Dalton Caldwell: We Did It

I don't think they ever asked KS. A variety of similar projects have been presented and funded there.

Is this an argument for users disabling web fonts? I don't think there are very many situations in which they provide a better user experience. A few days ago we got the "Wikipedia Redefined" article[1] (in which the capital "I" looked like a capital "J"[2]).

I don't think we have to go whole hog and completely ignore designers' intent, but if usability is being compromised I think it makes sense to take advantage of the fact that we're doing the rendering on the client.

1: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

2: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4354000

What follows is a layman just "thinking out loud." (But isn't that what Sunday afternoons are for?) When I use the term "auditor" I'm implying "employees at a firm" rather than "a single individual."

What App.net desires is for a trusted third party to say, "Yep, they're legit." So first, you would select an auditor who has a good reputation financially, technically, and ethically. Presumably, you'd line up a couple of secondary sources to publicly reinforce the auditor's reputation and bless the auditor's methodology.

It's been literally decades since I took any accounting classes, but I think you would need to follow the entire chain of some transactions, and this would necessitate showing real investor/customer data at some point. If you can secure that investor's/customer's permission, then sharing the data becomes a non-issue. How you get that permission becomes the issue.

If your auditor's reputation is strong enough, their name alone may be sufficient to secure permission. But you can also take steps to create a "security narrative" designed to put the investor/customer at ease.

You'd need to give the auditor access to your data, while preventing the possibility that they could leak this data. So the auditor would work in your offices, on your machines.

You'd provide laptops so that you can disable all peripheral ports. You'd secure the laptops to the table. The machines would have no optical drives. Those machines would net boot, have wired LAN access but not WAN, and no wireless access at all. They would run the software the auditors required but nothing else.

You'd confiscate phones and cameras from the auditors before they entered your audit environment. You could go a little crazy and record video of the auditors at work, with cameras angled so that you can see what notes the auditors are taking but not what screen they're looking at while they're taking notes. You could go a lot crazy and prove that the auditors are not sitting in front of any windows, thereby exposing data to high powered lenses across the street.

You could sanitize the data your auditors see, so that the auditor initially sees "Backer N" or "Vendor Y" instead of an actual person or company name.

Armed with some variation of the above security narrative, when the auditor says "I'd like to talk to backer N or vendor Y," you can present that narrative to the backer or vendor to secure their permission for auditor access to the information. I wouldn't be surprised if the average backer gets impatient and grants permission well before you're done explaining the security narrative.

Just completed the sign-up, but still get "We don't recognize that username. This is probably because you haven't been invited to our alpha yet. To request an invitation, please email join@app.net." when I try logging in.

xwowsersx, please send an email to join@app.net and we'll get you set up with your login information. The backing process and the alpha.app.net access are not automated yet, we still need to grant your user access to the alpha.