August 2016 - DG-BSC - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

General wellness products use case?
by john＠wunderlich.ca 07 Aug '16

07 Aug '16

The FDA has done the heavy lifting in terms of describing the use case... http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/gui… Thanks, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Pleez 4give speling errurs, sent from a mobile device. -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0

Re: [DG-BSC] Blockstack identity services
by James Hazard 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

JimW - yes, IAMAL, but that's my understanding. Merkel is the root. Patrick - I was unaware of Zittrain's work on this balance of security. If you have link ... ? If banks or other "regulated databases" (phrase from Circle) act as hosts and intermediaries, the platform could fine-tune the balances between oversight and privacy. Parts can be encrypted end to end, so the bank and others know very little. Parts could be encrypted on the way to the bank and then decrypted and recrypted as appropriate. Of course, any hub could act in this role, and I am not pitching on behalf of banks. But, as a lawyer looking to piece together a solution, banks have the advantages that they are highly regulated, quasi-local, already custodians of our creepiest data, and numerous (as opposed to telcos and e-commerce giants which will bump into monopoly issues). There is a long-standing relationship (in civil law systems there is even a general principle of bank secrecy). It is imperfect, and abused, but their is a conversation chain of bank and regulator, with legislature, customers, activists and public. They are nodes with lots of edges. A shared record format enables portability and open source would make it cheap to be a bank - giving the customer leverage and keeping intermediaries focused on their mission. I did a sketch of what it might look like to treat (all of) banking as a file system - http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/ The context is French banks and an effort by "LaBChain" - the French finance industry's exploration of blockchains. So I used French examples, and demonstrate how they could be helpful to enterprise formation and capitalization by curating legal documentation. Here the "identities" are bank accounts, "roles" that are well-anchored in local law. On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jim Willeke <jim(a)willeke.com> wrote: > All of the technologies we are speaking about are Distributed Database > or Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) and more specifically a type of > Hash Tree or Merkel Tree <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree>. > > There are many common examples besides the crypto-currencies including > BitTorrent, GIT, and many NoSQL databases. > > > -- > -jim > Jim Willeke > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:50 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Patrick, >> >> Great message. My father, who taught and practiced law, said the >> conversation should start with where you want to be. >> >> That seems to me to be more or less the P2P, PDS, MIT Connection Science >> vision. Each of us has our formal existence in databases under our >> control. Each of our records interoperates with all of our other records. >> We can store them at trust providers (e.g., banks) like we do with cash, >> and carry only what we need. An app, on phones and anywhere else we want >> it, allows us to transact with anyone - or any thing - else. To have >> different accounts for different roles. To have our information be only in >> the places that it must be to interact with the network. This has lots of >> parallels with email. >> >> The rules of engagement - the stuff that good lawyers put into documents >> for smart clients - is clear, fast, free. We navigate bureaucracy - and >> weigh the trade-offs - like we use Waze. >> >> In this view, blockchains are a tool for syncing records. So are IPFS >> and Interledger, and git, and all of the existing or new payment systems. >> Blockchains, with their methods for peer-based consensus on the state of >> the record and their anti-double spend appear useful - necessary - when >> there is no 3rd party trust provider - or the trust provider can't be >> reached. The IoT is full of those use cases. >> >> This - which just came across my twitter feed - seems quite good at >> exploring when a blockchain is necessary (though perhaps the thinking does >> not include the possibility of a multiplicity of blockchains, used like >> email threads). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-do-you-need- >> blockchain-decision-models-sebastien-meunier (Is the reference to our >> Bart Suichies?). >> >> All this is independent of, but a powerful driving force for, my project >> and concern, bringing the dynamic of open source collaboration to the >> negotiation and codification of legal forms. Codification of boilerplate >> (@gendal's "prose") indirectly codifies the law, and enables a >> decentralized Waze approach to bureaucracy. >> >> All good, Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Patrick Curry <patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi James, >>> >>> Interesting. Good discussion, thanks. I offer a few comments. >>> >>> Block chain refers to a specific, defined technology. Blockchain is a >>> trademark. >>> >>> Do we mean solutions or requirements? Are the solutions technology >>> specific or general solutions to a business problem, where a block chain >>> may feature as part of the solution set? >>> >>> If we replace Proof of Work with PKI Federation, which is attractive & >>> desirable in many situations, do we still have a block chain? My block >>> chain colleagues believe that we still do, and there is an ongoing >>> discussion about how PoW might be measured to achieve some sort of LoA that >>> could map, in policy terms, to PKI and create a basis for for BC - PKI >>> federation. >>> >>> The voting process presents several complexities, some of which could be >>> addressed by an underlying trust fabric. There hasn’t been much discussion >>> about this yet, but it will definitely be moving there later this year as >>> the UK government has just approved its first BC provider to be listed in a >>> catalogue service available to all UK gov organisations. >>> >>> A feature of BCs being used in regulated settings is that the regulator >>> (regulators in many cases, particularly internationally) requires to have a >>> voting node and so gets to see all traffic. Regulators haven’t woken up to >>> this yet, but I am expecting to see them require the development of >>> rulesets that are embedded in the process in the BC with decision authority >>> (signature), i.e. a smart contract. I don’t understand why this would be >>> a bug. A feature or a factor, yes. >>> >>> Ref data management, the smart contract is a feature of permissioned >>> block chains because of how the cryptography works. It’s hard to see how >>> this functionality could be replicated easily