- From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 20:31:19 +0000
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANYRo8i2PmT8c4+fQ+jnVWQUF=5Hi1mo0s7ZcFgj63Uj3k=hoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Timothy, Thanks for reminding us of this. It's incredibly important and pretty much missing in all of the tech venues where I participate including, w3c, UN, IEEE, OpenID, and Kantara. I approach this question by promoting self-sovereign support technology (including personal AI and self-sovereign ID) and the standards that would drive symmetry between institutional and personal tech. Aside from the public blockchain forums, I see no support for this kind of work. Adrian On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:54 PM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > the future of human rights as it is made available by way of the choices > made to form means of legal rights by way of digital identity, identity > instruments, attribution and accessibility to identity related data facets; > will be a modifier for the future of our planet. > > It's entirely weird to be speaking on those terms; yet, it is truth. > > W3C is not the appropriate vehicle to be talking about 'philosophy' or > social attributes pertaining to the discussions needed to figure out > specifications. I find it arguable to find any existing organisation > properly equipped to do so; other than perhaps some sort of extension to > the UN or as some have called to create, a UN v2. > > This is an open-question. If a structure were created where the various > existing groups committed to work together in the interests of the > betterment of humanity and the natural world; how would it be done and whom > would be involved. Which organisations, to which charter, how would the > works outflow to work-items taken-up by other more specialised > organisations (such as W3C), et.al. > > It is my consideration; that since the advent of 'web 2.0' we have not > done enough, and whilst some have dedicated so much time to this important > cause; we simply do not have a structural solution define that may provide > the means to succeed; given the complex circumstances pertaining to the > need, and cause. > > As the data stored in databases becomes more trusted than any spoken word; > in a field of science and technology that provides fluid access without > necessarily supporting provenance, version control and other important > considerations; the decisions made (not simply for credentials but far more > broadly) will impact the world in ways far beyond that of traditional > Internet Protocol / WWW stakeholders. > > So, i thought the question should be raised. IMHO, we could forge a > cooperative framework between a multitude of existing groups; to > cooperatively collaborate and use technology that enabled mass engagement > (using credentials, noting, i do not think blockchain works are required to > do so). > > yet every year we do not deliver a solution commercial operates continue > to create more entrenched means in which to commoditise humans by way of > data. I'm not sure this form of sole-method for modern communications is > necessarily ethical; indeed, it should be a choice. > > Amongst the most difficult challenges is that of allowing a person to make > decisions about the data about them as part of their wishes in relation to > their death; and how that data may be available to others for more than a > month; indeed ideally, more than one hundred years. It's a far more > complex issue than i'd imagined; and it really demonstrates the benefits of > those shoe-boxes in which our elders stored photos that tell us about our > history today; over the mediums in which we use today, where no photos in > shoe-boxes are created anymore. > > something worth thinking about. interested in solutions. > > Timothy Holborn. > -- Adrian Gropper MD PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2017 20:32:02 UTC