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

Terminology + law related user-stories

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:45:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2rdYkXymEkxGOTc-rzCTDo-U1QhrO8m1nsKgj8TeM-0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
I've been spending alot of cycles thinking about the terminology, and this
in-turn has brought about other queries that requires more time / work than
is available.

Role A: signatory
Role B: recipient
Role C: consumer

Best outcome for now is that the signatory (role a) is the person who
legally controls the cryptography instrument used to sign the document /
declaration / statement.

The recipient (role b) may not agree or countersign the document to provide
a legal contract that would represent agreement (free from issues) for the
statements made, which in turn means the document is assigned to them in
some way as a recipient.

Other services (role c) consume these documents as dependents of the
authority (role a) who is in turn considered to be the controller of the
claim due to the use of the signature ("signatory") making them a
signatory, wherein they are responsible for the statements made (including
whether their true, false, cause injury / harm, may be misleading or mid
represent the full circumstances of a situation, et.al.) in that claim, and
indeed also the implications of any mandatory requirement for a recipient
and/or consumer to rely on the the statements made in that signed document.

So. In-turn, explanation.  (Let me know if I've missed something
technically, re; functional properties of VCs).

I felt that to make the terminology work the introduction of the term
"signatory" to "role a" helped explain the responsibilities incumbent upon
operators of  a system. noting that due to the lack of means for support
for the recipients needs (ie: being able to have both entities sign the
document to show agreement) the legal responsibility for the proper use of
these things in-turn falls upon the party who's cryptographic signatures
are used, which in this case seems only to be the creator of the claim; and
in-turn also, the controller of the web-id / identity instrument /
identifier who may or may not have any relationship or means to influence
the manner in which their identifiers have been used by others to forge
claims (and whether those claims are true and correct or otherwise); indeed
also another influencer is the maintainer of the ontological definitions
referenced in the cryptographically signed document; that would in turn
store some sort of creation date information, which could be used by
archive.org or similar to FAQ check should version control of ontology be a

Usecase: traffic infringement.

Traffic camera identifies a vehicle exceeding the speed limit and issues a
claim to the vehicle owner that results in loss of license which is denoted
as an identifier linked to a vehicle registration plate.

The authority controlling the automation systems employs the use of the
system to lower operation / enforcement cost, whilst not developing systems
that offer similar levels of automation or means to dispute a claim, making
it difficult to process circumstances where someone else was driving the
vehicle or other circumstances where the claim was false.

The vehicle owner looses their license and the job they had that required
them to own a vehicle.

They are then required to spend many hours and/or employ legal
professionals in addition to attending a court with witnesses to prove they
were not driving the vehicle; and this becomes a matter of fact that is no
longer disputed.

As the claim systems never required the recipient of the claim to have any
input as to the validity of the claim andor the systems made it difficult,
complex, time-consuming, et.al. to correct the record this can be taken
into account by others in legal setting.

The recipient wrongly suffered economic loss as a result of poorly
implemented automation systems for the purposes law enforcement is able to
use the evidence of their circumstance to sue the signatory of that claim
who was legally responsible for the circumstances due to the automation
systems relying upon the trustworthiness of the cryptographically signed
document to operate, whether this resulted in a plurality of outcomes or
simply a singular and relatively minor one.

Usecase: digital reciepts vs. loyalty card data.

I wonder whether retailers who've sold food that has caused health problems
such as allergies could be influenced by similar considerations when a
machine readable digital reciept may have mitigated any such Ill health
outcomes, and that data is already being used for other purposes such as
loyalty programs or CRM / customer analytics...

A round-a-bout way to progress...  nonetheless, perhaps the circumstance
has merit.  If the data from the Fitbit could have prevented heart attack,
is the data storage operator responsible for not supplying that data to the
consumer in a way that it could be used for health purposes?

Yet also; herein a new challenge.  The language changes so that rather than
recipients being entitled consumers, retailers are entitled consumers of
instruments issued to recipients through their role of being entities of
trust (and implicitly, solely accountable signatories).

So, thats where my headspace is upto.

Hope it helps.

Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 14:46:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:38 UTC