- DG-BSC - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

DRY systems, authoritative sources of data, and individuals
by Eve Maler 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

I changed the subject line so as not to be misleading. Hopefully that starts a "new thread" in most everybody's email systems. I'm still not getting what about "blockchain the technology" helps any of this. Lots of information that is important to an individual -- e.g. credit information, as pointed out below -- must be third-party-asserted to be valuable. We can argue about whether this is/constitutes/contributes to "identity" information or not (in this case, it can be used to help "proof" a digital identity and so on). But the conventional wisdom seems to be hardening around the notions that: - It's inefficient, inappropriate, and insecure to store such information by means of DLTs. - It's quite often inefficient, inappropriate, and insecure to aggregate such information in a single place away from whoever is authoritative for it. See all the schemes -- federated identity and federated authorization both -- for getting this info fresh by means of attribute transfer and API calls and such. You have to tamper-proof college e-transcripts, income tax forms, identity attributes, etc. that have to pass through intermediary services if you can't arrange for them to be shared directly. UMA at least tries to let an individual authorize access to data that is asserted by others about them. (That role at the technical level is called "resource owner" after OAuth, but as I always say, I never liked that phrase, property being a bundle of sticks... :-) ) *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!* On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Adrian Gropper <agropper(a)healthurl.com> wrote: > I share Jim's perspective about incremental semantic standards and I'm > seeing coherent identity standardization efforts at every level with: > > 1 - Authentication credentials corresponding to a decentralized identifier > (DID), point to > 2 - Secure decentralized identity data objects (DDO), that point to > 3 - Identity Containers that issue (W3C) verifiable claims and > (UMA) authorization tokens to use > 4 - on other resources with my personal data on the Web that are only > partially under my control. > > Levels 1-3 can be self-sovereign without any federated IDPs. > > However, there is absolutely no mention of PDS in any of the forums. The > term may be too vague and overloaded to be useful. I hope we can abandon it > soon. Identity containers may not be a much better term but at least it > allows for a personal authorization server as a component. > > Adrian > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sorry, I missed the call, again. On the west coast for a bit. >> >> I agree with the direction of the conversation. >> >> The essence of a peer-based system is the PDS notion. Each participant >> has a first-class copy of the records that touch them. >> >> Those records must be in formats that have common semantics. >> >> Because the world is big and varied (and more top-down is dangerous), the >> semantics need to be extensible by the participants. The commonality of the >> semantics does not need to be system-wide, it only needs to be shared as >> far as the records they relate to. This makes it possible to do >> "standards" incrementally. (Open source software iterates from personal >> project to standard this way.) >> >> Blockchain permits each participant to have a first-class copy, but has >> major draw backs, particularly that every participant gets a copy of all >> the records (reason that Corda is not a blockchain) and blockchains have >> the rigidities of "shared state." (https://medium.com/@justmoon >> /the-subtle-tyranny-of-blockchain-91d98b8a3a65#.oupo603xl) >> >> Ideally, each record would be only in the PDSs of the participants that >> the record directly touches. >> >> To run a "DRY" system, with very little need to have duplicate >> information about participants, the PDS must be available to respond to >> appropriate queries. >> >> The records in the PDS could come all via a single protocol, but they >> could instead come via a variety of protocols. The participants do need a >> way to prove records as against one another. There are a variety of ways >> to do this, and they don't need to depend on the protocol. >> >> From this perspective, the goal is PDSs with shared record semantics, >> unlimited extensibility, and a secure method of querying. Unlimited >> extensibility is what the "prototype inheritance" model of CommonAccord >> appears to enable. >> >> That in turn will create an ecosystem for codified legal, which is the >> goal of CommonAccord. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Gropper <agropper(a)healthurl.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You might find the FAQ useful. >>> >>> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/faq.html >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Adrian-- I'm sorry, it appears you already did send this link to the >>>> group! Thanks; action item completed. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging >>>> Technology >>>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl >>>> *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to >>>> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!* >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper(a)healthurl.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We should also consider the place of protocols that support >>>>> decentralization without neccessarily being either blockchain or smart >>>>> contracts. For example, W3C Verifiable Claims https://w3c.github.io/w >>>>> ebpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/ seems to solve a major privacy and >>>>> centralization problem by enabling triple-blind interactions. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016, Scott L. David <sldavid(a)uw.