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 13:38:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3X4p8uZ7=iH-B34jinneRpXDtUuX9S49vGTYQWzTyBMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Sheldrake <philip@eulerpartners.com>, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Nb, if anyone is at MIT, I'd appriciate it if someone followed up Noam
Chomsky to get a more modern consideration for the concept the of
personhood.

I know he is busy, but he did say he would think about it.

Whilst it was distinct as to gender and color,  it now seems to incorporate
the artificial, whether that machine​ be a company, or other software
operated things...

Tim.h.

On Wed., 31 May 2017, 11:30 pm Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I love this kinda stuff.
>
> We've been investigating the means to transit the language / movement
> defined around "privacy" towards that or dignity, as it's more difficult to
> claim that a company has rights of dignity in the sort of way the works
> surrounding privacy have seemingly led to a situation where the companies
> right to privacy as to protect it from having to disclose the information
> they have about persons (the subject), leaves alot to be desired
> particularly in fields where data can be used for critical health, safety
> and well-being related issues.
>
> It's late here, I'd prefer to respond with more details during daylight
> hours.  But I wanted to note.
>
> I looked up the term "self sovereign" and the wiki entry redirected to:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
> Imho, humanity has never really needed to think about this stuff as to
> define a structure in which will define the concept of self and that of the
> observer in relation to any system of socioeconomic participation in any
> way similar to that being define now, or perhaps moreover progressively
> over the past 30 or so years.
>
> I think amongst the greatest threats is in the rigidity of framework
> characteristics, in that a set of paints does not necessarily depict any
> particular use of the tools; other than that they best be used on canvas,
> for a specified purpose.
>
> Humans, living self aware, conscious beings, et.al.
>
> That fundermental right to self determination.
>
> We might well sell it, for "free" access to a popular website as we pay
> for the device and the connection to be subservient due to it.
>
> We may not be able to easily leave it. Indeed many would argue to some
> degree this is already the case...
>
> What is of most annoyance to me, is that "choice of law" thing as it
> pertains to "my data", that which was once stored on a floppy.
>
> The work around dignity is quite interesting and as we move towards what
> Dave Lorenzini calls "web side world's" through the introduction of
> "naturalised interfaces" via mobile, IoT and AR related products.
>
> You might have a virtual penis on your front door step and they'll be
> nothing you can do about it.
>
> Facebook and it's "content guidelines", via Californian context has
> already had alot of problems.  Many indigenous tribes have ceremony where
> women are bare breasted. I was certainly shocked to receive a review to say
> a young women holding a gun to a child's head was perfectly ok, or that the
> "sponsored Ad" fraudulently using a celebrity (former associate) - that
> these ads had no way to make a complaint about them.
>
> I'm using Facebook as an example of minor problems when compared to what's
> coming. That most of the major apps store user data, to "choice of law
> California", as though the "rule.of law" for the people is unimportant.
> After all, their just a business.
>
> Maybe it's of my interactions with others are via an Internet Protocol
> based system.
>
> I think this underlying stuff is so important, an alternative should have
> been produced for citizens of the world many years ago, even if the only
> way to distribute the work was in a book.
>
> Tim.h.
>
> .
>
>
> On Wed., 31 May 2017, 11:07 pm Philip Sheldrake, <philip@eulerpartners.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for cc’ing Adrian.
>>
>> I don’t have any feedback on the possible names, but I’d like to see if I
>> can help scope what such labels might need to encompass. Forgive me if I’m
>> repeating anything that’s gone before.
>>
>> My main thrust is the expansion of the social and legal definition of the
>> individual. I can get there via a look at our understanding of privacy.
>>
>> Solove (2008) describes privacy as a concept in disarray. Floridi (2005)
>> identifies two popular theoretical approaches: the reductionist
>> interpretation, whereby the goal is minimisation of the costs of privacy
>> breaches; and the ownership interpretation, whereby informational privacy
>> is elevated under the aegis of one’s rights to bodily security and property
>> (i.e. the right to exclusive use). The first is criticised for its failure
>> to grapple qualitatively with the societal costs of privacy (by corollary,
>> the value of privacy ‘breach’). The latter has proved more durable, both in
>> terms of legal property and the right to exclusive use, but also falls
>> short:
>>
>>    - informational contamination, such as junkmail and loud and
>>    intrusive chatter
>>    - public contexts (socially, physically and informationally) in which
>>    privacy norms still exist without any concept of ownership; e.g. the right
>>    not to have the contents of your packed lunch logged even though you eat it
>>    in plain sight
>>    - lossless acquisition (or usage) – the fact that information can be
>>    reproduced without the individual losing it.
>>
>>
>> And so ... “Informational privacy requires [a] radical re-interpretation,
>> one that takes into account the essentially informational nature of human
>> beings and of their operations as informational social agents. *Such
>> re-interpretation is achieved by considering each person as constituted by
>> his or her information, and hence by understanding a breach of one’s
>> informational privacy as a form of aggression towards one’s personal
>> identity*” (Floridi 2005).
>>
>> Floridi posits “you are your information”, with “no difference between
>> one’s informational sphere and one’s personal identity,” thereby avoiding
