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

Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday August 25 2016
by James Hazard 26 Aug '16

26 Aug '16

I'm happy to do another flow. I believe all flows can be accommodated, and the system must be extensible to accommodate all flows (or you never get harmony). This one reflects what I understand to be a common flow in some kinds of research. The researcher collects the information and makes known to other researchers. It is, I understand, common to give ResearcherA general authority to respond to requests by other Researchers (within the scope). The flow demo-ed gives Alice a direct role. This kind of flow is common (and should be much more common) in other settings, such as NDAs or use of credentials. Should I do a second flow? On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, John Moehrke <johnmoehrke(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think this flow is realistic. he second researcher (B) would not > likely be added to the existing consent, but rather build a new consent. > > An alternative flow : > > 1. Alice publishing her 'preferences' first, likely advertising > specific health attributes to help researchers select. (blockchain > publication, likely using Pseudonym) > 2. The researcher discovering Alice, and determines preferences meet > the research terms. (possibly using smart-contracts) > 3. The researcher approaches Alice with the offer. (blockchain > messaging) > 4. Note at this point, as JohnW diagram shows, there is usually some > form of 'negotiation'. This might be simply Alice making selections (web > form), or might be an interactive session using technology (Oauth/UMA), > human interaction, or smart-contracts. This negotiation phase is to > optimize the terms of the consent (possibly through smart-contract). > 5. The terms of the interaction are fixed (likely published on > blockchain) - possibly in smart-contract) > 6. The researcher accesses the data (with authorization from > blockchain evidence, or other such as UMA) > > > In this flow, what you have diagrammed as a new researcher (B) is really a > new opportunity -- starting at step 2. This would certainly be a new > consent. > > I realize I might be bias, as this is the scenario that I diagrammed on my > blog in May. But I still think it holds up, and would love to see it > developed under kantara > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/05/healthcare- > blockchain-big-data.html > > John > > John Moehrke > Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, > and Security > CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy > M +1 920-564-2067 > JohnMoehrke(a)gmail.com > https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?") > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:27 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here is a first, rough sketch. There are five steps in the transaction. >> It is structured to anticipate additional requests and grants. >> 05-AliceGrants, is the last link in the chain and gives an overview of the >> steps. You could click on it, then on "Document". Note that a few nuances >> have been captured, such as the request being more limited in scope than >> the full data. >> >> The general principle is that each step in a transaction that needs to be >> persisted is documented as a record. The record states particulars and >> references its context, including the prior step. >> >> In a production system, each record can be stored under a friendly name, >> like this, or under a hash. Records can be stored in a file system >> versioned with git, like this, or in a database such as IPFS or a >> blockchain, as needed. >> >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GH/Ka >> ntaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/ >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:14 PM, M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It’s one .jpeg you should be able to cut and paste from the email … >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:13 PM >>> *To:* M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> >>> *Cc:* Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com>; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday >>> August 25 2016 >>> >>> >>> >>> Excellent! I'll do a minimal sketch of this flow. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi – in reference to this afternoon’s conf call, here’s my >>> super-simplified version of the flow I described: >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DG-BSC mailing list >>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> @commonaccord >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DG-BSC mailing list >> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> > -- @commonaccord

1 0

Re: [DG-BSC] Layers - templates, smart contracts, blockchains
by James Hazard 23 Aug '16