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jeff - I heartily agree with all the points you raise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott L. David >>>>>> >>>>>> Director of Policy >>>>>> Center for Information Assurance and Cybersecurity >>>>>> University of Washington - Applied Physics Laboratory >>>>>> >>>>>> Principal Consulting Analyst >>>>>> TechVision Research >>>>>> >>>>>> w- 206-897-1466 >>>>>> m- 206-715-0859 >>>>>> Tw - @ScottLDavid >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* j stollman <stollman.j(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:15:27 AM >>>>>> *To:* Scott L. David >>>>>> *Cc:* Eve Maler; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday, August 30 >>>>>> (shortly -- sorry for the late note!) >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> Excellent survey. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to further emphasize one of the corollary points you >>>>>> raise: *Perhaps we shouldn't be looking for a >>>>>> distributed organizational "structure" at all. Instead, we might consider >>>>>> what organizational "processes" would serve the interests involved, and >>>>>> then allow the organizational structure to reveal itself based on the >>>>>> observation and reification of the patterns that emerge from those >>>>>> processes.* >>>>>> >>>>>> In my observations people move rapidly from trying to describe a new >>>>>> solution to using their description to prescribe its use. Over two years >>>>>> of focus on blockchain technology, I have noticed that it is common for >>>>>> people to recognize that a particular instance of blockchain solves a >>>>>> particular problem and to then falsely conclude that the features of that >>>>>> instantiation are necessary to achieve the same end in other contexts. For >>>>>> example, we give a lot of lip service to the fact that popular blockchain >>>>>> instances use a distributed model in which the blockchain itself is >>>>>> replicated in numerous locations and the block verification process is also >>>>>> distributed among a large group of "miners." This has been followed by the >>>>>> conclusion that all blockchains are necessarily distributed for both data >>>>>> integrity and verification integrity. (In fact many people now refer to >>>>>> blockchain technology as "Distributed Ledger Technology" (DLT)). I >>>>>> suggest that this causes an unnecessary narrowing of our thinking by >>>>>> casting out other alternatives before they are even considered. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the example, I would suggest that distributed data does provide >>>>>> higher levels of information assurance by removing a single point of >>>>>> failure that a nefarious hacker could modify. And this is likely true for >>>>>> any instantiation of a data structure -- whether or not it is a blockchain >>>>>> -- as long as the consensus mechanism for determining which data set is the >>>>>> correct one when discrepancies are found is robust. But, depending on the >>>>>> risk of such hacks, it may not be cost-effective to use this information >>>>>> assurance technique. As long as the underlying data structure uses >>>>>> blockchain encryption, I would still consider it a blockchain application. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also agree that distributed miners afford some ability to reduce >>>>>> collusion in systems where there is an incentive to collude. But not all >>>>>> transaction systems have such an incentive. And I don't think that mining >>>>>> whether using proof of work or proof of stake is either cost-effective or >>>>>> necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> We all agree that standardization can create great benefits. But >>>>>> standardizing too early can stifle innovation or raise the cost of better >>>>>> solutions to the point of making them no longer viable. >>>>>> >>>>>> In view of the many directions that our blockchain DG discussions >>>>>> continue to splinter off, I hope that this comment offers some value. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Scott L. David <sldavid(a)uw.edu> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks - This wiki page provides a pretty nice overview of >>>>>>> cooperatives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am NOT suggesting that we confine ourselves to these historical >>>>>>> structures, since they are all institutions configured to address various >>>>>>> prior governance/organizational challenges, none of which will perfectly >>>>>>> match current challenges in character and scope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, exploration of the co-op form (and similar structures >>>>>>> developed under various legal and cultural regimes) can provide insight >>>>>>> into at least prior forms of "organic" stakeholder-responsive governance >>>>>>> that can potentially help to reveal governance techniques that might be >>>>>>> borrowed for our current discussions and effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am guessing (projecting) that organizational surveys might suggest >>>>>>> that we consider separating the analysis of stakeholder involvement into at >>>>>>> least three sub-categories of governance activity, along the lines to >>>>>>> which Jeff S. was alluding in the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifically, we might benefit from separating out stakeholder >>>>>>> involvement in the separate activities of 1. rule making, 2. system >>>>>>> operation, and 3. enforcement, as helpful in mitigating the >>>>>>> conflict-of-interest/power accumulation/etc. issues that are inherent in >>>>>>> the centralized models (and their too-often-tempting-abuses of gatekeeping >>>>>>> function). For example, in 2007 when NASD (National Association of >>>>>>> Securities Dealers) converted to FINRA (FInancial Industry Regulatory >>>>>>> Authority, Inc.) they formed separate subsidiaries to separate these three >>>>>>> functions for the SRO (self-regulatory organization) responsible for broker >>>>>>> dealer activities (at least for purposes of optics!). For current >>>>>>> purposes, the important point is that they chose to separate the rule >>>>>>> making, operation and enforcement purposes to at least reduce the >>>>>>> appearances of conflict among the decision making in those separate spheres. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, these 3 "system governance" elements are in addition to >>>>>>> stakeholder role as system "users," which is not a "governance" role, per >>>>>>> se. However, in co-op and similar forms participation as a "user" is a >>>>>>> form of quasi-governance since the use of the system by a >>>>>>> stakeholder reveals problems and value propositions that helps the >>>>>>> stakeholders to set the agenda for further refinement of the system in the >>>>>>> "1. rule making" role of stakeholders alluded to above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current global information network organizational structure >>>>>>> that we are looking for does not yet have a name, but that novelty should >>>>>>> not be discouraging. ALL forms of human organization (governance, >>>>>>> language, belief systems, etc.) are responses to shared challenges, and all >>>>>>> of them permit stakeholders (both institutional or individual) to do >>>>>>> things (mitigate risks and enhance rewards) that they cannot do (or cannot >>>>>>> do as well) unilaterally. Many of the shared challenges that are currently >>>>>>> faced by individuals are unprecedented, requiring groups such as ours to >>>>>>> search the history of human organization for clues as to what might be >>>>>>> effective in this context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One last thought (at least for now!). Perhaps we shouldn't be >>>>>>> looking for a distributed organizational "structure" at all. Instead, we >>>>>>> might consider what organizational "processes" would serve the interests >>>>>>> involved, and then allow the organizational structure to reveal itself >>>>>>> based on the observation and reification of the patterns that emerge from >>>>>>> those processes (as "Lagrangian Coherent Structures" for you fluid >>>>>>> mechanics geeks out there). Our first question might be "What are the sets >>>>>>> of processes that MUST be standardized, normalized in order for the value >>>>>>> propositions of block chain and/or smart contracts to be effective in >>>>>>> mitigating risk and/or leveraging value?" After we catalog those >>>>>>> processes, we might be in a position to assign that catalog a name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An article "Self Regulation as Policy Process" by Porter and Ronit >>>>>>> (2006) suggests that among hundreds of "self-regulatory" organizations, a >>>>>>> familiar 5 stage pattern emerges for a governance feed-back loop among >>>>>>> stakeholders (agenda setting-problem identification-decision-implementation-review). >>>>>>> The emergence of this similar archetype pattern in myriad disparate >>>>>>> settings may be suggesting that there is a natural feedback process through >>>>>>> which separate elements of human organization can be joined together to >>>>>>> create larger forms in "information" space, where decreased Shannon entropy >>>>>>> (in whatever context or domain) is the ultimate test of fitness (based on >>>>>>> the primacy of information risk and information leverage in current >>>>>>> discussions). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This latter suggestion may be confirmed by considering how many >>>>>>> current human institutions and organizations can be accurately described by >>>>>>> reference to their information flows and processes, variously constrained >>>>>>> by their intended application. Human organizations that demonstrate their >>>>>>> usefulness "achieve" longevity (in fact human stakeholders have >>>>>>> endowed governments, and corporations with "perpetual life," by mutual >>>>>>> agreement, in an effort to project an external sovereignty toward these >>>>>>> organizational forms that are relied upon to create a "solid" foundation of >>>>>>> most (not all) human endeavor). However, all governments and corporations >>>>>>> are collective hallucinations of the stakeholders that recognize, and >>>>>>> depend upon, their presence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I digress. . . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Scott L. David* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director of Policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Center for Information Assurance and Cybersecurity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University of Washington - Applied Physics Laboratory >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Principal Consulting Analyst >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TechVision Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> w- 206-897-1466 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> m- 206-715-0859 >>>>>>> Tw - @ScottLDavid >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org < >>>>>>> dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Eve Maler < >>>>>>> eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:50 AM >>>>>>> *To:* dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >>>>>>> *Subject:* [DG-BSC] Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday, August 30 >>>>>>> (shortly -- sorry for the late note!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+ >>>>>>> %28August+2016%29+Meetings#id-2016-08(August2016)Meetings-Tu >>>>>>> esday,August30 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. Previous meeting minutes are here: July >>>>>>> <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agenda: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Confirm timeline, scope, and approach, or revise in specific >>>>>>> - Assign action items for report next steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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!* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> DG-BSC mailing list >>>>>>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>>>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Gropper MD >>>>> >>>>> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! >>>>> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. >>>>> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> DG-BSC mailing list >>>>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Adrian Gropper MD >>> >>> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! >>> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. >>> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DG-BSC mailing list >>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> > > > -- > > Adrian Gropper MD > > PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! > HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. > DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ > >

