- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:52:36 -0700
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 2017-08-23 6:06 PM, Moses Ma wrote: > Hi Manu et al, > > I took a crack at a letter of introduction to send to various > journalists, and I thought I'd send it to the entire group to solicit > feedback. +1 on the wording. I briefly worked as a print journalist, and I think—trying to imagine it from that point of view—I would have found this both interesting and clear. Steven For clarity's sake, my understanding is that Manu is in > charge of the final draft, so you should probably direct any comments > to him, with a cc: to me - but I'd recommend not cc:'ing the entire list. > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community > that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the > Web. I’m chairing a working group that is tasked with the > standardization of a data model and syntax for the expression of > “verifiable claims”. One of the initiatives that we are working on > deals with the massive spread of “fake news”, which has been > identified as a major global risk and has been alleged to > influence elections and threaten democracies. > > However, the viral diffusion of digital misinformation is very > complex, and even though search and social media platforms are > beginning to deploy countermeasures, we believe that standards > organizations such as the W3C should address this as a direct use > case for both /verifiable claims/, which could potentially address > the veracity of web content, as well as emerging standards for > /decentralized and self-sovereign identity/, which could > potentially address the weaponization of propaganda through bots > that actively spread misinformation. > > As a respected journalist or technologist supporting journalism, > we would like to invite you to present your views and thoughts on > this issue, and possibly, participate in the development of new > web standards that could assist search and social media to deploy > more effective countermeasures. > > If this might be of interest to you, please contact me at your > earliest convenience, so we can set up a meeting of the working > group with you as a featured guest. > > With regards, > > I'd be happy to invite both John Markoff > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markoff> and Paul Ingrassia > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ingrassia> to participate and be > interviewed as a guest in an upcoming meeting. > > Be the Shift, > > Moses > > > On 8/15/17 11:40 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote: >> Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes >> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available: >> >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2017-08-15/ >> >> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes. >> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below). >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2017-08-15 >> >> Agenda: >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Aug/0039.html >> Topics: >> 1. Introductions >> 2. Fake News and Bots >> 3. Mission Statement >> 4. Administrative Items >> Organizer: >> Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen >> Scribe: >> Dave Longley >> Present: >> Dave Longley, Evan Sandhaus, Ryan Grant, Claire Rumore, Mike >> Lodder, Moses Ma, Manu Sporny, David Chadwick, Lionel Wolberger, >> Kim Hamilton Duffy, Adam Migus, Matt Stone, Nathan George, Joe >> Andrieu, Adam Sobieski, Adam Lake, Drummond Reed, Dan Burnett, >> Chris Webber >> Audio: >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2017-08-15/audio.ogg >> >> Dave Longley is scribing. >> >> Topic: Introductions >> >> Evan Sandhaus: I am the executive director of knowledge and meta >> data management at NY times. Over see information we put out. >> Involved as a data guy at the time, involved in several different >> threads all over the planet having to do with verifying >> claims/dealing with fake news. Interested in this community. >> Ryan Grant: +1 >> Claire Rumore: I'm Claire R and work along side Moses Ma in the >> Bay area. Staff social scientist and guardian of relationships at >> FutureLabs Consulting. >> >> Topic: Fake News and Bots >> >> Mike Lodder: I'm Mike Lodder, I work at Evernym as Senior Crypto >> Engineer >> Moses Ma: We're going to spend 30 minutes talking about bots and >> VCs. Will be talking about a set of rules, you don't have to use >> the queue, but please use the chat channel and have some content >> in it. I'm going to ask everyone to say something during the >> event, bringing out the participation. We will also do >> perspective switching, when the energy of the discussion dies >> down we'll switch to a different perspective, open systems to >> user requirements, etc. >> ... Want to keep energy going, I urge all of you to speak up >> and be verbose in the comment stream. >> Moses Ma: Only other thing I do request, I do request that you >> capture what the scribe is saying so there's context. >> Moses Ma: We start with what we call the bingo round. Everyone >> say what you want to say. >> Dave Longley: Capture what the scribe types, speakers should >> wait for the scribe to begin capturing so that there is written >> context. [scribe assist by Ryan Grant] >> Moses Ma: Just share your feeling for five minutes. Anyone have >> something to say about this subject? >> Manu Sporny: What I'd like to see out of the discussion today is >> a concrete next step. At a high level I'd like to see if we can >> use VC to address fake bots/news problems around the world. >> Manu Sporny: We haven't had a lot of journalists in the group, >> but we have talked about VCs being helpful to journalists and the >> industry but we're not sure exactly how to proceed. >> Manu Sporny: I'd love to hear from the journalists that are here >> on the call today and what they're thinking on verifiable >> statements and how they could potentially use those to combat the >> problem. >> David Chadwick: I did respond to the post on this issue, I >> didn't get replies yet. I don't know if people agree/disagree are >> just silent. It's relatively easy solution to solve provided that >> we have a trusted issuer that can make statements like "This >> person is a UK citizen" or "This is David Chadwick." >> David Chadwick: That would solve the problem with bots, but the >> problem I see is that that will be quite difficult with the >> current state of government technology. >> David Chadwick: Maybe banks could be the trusted issuers we're >> looking for because banks are now required to know their >> customers. But not everyone has a bank account, so there's a >> problem there. >> David Chadwick: So getting a trusted issuer that everyone would >> have is a difficult problem. >> Lionel Wolberger: Just worked! [scribe assist by Lionel >> Wolberger] >> Ryan Grant: I'd like to work on my audio, first >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: For this round, dont' worry about the queue, >> just pipe up. >> Moses Ma: Are there any journalists that would like to talk >> about what you're working on? >> Evan Sandhaus: I just wanted to say that, first of all, >> technologist not a journalist. The times right now is involved in >> learning about various efforts in the credibility space. We >> haven't to my knowledge made any super firm decisions on which >> way to go. >> Evan Sandhaus: Personally, the idea of making specific claims >> about the credibility of the individual statements is something >> we do in interactive pieces, here's what such and such say and so >> on. I'm thinking that a piece like that may be a place to start >> exploring the kind of work that's being proposed. >> Evan Sandhaus: I'm thinking of a couple of folks that would be >> interested in these efforts and will direct their attention after >> this discussion. >> Manu Sporny: Yes! Bring in retired editors! >> Moses Ma: I have a friend, Paul Ingracia and has won a pulitzer >> and I don't know if you know him... would like to bring in >> retired editors. >> Evan Sandhaus: I don't know how that would hurt! Any folks you >> can bring in that think this is a good idea would help. >> Moses Ma: Terrific. >> Adam Migus: Question: is this about credentialing journalists or >> are we including editors, sources, etc.? >> Moses Ma: We can switch the context because we're already >> running down on time. How would this work ... just open the >> floor, maybe Manu and Drummond could speak up. Anyone is >> included. Talk first about credentialing journalists or VCs in an >> article. Then we'll switch to people vs. bots. >> Adam Migus: In the case of sources, I think the security and >> privacy considerations are quite different. >> Manu Sporny: This is a response to Adam Migus in IRC. First of >> all Evan, thanks for giving us that perspective and helping to >> connect folks to the work here. There are a number of loose ideas >> floating around on how a VC could be used in journalism. >> Manu Sporny: One of the things is not credentialing journalists >> but giving them a stronger set of VCs that says they work for NY >> times and have published articles X, Y, Z. That's not necessarily >> where the focus would be. We have education folks that want to >> credential people with certain training. But what I've heard >> about VC and fake news is ... >> Manu Sporny: Can you even identify whether a story has been >> vetted by a professional. Basic fact checking. Having a VC that >> points to a specific article on the Web that says NY times, >> CNN/Whatever has factually inaccurate. When people click on >> clickbait and end up on a site the browser can say the site has >> been identified by X as factually inaccurate. >> Manu Sporny: It's the