On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > In particular, none of [the "social network" tools] permit me to > maintain, with a single nominal identity, different circles of > acquaintances for different purposes and with different trust and > influence relationships between and within each, an issue that was > clearly understood in the literature by the time I started reading it in > the first half of the 60s. LiveJournal allows you to subset your "friends" to provide relatively fine-grained access control to your posts, but it doesn't let you encode the more complicated relationship topologies that you're hinting at. In practice most people can't be bothered with complicated privacy arrangements and stick with friends-only or public in almost all cases. Facebook has an intermediate level of locality-based "networks" which let you reveal more to people physically near you (at the same university) than to the unwashed masses, but still keep things back for your friends. http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ is an interesting article about young people's attitude to privacy. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ NORTH UTSIRE: EAST OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5 IN SOUTH LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf