- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:16:24 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, business-of-linked-data-bold <business-of-linked-data-bold@googlegroups.com>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_Juo08tVYf4zQZS+0cdikXug0GHx7AH1SkE-7v=J6T4nA@mail.gmail.com>
Correction: "[avoiding] vendor lock-in is not a value to the vendor." On 19 August 2016 at 15:15, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: > > End-users need to want to take control of their identity by being > curious about what that means and how its is achieved. Currently, most > aren't interested, so the vendors have full control. > > > As history teaches us, repeatedly, there will be an event that triggers > an inflection, and folks will become more interested in their privacy en > route to discovering Web-scale verifiable identity. > > +1000 > > You hit the nail on the head. > > The pressure must come from the users. I have called it the "privacy > backlash" in the past but I agree that there needs to be an inflection > point where users care more about their privacy than the quality of the > service they use because it will be very difficult to offer a competitive > service without the user-data generated revenue to fund it. > > All of this is very difficult while the vendors of the existing services > also provide the majority of browsers. > > In the absence of the "privacy backlash" creating demand for new vendors > it would be valuable if the proponents of stacks like SoLiD were able to > demonstrate the business value to vendors so they feel it's worth building > on and trying to compete. > > And it's worth differentiating between the value to the vendor and the > user because vendor lock-in is not a value to the vendor. > > Sidenote: I believe there could be something that comes from a new browser > like Brave that offers micropayments built-in and can therefor compete > commercially and offer users privacy and a better experience. Perhaps a > better identity experience built-in would also be a key differentiator? > > > On 19 August 2016 at 14:59, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> > wrote: > >> On 8/19/16 6:20 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: >> >> Kingsley, >> >> I am playing devil's advocate here but I don't think you have answered my >> question. >> Gaining agility is not a business case. >> >> >> Enabling, enhancing, and achieving agility via data access, integration, >> and management is a fundamental business case. If that weren't the case, >> why would markets for Analytics, Recommendation Systems, AI-driven Bots, >> Big Data etc., exists? >> >> It is always about data-driven agility. >> >> >> I am all for open standards, I spend the majority of my time working to >> promote them but I am still trying to understand what the economic >> incentive is for any service provider to adopt SoLiD as opposed to >> controlling their user's data. >> >> >> The economic benefit of open standards are as follows, always: >> >> 1. Flexibility -- when choosing platform components i.e, you can mix and >> match a combination components in line with needs >> 2. Vendor lock-in prevention >> 3. Technology longevity -- you can always go back to a full spec for a >> specific platform component. >> >> SoLiD isn't a standard, it is a combination of open standards and best >> practices. Thus, its benefit is an open standards based approach for a >> read-write web that benefits end-users and vendors. >> >> >> >> Google, Apple and Microsoft control the end-user experience for the >> majority of users on the Web by giving them free browsers, email, social >> etc. In return they make money from controlling the data those products and >> services generate. >> >> >> Correct! And history shows, companies don't adopt standards just because >> they exists. They adopt standards as part of an "opportunity cost" >> prevention or control mechanism, first. >> >> >> Are you surprised that the browser vendors all actively block initiatives >> at W3C that would promote an open identity system that would unlock their >> user data silos? >> >> >> I am not convinced they are blocking initiatives per se. From my vantage >> point, there is a general communication problems between all the parties >> involved. For instance, there has been a lot of fanfare about how browsers >> implement TLS and its impact on the something like WebID+TLS protocol. That >> situation is rectified by WebID+TLS+Delegation, but folks don't generally >> see or promote that, on the pro WebID side of the argument. >> >> Bottom line, you can't declare standards adoption. You have demonstrate >> the virtues of standards via applications that are adopted by end-users and >> technology vendors. >> >> There are always politically astute excuses but let's be honest, if the >> browsers wanted to they could have made adopting WebID an easy user >> friendly experience and the world would be full of people who all have >> their own WebID that is used to log into all the services they use on the >> Web. >> >> >> They don't need to. That's the problem. Here's a breakdown of the issue, >> as I've come to understand it after hours of study and experimentation: >> >> You have a digital highway provided by the Internet. That highway (like >> in the real-world) enables movement of data from one point to another where >> security is scoped to the agents (software) transporting said data i.e., >> just like cars and car registration numbers. >> >> The Web is an Internet abstraction that introduces the ability to >> identify the user of an agent (like a car driver) distinct from an agent >> (the software). Thus, you can demand reworking the highway just because car >> drivers are now identifiable using their driver's licenses. That will never >> wash in the real-world, so why would it work in cyberspace. >> >> Example: >> I want to transport some goods from Boston to New York. >> The scenario above includes toll booths and a final destination. >> >> On the highway, my car registration is the identity focal point, with >> regards to toll payments. When I reach my destination, my personal identity >> card (license or something else) is how I prove I am the delivery person >> expected at the final destination. >> >> Another example: I drive my car to a pub. At the pub my personal ID is >> what's important. En route to the pub, my Car registration is what's >> important. There are two distinct scenarios requiring different kinds of >> identity. >> >> WebID+TLS doesn't have the fidelity required for traversing the existing >> highway without asking its current maintainers (Certificate Authorities and >> Browser Vendors) to change infrastructure and practices. >> >> WebID+TLS+Delegation simply adds