Re: The Default

also - - IMHO -  ethics is with the group,  whereas individuals contribute
towards those group (corpus) decisions by way of moral ones made by
themselves.
https://www.webizen.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/infosphere_actor_objects.svg


the trick that work like HTTPA (
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2010/Papers/IAB-privacy/httpa.pdf ) showed, was
the means to make people accountable for their moral decisions overtime,
which in-turn should have the effect of shifting the nature through which
ethics are defined operationally by a group.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 22:00, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mitzi,
>
> you have a journey in front of you filled with lots of wonderful learning
> experiences.
>
> no, there will be no one-world-government controlling a global
> web-id-registry.  Any confusion about this may be bad for inrupt.
>
> part of the reason why i did not work for a commercial organisation whilst
> seeking to form the 'human centric' design requirements via various
> standards initiatives relating to solid - was that, one cannot wear too
> many hats / conflicts of interest.
>
> therein - there weren't traditionally organisations interested in helping
> humans own their own data, rather - the focus was on usury / turning humans
> into consumers, with data-based 'golden handcuffs'.
>
> My works on RWW, Credentials, WebPayments and the other pieces - are
> towards  group effort that is designed to produce a decentralised
> framework, free of choke-points able to be repurposed by the power-hungry.
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 20:33, Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi W3C Solid Community Group,
>>
>> In preparation for our call next Thursday I wanted to share some thoughts
>> on the following agenda item:
>>
>>    - Discuss possibility of Solid Design Requirements Specification in
>>    particular the potential for defining the default data sharing settings in
>>    such a way that the user is protected while able to engage at a minimum
>>    level.
>>
>>
>> I have begun to write the Solid spec chronologically i.e. detailing the
>> technical requirements when they are relevant to the user journey. It is a
>> very rough draft. The purpose of this thought experiment is not to restrict
>> the path, rather to identify where the default design is critical and if
>> there are any technical requirements that if done by a single party would
>> result in a conflict of interest to the core values of Solid. I would like
>> to talk about the minimum.
>>
>> As homo sapiens, the default tends to be our choice, we are lazy. Rather
>> than fight our natural wiring (which anyone who went on a diet can tell you
>> is tough) I think we should reflect on the default to make sure it
>> represents our more considered choices and defined values.
>>
>> Pat’s work on G consent could be a very useful reference to build on
>> http://openscience.adaptcentre.ie/ontologies/GConsent/docs/ontology
>>
>> Depending on our conversations next week perhaps this could be a new
>> repository on the Solid GitHub.
>>
>> Please excuse me for using Microsoft Word, however, it illustrates the
>> point I am trying to make rather neatly.
>>
>> Mitzi
>>
>>
>>
>>