in other existing >>> technologies. Instead, what is beginning to happen is that companies link >>> their ERP etc to the block chain. The ERP provides the internal business >>> functionality and logic, the block chain DLT provides the external >>> interoperability & contract integrity. The smart contract runs on the >>> chain, not on in the enterprise app. This satisfies the supply chain >>> requirements where a centralised enterprise solution would/does not. >>> >>> Agree about data replication. Depending on the nature of the business >>> requirement and use cases, data minimisation is one of the privacy >>> principles. Proofs of concept on some Zero Knowledge Proof mechanisms have >>> been completed and a couple are moving to bigger pilots. ZKP and other >>> anonymised attribute assurance mechanisms are attractive and suitable >>> options for block chain privacy requirements. >>> >>> Interesting that you mention Zittrain. His work on trusted >>> intermediaries has come up in international discussions of lead industries, >>> law enforcement and govs, as a way to address policy collisions on public >>> safety and privacy. The discussions are more about encryption and key >>> management; block chains haven’t yet been discussed, but they might be. I >>> agree about JSON. I’d be interested in knowing more about your and Eve’s >>> work in this area. is there anything you can share? >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> Patrick Curry >>> Director >>> >>> British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd >>> M: +44 786 024 9074 >>> T: +44 1980 620606 >>> patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info >>> www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 15:08, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Though "Blockchain" is in the title of this discussion group, it need >>> not be in all of the solutions. "Blockchains" have large privacy and data >>> security challenges built into maintaining consensus on the state of the >>> ledger (database). Most real life situations have available a range of >>> alternative means of validating the state of the ledger. For instance, a >>> regulator. >>> >>> So, we might view it as a bug, rather than a feature, if a "smart >>> contract" solution requires execution on a blockchain. >>> >>> Organizations and humans will want to be able to efficiently manage >>> large numbers of ledger entries, in efficient databases (SQL, graph, IPFS), >>> not blockchains. They will need to be able to run the smart contracts on >>> those other platforms. >>> >>> Data replication should be minimized, and temporary to the extent >>> possible. This will, I think, also be required by GDPR. >>> >>> The necessary point of agreement, the waist of the Zittrain hourglass, >>> is very small - a format for ledger entries. CommonAccord asserts (I >>> assert on its behalf) that the key to this is ... key/values, a way of >>> resolving references, and inheritance. For good reasons, JSON is a likely >>> to be the most common "punctuation" (Eve's word) for exchange of ledger >>> entries. Our current rendering engine uses plain text and carriage >>> returns. That is the lightest "punctuation" and may be the best for >>> collaboration on big texts, notably for collaboration among lawyers and >>> regulators on Github. It closely parallels the presentation of software >>> source code. But this barely matters. What matters is a common approach >>> to linking and inheritance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:53 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Domenico; >>>> >>>> As soon as the use case makes Alice's role that of a "Citizen" a whole >>>> raft of non-technical issues arise that should be addressed. How do you >>>> implement privacy protection into the architecture to avoid abuse by >>>> authoritarian regimes? If I think of all the cases where I'm asked to >>>> present government issued ID as proof of identity, and then ask, "Would it >>>> be a good thing if there was an permanent audit trail available to the >>>> government (any state agency) of all those interactions?" >>>> >>>> I would restate your problem definition to see if we can design a wide >>>> identity ecosystem use case for managing citizen identities that enables >>>> (or better, only works if) citizens control their own identities. >>>> >>>> (PS, see my signature block below, apropos of this issue) >>>> >>>> John Wunderlich, >>>> >>>> Sent frum a mobile device, >>>> Pleez 4give speling erurz >>>> >>>> "...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is >>>> likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far >>>> less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin >>>> >>>> _____________________________ >>>> From: Domenico Catalano <domenico.catalano(a)oracle.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 4:47 AM >>>> Subject: [DG-BSC] Blockstack identity services >>>> To: <dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> maybe, you already know blockstack id technology for identity services, >>>> at blockstack.org <https://blockstack.org/docs/how-blockstack-works> >>>> >>>> I think it’s quite useful for investigation and for defining use cases. >>>> >>>> I was wondering whether we can provide a wide identity ecosystem use >>>> case for managing citizen identities. >>>> >>>> Consider the following high level use case: >>>> >>>> - The Citizen is identified by a Blockchain-ready Registry. >>>> - The Citizen requests to register with the Registry through a specific >>>> mobile app, which provides the necessary cryptographic key pairs with which >>>> the request is signed. >>>> - The Registry includes the request in the blockchain which is >>>> distributed among the nodes, as smart contract. >>>> - The mobile app and the cryptographic keys are now able to provides >>>> strong authentication mechanisms for citizen online access. >>>> >>>> Citizen Identity can be enriched through the blockchain nodes (special >>>> nodes) interactions which provide attribute/profile attestation. >>>> >>>> I hope it’s useful for further discussions. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Domenico >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are >>>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the >>>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is >>>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee >>>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify >>>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by >>>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the >>>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing >>>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is >>>> strictly prohibited. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> DG-BSC mailing list >>>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> @commonaccord >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DG-BSC mailing list >>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DG-BSC mailing list >> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> > -- @commonaccord

