[Kbi-webcivics] [IA - members] MyHealth Record

Thu Jul 19 12:17:35 AEST 2018

Hi Tim,

When I say "self-sovereign" I would suggest that actually has two parts:

   - Identity - which is what you must be thinking now.
   - Data - which is what I was mostly thinking about. The ability for one
   to own the data, and have it encrypted locally and stored in a cloud data
   bucket.

This might be incompatible with the agreed definition of "self-sovereign",
but it just shows what I was thinking in my last email.

I hope my important points are not lost in the minutiae, so I'll recap:

*1. Can a citizen withdraw?*
*2. Is there a better design?*
3. *More?*

Thanks

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 11:42, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The term "self-sovereign" Comes from Christopher Allan, who has more
> recently become intrinsically involved with the credentials work I helped
> establish, with a few others a few years ago.
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/2014/08/06/call-for-participation-in-credentials-community-group/
>
> His writings are worthy of having a good look at:
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html.
> As are the rather extensive amount of writings available on the relevant
> GitHub pages.
>
> They originally worked on a concept called "respect network" which had a
> centralised username method for login. This was first worked on via oasis,
> prior to the takeover of the w3 credentials work, around the time the main
> person driving the work got SBIR funding with the US department of Homeland
> Security.
>
> I am not a subscriber to "self sovereign" methods, they are aware of our
> differences of opinion in this area.  They are not currently "solid
> compatible" or part of that stack, they have a broader different means
> which is not an inforg (no point telling people everything, where the claim
> may be made that those doing so, aren't meaningfully contributing ;))
>
> The nature of human identity is different to the identifiers and related
> works, somewhat formatively illustrated very well by our own Roger Clarke
> whose materials I find serve as a great "reality check" resources, with
> good provonance heritage to boot!
>
> http://www.rogerclarke.com/ID/
>
> With respect to existing catalogues of data, I think people are simply not
> aware.  Whilst a movement of people seeking to live without
> telecommunications / computers / database records about them (whilst
> seeking to retaining personhood) might be a great experiment for TV, it's
> not very practical.
>
> More soon.
>
> Tim.
>
> On Thu., 19 Jul. 2018, 11:15 am Todd Hubers, <todd.hubers at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> As usual, you have plenty of insightful things to say. The improvement of
>> healthcare is truly a worthy goal, but not if that means dragnetting data
>> against citizens. But with so much information and ideas to cover: I think
>> progress would be achieved with goals and a strategy.
>>
>> Strategically, there is a limited amount of impact I believe we could
>> have in this particular group. I would also suggest that "Privacy" alone
>> isn't enough of a reason for the majority of the population, so that line
>> of conversation will benefit the privacy-concerned, but won't appeal much
>> broader than that.
>>
>> If you can summarise distinct problems in dot-point forms that would be a
>> great asset. Here are some of my own to kick-start:
>>
>> 1. *Can a citizen "withdraw"?* - There is a lot of talk about opt-out
>> and a deadline. One would think that a person's situation and beliefs are
>> not static. If withdrawal is not a planned mechanism, that's very
>> problematic. Actions would be: highlighting this to relevant groups to
>> lobby for such a mechanism to be created.
>>
>> 2. *Is there a better design?* - I would think that a self-sovereign
>> (SOLID?) framework would be a more direct 1:1 digital conversion. It would
>> be one where you have total control over the data, and choose who can
>> "view". Currently, people manually carry records (and quite a lot are sent
>> digitally Org to Org directly). Actions would be: signalling the open
>> source development of a self-sovereign platform, and have people opt-out,
>> not because they are concerned about privacy, but because they want to
>> influence the Government to evolve to the better solution.
>>
>> Any more high-level points?
>>
>> (I was involved way back with NeHTA, PHR, and other related systems.
>> There is much controversy beyond an "opt-out" model. But I do hope that
>> something will succeed given that over $1bn was spent on this.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 12:58, Timothy Holborn via members <
>> members at lists.internet.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> I would call it data dignity, noting in my opinion, the best person to
>>> fix that is the internationally extraordinary Hon. Michael Kirby, but we'll