23 Aug '16

Hi John, Agreed. The current workflows of consent handling can be respected while also getting the benefits of templating, standards formation and machine readability. Regarding "smart contracts," it may be helpful to think of them as independent of the database (blockchain). In this view, "smart contracts" are functions executed in code. They can schedule an access, transfer a ledger entry, provide a notice mechanism, etc. The code needs to be abstracted from any particular computer language (Thomas's Smart Contract Definition Language) and from any particular database. In some instances, it will make sense to use a blockchain as the database and execution platform, but in most, a more conventional database will be appropriate. For uses where confidentiality or ability to delete information is important, a blockchain will be inappropriate. In any event, the "smart contracts" must be independent of the form of database because a person (including and institution) must be able to have a database representation of all of their interactions. Best, Jim On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:05 PM, John Moehrke <johnmoehrke(a)gmail.com> wrote: > James, > > In healthcare this is current best-practice, when a consent needs to be > known by multiple parties. Most consents only need to be known by the > data-holder to enable them to release data that the consent authorizes. > When multiple parties need to know, we use a system like you have > described. The dominant form of this comes from a profiling organization -- > Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) -- a very similar organization > to Kantara for the healthcare domain. This is profiled in "Basic Patient > Privacy Consents (BPPC)". > > There is also the work of Kantara on Consent Receipts.... > > This kind of evidence could be defined in pseudonym space and of YES/NO > basis, thus reasonable to put on blockchain. If done, the smart-contract > could be simple enough. This is the essence of a blog article I posted in > May. > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/05/ > healthcare-blockchain-big-data.html > > > This supports consents without exceptions or conditions or obligations. > Which covers some space. Healthcare is moving to the next step, being able > to encode some of the rules (vectors) that are commonly needed by Patients. > Again within IHE there is an effort focused on a Document Sharing system, > also from IHE. This is profiled as "Advance Patient Privacy Consent" > (APPC), which is a profile of XACML policy-set. It leverages BPPC to manage > the documentation, just using XACML for the exceptions to the base policy. > > SImilar is being done in HL7 FHIR in a RESTful resource -- Consent > Resource. .... > > somewhat related is the work of HEART. -- rather than focus on capturing > consent rules in standardized documentation, they focus on standardizing > access control decisions using UMA..... > > I am working on a series of blog articles to explain this. Just published > yesterday a top-level view > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/controlling-big- > data-feeding-frenzy.html > > when the rules get more complex, I think the system must use a more > comprehensive access control system, smart-contracts will not be > sufficient. It is possible that the smart-contract could leverage a access > control service using one of the above. But question as to why it would be > helpful to put a smart-contract onto blockchain that does nothing but > return the results of service call... Hence why I am not convinced that > the authorization to access healthcare data should be implemented in > smart-contract. This doesn't diminish the discussion, it is just my current > perspective. > > John > > > John Moehrke > Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, > and Security > CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy > M +1 920-564-2067 > JohnMoehrke(a)gmail.com > https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?") > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Very good call today. I was very interested in the discussion of >> templated consents. This seems very productive. If the consents are >> authored from templates and have GUIDs, then they can be made machine >> readable even if all the machine can read is the GUID (for instance in >> scanned PDFs, which I'm told are common). The GUID also provides a basis >> for notifications and permissions. >> >> Here is a bit of old work that I did (Primavera did the diagrams) for the >> Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=Wx/or >> g/genomicsandhealth/REWG/Demo/ The complexity of the example reflects >> (some of) the complexity of the relationships. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DG-BSC mailing list >> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> > -- @commonaccord

1 0

Layers - templates, smart contracts, blockchains
by James Hazard 23 Aug '16

23 Aug '16

Very good call today. I was very interested in the discussion of templated consents. This seems very productive. If the consents are authored from templates and have GUIDs, then they can be made machine readable even if all the machine can read is the GUID (for instance in scanned PDFs, which I'm told are common). The GUID also provides a basis for notifications and permissions. Here is a bit of old work that I did (Primavera did the diagrams) for the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=Wx/org/genomicsandhe… The complexity of the example reflects (some of) the complexity of the relationships. -- @commonaccord

2 1

Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report
by Koen Vingerhoets 22 Aug '16