same kind of warning for malware/bad SSL >> cert sites. >> Manu Sporny: That's the ability to create a VC to say "This is a >> bad website or bad story" and being able to follow your noise >> back to the proof. You don't have to trust any particular >> institution. Right now you depend on Google Chrome, for example, >> to tell you if a site is a phishing site. Combating fake news may >> require a more decentralized solution. >> Ryan Grant: "We ALSO stamp: all the news that DIDN'T fit our >> print" >> Manu Sporny: Many different websites having their own lists of >> what is fake news and isn't. >> Manu Sporny: The person that's browsing the Web can choose what >> the sources of news are. That has broad concerns. People can get >> biased news -- huge discussion. The simple fake that an >> organization a journalism organization can issue a VC stating >> whether something is factually accurate or inaccurate is another >> possible signature that's useful for people browsing the Web. >> Manu Sporny: That's one way to combat fake news. >> David Chadwick: Couple of problems with that. If you take >> someone like Briebart, sometimes the news will be true or >> sometimes fake, publishing a VC saying the site is bad may lend >> the issuer of the claim in court for libel. >> David Chadwick: Two people see an incident and report it in >> different ways as well. Could both be true based on perspective. >> David Chadwick: Publishing a credential on one site and saying >> another site is fake news is problematic. >> Manu Sporny: I agree. >> Matt Stone: That's why fake news issues are so insidious - >> blending fake stories w/ real stories gives the fake ones >> "creditability" -- granularity to vouch for validity is >> essential >> Nathan George: This adds to what David just mentioned, it's >> really easy to incentivize someone to forget but not for >> information that they know. It's really hard to cryptographically >> know that a negative reputation exists because they won't flow to >> the end user. That creates lots of different problems from a >> journalists perspective. We can easily let journalists create >> lots of positive assertations though. To let people trace >> information back to know whether it's credible. It will be much >> easier to distinguish good journalism from casual blogging, etc >> with that approach. >> Manu Sporny: +1 To what Nathan just said - agree that negative >> reputation has its problem. >> Lionel Wolberger: One clarifying case for me was that when the >> holocaust denier was brought to trial, they used a fake book that >> was cited. In the spirit of agile and lean develop we can grab >> onto some aspect to move things forward. My opinion on the >> problem side -- having an overlay on the page for verified >> facts... >> Nathan George: To add to my earlier point, forcing disclosure of >> negative reputation events introduces a censorship choke point, >> where focusing on positive attestations helps differentiate >> in-depth research and real journalism from more casual statements >> without that level of attestation >> Lionel Wolberger: With different authorities signing things, >> would allow for even so called "fake news" -- we have different >> dimensions, people rarely have a shared anchor to have a >> discussion. In interest of society have all voices raised and >> only label malicious. It's difficult to label a website because >> it's not canonical, can't hash it. Moving forward on something, >> on the positive side, I'm excited Evan is here because I didn't >> realize NY times had people in this space. >> Lionel Wolberger: Maybe get a trusted authority to sign >> statements -- and go with the snopes model that people >> understand. A page with "Here's the issue, X conspiracy" and >> these are the claims about it, and who signed them. >> Joe Andrieu: I expect that VCs from Journalists about "facts" are >> less likely than Journalists providing a link to their own fact >> checking. That's why we trust journalists: because they are both >> trained and committed to an ethical process of factual >> investigation. >> Lionel Wolberger: Then people clicking on clickbait and see at a >> glance what they consider fake news or not. This would allow a >> decentralized way that anyone could verify claims and gravitate >> towards what they trust. >> Joe Andrieu: Which is to say "facts" feels arbitrarily black and >> white and the most interesting cases are more nuanced >> Lionel Wolberger: I wanted to sneak in wikipedia footnotes, >> those are pretty good. Maybe some kind of model where we could >> cite a fact and go to that style of footnote and it would be >> signed and you could access the certificate. >> Moses Ma: Our company works in deep learning and machine >> learning. We need new tech to address this, advanced reputation >> systems to use adaboost -- maybe better solutions in this area. >> Joe Andrieu: +1 For wikipedia footnotes as inspiration >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm interested in the combined insights from >> Nathan and Lionel. Ideally there's a way to tag facts and >> reference them without expecting users to learn a formal grammar >> Evan Sandhaus: To build on some of the observations -- I >> appreciate the folks who grew the NY times as credible. I grew up >> in Kansas and not everyone there feels the same way :). We have >> to be sensitive to it, what is and isn't a credible source. With >> someone with two degrees in CS, I love absolute boolean claims. >> This is true this is false. The way most journalism plays out, >> from a formal reasoning perspective there are few things where >> you can say something is false. The claim that can be made more >> reliably made ... >> Evan Sandhaus: Is that this piece contains misleading claims and >> this is what they are. >> Manu Sporny: That one statement was worth this entire >> discussion!!! ^^^ >> Evan Sandhaus: I might encourage this group applying the tech to >> that. Whether than saying this article is X and X is false. >> Better to say this article says X and that's a misleading claim. >> Matt Stone: +1 For that >> Manu Sporny: That's a great takeaway... >> Moses Ma: Thanks, Evan! >> Evan Sandhaus: Thanks all! >> Nathan George: +1 To kimhd's sentiment, the user shouldn't think >> of this as a new grammar, it is important to get the use case >> right. In fact, how sources themselves sign the data they >> provide may be the most helpful enhancement. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I also like the browser usability that Manu >> and Evan described >> Ryan Grant: I wanted to add that the wikipedia idea sounded >> awesome. I'd like VC in my news streams. Financial stories where >> only the financial numbers were verifiable -- perhaps by a news >> source that specializes in financial reports or companies signing >> those sorts of things themselves. >> Ryan Grant: All kinds of news could be built on that. >> Moses Ma: Excellent input. Would like to switch the perspective >> but to look into identifying someone who is not a human. >> Moses Ma: Any ideas on how to use decentralized ID on how >> someone is a person and not just a way to boost Google numbers. >> Adam Migus: Observations and points: It seems to me that when we >> talk about the edges of this community, the people that are >> journalists, editors, sources... that to me is a place where we >> need to talk about identity and authoritative identity, maybe a >> bank might vouch for someone etc. >> Joe Andrieu: Wanted to riff on Ryan's note: embedding VCs in a >> story to ground certain facts, eg., financial #s. that could >> scale quite well. not to say "microformats" but getting authors >> to include VCs as part of their story is powerful idea >> Adam Migus: At the end of the day that's needed and the place >> it's needed. Then we get to the content, fake real, factually >> real, etc. Then it becomes more consensus driven and less about >> identity. You want to identify people are real when writing, >> editing... >> Adam Migus: Then when it's on the Web you might not want to tie >> that back to a real individual, sources in particular... >> Adam Migus: I wanted to echo what Evan said, this boils down to >> fact checking. There is a whole community that's trying to bite >> off -- the librarian community -- concern about youth for vetting >> stories, if we're going to make it about content then make it >> about the facts in the content rather than curating stories for >> sites. >> Lionel Wolberger: I wonder if it would be helpful to provide a >> simple certificate and policy "I am a human" and people could >> voluntarily append and it would help us to identify bots. >> Everything is slightly automated but that might help. >> Joe Andrieu: +1 To collective attestations, including those that >> have real-world costs or barriers for automated agents >> Nathan George: I wanted to add a note, talking about >> attestations, having a network of people making them that's one >> of the best resources. I can present attestations that I have a >> bank account without saying with whom, it starts to become hard >> for bots to make those claims. Bringing in richness of the world >> so it's hard for bots ... so people who aren't trying to >> influence algorithms. >> Matt Stone: The question of curation and the role of bots is >> quite different in this space. I love aggregators and curators of >> news. But the role of a bot impersonating a person and doing >> likes/+1s, etc. provides a megaphone effect for news articles >> that might not have an audience otherwise, false volume. >> Matt Stone: That seems like an area we might really dig into. >> Who is or what is doing those sorts of activities. >> Moses Ma: Great idea, something we should work on. >> Moses Ma: Anyone else? >> Nathan