1 0

Blockstack identity services
by Domenico Catalano 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

Hi all, maybe, you already know blockstack id technology for identity services, at blockstack.org <https://blockstack.org/docs/how-blockstack-works> I think it’s quite useful for investigation and for defining use cases. I was wondering whether we can provide a wide identity ecosystem use case for managing citizen identities. Consider the following high level use case: - The Citizen is identified by a Blockchain-ready Registry. - The Citizen requests to register with the Registry through a specific mobile app, which provides the necessary cryptographic key pairs with which the request is signed. - The Registry includes the request in the blockchain which is distributed among the nodes, as smart contract. - The mobile app and the cryptographic keys are now able to provides strong authentication mechanisms for citizen online access. Citizen Identity can be enriched through the blockchain nodes (special nodes) interactions which provide attribute/profile attestation. I hope it’s useful for further discussions. Thanks Domenico

5 6

Potential category of use case
by John Wunderlich 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Hi; The article linked to below suggested to me one category of problem that we could consider for blockchains. It seems to me that in a generic sense blockchain technology is technology in the service of governance and transparency. And further, since Kantara is all about identity, the category of problem that the report may choose to focus or include is how can we design/build/implement IBCT's (newly identified acronym: Identity Block Chain Technologies) that have the following characteristics: 1. Facilitates appropriate levels of identity proof (only need to prove of age at a liquor store, but will need strong proof that I'm the full natural person when voting). 2. Provide aggregate transparency and reporting so that anyone - citizen or government - can see where and what kinds of identity proofs are being used by the government. 3. Provides individual privacy protection and audit capability. I can audit who has looked at my identity information and in what context, but I CANNOT do that for any other person. I'm not fully immersed in the blockchain hype machine, but I'm fully aware that all this and more (but wait...) has been promised by block chain evangelists, but I'm not sure how seriously to take some or all of that. Linked article: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/0729/Opinion-H… Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