22 Aug '16

Hi Luk, How would vendors be able to mix that? (I don’t understand your remark). There is no need to disclose an identity, we’re simply building one. If 3 banks and a telco accept and validate your “proof of address” and “approve” the hash of that document on the ledger, it’s up to you to use it for a 4th bank. But if you do, your KYC should go faster (de lege ferenda – at the moment it’ll merely indicate you already used the document). As we’re doing KYC anyway, returning the result to the user just seems to be the best thing to do. Keeping identity secured is interesting from a personal point of view, for the collective it’s way more interesting to know who is where. But that seems to be an entirely different discussion. Best regards, Koen Van: Luk Vervenne [mailto:luk.vervenne@synergetics.be] Verzonden: vrijdag 19 augustus 2016 0:20 Aan: Koen Vingerhoets <koen.vingerhoets(a)telenet.be> CC: James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com>; Luk Vervenne <luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be>; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org Onderwerp: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report Hmm, that would allow vendors to mix identification, authenticaiton and authorization. I would be favour to cleanly separate those three elements. In fact I would like individuals be known - after identification - through "pairwise persistent pseudonyms”. By default. Identity disclosure is a prerogative of the user. So it can’t be google/facebook either. Federated networks of IdM providers (Martins suggestion) is focused but also limited in what it does. Luk On 19 Aug 2016, at 00:00, Koen Vingerhoets <koen.vingerhoets(a)telenet.be <mailto:koen.vingerhoets@telenet.be> > wrote: Hi, I’m working on a blockchain use case where banks use the KYC procedure to construct an identity fort heir customer. Based on (re)validation of hashes of re(used) documents, banks can confirm an identity. By extending to telco (and other utilities), the “digital identity” gains extra value. Basically a <http://onename.com/> onename.com with banks/large corporates validating instead of github, twitter, facebook. Banks are no hosts – what benefit would that bring in the short or medium term? They’re investing a lot to ensure they can still add value in a peer 2 peer (or human 2 human) world. Best regards, KOen Van: <mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [ <mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] Namens James Hazard Verzonden: donderdag 18 augustus 2016 15:48 Aan: Luk Vervenne < <mailto:luk.vervenne@synergetics.be> luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be> CC: <mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org Onderwerp: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report Thanks Luk. I would think that real P2P would not have central governance (not even central "mining"). It would be polycentric. Anyone or any group could fork their own and cooperate or interoperate as they found convenient. Of course there are very strong reasons to interoperate, and standards are important (e.g., our discussion on a Kantara thread). Regarding decentralized law (document templates) we think that participants will want local, national, industry and global standards processes, under distinct, "local", even competing managements. Hence a "Center for Decentralized Law." On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Luk Vervenne < <mailto:luk.vervenne@synergetics.be> luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be> wrote: OK James. But there is a difference between who’s is running the federated IdM, and who is governing it. A data center, Telco’s or even a bank might actually do it, but an independent "separation of concern” governance should manage it. If we really want to make the individual a genuine stakeholder… it starts there and then. By ethically industrialising personal data management (which is more than IdM, we need to end this fight for personal data, by setting up a new digital utility as the very basis from which individuals can become genuine stakeholders. To name one ...Local Gov. should take up its (partial) responsibility. Luk On 18 Aug 2016, at 14:46, James Hazard < <mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com> james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is an interesting discussion. I have no dog in this fight, and am not trying to take sides. I notice, however, that telcos are i) more digital, ii) in more direct contact with the customer via mobile phones iii) more agile iv) bigger (in subscriber bases). In addition to the advantages of banks mentioned in the report, banks are more numerous and many are more local than telcos. They might pose less of monopoly threat and perhaps less monoculture threat. In this view, telcos are natural conduits for a P2P solution and banks are natural hosts. This of course does not make banks the exclusive hosts, not even for a single individual. In a P2P solution, individuals can host-their-own or host with an alternative supplier, and there is a very low barrier to switching. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Luk Vervenne < <mailto:luk.vervenne@synergetics.be> luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be> wrote: Adding to Martin’s, here’s another one : Even in an digital world, most of the economic value of an individual is spend ...local. So federated IdM - and in fact the Digital Utility supporting Personal Data Ecosystems - need to be locally based in a Europe of Regions. Luk On 18 Aug 2016, at 14:04, Martin Kuppinger < <mailto:mk@kuppingercole.com> mk(a)kuppingercole.com> wrote: Hi, yes, unfortunately they neither act that way nor are they as trusted for that role as most believe. We did research even a couple of years ago on that and it has been verified repeatedly that Telcos including mobile operators are in a better position. They are trusted. And they have far bigger ecosystems than most banks have. Furthermore, I believe that many people still want to keep identity and their own financials somewhat separate. Otherwise, PayPal might be the best home for identity management: Global, large scale,… At least we finally might see an evolution towards an ecosystem of trusted identity providers with sufficient interoperability, particularly for the interactions and transactions that really need trust. Most governments failed in providing such infrastructure. Others, including many startups, tried to fill that gap – and commonly failed. Now, others (and I bet more on telcos than the finance industry), based on new technical options, might succeed. Regards, Martin Von: <mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [ <mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] Im Auftrag von James Hazard Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 13:58 An: John Wunderlich < <mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> john(a)wunderlich.ca> Cc: <mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org Betreff: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report This report of the World Economic Forum, done by Deloitte, has a consistent thesis - that banks (financial institutions) are the natural home for identity management. It makes the point in great depth. <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, James Hazard < <mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com> james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts: These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source. Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use case, the layers seem to be: 1. Records, which can be: 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to read) 2. synchronization of records 3. execution of code 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records. "Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements of the GDPR. <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Privacy-Preserving+Data…> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Privacy-Preserving+Data… Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well as worried about the competitive effects. To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language). This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a "graph." <http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/Acco…> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/Acco… On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich < <mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> john(a)wunderlich.ca> wrote: If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the chain of transactions" Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize _____________________________ From: j stollman < <mailto:stollman.j@gmail.com> stollman.j(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report To: John Wunderlich < <mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> john(a)wunderlich.ca> Cc: Thomas Hardjono < <mailto:hardjono@mit.edu> hardjono(a)mit.edu>, < <mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org> John, This list provides some valuable insight. The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust between entities: to "mistrust among entities." Often the two parties transacting trust each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between." Jeff --------------------------------- Jeff Stollman <mailto:stollman.j@gmail.com> stollman.j(a)gmail.com <tel:%2B1%20202.683.8699> +1 202.683.8699 Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich < <mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> john(a)wunderlich.ca> wrote: Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases <image001.jpg> 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 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" < <mailto:hardjono@mit.edu> hardjono(a)mit.edu> wrote: This might help us in some of our use cases: <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf… mailing list <mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc 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 <mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc 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 <mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- @commonaccord -- @commonaccord _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list <mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- @commonaccord -- @commonaccord