>>> need to do some internal work prior to making best use of his time.
>>>
>>> On Wed., 18 Jul. 2018, 12:40 pm Ian Mann, <ianmann897 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I fully appreciate your concerns about data privacy and control. I
>>>> recall in Germany in before WW2 all Jews had to register, and that
>>>> registry was used later to exterminate them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am sure the registries were full of all sorts of claims made by the
>>> government at the time...
>>>
>>> The temporal process, through which "verifiable claims" are evaluated is
>>> hygienic, but also a series of features that may be considered "out of
>>> scope".
>>>
>>> It is not the job or public servants to fix that. It's the job of the
>>> people to do so, in any working democracy with a functional system of
>>> government.
>>>
>>> One might wonder how functional ours is, if reasonable considered
>>> today.  Do public servants understand the legal rules in which their work
>>> as agent relates?  Does it not matter, as most data is governed by
>>> international contract law + support for foreign affairs / law enforcement
>>> workers ..
>>>
>>> Do they believe reducing the available funding for civil society groups
>>> will improve the results formed in their eco-chambers?
>>>
>>> The worst thing, in my opinion, that they did to jews in WW2 was not
>>> death; it was the requirements put upon them on the basis they sought to
>>> continue to live and what that did you their humanity, what was required of
>>> them to decide, agreeing upon a set of human rights was a good idea.
>>>
>>> Even still, even today, we're defending those decisions...   Go figure.
>>> It's a police prosecutors job to defend the actions of police, it is not
>>> their job to uphold the law.  That's why access to lawyers is prohibitively
>>> expensive, as to diminish the means for a judge, a court to hear about
>>> unfairness...
>>>
>>> Same series of beliefs are manifesting in our health system and it'll be
>>> more expensive than the cost born by way of the failures of our legal
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Imho & cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 12:36, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > It is my opinion that the manner in which someone, or group of
>>>> people, store your data...
>>>> >
>>>> > They'll be able to review your decisions, temporally, as they've been
>>>> made in past with increasingly improved resolution.
>>>> >
>>>> > My view is that you, or those nominated in your last will and
>>>> testament, should be the people who control how this 'inforg' works.  You
>>>> should not be limited as to what you can store in it, but rather, how and
>>>> what others see; and whether their able to rely upon it, to make decisions
>>>> that affect you and others.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think this is an important decision to make.  I think currently,
>>>> there is very little technology services (if any)to make it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Facebook is default.  Government seems to be making attempts to
>>>> compete, rather than redesign.  It's a marketplace problem, We need one.
>>>> We need to define the rules of engagement, what "fair dealings" means, "in
>>>> good faith", for the information age...
>>>> >
>>>> > Tim.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed., 18 Jul. 2018, 12:28 pm Ian Mann, <ianmann897 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yes Tim a lot of beneficial things have arrived as your introductory
>>>> >> paragraph says.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am sure some not so beneficial things are there too, but on balance
>>>> >> I would never wish to return to the past days even if it were
>>>> >> possible.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I watched a documentary called Ghost land a while ago where they took
>>>> >> Kalahari Bushmen to Germany. The first part of the documentary shows
>>>> >> the Bushman current life.
>>>> >> Then hey go to Germany and vist their first city ever.Once our own
>>>> >> ancestors lived that way I thought.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCfcxAbbShY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ian Mann
>>>> Mobile 04 7859 7859
>>>> International +61 4 7859 7859
>>>> Home International +61 2 4873 5444
>>>> 10 John Street, GOULBURN NSW 2580
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=10+John+Street,+GOULBURN+NSW+2580&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>>> is
>>> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
>>> members mailing list
>>> members at lists.internet.org.au
>>> http://lists.internet.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Todd Hubers
>>
>

-- 
--
Todd Hubers

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internet.org.au/pipermail/kbi-webcivics/attachments/20180719/3f4778db/attachment.html>