2 1

Starting a BTC/ETH Company
by Rainer Hoerbe 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Nice overview about breakdown/collapse of various products: https://magoo.github.io/Blockchain-Graveyard/ - Rainer

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday August 2
by Eve Maler 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… Agenda: - Work on "Trust and verification in a health research context" (was: Alice Consents to Health Research) and discuss implications for technologies sections in the report Attending: Eve, Jeff S, Andrew, Thomas, John W, Matisse, Scott S, Jim, Adam, Domenico, John M, Colin "L" The new title is a working title. And...now it's Alice participates in Bob's Research Study <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Alice+participates+in+B…> ! There's a bifurcation of PHI for healthcare and PHI for health research. The biggest question: Is there a role for the blockchain? The three lightbulbs highlight the particular steps where this comes into play. Thomas notes there is a bit of a crisis of repeatability in research. Could that be addressed with the new technologies somehow? John suspects that this is where putting the protocols (the descriptions of the studies) themselves on the blockchain would be more productive, and this is where his mention of a "predecessor or stereotypical case" of Human Research Consent could encompass that solution. He points to https://clinicaltrials.gov. John M has written up a use case on his blog that leverages the blockchain for blinded (lightly deidentified) identity, not for the consent per se, in a research context. Jeff comments that if hashing for pseudonymity is being suggested (yes), then the entire suite of technologies that constitute "blockchain" may not be needed. One theme of blockchain application, therefore, is "identity proving". Another that we started with was "agreement proving" ?? So: Do we have use case bundles that are related, and can we write them quickly and with their relatedness exposed? (whether that relation is hierarchy, mind map, or whatever) It appears so, yes. Does it make sense to think of problems blockchain purports to solve, in specific, as things like "proving identity", "proving of agreement status" (e.g. whether consent has currently been given) – or "proving an event"? (suggested in the chat), and "proving that conditions have been met" (smart contracts)? Eve will reach out to Bart Suichies' erstwhile colleagues at the Philips Blockchain Lab to see if they have someone interested to join. There's no doubt that today's notes are incomplete or – gasp! – even wrong in spots. Please correct in followup email. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Sydney, London, and Paris!*

2 2

New BSC use-case: Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing on Blockchain P2P Nodes
by Thomas Hardjono 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