2 3

Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report
by James Hazard 18 Aug '16

18 Aug '16

Thanks Luk. I would think that real P2P would not have central governance (not even central "mining"). It would be polycentric. Anyone or any group could fork their own and cooperate or interoperate as they found convenient. Of course there are very strong reasons to interoperate, and standards are important (e.g., our discussion on a Kantara thread). Regarding decentralized law (document templates) we think that participants will want local, national, industry and global standards processes, under distinct, "local", even competing managements. Hence a "Center for Decentralized Law." On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Luk Vervenne <luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be> wrote: > OK James. > But there is a difference between who’s is running the federated IdM, and > who is governing it. > A data center, Telco’s or even a bank might actually do it, but an > independent "separation of concern” governance should manage it. > > If we* really* want to make the individual a genuine stakeholder… it > starts there and then. > By *ethically industrialising personal data management* (which is more > than IdM, we need to end this *fight for personal data,* by setting up a *new > digital utility* as the very basis from which individuals can become > genuine stakeholders. > To name one ...Local Gov. should take up its (partial) responsibility. > > Luk > > On 18 Aug 2016, at 14:46, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This is an interesting discussion. > > I have no dog in this fight, and am not trying to take sides. I notice, > however, that telcos are i) more digital, ii) in more direct contact with > the customer via mobile phones iii) more agile iv) bigger (in subscriber > bases). > > In addition to the advantages of banks mentioned in the report, banks are > more numerous and many are more local than telcos. They might pose less of > monopoly threat and perhaps less monoculture threat. > > In this view, telcos are natural conduits for a P2P solution and banks are > natural hosts. This of course does not make banks the exclusive hosts, not > even for a single individual. In a P2P solution, individuals can > host-their-own or host with an alternative supplier, and there is a very > low barrier to switching. > > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Luk Vervenne <luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be > > wrote: > >> Adding to Martin’s, here’s another one : >> >> Even in an digital world, most of the economic value of an individual is >> spend ...local. >> So federated IdM - and in fact the Digital Utility supporting Personal >> Data Ecosystems - need to be locally based in a Europe of Regions. >> >> Luk >> >> >> On 18 Aug 2016, at 14:04, Martin Kuppinger <mk(a)kuppingercole.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> yes, unfortunately they neither act that way nor are they as trusted for >> that role as most believe. >> We did research even a couple of years ago on that and it has been >> verified repeatedly that Telcos including mobile operators are in a better >> position. They are trusted. And they have far bigger ecosystems than most >> banks have. Furthermore, I believe that many people still want to keep >> identity and their own financials somewhat separate. Otherwise, PayPal >> might be the best home for identity management: Global, large scale,… >> At least we finally might see an evolution towards an ecosystem of >> trusted identity providers with sufficient interoperability, particularly >> for the interactions and transactions that really need trust. Most >> governments failed in providing such infrastructure. Others, including many >> startups, tried to fill that gap – and commonly failed. Now, others (and I >> bet more on telcos than the finance industry), based on new technical >> options, might succeed. >> >> Regards, >> Martin >> >> *Von:* dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc- >> bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org <dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org>] *Im >> Auftrag von *James Hazard >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 13:58 >> *An:* John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >> *Cc:* dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >> *Betreff:* Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report >> >> This report of the World Economic Forum, done by Deloitte, has a >> consistent thesis - that banks (financial institutions) are the natural >> home for identity management. It makes the point in great depth. >> >> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> A couple of thoughts: >> >> These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related >> technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of >> knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record >> format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize >> "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and >> finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial >> technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source. >> >> Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use >> case, the layers seem to be: >> >> 1. Records, which can be: >> 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) >> 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) >> 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to >> read) >> 2. synchronization of records >> 3. execution of code >> 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) >> 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records. >> >> >> "Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in >> layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages >> of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the >> technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other >> layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how >> blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements >> of the GDPR. >> >> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Privacy- >> Preserving+Data+Sharing >> >> Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to >> consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks >> are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well >> as worried about the competitive effects. >> >> To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format >> that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved >> on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the >> first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of >> drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has >> stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a >> kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language). >> >> This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all >> particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source >> (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers >> (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a >> "graph." >> >> >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr >> /bnpp/a5we/Account/Check/00001/06-Accept.md >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >> wrote: >> >> If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the >> chain of transactions" >> Thanks, John >> 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize >> >> >> _____________________________ >> From: j stollman <stollman.j(a)gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM >> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report >> To: John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >> Cc: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu>, <dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org> >> >> John, >> >> This list provides some valuable insight. >> >> The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My >> correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust *between* entities: >> to "mistrust *among* entities." Often the two parties transacting trust >> each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction >> chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between." >> >> Jeff >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Jeff Stollman >> stollman.j(a)gmail.com >> >> +1 202.683.8699 >> >> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. >> Science advances one funeral at a time. >> Max Planck >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >> wrote: >> >> Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential >> use cases >> <image001.jpg> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" < >> hardjono(a)mit.edu> wrote: >> >> This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructu… mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> _______________________________________________ >> DG-BSC mailing list >> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> >> > > > -- > @commonaccord > > > -- @commonaccord

2 1

Agenda for BSC telecon Thursday August 18
by Eve Maler 18 Aug '16

18 Aug '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… We meet *Thursdays* for 30 minutes at 11am PT / 2pm ET / 7pm UK / 8pm 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. Previous meeting minutes are here: July <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…> . Agenda: - Blockchain subsection: can we fill in draft text? - Other technology/technique subsections: common approaches? champions? - Approach to mapping use case contents to technology/technique contents? (*Reminder:* Eve regrets for this meeting.) *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/> *London and Paris!*

