Group permissioning - roles

[LowTech]

A number of use cases I'm interested in would require the addition of a permission layer, allowing for group role management. As I understand the current state of Channels, person A can create a Private Channel, then share the link with persons B, C, etc.. Either of B or C can then share the link with any other number of persons, and all silently (is this last true?). In many more advanced cases, this lacks the structure and process necessary to ensure trust across the social group. It may be that A would like to add B with full administrative permissions (changing settings; adding people; allowing people to talk or only to listen), and C with some lesser set of permissions. Or over time needing to: designate new admins; remove disruptive members. Having a more advanced suite of permissions settings would enable many more use cases.

For instance, I may be one of a few protest marshals trying to ensure my portion of the group stays safe--stays to designated streets/walkways; avoids confrontation with agitators; etc. An infiltrator, whether passive (monitoring intended route information with the ultimate goal of creating conflict at a choke point) or active (feeding false information of safe routes) could undermine group safety.

Or take a group of neighbors elected to act as block captains in case of emergencies--coordinating orderly roll-call checks and routes to safe locations. Any cross-chatter by even a well-meaning neighbor (whether through accidental leaking of a channel code, or as someone who previously served but should have been removed after their term), could cause confusion and be dangerous.

[jschrempp]

You could have something like a signed message. Only the person creating the private channel would know the secret. maybe his own node's private key. On receipt of a message if it didn't have the proper signature a companion would reject it.