Re: Verifiable Claims Charter Proposal prepped for W3M

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 at 06:28 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
On 10/01/2016 07:49 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Human Centric is a very good means to differentiate from service
> centric IMHO. ie: organic living beings vs. the tools created by such
> parties.

We have discussed human-centric before, the concerns were:

* The ecosystem supports IoT, AI, and autonomous entities - all of
  which are not humans and may not be human-centric (for example, a
  swarm of robots that attempts to protect local biodiversity of which
  humans are not the center of the equation).

Human Centric models should acknowledge humans or groups of humans are involved in decision making processes for 'tools' (companies or machines).

Human Centric therein reflects LAW in that humans are fundermentally responsible for the things they create or are made authorities to service / act on behalf of; etc.

Humans goto goal/jail. that is a unique qualifier that needs to be addressed should other 'agents' be capable of autonomous acts of legal (inc. financial) consequence.

* It could be argued that OpenID Connect and SAML are human-centric. It
  could be argued that Google+, Facebook, and Twitter are human-centric.
  It's harder to make that argument about self-sovereign, where an
  entity has domain over their verifiable claims.

The term 'sovereign' relates in-turn to 'rule of law' http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereign <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereign>

no-one is above law. yet, i exist within the ''choice' of law' of Victoria/Australia. This is where i live in which i am provided the opportunity to take my disputes to a court of law for a nominal fee.

I'm not sure how that applies should i elect to become an e-resident of a foreign, sovereign territory.

An array of pre-existing entitlements exist around travel of a passport holder, and the difficulties of travel and rights attestations for those without a passport / nationality.

* Self sovereign is starting to catch on at places like the United
  Nations and Future of Identity conferences. The same isn't true for
  Human-centric. The tide is going in the direction of self-sovereign,
  so changing direction at this point would have us swimming against
  the tide.

well if someone can define for me the idea that a person is a law unto themselves, then i'll consider the concept 'self-sovereign'.

Unless of course, the term is targeted towards the use of governments; in which we wouldn't have addressed the needs of humans who may be subject to disputes with their government.

The concept of "separation of powers" https://www.google.com.au/search?q=separation+of+powers <https://www.google.com.au/search?q=separation+of+powers> addresses this consideration historically (although not well augmented to our online identity eco-system as yet).


Just some background, as someone that argued for human-centric for a while.

who? if more info about the former arguments is available; i'd find that valuable.  I'm not particularly devoted to the specific terms; i just couldn't find one that was better...

Tim.H.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/ <http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/>