W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2020

Re: Important Issue for Immunity Credentials

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 14:51:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CANYRo8i0beJNT1R_eiWd56sRFzZKDmY7F5zrxpxf_KuL+vbkWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>
Cc: Xiao Zhang <zhangx@gbctech.cn>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Exactly. The essential point is that coronavirus is local, maybe to the ZIP
code level. This is a situation where existing relationships plus Trust on
First Use might be the dominant paradigm. I think this applies to
governance as well as the root of trust. Any transactions rooted beyond the
community can be relatively expensive (via ToFU). Beyond the community,
actual data transfers can be protected by differential privacy and
federated learning to avoid aggregation of personal data as much as
practical.

This local data and decentralized governance perspective is my starting
point as I think about the role of SSI. Where does DLT add value and what
are the essential standards? To support decentralized governance, national
mandates would have to be designed with this in mind.

- Adrian

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:37 PM Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>
wrote:

> While few (none?) of us on the mailing list know the details, I think this
> is where a governance framework comes in.  Each verifier will want to know
> the basis under which the issuer issued the credential.  In a closed
> ecosystem (one jurisdiction), that will be easy. In order to accept a
> credential from another issuer, a verifier will want to know the science
> used by the issuer and decide how from there to trust (or not) the
> credentials. The framework for disclosing that information will be needed.
> It's a good use case for this as the issuers will be relatively small (at
> least initially), as will the ecosystems in which they are used.
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:21 AM Xiao Zhang <zhangx@gbctech.cn> wrote:
>
>> IgG antibody is a signal of ‘old’ infection (one had COVID-19
>> weeks/months ago)
>> IgM is of current or very recent infection.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Xiao Zhang
>>
>> > 在 2020年4月9日,上午12:14,Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> 写道:
>> >
>> > On 2020-04-07 11:35 pm, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
>> >> From my work with the lab at Kings college, the "good" tests provide a
>> >> triplet of ternary results:
>> >> Overall "result": Yes/No/unclear
>> >> IgM: High/Medium/Low
>> >> IgG: High/Medium/Low
>> >>
>> >> IgM and IgG are the real immunity results showing how long ago it has
>> >> developed.
>> >
>> > Although I'm not a doctor, I can add that yesterday the doctor in NY
>> Governor Cuomo's press conference explained that there is a key difference
>> between these IgM and IgG, which is that one of them shows past infection,
>> and one shows current. He was explaining that an immunity certificate needs
>> to reflect this difference accurately in order to show that people are over
>> it and do not still have it.
>> >
>> > If my memory of what he said is correct, he was saying that the test
>> they're developing only uses one of them, the one that shows that the
>> infection is 'old' and not current, and that this is sufficient and what is
>> required for an immunity certificate.
>> >
>> > Steven
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Stephen Curran
> Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc. (C3I)
> Technical Governance Board Member - Sovrin Foundation (sovrin.org)
>
> *Schedule a Meeting: **https://calendly.com/swcurran
> <https://calendly.com/swcurran>*
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2020 18:51:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:58 UTC