hal@finney.org writes:
> One problem with such databases is the liability of the distributor if
> the information is challenged. I'm not sure how the BBB gets around that.
> Maybe the inaccessibility of the information helps them to keep a low
> profile.
Forthcoming anonymous publishing systems (Freenet, Mojonation et al.)
can make maintainer of such a database immune from prosecution. The
publishers of the individual records can choose to remain anonymous or
reveal their identity (by signing their record with their public
digital signature).
> The cypherpunks talk about data havens, offshore or crypto-hidden
> databases which could record and disseminate information without being
> bound by legal regulations. They would hold this kind of reputation
> information and make it available for a fee.
I'm not sure the fee is necessary. Unless you build an (not
necessarily linked to realspace identity, in fact that might be quite
a bad idea) authority as maintainer of a database, and want to cover
your operation costs that way.
> Such systems would have the advantage of making more information available
> which would help people to make better decisions. On the other hand
> there would be problems with inaccurate information, plus people who
> had bad reputations would have a harder time walking away from them.
> Current credit databases are required to purge data after a certain
> number of years, but presumably an unregulated data haven would happily
> inform a creditor of your bad debts from decades past.
If you allow anonymous negative submission, you allow slander (a DoS
on a reputation, e.g. Quaker bashing Nestle). If you only allow
authenticated negative submissions, you expose critics to potential
legal prosecution ("I (John Doe) bought a box of cereal from Nestle,
and it sucked"), since a past transaction in real space can be matched
to to an alternative identity. If you allow anonymous positive
submission, and creation of anonymous identities is cheap, a bad apple
might create quite a few of alter egos, and brush up his reputation
undeservedly (Nestle's tentacles saying only nice things about
Nestle).
Otoh, if you allow only positive nonanonymous submissions (subjective
evaluations of transaction of A with B digitally signed by one or both
of the parties), it is not obvious what the incentive to sue would be
(of course, in the current topsy-turvy legal world, those without a
recorded positive accomplishment/interaction track might successfully
sue the maintainer of the database, or anybody who is saying something
positive about their peers but not them in the name of "maintaining
equal chances" or somesuch rubbish -- there's nothing to be done about
a corrupt system apart from fleeing its area of influence).
Of course then a homo novus would have a much harsher time, having no
reputation track (or even a worse than neutral track, by all the bad
apples maquerading as newcomers), but this only reflects already
existing situation.
> Without meaning to seem pitiless or tough, it is arguably valuable
> for all parties in a proposed transaction to know the history of their
> counterparts, and then to decide for themselves how much to discount or
> ignore past misbehavior. In the present system, Big Brother in effect
Indeed. You can always create a new identity, and start from scratch,
leaving bad mana behind. Of course, exactly such behaviour will drag
new players' ratings down, but hey, it's a tough old world.
> lays down the laws of mercy, saying, thou shalt forgive everything that
> happened more than X years ago (and to make sure, we'll prevent you from
> knowing about it).
I think this is a quite rotten attitude. I hope Mojonation & Co will
fix that.
>
> Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:37 MDT