8 28

Fwd: Smart contracts: unlock blockchain's potential
by Colin Wallis 04 Nov '16

04 Nov '16

Folks FYI from DigiCat. Cheers Colin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Digital Catapult <newsletter(a)digital-catapult.org.uk> Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM Subject: Smart contracts: unlock blockchain's potential To: "colin(a)kantarainitiative.org" <colin(a)kantarainitiative.org> Not displaying properly? | View in Browser <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-F15XSSQT83/cr.aspx> Forward this email to a friend <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-F15XSSQT83-1/fw.aspx> News November 2016 Dear Colin, *Top News**New games, new rules <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7NZ-1/c.aspx>* We've been working with the *UK Games Fund <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O0-1/c.aspx>* to create a smart contract prototype that uses blockchain technology to boost innovation in the UK gaming industry. You can read more about our work in blockchain and smart contracts *here <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7NZ-1/c.aspx>*, watch *'The Blockchain: Change Everything Forever' <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O1-1/c.aspx>* video and and share your thoughts at our next *blockchain meetup <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O2-1/c.aspx>* on 5 December. *Save the date: Blockchain Meetup <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O3-1/c.aspx> * <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O4-1/c.aspx> *Open Call: Thales Pit Stop <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O4-1/c.aspx>* Develop 'predict and prevent' rail infrastructure <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O5-1/c.aspx> *Open Call: ViiV Pit Stop <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O5-1/c.aspx>* Find new solutions to transform HIV care Other News F-Interop Open Call <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O6-1/c.aspx> IoT SMEs looking to test interoperable solutions are invited to take part in our *F-Interop Open Call* <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O6-1/c.aspx>. Apply before *25 January 2017* and you could receive up to *€100,000* funding. Case studies <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O7-1/c.aspx> Learn how we are working with businesses big and small with our latest case studies featuring *PwC <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O8-1/c.aspx>* and *Blue Maestro <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O9-1/c.aspx>*. Check out the full list of case studies *here <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O7-1/c.aspx>*. Jim Collins: Live in London <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OA-1/c.aspx> Business strategist, leadership thinker and best-selling author Jim Collins will be presenting an exciting seminar in London. Join him on *28 February 2017* and discover the characteristics your company needs to achieve success. *Book your place now.* <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OB-1/c.aspx> Events Meet the Expert: NASA <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OC-1/c.aspx> What does innovation at NASA look like? Find out on *10 November* as Digital Catapult Centre North East & Tees Valley interview JPL Ops Labs' Doug Ellison about his career and technology used by NASA. *Sign up here <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OC-1/c.aspx>.* Brighton Digi Drop in <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OD-1/c.aspx> Meet the Digital Catapult Centre Brighton team on *11 November* and hear about the latest tech trends and developments at their *Digi Drop in <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OD-1/c.aspx>*. This month they will be joined by the University of Brighton's Knowledge Engineering Group, who will share their expertise in big data and Applied Intelligent Systems. *Book your place <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OD-1/c.aspx>* *AI vs Business: Economic Impacts of Deep Learning <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OE-1/c.aspx>* How will artificial intelligence impact UK industries and businesses? Join us for a day of exciting discussions on *6 December* at the Digital Catapult Centre in London. *Register here. <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OE-1/c.aspx>* Latest content Bring Your Own Device: where's the risk? <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OG-1/c.aspx> Could bringing your own device to work hinder the security of your business? Hypersocket's *Lee Painter* shares thoughts in his *blog post. <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OG-1/c.aspx> * Connected Homes: a storm in a teacup <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OH-1/c.aspx> Digital Catapult Centre Brighton resident *Mark Rittman* had an epic 11 hour struggle to make a cup of tea with his IoT enabled kettle. Read about his experience *here* <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OI-1/c.aspx>. *The Blockchain: Change Everything Forever <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OJ-1/c.aspx>* Discover how blockchain is set to transform society by watching our new *YouTube video <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7O1-1/c.aspx>*, made in collaboration with Furtherfield. All the best, *Digital Catapult Team* <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OK-1/c.aspx> <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OL-1/c.aspx> <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OM-1/c.aspx> <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7ON-1/c.aspx> <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-5XSSQT-GZ7OO-1/c.aspx> © Digital Catapult 2016 | Unsubscribe <http://digital-catapult.org.uk/2DZY-Y09Y-F15XSSQT83/uns.aspx>

