Difference between revisions of "Community and Privacy"

From MgmtWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Full Title or Meme)
(Context)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
*I was musing about the self-sovereign community and how they chose to accommodate privacy and identity.
 
*I was musing about the self-sovereign community and how they chose to accommodate privacy and identity.
 
*So the DID core spec has evolved to have no concept of the distinction between organic and silicon life forms.  In other words it is amoral.
 
*So the DID core spec has evolved to have no concept of the distinction between organic and silicon life forms.  In other words it is amoral.
*What they have created to enable the distinction is the type in the VC and governance frameworks to regulate ecosystems.
+
*What they have created to enable the distinction is the type in the VC and [[Governance Framework]]s to regulate ecosystems.
 
*Or in other words, they have recreated federations (or governments) using other words to make it sound like something new and different.
 
*Or in other words, they have recreated federations (or governments) using other words to make it sound like something new and different.
*The governance frameworks are [[Ethics|Ethical frameworks]], or morals. (I do understand Aristotle.)
+
*The [Governance Framework]]s are [[Ethics|Ethical frameworks]], or morals. (I do understand Aristotle.)
*FAPI exists within a governance framework which eventually goes back to a financial framework which is backed by laws which are backed by morals.
+
*FAPI exists within a [Governance Framework]] which eventually goes back to a financial framework which is backed by laws which are backed by morals.
 
*The same can be said to apply to the mobile phone work group in OIDF or any other specific application area.
 
*The same can be said to apply to the mobile phone work group in OIDF or any other specific application area.
*The AB/C work group seems to have chosen to avoid consideration of governance frameworks. (and that has worked up until now.)
+
*The AB/C work group seems to have chosen to avoid consideration of [Governance Framework]]s. (and that has worked up until now.)
*So the question for OIDF AB/C is whether to address the governance framework for OIDC (or its successor spec)?
+
*So the question for OIDF AB/C is whether to address the [Governance Framework]] for OIDC (or its successor spec)?
*For identifiers to work with privacy, IMHO such a common governance framework is required.
+
*For identifiers to work with privacy, IMHO such a common [Governance Framework]] is required.
 
*Perhaps that is how to deal with the disruption that the browser guys are creating.
 
*Perhaps that is how to deal with the disruption that the browser guys are creating.
 
*As of right now there is not a common framework between the privacy-first and the identity-first advocates.
 
*As of right now there is not a common framework between the privacy-first and the identity-first advocates.

Revision as of 12:12, 6 July 2021

Full Title or Meme

Can a digital community form and still accommodate human Privacy?

Context

  • Kim Cameron articulated early that "The internet was built without an identity layer", by which he meant an organic life form identity layer.
  • Clearly the DNS is a silicon life form identity layer where each silicon life form gets an IP address.
  • OIX & OpenID foundation want to address this with Identity first.
  • The problem is that (most Western) humans do not want to be objectified. (I admit I never understood Confucius.)
  • So, identifiers and attributes (nouns and adjectives) are antithetical to privacy.
  • Does privacy impact OpenID foundation? - yes it is T-Cell designed to destroy the virus created by OIX & OpenID.
  • Somehow ecosystems have evolved to accommodate both. So we know that it can be done.
  • I was musing about the self-sovereign community and how they chose to accommodate privacy and identity.
  • So the DID core spec has evolved to have no concept of the distinction between organic and silicon life forms.  In other words it is amoral.
  • What they have created to enable the distinction is the type in the VC and Governance Frameworks to regulate ecosystems.
  • Or in other words, they have recreated federations (or governments) using other words to make it sound like something new and different.
  • The [Governance Framework]]s are Ethical frameworks, or morals. (I do understand Aristotle.)
  • FAPI exists within a [Governance Framework]] which eventually goes back to a financial framework which is backed by laws which are backed by morals.
  • The same can be said to apply to the mobile phone work group in OIDF or any other specific application area.
  • The AB/C work group seems to have chosen to avoid consideration of [Governance Framework]]s. (and that has worked up until now.)
  • So the question for OIDF AB/C is whether to address the [Governance Framework]] for OIDC (or its successor spec)?
  • For identifiers to work with privacy, IMHO such a common [Governance Framework]] is required.
  • Perhaps that is how to deal with the disruption that the browser guys are creating.
  • As of right now there is not a common framework between the privacy-first and the identity-first advocates.
  • As a result it is hard for OIDF to formulate a strong case to present to the browser guys.
  • At a minimum I propose that we need a framework that deals with both identity and privacy as equals.
  • Or we can just let them continue on their path and try to accommodate to their framework.

References

Serge Chermayeff and Christopher Alexander explored the intersection of community and privacy. The following link shows how to adapt their concepts to ID management. https://wiki.idesg.org/wiki/index.php/Community_and_Privacy_Pattern_Language