the "On-Behalf-Of" relationship type to >> the mix (i.e., in the data) which distinguishes the user from the software >> they use (drive) thereby enabling one toggle WebIDs without browser >> restarts (due to TLS requirements) [1]. >> >> >> I am certainly not assuming that these companies are ignorant or myopic, >> quite the opposite. I think they will continue to keep users locked into >> their semi-open ecosystems by competing to offer the best browsers (that >> mostly adhere to open standards) and other free services. But they will >> never change the many services they offer to allow users to export and >> control their own data. >> >> >> Power is never given. It has to be taken. End-users need to want to take >> control of their identity by being curious about what that means and how >> its is achieved. Currently, most aren't interested, so the vendors have >> full control. >> >> As history teaches us, repeatedly, there will be an event that triggers >> an inflection, and folks will become more interested in their privacy en >> route to discovering Web-scale verifiable identity. >> >> >> In fact, I'd go as far as to say that for them to do that would be in >> contravention of their legal obligations to their shareholders because it >> would be such a blatantly bad commercial move. >> >> >> You are oversimplifying a little bit. The issue, as per my comments >> above, is more to do with end-users than vendors. The obligation of the >> vendor is simply about ability in regards to market inflections :) >> >> [1] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/web-logic-sentences-and-the >> -magic-of-being-you-e2a719d01f73#.l0b1rvdsp -- Demonstrates WebID >> toggling without Browser Restarts, courtesy of WebID+TLS+Delegation >> >> >> Kingsley >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2016 at 01:04, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> On 8/16/16 8:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: >>> >>> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid? >>> >>> >>> There is always a business case for open standards, and it goes as >>> follows: >>> >>> Agility to mix and match "best of class" technologies that underlie >>> solutions, at any given point in time. >>> >>> When the Web's original open standards stack (URIs, URLs, HTTP, and >>> HTML) arrived it unveiled the World Wide Web, an ecosystem that laid the >>> foundation for Google, Facebook, Amazon, and many others. It also enabled >>> behemoths like Apple (struggling badly at the time) to pivot and reinvent >>> themselves. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on user >>> data choose to let users take that away? >>> >>> >>> When the World Wide Web arrived, folks asked the question: Why would >>> Microsoft allow anyone succeed without embracing their technology stack and >>> related ecosystems. >>> >>> SoLiD is just a collection of existing open standards and best >>> practices. >>> >>> >>> Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos that attracts >>> them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough money to survive >>> competing with the biggest tech companies in the world? >>> >>> >>> See my comment about Microsoft and the World Wide Web. This is what >>> happens with technology and industry evolution. Google and Facebook aren't >>> static behemoths and they also understand history. Don't presume myopia and >>> ignorance on the part of any of these companies, they have too many smart >>> people on their payrolls. >>> >>> >>> The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy the point is >>> whether it has the potential to make anybody any money because if it >>> doesn't then I think you will have a hard time persuading people to use it, >>> no matter how well it scales. >>> >>> >>> SoLiD scales and it simply adds dimensions to the Web ecosystem to be >>> exploited by behemoths, startups, and smartups. >>> >>> New business and business models will coalesce around the Web's >>> read-write dimension. That's an inevitability due to the nature of privacy. >>> >>> Kingsley >>> >>> >>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Solid isn't finished yet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0. >>>> >>>> But I dont really know what more can be added to it to get it to v1.0. >>>> Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine. Some people are >>>> perfectionists I suppose :) >>>> >>>> In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest of the web is, >>>> even if you only take small parts of it and use it. >>>> >>>> You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in the sense >>>> that, the web will never be "finished". >>>> >>>> Its definitely something that can be used today. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho < >>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be >>>>>>> enough." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer is no. >>>>>>> We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business >>>>>>> case. The architecture is the easy part. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right. The vast >>>>>> majority if systems start to fall over as they scale. The web and REST are >>>>>> two architectures that buck that trend and just get stronger as they scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> Solid is the next evolution in that architectural trend, imho, >>>>>> because it simply embraces the points that made the web great, and extends >>>>>> it a little bit, while being 100% backwards compatible. Right now, it's >>>>>> the only system that I know of, with this property, in fact, nothing else >>>>>> is close. So this in itself, the ability to scale to billions of users, is >>>>>> a business case. Quietly facebook adopted the social graph approach to the >>>>>> web, and web architectural principles with their graph protocol, and also >>>>>> an implementation of WebID. