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

Re: UN peacekeepers 'barter goods for sex' - BBC News

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:13:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2zMojGWytgybpUNXORZQTe2LKORbD6+NDH2THUwWt+DA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kelly Sonderegger <ksondere@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
perhaps make sure we write a minute 'not our problem' and/or 'we do not
have any influence on these issues' or 'out of scope'.

that'll help with the Identity related analysis, and provide the means for
others to do the necessary work.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 at 01:11 Kelly Sonderegger <ksondere@gmail.com> wrote:

> Manu hits on the real point, as one who loves technology this issue
> doesn't solve with technology.
> We're uncomfortable to talk about the real solutions to problems like
> these because of the ensuing wrath that always occurs.  And yet C.S.Lewis
> so well speaks of a natural law of men, a law that tells us that things are
> not what they should be.  It is of course the law of conscience, the law of
> guilt.  Guilt is actually not a bad thing.  It is a good thing to recognize
> and then seek to conform too a conscience that makes us feel guilty.
> Acknowledging guilt recognizes this natural and unyielding law of our
> conscience and makes society strive to become both accountable and better.
> It is ultimately this idea that turned C.S. Lewis from atheist to Christian.
> Though we condemn the idea of guilt these days ironically we live in a
> shaming society which is far worse. A shaming society is perpetually
> reactive and alarmed.  If you don't conform to the popular ideas of a
> shaming society you are excluded based on the whims of what shamers believe
> should be conformed too.
> So what solves this issue?  The courage to speak more freely of the
> natural law of conscience, to raise a sense of guilt on those who are
> guilty of wrong doing.  And to speak to the fact that these things are
> wrong in the site of a Just God.
> And moving from there.
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:46 AM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 at 00:10 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 09:31 PM, Kaliya IDwoman wrote:
> > Man camps of all kinds create markets for sex. Smart contracts don't
> > fix this problem
> Strongly agree.
> they were talking about children, not simply prostitution whereby i still
> think there is a difference based upon the capacity to provide 'consent'
> particularly in cases of 'modern slavery' and those of poor mental health.
>  all of which can be use-cases for credentials / verifiable claims. .
> similar yet different (lower-stakes) use case:
> https://github.com/ouisharelabs/food-dashboard/issues/6  (haven't been
> able to make much progress on that yet).
> Technologists tend to incorrectly bias very heavily towards technology
> solving problems that are fundamentally more social than technical. We
> should measure our words more carefully, this thread being a case in point.
> One of the problems with sex trafficking, among most other criminal
> activity, is that the criminals don't care about rule of law and are
> incredibly good at exploiting people for their own gain. Having a
> perfect blockchain + smart contract solution isn't going to make a dent
> in the problem unless it's also paired with a very well funded and
> concerted political and social effort to reduce trafficking.
> I still don't like the term 'blockchain' for some of these works.
> We had the same issue at the last ID2020 event where some proposed
> that Blockchain could "solve" the refugee problem.
> looking at modular, pre-fab smart housing.  that seems like a better
> scaffold.  After all, Trump's a builder...
> These technologies may be used as a very small part of a solution, but
> we should be very careful to NOT suggest that the technologies
> themselves will address the issue.
> Agreed.  But without appropriate technology design technology (or the
> implementation style / use of technology) can be part of the problem.
> That's not to say that we shouldn't incubate technologies that may be
> used as part of a solution to a problem. We should just be very careful
> to not suggest that they ARE the solution to the problem.
> A bit like the invention of antibiotics - people will still get sick, and
> people will still need to see a doctor - but perhaps infection rates can be
> lowered by accessibility to good healthcare; and, the outcomes are even
> better now we have drugs to treat problems alongside many other
> advancements in medical technology; yet some regions may have business
> systems where it's difficult to get the best of care.  Some regions may not
> have access to good medical care, clean facilities or even clean water.
> UN Peace-keepers causing medical issues by way of child sexual abuse upon
> those of our species who are the least able to obtain care? that's not
> ok.
> We're a bit like medical researchers for helping to produce the
> 'technology' that can help solve those problems, if we choose to be; and
> the benefits will be most values by those with a 'clean health record', so
> they can continue to do good and be recgonised for their efforts.
> Inoculating kids; or perhaps something similar to Bill Gates goals for
> polio; would be much better than improving the means for treatment, whilst
> both are seemingly needed; and even better - these sorts of 'illnesses' are
> indiscriminate - the kids wouldn't need to be simply protected from un
> peace keepers - indeed, i imagine in greater volumes far more would
> benefit!!!
> Yet if we do not do this work well.  If we do not meet our challenges,
> then our ability, our choices.  well.  IMHO, they do matter as a
> constituent of solving these sorts of problem.  Honestly, i think it's an
> important constituent.  Whether it be in relation to economic trade or
> other means; it's a way to 'rethink good guys vs. bad guys'.
> and try to ensure those who do the right thing; don't get harmed by those
> who knowing do otherwise, with impunity.
> building systems where the data about human activity is stored by the
> human cannot access that data for safety / welfare / health?   because it's
> not part of the advertising based business model?  that's a values
> statement far more than it is a technology problem, yet due to lack of
> investment; we're still here building technology.
> So i hope we make improvements to the 'status quo' as other are also
> suggesting
> https://www.wired.com/2017/04/tim-berners-lee-inventor-web-plots-radical-overhaul-creation/
> yet i'm still worried about the means and methods, as i've also outlined
> here:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Apr/0051.html
> I also started on
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Jul/0043.html years
> ago; and haven't seen much progress on that yet either (noting it's been a
> really difficult road with too few hands and some incredible ones...)
> :)
> tim.H
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Friday, 7 April 2017 15:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:44 UTC