isn’t possible without Freedom of Speech!
[*1] Or consumers of the API when I get the write side done - only the read API is currently implemented similar to a CQRS design.
Currently, I’m working bit by bit with the repo’s wiki, but I am planning on doing the website content with that info once the next interactive “multiplayer” version of ibGib comes out…but you’ve inspired me to create an issue on it!