Folks, Below is a new BSC use-case I'm championing. Its a first sketch (I'll be revising/improving it). Best. /thomas/ ---------------------------------------------------- Name of use case: Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing on Blockchain P2P Nodes Description: Instead of a centralized data processing architecture, the P2P nodes (e.g. in a blockchain) offers the opportunity for data (user data and organizational data) to be stored by these nodes and be processed in a privacy-preserving manner. In this new paradigm of privacy-preserving data sharing, we “move the algorithm to the data” where queries and subqueries are computed by the data repositories (nodes on the P2P network). This means that repositories never release raw data and that they perform the algorithm/query computation locally which produce aggregate answers only. This approach of moving the algorithm to the data provides data-owners and other joint rights-holders the opportunity to exercise control over data release, and thus offers a way forward to provide the highest degree of privacy-preservation while allowing data to still be effectively shared. This paradigm requires that queries be decomposed into one or more subqueries, where each subquery is sent to the appropriate data repository (nodes on the P2P network) and be executed at that repository. This allows each data repository to evaluate received subqueries in terms of “safety” from a privacy and data leakage perspective. Furthermore, safe queries and subqueries can be expressed in the form of a query smart contract (QSC) that legally bind the querier (person or organization), the data repository and other related entities. A query smart contract has been vetted to be safe can even be stored on nodes of the P2P network (e.g. blockchain). This allows Queriers to not only search for useful data (as advertised by the metadata in the repositories) but also search for prefabricated safe QSCs that are available throughout the P2P network that match the intended application. Such a query smart contract will require that identities and authorizations requirements be encoded within the contract. A node on the P2P network may act as a Delegate Node in the completion of a subquery smart contract. A delegate node works on a subquery by locating the relevant data repositories, sending the appropriate subquery to each data repository, and receiving individual answers and collating the results received from these data repositories for reporting to the (paying) Querier. A Delegate Node that seeks to fulfil a query smart contract should only do so when all the conditions of the contract has been fulfilled (e.g. QSC has valid signature; identity of Querier is established; authorization to access APIs at data repositories has been obtained; payment terms has been agreed, etc.). A hierarchy of delegate nodes may be involved in the completion of a given query originating from the Querier entity. The remuneration scheme for all Delegate Nodes and the data repositories involved in a query is outside the scope of the current use-case. Champion: Thomas Hardjono Actors: (a) Data repository node: The role of the data repositories to hold raw-data and perform privacy-preserving “safe” query/subquery computations. (b) Querier: This is the entity that seeks to run a query over data that are distributed across multiple data-repositories. (c) QSC node: These are the nodes that store a signed copy of a query smart contract. (d) Delegate Node: This is a node on the P2P network that seek to complete a subquery smart contract. ----------------------------------------------------

1 0

IAPP views of blockchain
by Rainer Hoerbe 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

> Am 28.07.2016 um 21:00 schrieb Patrick Curry <patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info <mailto:patrick.curry@bbfa.info>>: > > Bitcoin > Society is very confused about Bitcoin, and whether it is good or bad. > Bitcoin benefitted from first mover advantage, but it suffers from the historic inevitability that any economic system without adequate governance will collapse when those that can, abuse others too much. Hence the drive to introduce much more governance into cryptocurrencies and have suitable mechanisms in the underlying block chains. Practically, some of the banks have been looking at how to establish “trusted Bitcoin” i.e. to put a cryptographically bound wrapper around the Bitcoin transaction and the provenance/traceability trail, which would more normally be met in a permissioned chain. The lack of governance can also be seen as a feature of blockchains. Other distributed, non-hierarchical systems (e.g. PGP web-of-trust, BGP routing) did not collapse and managed to restrict abuse (at the expense of scalability). It is also worth to consider that Satoshi's primary intent was to solve the double spending problem in a fully distributed system, which Bitcoin, even considering its inefficiencies, does solve quite well. It is without governance by design. It lets many different users agree on the current state of the blockchain even though they don't trust each other or any central authority. This problem had remained unsolved until the Bitcoin network was launched. OTOH, as the recent Ethereum fork (to mitigate the DAO breach) showed, having a major decision being made by a ad-hoc structured community of developers reaching out to stakeholders by questionnaires appears scary. However, just adding adequate governance is difficult for such a system. Having a centrally controlled consensus algorithm or introduce gated access might contradict fundamental properties. I would be curious to learn which approaches lead to better governance without discarding the fundamental properties of the block chain. - Rainer Hörbe

1 0

IAPP views of blockchain
by John Wunderlich 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

The IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals) has published a number of small pieces for privacy professionals about blockchain on its web site and newsletters. I've attached a representative sample for your edification Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

4 8

Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday August 2
by Eve Maler 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… We meet *Tuesdays* for 30 minutes at 7:30am PT / 10:30am ET / 3:30pm UK / 4:30pm CET. We use Kantara Line A (US +1-805-309-2350, Skype +99051000000481, international options <https://www.turbobridge.com/international.html>, web interface <https://panel.turbobridge.com/webcall/>, more info <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>, code 4022737) and http://join.me/findthomas for screen sharing. See the DG calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar> for our full meeting schedule. Agenda: - Work on Trust and verification in a health research context <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Trust+and+verification+…> (was: Alice Consents to Health Research) and discuss implications for technologies sections in the report *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Sydney, London, and Paris!*

1 0