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

Re: First pass at CG naming goals and restrictions google doc

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 07:37:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3fO-ihrpBKOF9-JZ3MjbK-VETSTNDqJvR3+CcOPyChhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
my apologies for the blunt expression of concerns...

webizen would likely be my vote. Has some heritage;

The concept of 'individual membership' (not simply to the W3C but more
broadly to the web) is poorly supported.

A solution enables the means for the (somewhat quantum in nature) identity
of persons in cyberia - to be provided the necessary qualities to support
the dignity of the homo sapien for which the web of identifiers, data
structures, query infrastructure, presentations, representations, persona
attributes, personalisation, dignity frameworks embodying elements of
privacy considerations in combination with the needs of accountability
measures; support for frameworks such as 'rule of law', human rights,
provenance, version control, interactions with things, instruments, claims,
enterprise infrastructure in a manner where terms of agreement can be
bilaterally defined (rather than unilaterally applied), etc.   Where if
sensitive and personal data about you can be used to help...  cure
cancer... or solve a violent crime, or some other very specified purpose by
way of some amazing website with some crazy intelligent science built into
it; that you can safely share that data without unintended consequences
that you're unable to do anything about...

A solution were people can store their data, but not trade everything they
have stored about them for a discount at the petrol station, even if they
are old and don't know what they are doing with these contraptions they
need to have, as a means to function in society.

a human centric web.

the web works so well today, that even if half the population of the world
protested the way the web was working; people would still be forced to use
it to share the photos (on Facebook, for example)...

so yeah.  'choice of law', data rights, the means for a citizen of some
place in the world to use data that exists about an experience they have
had - somewhere else in the world; to protect their civil rights?  seems so
very unimportant, i'm very depressed about it as a circumstance.

Webizen is the best possible name for a movement that aims to provide what
i believe is the underlying purpose of this 'self sovereign' concept.

Describes a 'citizen of the Web'.
A Webizen is a person
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=person> who is adept in Web
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Web> techniques and who
essentially lives <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lives> on
the Web.
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Webizen


On Wed, 31 May 2017 at 16:57 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>

> Kim,
> I read the doc.  Nice.
> Reputation systems flagged my interest. Most of that capability is done
> now, I'm not even sure what ontology work needs to occur.  Perhaps
> HTTP-SIGNATURES is still lacking? I thought it was deemed to be
> unnecessary?
> I didn't really understand what you hoped to work on.
> At WWW2017 (which only a few attended) I went to town on calling out the
> issue of ID.  Indeed, I sent an email to Vint, TimBL and many others
> essentially saying "fuck you", why in 25 years did you consider ID to be so
> unimportant.  My purpose was to say, that I wanted to see the problem
> solved in their lifetime.
> But i think they really did not appriciate the mail.
> The tactical process said, was to build the elements.
> Another statement said that as philosophers, concerns were had; which
> indeed I understand, given the rather commercial sway any ID project seems
> find so difficult to successfully navigate as the reality is, most projects
> that look hopeful, get captured.
> I have never understood "self soverign" I understand citizen and I
> understand choice of law and I understand a multitude of things that seek
> to be deemed "acceptable".
> In my view identity, I consider to be a "theta layer" to the web, but
> given I'm not really a "contributor" as the work has progressed..
> I just read this "self soverign" concept confused.
> When I started working on these things the reason why was because a
> government department put upon me some decisions that changed my life, and
> whilst those decisions were illegal, the fact was that the government
> employees did it in a manner, knowingly, that ensured very little evidence
> was available for me to remedy the harm they'd done as part of what they
> considered to be their job.
> I don't see how these years of work have done much to make the case for
> vulnerable people any better.  Indeed I fear it's made the situation
> worse.  I don't understand how these works provide the means for a person
> who has been engaged, or forced into a transaction that is illegal or
> wrong, to have the data to prove it when the entity who sought to yeild
> power, through their database powered employment agreements, is involved in
> a system that engineers products and services to protect them from
> accountability. From.responsibility, beyond the mental health impacts those
> people have from damaging the lives of others, for money to feed their
> kids.
> People say I'm not very commerical.  I think they need to wake the fuck up.
> Tim.h.
> On Wed., 31 May 2017, 4:37 pm Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> What does a self soverign human look like?
>> Or...   How can it be said.  What are the benefits to a smart phone, what
>> does it do...  Or...
>> What is a credential what does it do...  Or...
>> What is a self soverign identifier..  what does it do?
>> I have never understood the idea of "self soverign".  Is it like 2nd life
>> or Minecraft, some space that's "self soverign", or perhaps moreover its
>> soverign to the human? Who's self in the context to the sovereign?
>> Thought I'd ask...
>> Tim.h.
>> On Wed., 31 May 2017, 2:14 pm Kim Hamilton, <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I took a first stab at enumerating the CG naming goals, proposed names,
>>> pros and cons, etc so we know the constraints when picking a name
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H5tO0IRawIHzVnRP2sTbdBA-PUkWgSdcydx2ru2fPHg/edit?usp=sharing
>>> I noticed that "Self-Sovereign Technology Community Group" had the most
>>> positive reception with the fewest downsides. We could stop
>>> there....otherwise, please edit/provide feedback and I'll continue to shape
>>> this into something more actionable.
>>> - Kim HD
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 07:38:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:37 UTC