- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 12:17:46 +0000
- To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2axxAvE4cbicK9GKo_DBqzNbBXU6tFHuoGoOeMz7HwEA@mail.gmail.com>
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.
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2017 12:18:31 UTC