[Kbi-webcivics] [IA - members] {Disarmed} Re: MyHealth Record

Wed Jul 25 11:48:39 AEST 2018

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2010/Papers/IAB-privacy/httpa.pdf

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 13:20 Timothy Holborn via members <
members at lists.internet.org.au> wrote:

> Nb also;
>
> Oshani made https some years ago.
>
> *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "youtu.be". Do
> not trust this website:* https://youtu.be/gdcdj91oCkE
> <https://youtu.be/gdcdj91oCkE>
> http://news.mit.edu/2014/whos-using-your-data-httpa-0613
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/transforming-the-web-into-a-httpa-database/
> https://tw.rpi.edu//web/event/TWeD/2014/Spring/HTTPA
> https://github.com/oshanis/httpa
>
> Note also: https://twitter.com/csatrpi/status/1019222432685740032?s=19
>
> The general theory therein, is to seek an expectation of accountability of
> data use...
>
> I am not sure how much of the usecase work relating to  HTTPA, made it
> into the credentials scope of works...
>
> I am also unsure what, if any, accountability systems are built into the
> existing Australian Government Credentialing Platforms, ie; work product of
> DTA, et.al. such as the digital health record system.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Tim.
>
> Nb: I will move further correspondence on this matter due to the knowledge
> banking SiG list.  If you are interested in this topic and are not already
> subscribed to this list, please add yourself to it via the following link:
> http://lists.internet.org.au/mailman/listinfo/kbi-webcivics
>
>
> 19 Jul. 2018, 12:37 pm Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Self Sovereign has a specified meaning, in the identity technology space
>> worldwide as discussed.
>>
>> It's like talking about WWW and saying it's ok if your using the term to
>> describe something that's designed for gopher.
>>
>> Re; the validity of choice,
>>
>> I keep thinking about an ostrich with their head in the sand.  I've also
>> thought about how to put an Aussie spin on it.  Perhaps a campaign, it's ok
>> to be an emu.
>>
>> The imagery is all about an emu with its head in the sand.  The campaign
>> is about saying, there's all the information out there, being used in
>> relation to your life.
>>
>> But if you don't want to know about it, thats ok.
>>
>> Blind trust, is an acceptable position.  Just be sure you know what
>> decisions you're making and the implications of them, or not.
>>
>> It's ok to opt-out of that too..  knowledge, is an opt-in concept...
>>
>> Et.al.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu., 19 Jul. 2018, 12:17 pm Todd Hubers, <todd.hubers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <(02)%204873%205444>
>>>>>>> 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* <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
>

-- 
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/20180725/44df9387/attachment-0001.html>