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

Re: (digital) Identity concepts - defining a 'human rights framework' how?

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 01:03:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok21kDDUWX0DJgMtYkt7PWCY62ykzGn=nknXRO492u-cFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 at 06:31 Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:

> 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 was thinking recently about the CDN issues (net neutrality) where
services might make mature offerings available FOC (from a data billing
point of view) in a manner that simply didn't exist when these services
were starting-up with the support of early adopters.  Perhaps part of the
solution is to have data-cost indices in the stock-market; denoting the
difference between the cost of a MB/GB from a mature CDN provider (ie;
Akamai, Google, YouTube) vs. the public web. We could use it to help
consumers figure out how good their internet plan is; whilst more broadly
having a market method for evaluating the health of the net in a manner
similar to that of tracking the cost of a barrel of oil.

Overtime, identity was a term used in relation to persons and other living
beings.  now it means to the commercial property commoditised by an
international company that is used by and required by a human upon terms
controlled by the commercial operator of that identity.   These identity
providers in-turn require interoperability with other identity providers
for insurance purposes and those required by government.

not much of the web supports individuals.  i don't think an individual can
easily go purchase a block of IPv6, nor set-up their own identity
eco-system, nor buy a bag of floppies to back-up their data in some way
that's useable in their machine; or other peoples machines...    the new
concept for 'identity' supported by the majority of W3C members is well....

something they've all been involved in making, whether its because that's
they way they wanted it; or because that's something they didn't think was
important enough to do something meaningful about.

> 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.
> i don't like the idea 'self-sovereign', i don't see it in any books of
law, nor other precedent apparatus that can be scalably used throughout the
world in relation to the means in which their cultures have developed.  If
anything it also kinda supports the means in which to redefine traditional
'identity' by way of forging a new term that operators will likely elect
not to use in any case.

This intepretation of the term 'self-sovereign' does not mean that i think
the intention of the people who created it was bad, wrongful, et.al.

I've suggested a better investigation into the concept of 'personhood'.
TimBL Spoke of 'Magna Carta' for the web, which i promoted for sometime;
without consideration (earlier than now) for the circumstance that i later
found succinctly put: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HJRkwBOkdw

Herein also; in civil society questions are being asked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYclXJTRzqU  - yet we are in the hotbed of
how these sorts of considerations made by many are made available...

doing something meaningful about it, is meaningful to me.  so i'm doing my
best.  i'm sure others are also, but i am concerned we do not have enough
going on at present to effectively influence change we need, rather than
providing an innovation hot-bed for the 'status-quo' to use as a threat
analysis and figure out how to reinforce their infrastructure as to change
the definition and means of humanity forever.

I wrote:
an attempt to get the concept of identity tooling, into 1 page.


> 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
> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
Received on Sunday, 9 July 2017 01:04:28 UTC

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