3 2

WEF Report
by Thomas Hardjono 18 Aug '16

18 Aug '16

This might help us in some of our use cases: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf /thomas/

6 10

Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report
by James Hazard 18 Aug '16

18 Aug '16

This is an interesting discussion. I have no dog in this fight, and am not trying to take sides. I notice, however, that telcos are i) more digital, ii) in more direct contact with the customer via mobile phones iii) more agile iv) bigger (in subscriber bases). In addition to the advantages of banks mentioned in the report, banks are more numerous and many are more local than telcos. They might pose less of monopoly threat and perhaps less monoculture threat. In this view, telcos are natural conduits for a P2P solution and banks are natural hosts. This of course does not make banks the exclusive hosts, not even for a single individual. In a P2P solution, individuals can host-their-own or host with an alternative supplier, and there is a very low barrier to switching. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Luk Vervenne <luk.vervenne(a)synergetics.be> wrote: > Adding to Martin’s, here’s another one : > > Even in an digital world, most of the economic value of an individual is > spend ...local. > So federated IdM - and in fact the Digital Utility supporting Personal > Data Ecosystems - need to be locally based in a Europe of Regions. > > Luk > > > On 18 Aug 2016, at 14:04, Martin Kuppinger <mk(a)kuppingercole.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > yes, unfortunately they neither act that way nor are they as trusted for > that role as most believe. > We did research even a couple of years ago on that and it has been > verified repeatedly that Telcos including mobile operators are in a better > position. They are trusted. And they have far bigger ecosystems than most > banks have. Furthermore, I believe that many people still want to keep > identity and their own financials somewhat separate. Otherwise, PayPal > might be the best home for identity management: Global, large scale,… > At least we finally might see an evolution towards an ecosystem of trusted > identity providers with sufficient interoperability, particularly for the > interactions and transactions that really need trust. Most governments > failed in providing such infrastructure. Others, including many startups, > tried to fill that gap – and commonly failed. Now, others (and I bet more > on telcos than the finance industry), based on new technical options, might > succeed. > > Regards, > Martin > > *Von:* dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@ > kantarainitiative.org <dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org>] *Im Auftrag > von *James Hazard > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 13:58 > *An:* John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> > *Cc:* dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org > *Betreff:* Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report > > This report of the World Economic Forum, done by Deloitte, has a > consistent thesis - that banks (financial institutions) are the natural > home for identity management. It makes the point in great depth. > > http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > A couple of thoughts: > > These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related > technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of > knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record > format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize > "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and > finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial > technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source. > > Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use > case, the layers seem to be: > > 1. Records, which can be: > 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) > 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) > 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to > read) > 2. synchronization of records > 3. execution of code > 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) > 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records. > > > "Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in > layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages > of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the > technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other > layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how > blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements > of the GDPR. > > http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/ > Privacy-Preserving+Data+Sharing > > Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to > consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks > are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well > as worried about the competitive effects. > > To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format > that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved > on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the > first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of > drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has > stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a > kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language). > > This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all > particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source > (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers > (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a > "graph." > > > http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/ > fr/bnpp/a5we/Account/Check/00001/06-Accept.md > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> > wrote: > > If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the > chain of transactions" > Thanks, John > 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize > > > _____________________________ > From: j stollman <stollman.j(a)gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report > To: John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> > Cc: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu>, <dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org> > > John, > > This list provides some valuable insight. > > The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My > correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust *between* entities: > to "mistrust *among* entities." Often the two parties transacting trust > each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction > chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between." > > Jeff > > > --------------------------------- > Jeff Stollman > stollman.j(a)gmail.com > > +1 202.683.8699 > > Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. > Science advances one funeral at a time. > Max Planck > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> > wrote: > > Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential > use cases > <image001.jpg> > 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 > > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" <hardjono(a)mit.edu> > wrote: > > This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructu… mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc > > > > 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 > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > @commonaccord > _______________________________________________ > DG-BSC mailing list > DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc > > > -- @commonaccord