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, November 3
by Eve Maler 03 Nov '16

03 Nov '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-11+%28November+201… Agenda: - Report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> writing – Sovrin Foundation questionnaire answers discussion Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Scott S, Susan What's the right way to proceed? We don't have a lot of time to engage in a back-and-forth; we should write in our report whatever our analysis is, and if we have dissenting opinions we can attach those in appendices or whatever. Let's bubble up the reason for Sovrin's existence. The vision is, of course, familiar, with a new technology being introduced to solve it better than before. In May, Thomas asked Chris Allen "How do you get the counterparty to accept what's being offered?" (In this case, it's a relying party accepting a self-sovereign identity.) Thomas points to a different system that leverages blockchain to provide somewhat similar capability, CONIKS <https://coniks.cs.princeton.edu/>: The individual can generate new key pairs, and there's a ledger that records the history of the key pairs over time. Binding the record to a (say) proofed identity is the exercise left for the reader, so IAM would still be needed. It's a kind of key directory that gives correlatability over time of a set of keys. Maybe this, and Sovrin, and certificate transparency, all are different approaches to the "blockchain identity use case". Eve temporarily climbed up on a soapbox to rant about identity as, in great part, a function of an individual's relationship with an organization (e.g. vendor or whatever). Thomas points out this is in Chapter 2 of his new book <https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Data-Framework-Identity-sharing/dp/153911421X/…>! Thus, many attributes/claims that the organization has to store are unique to that organization, and it's inefficient and pointless for the individual to store them in tamper-proof form anywhere else. Susan points out that "self-sovereign" has grabbed the world's imagination, and a lot of it has to do with consent. A big concern of Eve's is: When we're talking about autonomous individuals, in the cases of what solutions does Alice have to go get an app from an app store or a browser plugin (thinking of things like "Sovrin clients")? The thinking is that *requiring* users to take an extra step is likely to make a solution fail unless some vertically integrated provider (like Apple or Google) builds it in, or some country forces the solution. A big question is: "What does the consumer want?" Does Alice want to install something? Sovrin does add a unique multi-stakeholder governance model, which mitigates risk well beyond what Ripple <https://ripple.com/> could do beyond its four virtual walls. We do seem to have gained some consensus here on skepticism about the longstanding aims of the user-centric/self-sovereign movement, which we'll have to capture in our report and share back with the various stakeholders. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

4 3

blockchain standard for certificates/assertions
by j stollman 03 Nov '16

03 Nov '16

MIT Media Lab is proffering a standard for blockchain-secured certificates: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mit-media-lab-releases-code-for-digita… --------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j(a)gmail.com +1 202.683.8699 <stollman.j(a)gmail.com> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

