W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2017

Re: UN peacekeepers 'barter goods for sex' - BBC News

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:44:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok0_-juJY6AVZmEyMZ4F9VQjA86bRZNYT5AKiB0LzZcGUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 at 00:10 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 04/06/2017 09:31 PM, Kaliya IDwoman wrote:
> > Man camps of all kinds create markets for sex. Smart contracts don't
> > fix this problem
>
> Strongly agree.
>
> they were talking about children, not simply prostitution whereby i still
think there is a difference based upon the capacity to provide 'consent'
particularly in cases of 'modern slavery' and those of poor mental health.
 all of which can be use-cases for credentials / verifiable claims. .

similar yet different (lower-stakes) use case:
https://github.com/ouisharelabs/food-dashboard/issues/6  (haven't been able
to make much progress on that yet).


> Technologists tend to incorrectly bias very heavily towards technology
> solving problems that are fundamentally more social than technical. We
> should measure our words more carefully, this thread being a case in point.
>
> One of the problems with sex trafficking, among most other criminal
> activity, is that the criminals don't care about rule of law and are
> incredibly good at exploiting people for their own gain. Having a
> perfect blockchain + smart contract solution isn't going to make a dent
> in the problem unless it's also paired with a very well funded and
> concerted political and social effort to reduce trafficking.
>

I still don't like the term 'blockchain' for some of these works.


>
> We had the same issue at the last ID2020 event where some proposed
> that Blockchain could "solve" the refugee problem.
>

looking at modular, pre-fab smart housing.  that seems like a better
scaffold.  After all, Trump's a builder...

>
> These technologies may be used as a very small part of a solution, but
> we should be very careful to NOT suggest that the technologies
> themselves will address the issue.
>
>
Agreed.  But without appropriate technology design technology (or the
implementation style / use of technology) can be part of the problem.


> That's not to say that we shouldn't incubate technologies that may be
> used as part of a solution to a problem. We should just be very careful
> to not suggest that they ARE the solution to the problem.
>

A bit like the invention of antibiotics - people will still get sick, and
people will still need to see a doctor - but perhaps infection rates can be
lowered by accessibility to good healthcare; and, the outcomes are even
better now we have drugs to treat problems alongside many other
advancements in medical technology; yet some regions may have business
systems where it's difficult to get the best of care.  Some regions may not
have access to good medical care, clean facilities or even clean water.

UN Peace-keepers causing medical issues by way of child sexual abuse upon
those of our species who are the least able to obtain care? that's not ok.

We're a bit like medical researchers for helping to produce the
'technology' that can help solve those problems, if we choose to be; and
the benefits will be most values by those with a 'clean health record', so
they can continue to do good and be recgonised for their efforts.

Inoculating kids; or perhaps something similar to Bill Gates goals for
polio; would be much better than improving the means for treatment, whilst
both are seemingly needed; and even better - these sorts of 'illnesses' are
indiscriminate - the kids wouldn't need to be simply protected from un
peace keepers - indeed, i imagine in greater volumes far more would
benefit!!!

Yet if we do not do this work well.  If we do not meet our challenges, then
our ability, our choices.  well.  IMHO, they do matter as a constituent of
solving these sorts of problem.  Honestly, i think it's an important
constituent.  Whether it be in relation to economic trade or other means;
it's a way to 'rethink good guys vs. bad guys'.

and try to ensure those who do the right thing; don't get harmed by those
who knowing do otherwise, with impunity.

building systems where the data about human activity is stored by the human
cannot access that data for safety / welfare / health?   because it's not
part of the advertising based business model?  that's a values statement
far more than it is a technology problem, yet due to lack of investment;
we're still here building technology.

So i hope we make improvements to the 'status quo' as other are also
suggesting
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/tim-berners-lee-inventor-web-plots-radical-overhaul-creation/


yet i'm still worried about the means and methods, as i've also outlined
here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Apr/0051.html

I also started on
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Jul/0043.html years
ago; and haven't seen much progress on that yet either (noting it's been a
really difficult road with too few hands and some incredible ones...)

:)

tim.H




> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>
Received on Friday, 7 April 2017 14:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:36 UTC