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 07:16:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok251CV91UCuaLi3w00FDSQU9gTjVDK9OHmc_hc21U06Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>
Cc: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Hi Kaliya,

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 at 12:12 Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>
wrote:

> HI Tim,
> They are all big issues.
>
> I invite you to join us at IIW (internet Identity workshop) where we have
> been holding a container for both technology and philosophy conversations
> in this realm for 12 years. Our 25th workshop is October 17-19.
> Http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com
>
>
I first started working on a solution for what i perceived to be the
underlying problems in 2000 which i first called iBank and was called
'BaseDrive', where i made alot of mistakes and ended-up contributing to the
design of an aggregation methodology - around the time that AppleID
accounts were first launched.  http://sailingdigital.com/contact.html

In ~2011 i started working on redefining solutions the same problems
(having watched web 2.0 develop and having done alot of work over the
decade as baseline R&D) which led to WebID then via henry, RWW, Melvin,
payments, Manu, helped establish creds, et.al.


> Yes it costs money. If any one on this list feels called to join us /
> actively participate but not able to afford it please contact me directly.
> Kaliya (at) identitywoman.net
>

I've looked for contract / employment opportunities opportunities to build
systems that define RDF related ID solutions in a manner that's good for
humans, et.al.  They like the RDF bit, but have never formed agreement with
that bit about people owning their data / building a better identity
ecosystems...  Indeed feel a bit black-listed as a result.  I believe in my
purpose; therein, even today - i've just discovered:
http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/wn31/identity-n   which helps to better
explain that some may think of identity as:
http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/wn31/104750264-n others mean it in terms
of http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/wn31/104625427-n or indeed
http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/wn31/105771409-n  - and now they're
machine-readable concepts!!!

therein; as an example, i quickly wrote a doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHK5v7PVY6WfCOw2-O82nN9qz0Kp9ew1Bxn0C0eMXWU/edit?usp=sharing
after
searching for a wiki solution, the data that could be harvested to produce
an RDF source, et.al.  Then got onto the wiki-dev list asked a question;
and was thankfully referred to that RDF resource that in-turn reflects some
of the other underlying issues we're yet to get to developing for our web,
and those such as i, continue to make my contributions as best i can;
freely (or moreover, at my expense, in very modest circumstances).

We should be able to say what we mean in RDF readable sentences...  not yet
though.

Yet, yes.  unpaid work. as has been my life for a long-time; which impacts
my identity in some weird way where i feel like it might be better from the
'observer' point of view if i didn't care so much about these issues...
Please consider this to be an email? Of course, you are welcome to respond
to me privately...  i'm based in oz.  note:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/25/australia-wants-five-eyes-to-squeeze-tech-firms-on-encryption/
and
note also; beyond the economic nature of the circumstances in which i
contribute, i've also been expected to do so in the wee hours of the
morning (ie: 2am) as is often the case with these sorts of works.  As a
result, few people in these parts have either a good awareness of the
issues; and/or, are able to participate in any capacity as to either
garnish an understanding, or meaningfully contribute.


>
Also with respect to some of the themes you bring up. I don't think the UN
> or any "Statist" organization is a good forum for this.
>

I note an array of issues are understood to exist with the manner in which
the UN currently functions by leading experts.  I also note various
'succession planning' and adaption requirements for organisations such as
ISOC and indeed also the interest exhibited by groups such as IEEE.

Overtime with W3C (particularly noting: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen )
my view was that they've had difficulties enabling individuals to
participate with IG or WG activities (ie; new WG formed for VCWG, but i'm
not included; which seems to represent a particular 'role' allocation,
et.al.); and that SoLiD (or what was RWW) is whilst somewhat 'led' by TimBL
(alongside melvin, henry, sandro hawk, et.al.) isn't done within W3C which
i consider to be an illustrative and interesting situation...  particularly
given the organisational structure of W3C (as can be found in documents and
whois references).

SO, my thought was that we should be able to engender critical mass via
interoperability between different stakeholder groups as to figure out
inter-dependencies that can be effectively considered as to bring to the
table in public forum; that which is moreover said in private, by those who
are already participants via different means of financial capacity
attributes and related undertakings / charters.

I also consider that the timezone issue is a serious one; which should be
easy to understand given that the majority of participants are
participating within scheduled times that suit their business hours.

Additionally, the use of RDF for assisting to ensure the language we're
using has an exactness to it; and thereafter also, flexibilities provided
where required, in a manner that provides both transparency and
accountability..


> Watching the current international dialogue and the frame that states have
> about ID and citizens is concerning. We do not derive our Identity's and
> dignity as people from states.
>

Agreed.  Yet, when they don't really understand RDF / linked-data or how it
should be used more (and thereafter incorporated into the thinking used for
tech.) makes life more difficult.  the 'new thing' seems to be moreover the
concept of 'gov via API' which has some merit; but, it's not akin to the
manner in which banking evolved, whereby individuals (by way of a
marketplace) have a right to their own accounts.

Somewhat due to catholics not being able to enter into usary, which was
solve by the catholic church becoming a bank, but nonetheless.  kinda
different to the way data serves people (in an age where "the gold
standard" has changed to something that can best be described as a data
based ledger --> are banks required to store in paper form a copy of all
materials? i kinda assume it's all data now?).

I noted sometime ago an idea of publishing IETF RFCs in RDF (additionally
to the TXT version); not sure what the thoughts were there.  But certainly,
alot of issues are not really about a lack of W3C Web-standards; Some are,
but others are often considered to be beyond the scope of W3C.


>
> I could say more. I'm out away for the weekend. Maybe I will contribute
> more to the converation next week.
>

:)


>
> - Kaliya
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YXh-X7eXd9Uh5zkJv0Rjop8DcVqqEbd-E_eOnw4fMZ4/edit?usp=sharing in
> an attempt to get the concept of identity tooling, into 1 page.
>
> Adrian
>>
>>
> tim.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZdRe8cheQ&feature=youtu.be&t=25m23s
Received on Sunday, 9 July 2017 07:17:22 UTC

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