George: Ideally you have a network of attestations that >> shows you have the richness of a real person in the real world. >> Allowing folks to make selective disclosure credentials (or >> entity profiles) across their domains allows them to bring in the >> richness of being a real human without having to strongly vet any >> one particular public identity. We want to be careful about how >> we model these items so that we don't switch the current systems >> vulerabilities for a new >> Nathan George: Set that has the similar issues. >> Joe Andrieu: This notion that Nathan introduced, claims that >> have a real world cost, it's a great idea, there's also a nugget >> that what we're really talking about is economic cost of >> defrauding the system. If we can create systems that are >> economically feasible for humans but not for bots it opens up >> options to consider. >> Ryan Grant: Only human-level bots need apply >> Moses Ma: Looking at the underlying economics, yes. Like spam, >> if spam is free we'll have it. >> Lionel Wolberger: +1 To Joe's idea of having a 'cost' for bots >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To dlongley. Maybe this is my bias, but it >> seems like there are many technical approaches to identify this >> behavior. It would have to be fine tuned and would need to allow >> disputes/resolution. But this actually sounds easier than many >> positive approaches >> Joe Andrieu: Yes, and cryptography, can increase cost to game >> system to help prevent it. >> Nathan George: +1 To helping journalists get engaged in how they >> might leverage verifiable claims >> Manu Sporny: Obvious next step is to get journalists engaged to >> understand what they want to do. If you look at fact checkers, >> there is wikipedia model which has been proven to be good, >> there's a way to pursue that but I'm wondering if hearing from >> journalists first would be a good thing. >> Manu Sporny: Picking something that is funded rather than >> volunteers. So asking paid people who go out to get the news -- >> asking what tools we can provide to them and delivering good news >> would be the next step. >> Manu Sporny: Who at the NY times/Getty do we need to talk to? >> Manu Sporny: To make that happen. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Also +1 to get journalists engaged, to ensure >> we build a _relevant_ solution >> Manu Sporny: Let's engage journalists to get them more >> integrated into the group. Anything else we do, I think is a wild >> guess that is most likely not going to pan out. >> Ryan Grant: Adding low-hanging fruit for journalists -- it seems >> like if we could get them just signing subsections of the >> articles they publish so that quotes from those articles could be >> verified, it would be systemic and not change their work flow. >> Then people could say the NY times gave me this verified quote. >> Moses Ma: How much money do you think we need to raise to get >> this initiative under way? >> Moses Ma: If we got one Republican donor and one Democratic >> donor it would look like a bipartisan effort that is inclusive >> Manu Sporny: I don't think we know what we're doing yet -- so we >> need to first get journalists involved on some low hanging thing. >> Maybe they identify something that only takes $1 million to >> achieve or something that takes $15 million. We need a good set >> of discussions with Reuters, AP, NY times, etc. we have >> connections there. We need to hear from them what they want to >> see then we can know money amounts. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I did have one other action item that I can >> assign to myself. Lots of good insight here, not having thought >> through the problem space here, lots of good perspectives. From >> the minutes I'd like to draw specifically what I see as key >> insights and approaches. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Thank you Moses too. >> Moses Ma: Claire is graphically recording so we'll have a >> picture of what we've been saying. >> Moses Ma: An old friend of highschool is now CEO of Washington >> Post so will reach out to get them involved as well. >> Joe Andrieu: To manu's point: if we have a specific proposal, we >> might consider applying for a Knight Foundation grant >> https://www.knightfoundation.org/challenges/knight-news-challenge >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Would like to wrap up the mission statement >> if we can. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy:https://goo.gl/sNs2vl >> Manu Sporny: +1 To JoeAndrieu >> >> Topic: Mission Statement >> >> Manu Sporny:https://goo.gl/sNs2vl >> Joe Andrieu: Hmmm... may not be an active news challenge >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Three outstanding items. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Let me pick off the easy ones. Christopher >> put a comment about "proof of existence" may not be appropriate, >> it's a tactic supporting a solution. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'd be fine striking that. >> Dave Longley: +1 >> Manu Sporny: +1 To strike >> Moses Ma: A thought occurred to me about Agile and VC - minimally >> viable veracity. haha >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Next issue, credential longevity. I'm fine >> dropping as long as we make it clear that our approaches are >> allowing recipient centric credentials. Which brings us to the >> last one ... >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: "Presentation of proofs by the bearer" ... >> David Chadwick's concerns were about stolen claims where >> "bearership" is all that is needed as proof. >> Manu Sporny: A bearer credential is like a carnival ticket, if >> you are the bearer you can swap credentials around. Anyone who >> gets a hold of it can use it and it's valid. There are some cases >> where you want a bearer credential like voting. There are good >> uses for bearer credentials and we say we're seeking solutions >> inclusive of. >> Nathan George: This is part of what selective disclosure helps >> support, it allows you to leverage non-bearer information to >> establish the authority or validity of items that are effectively >> bearer credentials >> Dave Longley: I think DavidC's point is mostly to point of >> "proof is that you're bearing the credential" - he said he was >> satisfied w/ the language that we're using. We're talking about >> presenting proofs other than bearership. [scribe assist by Manu >> Sporny] >> Moses Ma: +1 For selective disclosure and zero knowledge proofs >> David Chadwick: You're right, when it's saying "proofs" it's not >> just bearer credentials so there's something other than >> ownership/possession. Even with online voting you have a one time >> password you have to put in as well, and that's a "proof". One >> time password -- stealing the credential not good enough. >> David Chadwick: Just that you possess it is something we want to >> get away from. It would be a backward step to say that the mere >> possession is sufficient. >> Ryan Grant: Well yes, we do normally require the issuer to >> re-sign their claim. but the person who the claim is about bears >> it. did we choose an overloaded word for our >> individually-curated set of claims? >> David Chadwick: A bearer credential is like ... total random >> stranger presents something, nothing else needed to get in. >> Moses Ma: Just wanted to say bye! It was fun brainstorming with >> y'all! >> Joe Andrieu: +1 Think the language is non-contentious >> Dave Longley: I think the language that we're using isn't >> contentious [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] >> Ryan Grant: WHOOO! >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: We are done with the mission statement! >> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] >> Dave Longley: +1 To WHOOO! >> >> Topic: Administrative Items >> >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I will update the scribe list after this to >> get more disciplined again. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Thank you Lionel for forcing me to realize >> that. >> Lionel Wolberger: *Blush* >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I also want to get better about tracking our >> work items. I'm soliciting contributors ... >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Life cycle of VC is in excellent shape. For >> DIDs need higher level participation. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Anyone interested in Data Minimization and >> Selective Disclosure we could use a lot of help there. >> Nathan George: We also had a cryptographer on the call today to >> talk about CL and try to get something scheduled for the Digital >> Verification CG >> Lionel Wolberger: I'm interested in minimization and selective >> disclosure >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Thanks again on the bots and the fake news, >> Moses, see you all next week. >> Nathan George: Kim, we had Mike Lodder on the call to get >> something going for CL signature schemes, selective disclosure >> and data minimization >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Moses Ma | Partner* > > moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses@ngenven.com > > v+1.415.568.1068 | skype mosesma > > > FutureLab provides strategy, ideation and technology for breakthrough > innovation. > > earn more at www.futurelabconsulting.com. > > > Or whet your appetite by reading /Agile Innovation/ > <http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Innovation-Revolutionary-Accelerate-Engagement/dp/B00SSRSZ9A> > and /Soulful Branding/ > <http://www.amazon.com/Soulful-Branding-Unlock-Hidden-Company/dp/1515114414> > by FutureLab experts. >
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 14:52:50 UTC