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

Re: Proposal for UNHCR demo

From: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:20:24 -0700
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20170314002028.C80997E033@mailuser.nyi.internal>
What gave you the idea that Joram's life is unimportant? 
More to the point, what language in the model do you feel trivializes the refugee experience at any step?
The whole point of the medical emergency is that, in fact, Joram's life depends on adequate care and these needs must not be trivialized.
If it feels real, then we are succeeding. If it feels like trivialization, I'd like to address it. 
That said, removing the real-world life threatening aspects of the engagement model isn't an option. The point is to be clear that lives literally hang in the balance as we design these systems. 
We'd love to have conversations with individuals actually working with refugees in these situations and we have reached out to several for input. If you know people who could provide feedback, I'd appreciate an introduction.
Also, to clarify, the Joram 1.0.0 paper is an output of the Rebooting Web of Trust III design workshop, which I suggested as a potential input to the Verifiable Claims use case document. It is, in effect, what I think you mean be a complex user story.
I'm sure the group would entertain any contributions you might have.
-j

Sent on my Samsung Galaxy S7 edge.
-------- Original message --------From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> Date: 3/13/17  4:52 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org> Subject: Re: Proposal for UNHCR demo 
IMHO - put in big red writing somewhere that the diabetes thing needs to be scrapped.  The story looked like it may be based on a true story, and therein (with what medical information i know about) i was questioning myself - which takes away from the purpose of the doc.
I like the underlying intent; yet, i would not want to trivialise the issues experienced by those with a serious medical condition by suggesting an understanding of their lives is not important.
How about we start by defining a few complex user-stories?  
I'll see if i can find some help around the issues experienced in accelerating / improving the circumstances of refugees quickly and effectively.
Therefore; ideas,
- Refugee processing- Human Trafficking- Modern Slavery (inc. those involving sex services)- Police Records Systems (asymmetric institutional systems may have erroneous information causing public harm to both law-enforcement operators and citizens)- Fake News (classification of news, ability to identify one line of text that is a false-fact in an otherwise good piece of journalism, et.al.)
Another i've started looking at is 'web side worlds' which pertains to Augmented Reality and related new device / application type markets
We could therein flesh-out the semantic nature of multi-faceted use-cases pertaining to the design-implications of these systems (and are likely to also better clarify the nature of the underlying identity problems that to some-degree, i think, are out of scope). 
We could look to establish stakeholder engagement on each of the complex areas and identify groups in civil society who are willing to work with us to address complex societal issues through a narrative that helps convene more stakeholders in addressing societal needs and implicit ecosystems therein.
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 at 10:34 Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com> wrote:





It is fictional, but we agree. We initially had an infection that needed penicillin, but switched to diabetes because we wanted a longer period of ongoing medical support in a life or death situation. We're open to suggestions for making that more realistic.




On Mon, Mar 13, 2017, at 04:31 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:

Is this based on a true story?   My experience of people with diabetes (certainly type 1) is that insulin dependence is not an optional, they'd simply feel better type of situation. life of death from my experience, and if the patient becomes insulin dependent in type 2 - i'd imagine it's very much the same...



On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 at 04:22 Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com> wrote:



Manu,



Here are my thoughts after our call last week about the RWoT demo.  



The Joram 1.0.0 Engagement Model https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GLejHAyOGcFZMDH23VpBK5as_474gt1tdYZIWkHm7c0/edit?usp=sharing, currently in draft, is an attempt to describe the human interactions when a Syrian refugee works his way through Greece, with an eye to descripting requirements for a self-sovereign identity system. It is an early step to formally understand how to support UN SDG 16.9. For simplicity, I'll refer to this as the UNHCR use case.



Perhaps the key challenge in this use case is the lack of technology owned or controlled by the typical refugee. In the engagement model, we assume that the stewards--not the refugee--have access to a physical device connected to the Internet, which is capable of properly accessing a yet-to-be-defined Distributed Data Store. Conceptually, this is just a smart phone.



The big question for us: can this engagement model be realized with verifiable claims? What would VC need to support it?



The immediate question is: can we modify or configure Digital Bazaar's digital wallet to provide a UNHCR experiential demo at Rebooting Web of Trust IV in Paris?



To demonstrate Joram  in a credible way, I think there are two keys we'd need to demonstrate:



1. The use of a QR coded bracelet and pin as the refugee's identification and authentication mechanism, enabling the refugee to selectively share specific proofs/attributes with stewards.



2. The storing of the digital trail of non-repudiable observations, accessible via the authentication and selection mechanism in #2.



And specifically, for the wallet you showed us in our call, I think we'll need:



3. A change in the mental model of the wallet-device relationship. The current wallet software assumes the controller of the device is the controller of the wallet. In the UNHCR case, the device is controlled by the steward, so linking to a wallet--which is controlled by the refugee--should not form a long term permission for control over the wallet, but rather provide a mechanism for the transfer of specific attributes to the steward's system.



The strawman we've been working with includes a few core assumptions:

1. Steward software adheres to a recognized standard authentication ceremony. This ceremony includes having the subject (1) unlock the dataset with a pin, (2) manage selective disclosure of the dataset, and (3) record the access in the data store with a photo of the refugee. In other words, we are trusting the software to act to a standard and for stewards to use non-compromised devices.



2. We're ok with access to the underlying datastore being provisioned/permissioned based on UN criteria, and are comfortable with the UN managing consensus and permissioning of steward organizations. We don't need to resolve the question of how to implement the engagement model in an open public ledger, because we see significant benefit in the UN's role establishing rules of governance and monitoring participants for bad behavior. 



3. Our mental model for the datastore is not cards in the sense of Information Cards or loyalty cards, but rather an accumulated context of non-repudiable observations, which can be selectively presented by the subject. The key to us is that any participant can write an observation about a subject, and the subject controls  which attributes are shared with which recipients.



While we are pushing towards a user-driven or self-sovereign approach, our particular scenario is fine with the role the UN--as a collective collaborative governing body--establishing who can read/write to the data store and how bad actors are policed and the resulting dataset is granularly composable by distinct sharing ceremonies. 



Proposal for the demo:

1. Issue participants a bracelet with a unique QR code

2. Associate a photo with that QR code

3. Associate a user-selected PIN with that QR code

4. Create several interactions where the bracelet + PIN + a photo check (performed by the steward) authenticate the participant for access to services. Ideas for interactions:

    a. entrance to the event

    b. getting food

    c. giving a talk

    d. drink tickets

5. As a bit of theater:

     a. an intake scenario of Joram at the beach, taken to UN intake officer, linking the participants experience to Joram

     b. at the end, "accuse" a participant of a transgression, for which the history of interactions provides evidence refuting their guilt.



I'm not sure how much of that is feasible given the timeframe, but if we can make a good pass at something like this, it would provide a catalyst for discussion of best practices when the subject and/or controller of a claim lacks the technology to manage their own keys, but does have the moral and legal authority to manage  consent and disclosure.



-j



--

Joe Andrieu, PMP

joe@joeandrieu.com

+1(805)705-8651

http://blog.joeandrieu.com









--

Joe Andrieu, PMP

joe@joeandrieu.com

+1(805)705-8651

http://blog.joeandrieu.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 00:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:35 UTC