Re: Proposal for UNHCR demo

Is this based on a true story?   My experience of people with diabetes
(certainly type 1) is that insulin dependence is not an optional, they'd
simply feel better type of situation. life of death from my experience, and
if the patient becomes insulin dependent in type 2 - i'd imagine it's very
much the same...

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 at 04:22 Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com> wrote:

> Manu,
>
> Here are my thoughts after our call last week about the RWoT demo.
>
> The Joram 1.0.0 Engagement Model
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GLejHAyOGcFZMDH23VpBK5as_474gt1tdYZIWkHm7c0/edit?usp=sharing,
> currently in draft, is an attempt to describe the human interactions when a
> Syrian refugee works his way through Greece, with an eye to descripting
> requirements for a self-sovereign identity system. It is an early step to
> formally understand how to support UN SDG 16.9. For simplicity, I'll refer
> to this as the UNHCR use case.
>
> Perhaps the key challenge in this use case is the lack of technology owned
> or controlled by the typical refugee. In the engagement model, we assume
> that the stewards--not the refugee--have access to a physical device
> connected to the Internet, which is capable of properly accessing a
> yet-to-be-defined Distributed Data Store. Conceptually, this is just a
> smart phone.
>
> The big question for us: can this engagement model be realized with
> verifiable claims? What would VC need to support it?
>
> The immediate question is: can we modify or configure Digital Bazaar's
> digital wallet to provide a UNHCR experiential demo at Rebooting Web of
> Trust IV in Paris?
>
> To demonstrate Joram in a credible way, I think there are two keys we'd
> need to demonstrate:
>
> 1. The use of a QR coded bracelet and pin as the refugee's identification
> and authentication mechanism, enabling the refugee to selectively share
> specific proofs/attributes with stewards.
>
> 2. The storing of the digital trail of non-repudiable observations,
> accessible via the authentication and selection mechanism in #2.
>
> And specifically, for the wallet you showed us in our call, I think we'll
> need:
>
> 3. A change in the mental model of the wallet-device relationship. The
> current wallet software assumes the controller of the device is the
> controller of the wallet. In the UNHCR case, the device is controlled by
> the steward, so linking to a wallet--which is controlled by the
> refugee--should not form a long term permission for control over the
> wallet, but rather provide a mechanism for the transfer of specific
> attributes to the steward's system.
>
> The strawman we've been working with includes a few core assumptions:
> 1. Steward software adheres to a recognized standard authentication
> ceremony. This ceremony includes having the subject (1) unlock the dataset
> with a pin, (2) manage selective disclosure of the dataset, and (3) record
> the access in the data store with a photo of the refugee. In other words,
> we are trusting the software to act to a standard and for stewards to use
> non-compromised devices.
>
> 2. We're ok with access to the underlying datastore being
> provisioned/permissioned based on UN criteria, and are comfortable with the
> UN managing consensus and permissioning of steward organizations. We don't
> need to resolve the question of how to implement the engagement model in an
> open public ledger, because we see significant benefit in the UN's role
> establishing rules of governance and monitoring participants for bad
> behavior.
>
> 3. Our mental model for the datastore is not cards in the sense of
> Information Cards or loyalty cards, but rather an accumulated context of
> non-repudiable observations, which can be selectively presented by the
> subject. The key to us is that any participant can write an observation
> about a subject, and the subject controls which attributes are shared with
> which recipients.
>
> While we are pushing towards a user-driven or self-sovereign approach, our
> particular scenario is fine with the role the UN--as a collective
> collaborative governing body--establishing who can read/write to the data
> store and how bad actors are policed and the resulting dataset is
> granularly composable by distinct sharing ceremonies.
>
> Proposal for the demo:
> 1. Issue participants a bracelet with a unique QR code
> 2. Associate a photo with that QR code
> 3. Associate a user-selected PIN with that QR code
> 4. Create several interactions where the bracelet + PIN + a photo check
> (performed by the steward) authenticate the participant for access to
> services. Ideas for interactions:
>     a. entrance to the event
>     b. getting food
>     c. giving a talk
>     d. drink tickets
> 5. As a bit of theater:
>      a. an intake scenario of Joram at the beach, taken to UN intake
> officer, linking the participants experience to Joram
>      b. at the end, "accuse" a participant of a transgression, for which
> the history of interactions provides evidence refuting their guilt.
>
> I'm not sure how much of that is feasible given the timeframe, but if we
> can make a good pass at something like this, it would provide a catalyst
> for discussion of best practices when the subject and/or controller of a
> claim lacks the technology to manage their own keys, but does have the
> moral and legal authority to manage consent and disclosure.
>
> -j
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
> joe@joeandrieu.com
> +1(805)705-8651 <+1%20805-705-8651>
> http://blog.joeandrieu.com
>
>