Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What Airbnb's Blockchain Authentication Proposal Means For Online Privacy (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on from the what-about-anonymous-bnb dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Nathan Blecharcyzk, one of the co-founders at home rental platform Airbnb, has detailed the company's interest in blockchain technologies to help establish user reputation and trust. He revealed that in 2016 Airbnb would be looking into blockchain integration, or a similar distributed ledger system, to authenticate a user's reputation and establish trust on the platform. The proposal marks a potentially revolutionary step for e-commerce sites and peer opinion platforms looking to identify and filter out damaging reviews planted by competitors and trolls, or self-promoting posts which can mislead consumers. However, while protecting the integrity of some, the introduction of a blockchain-based reputation system holds a potential threat to anonymity and privacy online. A distributed and irreversible system for trust management, which stores personal data, could offer a hotbed for doxing and identity theft – and even undermine an individual's right to be forgotten.

9 of 44 comments (clear)

  1. Right to be forgotten by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    Right to be forgotten...I can see the Slashdot rebellion against this article already.

    1. Re:Right to be forgotten by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. The concept is bullshit. But I'm sure these people would be the first to crowdfund the neuralyzer (flashy thingy), and make it a mandatory installation on all displays.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Right to be forgotten by Skewray · · Score: 2

      Right to be forgotten...I can see the Slashdot rebellion against this article already.

      Why? There is no such thing as a right to be forgotten. We don't rebel against Santa Claus, do we?

  2. Blockchain is irrelevant by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What AirBnB really needs is a Trust network - if they implement it on top of a blockchain, then they'll need a blockchain maintenance infrastructure, but either way, they need to establish a Trust network.

    1. Re:Blockchain is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is all overkill. They just need to ONLY allow reviews for properties from customers that have actually PAID to stay at that property. Each reviewer would have an indicator of how many nights they have paid for and how many reviews they have made. Simple, effective, and understandable.

    2. Re:Blockchain is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that could also be negated pretty easily by introducing penalty clauses for last minute cancellations.

    3. Re:Blockchain is irrelevant by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      The last minute cancellation (and we've experienced this on other networks, not just AirBnB) would be pretty easily revealed in stats:

      1) How many vendor initiated cancellations?

      2) How close to time of arrival?

      3) How pissed were the cancelled customers?

      Of course, you'll expect most cancelled customers to be pissed, but if a vendor initiates more than one cancellation per 2 or 3 years or 300 rentals, I'd start to question their sincerity regarding early reservations on high demand days. If the cancelled customers aren't too upset, that's an indication that they didn't get burned too badly by the cancellation and maybe it's just a fluke.

  3. There is no anonymity by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What are you, kidding? You have no real anonymity. AirBNB, Uber, your wireless carrier, and police license plate scanning databases already contain more than enough information about you to assemble your life fairly accuracy if you, for example, use vehicles. What you have is a thin veneer of anonymity that reduces the chance you will be held to account for online statements that nobody bothers to sue or prosecute you for.

  4. Shocked by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am shocked, shocked I say, that a system intended to "establish user reputation" might be incompatible with anonymity, privacy, and a right to be forgotten.

    It's almost as if one is expected to build a reputation, be accountable to that reputation, and tolerate discussion of that reputation by others in order to foster relationships more wide ranging than "I know this guy" friend-of-friend contacts.

    In a business where trust is a key factor, Blecharcyzk suggested that the site could require higher levels of reputation from users in order to access more exclusive types of accommodation.

    Yes, because I'm not going to permit johnsmith_2016 to have the run of my (hypothetical) million dollar furnished house while I'm away for two weeks, whether AirBnB provides insurance or not. Even in a more modest place like my own, insurance is a poor substitute for damaged or destroyed items of sentimental value.