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

Re: Terminology poll

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:46:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1+V5NHLkOdSCH9z-rS3RMYw9XMAwnhm9FA3kYzvf9qBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Fri., 30 Jun. 2017, 9:08 am David Chadwick, <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> On 27/06/2017 04:25, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > How does this spec certify the "person" storing or making use of the
> claim?
> >
> > The claim / credential itself is intended to be a controlled
> > instruments, I am unsure how this spec necessarily ensures a particular
> > "identity" or indeed subject,  the sole operator of it?
>
> There needs to be some sort of proof of possession in the protocol
> between the presenter and the inspector (unless the VC is a 'public' VC
> that anyone can presents)
>

Creds group was restricted sometime ago from making protocols (or
underlying ID auth). That was part of the drill in forging the group, from
memory.

The use of LDP containers made some sense and was discussed. Others prefer
blockchain methods. I think Manu has focused on ensuring focus for
implementations, which makes sense.

The freedom of thought / expression is important imho. It's different to
the means in which to be taught how to write and to be equipped with pen,
paper, and a means to keep said possessions as possessions in control of
the intended beneficiary or author.

Computer automation systems do seem to create unnecessarily burden when
official documents have false or misleading claims embedded for whatever
purpose.  It is important to me that these systems I / we've been focused
on for the last few years improve support for human dignity rather than
operationally entrench wrongs put upon vulnerable persons (humans
generally, in their function of citizen, rather than "agent" or employee /
resource).

It was the case that I had a child.  The legal aid system had a protocol to
make agreements over the phone (no evidence) where they verbally required
conditions that broke the laws they operated within.  The child support
department then emptied my bank accounts and made me homeless, later (years
later) suggesting it was punitive to reverse that wrongful action without
consideration to the fact that a homeless person cannot maintain a
relationship of care and support for an infant child.

This is what I did to resolve that problem. I worry the outcomes being
produced may make circumstances worse for others in future.

With SoLiD, creds, et.al. the means to ensure a party both has the data in
a form that can be easily reviewed by a court regardless of what is
considered by lawyers of a government department to be in their interests
to supply; was the fundermental reason I have donated years of my life to
the creation of these standards.

To uphold the rights of the child, in future. As our technical means have
sought to exploit them for economic gains with impunity by agents.  It
wasn't the government who made those decisions, it was their employees,
likely in an organised manner servicing an ideological approach to budget /
performance management; rather than agents whom act in that manner getting
a promotion, it was my view they should be exposed by records of fact (and
likely thereafter, fired).

It's a nonesense to bare witness to a social worker, an older woman, years
later crying, telling you she's so sorry, as she continues to think about
herself rather than the impacts upon a Child for which she can do nothing
and the case moved elsewhere as to limit liability / exposure.

These sorts of very personal stories should be the types of things we want
to solve for the betterment of society because their not isolated cases,
their not solely illustrated in one area of social policy.  We have data,
it's stored institutionally, it's operated by humans who are acting as
resources to be consumed and to support the consumption of others, in
service of things that don't exist.  Things that are not part of our
"shared values" or our Natural World.

In turn, these systems promote corruption and poor health; which I think,
in-turn damages our economic frameworks for socioeconomic stability.

When directed to choose privacy or dignity,  I think dignity is more
important. Dignity also includes the consideration of confidentiality.  A
gynaecologist needs to act in a manner that doesn't​ give alot of privacy,
but they are expected to treat their patients with dignity.

IMHO; people are here for different reasons, they have different mandates.
I guess my view was to ensure flexibility of modalities as to avoid a race
to the bottom.



> regards
>
> David
>

Tim.h.

>
> >
> > Tim.h.
> >
> > On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 7:57 am David Chadwick, <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk
> > <mailto:D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 26/06/2017 17:12, Dave Longley wrote:
> >     > The creator or originator of the claim is the "Claimant" --
> >
> >     I dispute that. A claimant is defined as follows
> >
> >     a person who makes a claim. Dictionary.com
> >     A person making a claim. Oxford dictionary
> >     a person who asks for something that they believe belongs to them or
> >     that they have a right to. Cambridge dictionary
> >
> >     Clearly this is not the issuer who created the VC. This is the person
> >     that is presenting it to the inspector.
> >
> >     When I go to claim social security I am the claimant, and I present
> >     documents (VCs) issued to me by the government to show my
> entitlement.
> >     To call the government that issued my documents the claimant is
> bizarre
> >
> >     regards
> >
> >     David
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 00:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:39 UTC