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

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

From: Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:00:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPS+YF+kbMERGCjnKMiC+xAj4bWR+Gna3Z0rnXxvuq2B_OTwQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Kelly Sonderegger <ksondere@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Here's a common language based on contract law.

Build some use-cases with it.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>

> We're here to build use-cases that in-turn we can use to define an open
> and free suite of technology standards that we can evaluate as being 'fit
> for purpose' based upon prior art and the use-cases we elect as a
> counterpart to the means in which to evaluate the success of our works.
> I've added this use-case, and have provided examples of complimentary
> technology standards (and related works) to reinforce the 'use-case
> illustration'.
> This is not about god, nor are the acts of 'crimes against humanity' or
> individuals thereof.  this is about a design paradigm for the future of the
> web, that has particular implications and timelines, and is a particularly
> good illustration of the 'high stakes' nature of these works.  I'm sure
> people in future want to make a profit from the undertakings of these
> works.  I'll certainly sleep better having brought up the issue and having
> proposed considerations of how to positively influence means in which to
> make it less of an issue in all quarters of society world-wide.
> whether anyone else thinks it's a good idea to think about potential
> influences of these works in relation to biometric signatures (produced via
> CV, Phonetics, analytics, etc.); and upon what terms they choose to do
> so...  perhaps advertising and commerce support is most important.
> well.  that's that's all much bigger than me.
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 at 01:29 Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The people at the top create contracts with the intention of reneging.
>> They don't feel guilt.  They are guilty.
>> "When the people of the world have a *common monetary language*,
>> completely freed from every government, it will so facilitate and stabilize
>> exchange that peace and prosperity will ensue even without world government.
>> A union of peoples rather than a union of political governments is what
>> the world needs."
>> E.C. Riegel, monetary theorist 1949.
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 16:01:02 UTC

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