naming things: "anonymous" vs "privacy preserving"
SCBuergel opened this issue · comments
Let's consider if "anonymous" is setting the right context. This protocol will not just be used by cryptography researchers but also used by a wider community. For the general public the word "anonymous" is usually used in a negative context and when hearing that term, people usually think about the Anonymous group. As we are trying to improve the status quo at larger scale, the context should be positiv and I like "privacy preserving" as a positive term for expressing the same goals.
I avoid saying anonymous whenever I'm writing carefully, but frequently slip up due to the term being shorter. I'm happy with "privacy preserving" and frequently use it, but occasionally write out "that protects metadata" or "provides metadata privacy" since message contents come under preserving privacy too.
All these terms, including anonymity, are actually ambiguous in that they do not specify that we shall protect senders and receivers from one another. And perhaps "privacy preserving" weathers this ambiguity better than long-but-not-discriptive-enough phrases involving "metadata".
I think everyone here prefers "privacy preserving" over "anonymous" in public, but neither will anyone switch terms perfectly. Tor has tried to rename "Hidden Service" to "Onion Service" for years. ;)
ok then we're aligned - you actually made me aware of this with the title of the presentation at web3 summit.
Consensus to call it privacy-preserving or privacy first.