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

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