3 2

Comments on FCCX and Gov.UK Verify critique from 2015
by Eve Maler 02 Nov '16

02 Nov '16

In yesterday's call, I mentioned that there was a scholarly critique made last year on systems such as FCCX (afterwards renamed Connect.gov and since apparently scrapped <http://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/feds-scrap-connect-gov/> -- or being rebuilt??) and Gov.UK Verify. These systems leverage a (centralized) broker to effect a "triple-blind" design in terms of IdP<->RP identification in the context of a specific user. Here's an article <http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2414194/govuk-verify-identity-managemen…> describing the problem and pointing to the technical paper. (If you have trouble getting through the paywall with this link, search for the title "Gov.UK Verify identity management system riddled with 'severe privacy and security problems', warn UCL academics" using Google News.) The opinion I shared with a number of people at the time went like this: - I'm pretty suspicious of scholarly critiques of unlinkability claims, since most users end up voluntarily sharing sufficient attributes to be linkable anyway. - The article doesn't make very clear what the exact risk is nor what the proposed solution is, which doesn't surprise me because it's all very subtle. - The researchers have found a limitation in the tradeoff choice that the system designers made. This tradeoff prizes the ability for the user to use an online service (relying party) and an identity provider, free from worrying that the two will discover who the other is, over the perfect ability for a pseudonymous identifier and attributes representing the user to pass unseen through the broker in the middle (the broker makes this "service blinding" possible). - The researchers propose some clever encryption tricks to guard against the broker seeing things, and go further and propose a new user-chosen "identity integration" (II) service that could handle the tricks. - Given that brokered systems, and the "older" protocols such as SAML already in use, and the encryption tricks the researchers suggest, and user interfaces that force users to choose services, are all considered expensive and unpleasant in various ways, and given that the notion of an II service is 100% novel, I give the researchers' suggestions a nil chance of succeeding in the current environment. And given users' incentives to share enough attributes in everyday circumstances to routinely become identifiable, it's questionable whether the researchers' preference for tradeoffs vs. the nations' preference is the correct one. With hindsight, it's possible to observe that this specific critique didn't make that huge a splash at the time. However, we can also observe that these solutions have been struggling for a variety of other reasons (cost, complexity, politics, resulting pace...). I believe that in the Canadian province of BC, for example, they're not (or at least weren't as of a year ago) even using the triple-blind approach favored at the whole-of-Canada level and are going for a straight federated identity approach -- in other words, trading away *both* tradeoff choices discussed above in favor of even more back-end and front-end simplicity. Maybe the II service would now morph into a user-chosen blockchain-based identity source, or something like that, in the current rendering. Or such technology might have other roles to play; the US Postal Service (which took over FCCX/Connect.gov last year) does mention validating and authenticating user identities in its blockchain report <https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2016/RAR…> issued in May of this year. Then we're back to assessing the same propositions we've been looking at of late, I think. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

3 4

Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday, August 30 (shortly -- sorry for the late note!)
by Eve Maler 01 Nov '16

01 Nov '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. Previous meeting minutes are here: July <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…> . Agenda: - Confirm timeline, scope, and approach, or revise in specific - Assign action items for report next steps *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!*

5 11

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, November 1
by Eve Maler 01 Nov '16