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday August 16
by Eve Maler 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… Agenda: - Technology subsection candidate: describing and analyzing "blockchain" (Jeff and Eve) - Vs. "smart contract"? - Use case content mappings to technology content Attending: Eve, John W, Domenico, Scott S, Thomas, Jeff, Scott D (deeply interested in progress in distributed systems that are reliable), Jim, Andrew, John M, Colin Looking at Eve's candidate definition of blockchain: The second bullet: The value is transparency, is not privacy per se. Or secrecy per se? Transparency isn't necessarily inconsistent with privacy. Data controllers need to be transparent. If many of the risks are controlled for by putting all the nodes in the same cloud or the same organizational domain (where "distributed" is defined in a very special way), it's still a blockchain. There's support for the three bullets at least as a starter definition, along with the "SWOT" subbullets beneath them. Jeff believes that the only requirement for it to be a blockchain is a particular encryption mechanism for the ledger, but we didn't reach (ahem) consensus on that. Let's share the writeups on the list and see if we can form a draft subsection shortly, and then leverage the SWOTs and other analyses to build our understanding of how well the use cases can be served by the technologies and techniques. Eve makes an exhortation for use cases not to *assume* use of technologies, but to *test* them for suitability. *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/> *London and Paris!*

2 1

Fwd: Brief writeup on blockchain technology
by Eve Maler 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

*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/> *London and Paris!* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM Subject: Brief writeup on blockchain technology To: j stollman <stollman.j(a)gmail.com> Tell me what you think of this... I'm sure you will have many corrections! What I was going for was a high-level value-based pocket explanation that would mean a lot to a lot of different audiences. :-) I only recently stuck the few links in there. ==== Following are the key elements of blockchain technology and their value. Other technologies can be blockchain-like if they have some of these elements, but are not considered true blockchains. - A tamper-evident “ledger” (linear, append-only) data structure - Valuable for recording events that definitely happened - Less valuable for recording any information that is uncertain or required to be deleted (such as personal information for which a “right to be forgotten/right to erasure” has been established) - Autonomous, distributed, and possibly even decentralized (no node has higher privileges) storage nodes - Valuable for architectures where trust in a central authority is difficult or undesirable to establish (although trusted third parties do play a role in some blockchain deployments anyway; see third bullet below) - Less valuable for recording sensitive information because of the increased attack surface (every node has a copy of everything) and resulting increased privacy considerations - Less valuable for recording voluminous information because every node has a copy of everything - Mathematically based (algorithmic) consensus for contents of new ledger entries - Valuable for incentivizing cooperative behaviors among node participants about entry contents (“proof of work” as used in Bitcoin is the most famous) - Less valuable if other parts of the “BLT sandwich” (business-legal-technical) are not well controlled for through IAM, trust frameworks, etc. -- e.g., multiple node participants can collude to game the system -- but then decentralization goals can be compromised thereby Blockchain technology is a platform, not a ready-made application. There are “public blockchains” on which applications can be built; two of the most well-known are Bitcoin and Ethereum. (N.B.: A recent (Jul-Aug 2016) hack and fork <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum#The_DAO_and_the_blockchain_fork> have left the Ethereum blockchain split into two, Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, showing the extreme volatility of this space. See also the Blockchain Graveyard <https://magoo.github.io/Blockchain-Graveyard/> detailing the many startups that have already died due to hacks.) These can be thought of as being something like “public cloud services” for blockchain. There are also open-source implementations of blockchain that can be deployed internally within an organization; depending on how they’re deployed, they can be thought of us being something like “private cloud” blockchains. There are also many blockchain-related tools, SDKs, and app platforms that ride on top of these base layers, much like other development platforms. *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/> *London and Paris!*

1 0