1 18:20 <+epitron> have you guys noticed a lot of social-network-aggregators coming out lately?
   2 18:20 <+Skiz_> like over the past few years? yes
   3 18:20 <+epitron> not all social actually... but lots of "manage all your logins in one place" things
   4 18:21 <+epitron> there seems to have been a spike in the last 3 months :)
   5 18:21 <+Skiz_> yeah lots of places are doing that. I don't like it
   6 18:21 <+Skiz_> I prefer to have a bunch of passwords and different logins
   7 18:21 <+epitron> i think it's revealing something i've thought we needed for a long time... some kind of user-controlled personal online appserver like thing
   8 18:22 <+Skiz_> like openid on crack?
   9 18:22 <+epitron> exactly
  10 18:22 <+epitron> some kind of standard that lots of 3rd parties can implement
  11 18:22 <+epitron> and users can pick who they like
  12 18:22 <+epitron> "your computer" isn't as important as "your data"
  13 18:23 <+epitron> and currently, everyone else owns "your data"
  14 18:23 <+epitron> :)
  15 18:24 <+epitron> i have no idea how you'd go about convincing people to use it
  16 18:24 <+epitron> or implement compatability with it
  17 18:24 <+epitron> it seems like it requires a total rethinking of online data storage and how software works
  18 18:28 <+epitron> but, of course, nobody's going to do that..
  19 18:28 <+epitron> we're just going to mess around, and eventually someone will find a hacky patch that works okay for now and that will become the permanent standard
  20 18:28 <+epitron> go humans \o/
  21 18:29 <+Skiz_> why would it?
  22 18:29 <+epitron> why would what
  23 18:30 <+Skiz_> redefine storage... if everyone had a s3 or sdb(ish) that they trusted (set up your own or use someone elses) as a standard for data storage, a simple AMQP client for passing data around would work fine
  24 18:31 <+epitron> oh
  25 18:31 <+epitron> i just mean, the general concept of cloud-based storage
  26 18:31 <+epitron> basically the internet should be rearchitected so that it's content oriented instead of endpoint oriented
  27 18:31 <+epitron> people dont' care about where things are stored, they just wanna know it's authentic
  28 18:31 <+Skiz_> right
  29 18:32 <+Skiz_> it would also handle authentication requests using keys and such. I think zapnap and I touched on that back at rc08.  that and everything being signed as in requests and all data
  30 18:32 <+epitron> what happened at rc08?
  31 18:33 <+Skiz_> too many beers.  just discussing a twitter killer and it ended up refining the entire way data is stored and requested
  32 18:33 <+epitron> haha
  33 18:33 <+epitron> yeah
  34 18:34 <+epitron> i think google is working on this
  35 18:34 <+epitron> but i don't know how they're going to get it off the ground
  36 18:34 <+epitron> (i'm sure they CAN, i just don't know what their plan is)
  37 18:34 <+epitron> they could be doing it through those phones, or their dark fiber cache nodes...
  38 18:35 <+epitron> (previously dark fiber :)
  39 18:35 <+Skiz_> tcp and udp is fine. we already have a transport.
  40 18:35 <+epitron> haha
  41 18:35 <+epitron> SCTP is better
  42 18:35 <+epitron> and that's not really the issue
  43 18:36 <+epitron> the hard thing is that hashing data has possibility of collisions
  44 18:36 <+epitron> and that authentication is tricky
  45 18:36 <+epitron> at the very least, you'd need those two components to be replaceable
  46 18:37 <+epitron> (by authentication i mean.. "identity")
  47 18:37 <+epitron> like.. imagine someone cracked or stole the new york times' private key
  48 18:37 <+epitron> and started releasing fake articles by them
  49 18:38 <+Skiz_> who says you cant do that now?
  50 18:38 <+epitron> ok, so you solve that with a mechanism where the new york times can invalidate their old key and publish a new one
  51 18:38 <+epitron> but now that means that someone who stole their private key can FAKE an invalidation of the old key
  52 18:38 <+Skiz_> we already have 2048bit gpg
  53 18:38 <+epitron> pfft :)
  54 18:38 <+epitron> all encryption protocols are temporary
  55 18:38 <+Skiz_> yup
  56 18:39 <+Skiz_> and so is your binary data
  57 18:39 <+epitron> but identity is not
  58 18:39 <+epitron> (i suppose that's also debateable)
  59 18:39 <+Skiz_> neither is your hacked gmail account or anything else
  60 18:39 <+epitron> (but in this scenario it's longer lived than your encryption keys or your data)
  61 18:39 <+Skiz_> right
  62 18:39 <+epitron> so the problem is the key changeover
  63 18:40  * Skiz_ thinks about ssl signing for sources but eww
  64 18:40 <+epitron> i suppose you could associate some kind of site of "authority"
  65 18:40 <+epitron> like, nytimes' key is authentic if it comes from verisign
  66 18:40 <+epitron> :)
  67 18:40 <+Skiz_> public trust circle as authority
  68 18:40 <+epitron> or some bullshit
  69 18:40 <+epitron> yeah..
