- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:58:57 +0000
- To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3+ErnSqyd+0-3_p=oj=N7Ts0abSr-PJj5EJqC2vb2M=g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 at 16:46 Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> wrote: > Always sad to read such things. > > I was an intern at the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and > experienced nothing but idealism and hard working people there, and I still > use "peacekeeper" for my Github, Twitter, etc. username. But in the > "field", I guess things are not always so ideal. > > Austrian empress Maria Theresia said a few centuries ago, in order to > abolish prostitution, you would have to abolish men. > > some of the examples illustrated involved children. it's horrific. the tip if the iceberg. As with many law-enforcement related use-cases, fixing these problems is important for citizens and those doing the job. Whether it be people who struggle through parental separation, the reasoning given for data retention or the dignity provided to those who serve their country or community. https://youtu.be/lBZdRe8cheQ?t=26m34s If a problem exists, action should be swift and resolute. Yet it's important to get a proper understanding of the problem as to not victimise the innocent and vulnerable. The more i learn of this problem the more i find that these sorts of issues are used as weapons against many, whilst those who need protection, support and rehabilitation as a result of having experienced these sorts of issues; are left without that support. I think that says alot about people who are paid to protect others. It says alot about the way in which systems are built, and the means in which those systems present values about human resource related policies... safety, health and welfare seems like a very pragmatic baseline. If someone is either incapable of providing that to others, or is in fact a danger to those core needs of others - they shouldn't be employed in any way that makes the problems of those agents (and the organisational frameworks they work in), that of the 'consumer', with impunity. Indeed the words of the UN Declarations of Human Rights, that of the Rights of the Child, et.al. is amongst the baseline for much of my works over many years... These instruments are not something to be sacrificed in payment of commerce or a lack of courage; depending on how we want the future 'reputation economy' to promote those who become leaders and pillars of community; we have value based decisions that need to be made, including the design of technology that provides sufficient flexibility to enshrine those values, whilst facilitating the best possible means to ensure that those children look up to in defining their own moral attributes to what defines success and/or appropriate behaviours - that we define technology by way of our values, to support the growth of theirs 'to fullest potential', in service of their right to happiness. We have a society that is built on principles that are more than simply 'cash is king' and organisations grow and fail every day. The organisation is simply a group of people working cooperatively, building tools, providing services that are greater than they're able to provide alone. https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch We are now building standards to inscribe values - means to by machine-readable, networked infrastructure - communicate 'verifiable claims; and due to the means, failures and problems with independent agencies ('persona Ficta') in being able to do their own checks and balances on themselves, without external influence; The means for these systems to be decentralised (and still discoverable via an ACL enabled gateway) is essential imho. The means for 'rule of law' that applies to the person, to also apply in relation to cyberia - is important. yet, this does not mean 'everyone needs to see everything' nor does it mean we want a surveillance state where principles such as 'separation of powers' does not apply. The means in which to affiliate biometric markers with human as an extension of 'personhood' in the natural world - seems important. *https://www.linkedtv.eu/development/linked-media-layer/ <https://www.linkedtv.eu/development/linked-media-layer/>* http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2012/papers/ldow2012-paper-01.pdf http://www.www2015.it/documents/proceedings/companion/p721.pdf In a manner that supports ACLs and where the primary stakeholder of that virtualised representation of a person; is considered to be an extension of the humans 'personhood' (inclusive of means to provide protections via societal apparatus). Herein; are some design decisions, and an extremely serious use case that should be resolved as quickly as is reasonable. IMHO as illustrated above, this can be achieved through the use of discovery to a sparql end-point where ACLs can be processed to identify a response by a "dataspace" provider, and this can also be done pseudo-anonymously depending on how URL/URIs are used in relation to personas (ie: via LDP). Noting - an understanding of linked-data and related lifecycle tooling is important to understand how this can be achieved using existing and evolving W3C (and related) standards works. tracking methods, phonetics and other registrars are relatively simple by extension. The broader challenge appears to be within the definition of 'dignity enhancing' (inclusive of confidentiality / privacy), rather than poorly constructed methods of using 'privacy' where a 3rd party holds records about a subject that they're unwilling to use for safety, health and welfare of the subject. Yet, therein is a set of complex issues which in no way i'd like to oversimplify. IMHO if someone has an intervention order (ie; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/psioa2010409/ ) and it's breached - law-enforcement should need the victim to take a photo and explain the metadata in that photo where the perpetrator is carrying a phone tracking them for advertising revenue purposes. That's really very undignified. I think one method that may be resolved could be in association to medical practices, who could create a request - much like pathology or other tests; and be able to support the patient whether or not their claims have merit... (ie: mental health or advocacy with law-enforcement, et.al.). but again - don't want to over simplify. It's just that with respect to the decisions made during the time of Web 2.0 emergence, well.... facebook, google and others who grew out of those decision making frameworks - became involved in the emergence of all sorts of issues, with technologies that could solve these sorts of problems, but without the architectural or operational capability to do so. another use-case i found interesting was that of a small group of young Macedonians realised that 'trump news' gets more clicks than content about Clinton. So whilst they really didn't care about trump whatsoever... their role was inspired simply about income and the business rules that are 'wealth creating' on the web. (noting that working on open standards for dignity enhancing identity related frameworks, isn't one of them). *References:* https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump therein is a story about the application of a particular business model without schema.org/nonfiction (and related markup) that may in-turn be signed by a reputation provider (perhaps industry specific) to support decentralised 'web of trust' models, using creds / verifiable claims. the reason why i've gone into this within this standards related framework is to illustrate; the definition of these standards will create modifiers about what is possible, what is widely deployed (and interoperable) and how we're able to assist in resolving bigger problems that require technology standards as enablers for socioeconomic safety, welfare, health, growth and sustainability. The bigger problem is obviously environmental sustainability, noting that i think similar methods apply (particularly with respect to ontological applications of existing ISO standards and means in which to create Sparql related scripts packaged with 'reputation' related verifiable claims, in relation to Web of Things works, et.al.). And if someone is doing UN related work, of law-enforcement related work - well, alot of law enforcement groups are using personal cameras for their own safety. How those things work... particularly as AR headwear develops, will have interesting implications particularly with respect to computer vision and ACLs. Tim.h. Markus > > > On 04/07/2017 03:31 AM, Kaliya IDwoman wrote: > > Srsly! > > Man camps of all kinds create markets for sex. > > Smart contracts don't fix this problem > > See the movie > The Wistleblower > http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/ > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Ambiguity in contracts is the root problem. People sign contracts they > don't understand or get trapped, then resort to sex to pay it off. > Predators take advantage of that naivety. Language and cultural > miscommunications are perpetuated to create contracts for that result. > > Solution > A common language for all contracts and transactions. It prevents > ambiguity, provides accountability, transparency, and respects privacy. > This is based on contract law and works in all languages and cultures for > barter and currency transactions: http://34.208.7.206/ContractsPage.aspx. > > Event-based smart contract to describe any contract or transaction. It's > precise enough for computers and human readable. See the stock market > examples and notice the identical data structure for both bid and ask. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Timothy Holborn < > timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > > Heres a problem worth fixing. > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33089662 > > > >
Received on Friday, 7 April 2017 07:59:44 UTC