- From: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:29:32 -0800
- To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Cc: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>, Nathan Aw <nathan.mk.aw@gmail.com>, daniel.hardman@evernym.com, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAB=TY84WmYiHsZJih=bPg3QYYxwRC0YxnpM0nSMLE4tBe3mdvA@mail.gmail.com>
flagging this as CCG recommended reading On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:22 AM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote: > Sarcasm noted and appreciated but the simple fact is that 7, 47, or 87 > year olds don't care about identity any more than they care about sentence > structure in their particular language. It's what you do with it that > people care about including reputation, employment, sex, health, not > necessarily in that order. > > Adrian > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote: > >> ROFL >> >> Still a ways to go I'm afraid. >> >> >> >> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Nathan Aw <nathan.mk.aw@gmail.com> >> Date: 11/18/18 7:11 AM (GMT-08:00) >> To: daniel.hardman@evernym.com >> Cc: joe@legreq.com, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Control & Identity [was Re: Teaching a 7 year old about >> decentalized identity/self-soverign identity ("SSI")] >> >> Thank you Daniel, Joe and Adrian for your great inputs. >> >> Am sure my 7 year old cousin will understand this topic better now. Thank >> you! >> >> Nathan Aw >> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, 04:12 Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com >> wrote: >> >>> I wholeheartedly agree with Steven, Joe, and Adrian that "control" is >>> problematic in exactly the ways pointed out. This was one of the words that >>> I had in mind when I said that the definition suppresses certain details >>> and is a simplification. Simplfications can be helpful for certain >>> audiences, and very unhelpful for others. >>> >>> I wonder if we need to publish somewhare a "peeling back layers of the >>> onion" discussion of SSI (or one that starts at 10K meters, then 100 >>> meters, then 1 meter, then 10 millimeters)--successively exploring how >>> suppressed detail at the higher level needs to be added back in? >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:01 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018, at 11:09 AM, Steven Rowat wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2018-11-14 9:56 AM, Daniel Hardman wrote: >>>> >>>> "SSI: An identity model that allows an individual or organization >>>> to control their identities, or the identity of a thing, expressed >>>> through the use of decentralized identifiers and digital credentials." >>>> >>>> >>>> A comment is that 'control' might imply more than can be delivered for >>>> 'identity'; to the degree that identity consists in what other >>>> people think of us and we can't control that part. I also find the >>>> 'expressed' slightly confusing (about what is expressed -- the model, >>>> the identity, or the thing) and the statement seems to works fine >>>> without it. So perhaps: >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. "Control" is an improvement over ownership, but it still misses >>>> the mark in a way I haven't yet figured out how to address. >>>> >>>> Identity is a social construct. As Kaliya Young so elegantly presented >>>> at MyData (and in her Master Thesis), identity is a triad: >>>> 1. How I see myself >>>> 2. How I present myself to others >>>> 3. How others see me >>>> >>>> This is a mutually reinforcing circle. How I see myself influences how >>>> I present myself to others. How we present ourselves affects how others see >>>> us. How others see us affects how we see ourselves. >>>> >>>> We can mostly control how we affirmatively present to others--which is >>>> essentially how selective presentation of Verifiable Credentials tied to >>>> our own DIDs helps create a decentralized identity. However, this control >>>> is itself limited in extent. Consider anyone who has tried to pass as a >>>> different race or class, or transitioned from one gender to another. Our >>>> physicality, our economic circumstance, even how we talk, all are areas of >>>> our presentation over which we have only modest control. >>>> >>>> Most importantly, we can't *control* how others see us. We can't >>>> control others' biases and judgments. We can't control what other >>>> information they bring to the table. Unfortunately, there's not even a way >>>> to control what they do with any information presented to them. We try with >>>> regulations like GDPR and user asserted terms of service, but those are >>>> policies that establish guidance subject to later enforcement; they don't >>>> actually control the spread & use of information as much as enable >>>> punishment for unacceptable distribution & use. >>>> >>>> On a more subtle note, we even have limited control over how we see >>>> ourselves. It's hard to change your own self-perception. It's possible, but >>>> also a core subject of the multi-billion self-help industry. >>>> >>>> I noticed this limitation on control is a lot like how relationships >>>> work. >>>> >>>> We don't *control* our relationships with others. For some we have no >>>> choice in, e.g., parents / children, others are a mutually negotiated >>>> opt-in: girlfriends, employers, teachers. I can't *make* someone be my >>>> boss, but I get to accept or reject a job offer, and I can always terminate >>>> the relationship. But I can't force it to continue if I get fired. We >>>> influence relationships. We can engender, nurture, or destroy >>>> relationships, but we don't control them. >>>> >>>> Controlling our identity is similar. We don't control our identity in >>>> terms of how other people see us. We influence it. And, given the asymmetry >>>> in information systems, I'm happy to argue that it is right and just and >>>> meet that people have greater influence over our identity than is currently >>>> enabled in our digital world. That is, yes, we need more control, but at >>>> the end of the day, we can never control it completely. Advocating for >>>> "control" without all the caveats I just described makes it sound like SSI >>>> is an unreasonable toddler demanding "Mine! Mine!". Certainly, this notion >>>> of individual control is a big stumbling block to people's perceptions of >>>> SSI. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure the concise way to reframe the basic definition, but I >>>> appreciate the distinction Steven Rowat made here. Control is still tricky, >>>> even if its a notable improvement over "own". >>>> >>>> That said, maybe it's a fine idea for the movement & ideology of SSI to >>>> advocate for individual empowerment and greater control, allowing the term >>>> decentralized identity to be more broadly used, independent of the >>>> political conversation. >>>> >>>> -j >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joe Andrieu, PMP >>>> joe@legreq.com >>>> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS >>>> +1(805)705-8651 <(805)%20705-8651> >>>> Do what matters. >>>> http://legreq.com >>>> <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > -- > > Adrian Gropper MD > > PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! > HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. > DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/ > -- Kim Hamilton Duffy CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group kim@learningmachine.com
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2018 23:30:08 UTC