  70 18:40 <+epitron> hmmm
  71 18:41 <+epitron> maybe the problem is that this is too virtual
  72 18:41 <+Skiz_> it is
  73 18:41 <+epitron> what if key exchange was rooted in reality :)
  74 18:41 <+Skiz_> thought about that but too slow
  75 18:41 <+epitron> slow can be overcome with prediction
  76 18:41 <+epitron> if you know your key will have to be changed in 6 months, send the new one tomorrow :)
  77 18:42 <+epitron> hmmmm
  78 18:43 <+epitron> this might work...
  79 18:43 <+Skiz_> associate yourself to an authority, get accepted and get your key. sign your data. sounds like ssl.  your signed data would reference the provider 
  80 18:43 <+Skiz_> hrmm internet sucks. I'm going to buy a house instead.
  81 18:44 <+epitron> what if every time someone *physically* interacted with the entity authenticate (eg. nytimes.com), that data is barfed onto the internet
  82 18:44 <+Skiz_> at least I can physically lock the doorts
  83 18:44 <+epitron> so there will be thousands of these interactions
  84 18:44 <+epitron> and it would be really hard to fake
  85 18:44 <+epitron> unless you had an army of people
  86 18:44 <+Skiz_> or a botnet
  87 18:44 <+epitron> but then the attack would be totally obvious
  88 18:44 <+epitron> because you have 2 huge pools of people
  89 18:45 <+epitron> and it would probably become obvious who was the real nytimes
  90 18:45 <+epitron> and if it WASN'T obvious, then they deserve to be the real nytimes ;)
  91 18:45 <+Skiz_> well I was thinking for my collaborative searching  thing would be about the same
  92 18:45 <+epitron> haha.. that would be funny.. if someone was just better at being the nytimes than the nytimes, and they replaced 'em
  93 18:45 <+Skiz_> no more squatters!
  94 18:46 <+epitron> totally
  95 18:46 -!- Skiz_ is now known as Skiz
  96 18:46 <+epitron> what's your collaborate searching thing?
  97 18:46 <+epitron> gnutella style?
  98 18:46 <+Skiz> kinda like delicious but only from friends or friends of friends for your search with higher ranks for more bookmarks which are referenced to pages, etc.
  99 18:47 <+Skiz> kinda like if I wanted to see what new js libs there are.  I'd search it, and use kind of like a linked-in type network of people I know or trusted authorities
 100 18:47 <+Skiz> more of a trend search than a global data store
 101 18:48 <+epitron> you know
 102 18:48 <+epitron> this idea of "friends" is overrated
 103 18:48 <+epitron> i think what we want is "truested people" :)
 104 18:48 <+Skiz> exactly
 105 18:48 <+epitron> friends are different
 106 18:48 <+dagbrown> I think of my livejournal friends list as more a "subscription" list
 107 18:48 <+epitron> i'm not friends with 90% of my internet "Friends"
 108 18:49 <+epitron> they're more acquaintances
 109 18:49 <+Skiz> people you trust to provide good judgement and suggestions from anyway
 110 18:49 <+Skiz> to a point
 111 18:49 <+epitron> but yeah... that trust network thing is great
 112 18:49 <+epitron> the problem is that trust can only be allocated to certain areas
 113 18:50 <+epitron> like, "i trust this guy's judgement about cars, but i don't trust his judgement about brain surgery"
 114 18:50 <+Skiz> right which is your place to see that
 115 18:50 <+epitron> or "i trust this guy to lie about his social policies"
 116 18:50 <+Skiz> and if you searched for brain surgery and theres only 1 hit from 10 levels of people you know...
 117 18:50 <+Skiz> and its his... eh..
 118 18:50 <+epitron> well, if you're doing automated filtering... the automated filter has to know that too
 119 18:50 <+epitron> it can't just treat everyone in your "trusted list" as the same
 120 18:51 <+epitron> i guess it could cast a really wide net, and then you could look down the list
 121 18:51 <+Lars_G> br
 122 18:51 <+epitron> reputation/karma for certain activities might make more sense
 123 18:51 <+epitron> i guess what we need is for the internet to be a brain :)
 124 18:52 <+Skiz> oh gawd no.
 125 18:52 <+epitron> haha
 126 18:52 <+epitron> sorry!
 127 18:52 <+epitron> that's the way it's gotta be
 128 18:52 <+Skiz> I've tried, ran my cpu through the roof
 129 18:52 <+Skiz> word association systems and such with search stuff.  it gets hectic.
 130 18:53 <+Skiz> anyway gtg for a few sorry
 131 18:53 <+epitron> np ttyl