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because simply, we >>>>>> have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition. Having a business can help, >>>>>> but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get through those >>>>>> scalability barriers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I personally think Solid is the business opportunity of a lifetime, >>>>>> perhaps even bigger than the first web. Im certainly investing on that >>>>>> basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn < >>>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Anders, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition >>>>>>>> to the below, with some lateral considerations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China >>>>>>>> AI [2]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly >>>>>>>> been considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern >>>>>>>> systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with >>>>>>>> enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly >>>>>>>> lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very >>>>>>>> advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems >>>>>>>> work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by >>>>>>>> web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full >>>>>>>> consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their >>>>>>>> works, what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned >>>>>>>> [6][7] and how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've >>>>>>>> kinda tried to describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been >>>>>>>> further discussed otherwise [9] [10]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to >>>>>>>> plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the >>>>>>>> consultative approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may >>>>>>>> interact with the works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al >>>>>>>> progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for >>>>>>>> purpose' in attending to the issues before us. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric >>>>>>>> signatures. I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a >>>>>>>> good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in >>>>>>>> which these works support LDP and other related technologies... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those >>>>>>>> who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or >>>>>>>> stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the >>>>>>>> document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly >>>>>>>> in relation to my contributory work/s. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am >>>>>>>> trying to format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm >>>>>>>> processing broader ideas around what, where and how; progress may be >>>>>>>> accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of pushing it forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember the github.com/Linkeddata team (in RWW years) wrote a >>>>>>>> bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and >>>>>>>> without providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the >>>>>>>> field of inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous >>>>>>>> issues relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which >>>>>>>> in-turn may also relate to other statements made overtime about my view >>>>>>>> that some of the works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or >>>>>>>> potential WG support at present - may be better off being developed within >>>>>>>> the WebID community as an additional constituent of work that may work >>>>>>>> interoperable with WebID-TLS related systems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Too many Ideas!!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (perhaps some have merit...) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim.H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/ >>>>>>>> 2016Aug/0045.html >>>>>>>> [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s >>>>>>>> [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson >>>>>>>> [4] http://webscience.org/ >>>>>>>> [5] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704 >>>>>>>> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8 >>>>>>>> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_ >>>>>>>> Intelligence >>>>>>>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in >>>>>>>> it: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-W >>>>>>>> PvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI >>>>>>>> [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g >>>>>>>> [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/ >>>>>>>> [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ >>>>>>>> [13] http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-i >>>>>>>> nternet/ >>>>>>>> [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36 >>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren < >>>>>>>> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > Really good article, >>>>>>>>> mentions Solid and other technologies. WebID is mentioned by the author in >>>>>>>>> the comments too ... > > http://www.digitaltrends.com/w >>>>>>>>> eb/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/ One of the problems with the Web >>>>>>>>> is that there is no easy way letting a provider know where you come from >>>>>>>>> (=where your Web resources are). This is one reason why OpenID rather >>>>>>>>> created more centralization. The same problem is in payments where the >>>>>>>>> credit-card number is used to find your bank through complex centralized >>>>>>>>> registers. Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having URLs + other >>>>>>>>> related data such as keys in something like a digital wallet which you >>>>>>>>> carry around. There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs special >>>>>>>>> logic, keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible), coming up >>>>>>>>> with a generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on extending >>>>>>>>> the Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code. Although W3C >>>>>>>>> officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of such work, the >>>>>>>>> progress on native extensions schemes has actually been pretty good: >>>>>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Au >>>>>>>>> g/0005.html This is approach to decentralization is BTW not >>>>>>>>> (anymore) a research project, it is fully testable in close to >>>>>>>>> production-like settings today: https://test.webpki.org/webpay >>>>>>>>> -merchant The native extensions also support a >>>>>>>>> _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, something >>>>>>>>> which is clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor has 80% of >>>>>>>>> the mobile browser market! Anders >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kingsley Idehen >>> Founder & CEO >>> OpenLink Software (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com) >>> >>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >>> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com >>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen >>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this >>> >>> -- >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com) >> >> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com >> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this >> >> >
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 13:16:57 UTC