>> the first challenge to the ownership-based interpretation (informational
>> contamination) under existing norms – “anything done to your information is
>> done to you, not to your belongings.” What was previously a trespass of
>> space becomes a kidnapping or unauthorised cloning, thereby circumventing
>> the second challenge (public contexts) in which a trespass could not be
>> claimed. The third and final challenge is rendered redundant when what was
>> formerly my is now me, “a sense of constitutive belonging, not of external
>> ownership.”
>>
>> If this sounds a little odd Floridi points out the common term for the
>> unauthorised and malicious acquisition of substantial personal information;
>> identity theft. It is also supported by Heersmink’s cognitive theory
>> research (2016). He concludes that *personal identity must be seen as an
>> environmentally-distributed and relational construct rather than merely a
>> psychological or biological phenomenon*. Heersmink quotes Clark (2007):
>> “our best tools and technologies literally become us: the human self
>> emerges as a ‘soft self’, a constantly negotiable collection of resources
>> easily able to straddle and criss-cross the boundaries between biology and
>> artifact.” And yet Clark also cautions that with such new modalities come
>> new possibilities for coercion and subjugation. The sooner then that we
>> redefine the individual the sooner we can re-project existing norms, law,
>> politics, and morality.
>>
>> Wiener anticipated this informational, cyber extension of ourselves
>> (1950): “… where a man’s word goes, and where his power of perception goes,
>> to that point his control and in a sense his physical existence is
>> extended. To see and to give commands to the whole world is almost the same
>> as being everywhere.”
>>
>> Two thirds of a century later it seems almost timid then *to define the
>> individual here as an agencement (assembling) being of the biological,
>> psychological, informational, and interfacial*. I recognise that *who I
>> am* is in constant flux. And by *being* I incorporate the affordances of
>> self-sovereign identity.
>>
>> I call this assembling *skin*.
>>
>> When we have the facility to understand, feel, and integrate the
>> extension, presence, transience, and permeability of one’s *skin*, when
>> we’re all sensitised to it, the legal definition of a person is reshaped
>> and our norms revitalised accordingly. This marks the true manifestation of
>> the sociotechnical agent. Data doubles (formed by third parties) of me are
>> replaced by my digital doppelgänger, spawned and continually maintained by
>> me, which in turn disappears, my informational space becoming me as much as
>> my arms and legs and cognitive facilities. User interfaces disappear, the
>> interfacial becoming me, prostheticizing me with the facility to understand
>> and navigate the affordances of the world around me and those affordances
>> denied.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Well that's the thesis. Don't ask me for the corresponding architectural
>> schema!
>>
>>
>> *__*
>>
>> Philip Sheldrake, CEng MIET
>> www.diglife.com
>>
>> M. +44 (0)7715 488 759
>> Blog www.philipsheldrake.com
>> Skype psheldrake
>> Twitter @sheldrake
>>
>>
>> On 31 May 2017 at 13:29, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of either self-sovereign technology (SST) or
>>> self-sovereign support technology and I agree with Kim's pros and cons on
>>> adopting the term. The longer version is more accurate (according to a
>>> discussion on the VRM list about a year ago...) but the short version may
>>> be best.
>>>
>>> That SST might put off the corporations is pretty clear because it's
>>> tech that nobody owns but you. It's tech without a privacy policy because
>>> there's no counter party to have a policy or other contract with. It's open
>>> source by definition. It's like most of Bitcoin and Ethereum or an open
>>> source home router. That said, I think it's time we raised the issue with
>>> the corporations about "the web we want"- the tag line for
>>> https://diglife.com/
>>>
>>> Our implants (I'm an MD, medical device developer), our cyborgs, our
>>> personal agents online, will be SST soon enough. They will protect our
>>> policies the way our hardware secure elements protect our private keys
>>> today. My SST will be enhanced with machine intelligence in order to learn
>>> my preferences and act autonomously on my behalf.
>>>
>>> There's really no way around having the discussion of how two individual
>>> humans connect through their SST in a completely private way. Start with a
>>> simple smart contract.
>>>
>>> The place where our institutions intersect with SST is what we call the
>>> "identity container" in RWoT. In the stack that I work on (HIE of One), the
>>> identity container includes an UMA Authorization Server that issues
>>> standard tokens to third party entities (individuals and institutions)
>>> mostly automatically but with an occasional fallback to live interaction
>>> with the human owner in cases where the protected policies are ambiguous.
>>>
>>> Looked at from this perspective, blockchain IDs are an essential
>>> foundation for SST because they are a web of trust to link together our
>>> SSTs for trusted interaction with each other as people.
>>>
>>> The SST identity container as authorization server becomes the place
>>> where requesting parties (individuals and institutional) present their
>>> claims. The identity container can act on our behalf to sign-in to
>>> institutions. As the police cars say: "To protect and serve."
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Timothy Holborn <
>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> my apologies for the blunt expression of concerns...
>>>>
>>>> webizen would likely be my vote. Has some heritage;
>>>> http://webizen.org/
>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Tim.H.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 May 2017 at 16:57 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Adrian Gropper MD
>>>
>>> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
>>> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 13:39:45 UTC

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