[Auth]status

[Hans Zandbelt]

Hi all,

I'd like to make up my personal intermediate balance concerning IDsec.
I got upset by the following sentence in one of John's first mails:

> You and I established your indifference to the hiding of incidental
> "sites visited metadata" in our long ago conversation. Please, do not
> believe for a moment that your shouting me down then, gives you carte
> blanche to do so now. I did not agree with you then, and I don't now,
> and my reason is unchanged

This is certainly not true and I wanted to prove this to this list.
This is an attempt to take the discussion one step forward, and to
gain personal moral support for further development of IDsec.
Let's leave the remote Profile Manager for further discussion in a
next mail:

After our discussion on the local issues and the "PHP-proof" that I
presented: can we agree that there is no fundamental flaw in the
IDsec local Profile Manager scenario? (Merely practical problems that
need to be worked out and that equally exists in other systems).

So John and others, have I been able to convince you partly yet? If
not I would appreciate it if you speak up how and not wait for
a few months and then bring up the old arguments telling me that I
shouted you down last time.

Thanks,

Hans.

PS: this is by *no* means a vote for IDsec. I just want to get personal
    confirmation at least from some people that I am on the right track,
    along with the other virtual identity initiatives.