Difference between revisions of "Access"
(Created page with "Access is understood in terms of permission and consent. Consent is at the human level, it is related to a purpose. Permission is related to the mechanics of access...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
An agent-centric system puts consent before, the purpose is supposed to drive access and even revoke permissions. | An agent-centric system puts consent before, the purpose is supposed to drive access and even revoke permissions. | ||
| − | [[Permissionless]] systems are purely consent based. | + | [[Permissionless]] systems are purely consent based. An interesting case was when the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO DAO was "hacked"] on [[Ethereum]] the community forked [[Ethereum]] and reverted back to erase the hackers damage. That action was possible because [[consent]] was broken, even if permissions were granted. The individual who did the damage was seen as a hacker, painted in a negative way, because he broke consent. The hacker tried to justify his actions saying that code is law and he used the code to exploit all its capabilities, therefore nothing wrong was done. In his argument he didn't make the distinction between consent and permission. |
Latest revision as of 20:02, 13 October 2023
Access is understood in terms of permission and consent.
Consent is at the human level, it is related to a purpose. Permission is related to the mechanics of access, credentials.
An agent-centric system puts consent before, the purpose is supposed to drive access and even revoke permissions.
Permissionless systems are purely consent based. An interesting case was when the DAO was "hacked" on Ethereum the community forked Ethereum and reverted back to erase the hackers damage. That action was possible because consent was broken, even if permissions were granted. The individual who did the damage was seen as a hacker, painted in a negative way, because he broke consent. The hacker tried to justify his actions saying that code is law and he used the code to exploit all its capabilities, therefore nothing wrong was done. In his argument he didn't make the distinction between consent and permission.