01 Nov '16

*(By the way, this week we're in what I call "summertime skew" -- UK and Europe have changed, and US hasn't. Be sure to check the online calendar for the exact call time. US Pacific is normative. Things right themselves again by next week. It's always best to subscribe to the calendar for best results.)* http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-11+%28November+201… Agenda: - Report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> writing – Sovrin Foundation questionnaire answers discussion Attending: Eve, Thomas, John W, Kathleen, Susan, Jeff S, Andrew, Alex, Adrian *Logistics:* Today marks four months out of six in this DG's journey. *Smart contracts vs. legal contracts:* How has this difference been articulated? Barclays has written a paper, and we've discussed it some (need for jurisdiction information and formal identification of parties). The MIT event had some discussion as well, with Bart Suichies' comparison table (was that distributed to the list?). Where does the role of consensus come in? Any delta is relevant to our report-writing, especially as it relates to identity. Scott D has the action to write about legal contracts. Thomas listed four elements: parties (majority have 2), terms of the contract, consensus/verifiability (other parties can independently check whether the terms were executed on), semantic connection between legal prose and machine-readable code. Do the elements of (machine-readable) access control constitute a machine-readable contract? Lots of machine-readable authorization policy languages either could be (and/or or) easily translated to, or constitute themselves, a near-natural language declarative semantic description. Could they be "taken to court", that is, could they be validated in a way that is traditional for legal contracts? How does Jim H envision (or actually implement, by now) the connection between the legal contract text in CmA and the smart contract code? What if one half "blows up"? How does the regulatory regime under which the contract operates get identified? Have smart contracts been operating in such a gray zone that they've been trying to set totally separate standards that add a different and possibly even bigger risk? Could civil law standards usefully be created to mitigate this risk? Thomas and Susan took the assignment to flesh out the Smart Contracts definition and analysis in the report. This section should link to and discuss the CmA connection, and, where it can, talk about parties in their "identity" guise. *Sovrin answers:* You can find them in your inbox or in the email archive <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/2016-October/000289.html>. See also the paper <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/blob/…> Thorsten mentioned in email. Discussion of the "Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if other approaches are being taken outside of Sovrin" answer: Adrian attended IIW and the Sovrin-related sessions. Sovrin came across as "one of only four standards-track efforts that are alternatives to federation". You can use the private key you get as part of your identity to sign things. Evernym has basically become Sovrin now, having donated the code to the Foundation. The technical part of the model seems identical to the Blockstack model, and then there's a governance model on top that adds permissioning. The answer in this section talks about other blockchain use cases such as Bitcoin. As for other blockchain *identity* use cases, it appears they have all converged on a single technical answer: Don't put identity information itself on the blockchain (for the usual reasons: security and privacy of PII, latency, bloat); only put pointers on the blockchain; make that pointer model flexible so that that the identity holder can have pseudonyms; identity information is actually stored in a traditional repository of some kind. It's not that IdPs necessarily go away (they're mentioned in the Sovrin FAQ), but they would depend on the Sovrin layer. It's a four-layer model. Thomas notes that UMA enables a distributed model when it comes to an identity-holder's resources. Eve also notes that OpenID Connect enables distributed and aggregated identity claims in SSO explicitly. Adrian discusses the W3C verifiable claims work as being uncontested as solving the triple-blind concern. The question is: What, then, is the Sovrin work actually solving, if the current state of the art in identity and federated identity isn't so bad? Is it just that "having IdPs in the world is evil?" (Not that this may not be enough...) For whom is this solution targeted, then? Is the value worth the implementation/deployment cost, and for whom? *AI:* Eve: Send her analysis of the triple-blind vulnerability identified by researchers to the list. *AI:* Adrian: Send a link to the verifiable claims work to the list. *AI:* Thomas and Susan: Work on the Smart Contracts subsection of the Blockchain report section. Next time: Assemble a final list of comments and questions back for the Sovrin folks to answer, and work on the Sovrin Foundation Case Study report draft section. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

1 0

Confirming we're on for today's DG call
by Eve Maler 01 Nov '16

01 Nov '16

Agenda: - Continue Sovrin Foundation questionnaire response analysis (with inputs from IIW if anyone was there) - On-the-fly discussion of UMA points if time *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, October 18 (posting for Thomas from last week)
by Eve Maler 30 Oct '16

30 Oct '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-10+%28October+2016… Attendees: ScottS, Kathleen, Matisse, Thomas, JohnW AIs for Report: - Text from contributors - Terminology and definitions Report to dos: Kathleen working on HL7. Jim Hazard has been talking in UMA legal, with many similarities with FHIR work. Question is what will the Smart Contract look like, what will it do. Adrian also writing up text. Kathleen: reach out to Jim for text. Also Adrian has text from the ONC Blockchain Challenge <https://oncprojectracking.healthit.gov/wiki/display/TechLabI/Blockchain+Cha…> . Thomas: anything missing from the Report? Kathleen: need a definition of SC. Scott: yes, we’re not quite there. Also expand to a list/taxonomy of definitions and terminologies for the report. Potential Liaisons: groups that members of BSC are involved and list of relevant orgs looking at SC - HL7 - GA4GH: Global Alliance four Genomic Health - CommonAccord - GTRI: Georgia Tech Research Institute - OTTO: Open Trust Taxonomy for OAuth - Federated Authorization - Smart Contracts Alliance - Kantara’s liaison with JTC1/ISO (Identity Assurance & Management) - UMA WG - CIS WG - New ISO group on blockchains (ISO TC307) - Sovrin - JLINC protocol – JSON-LD may be used for SC. - BlockchainCanada.org *AI:* Thomas: start email thread on definition of SC. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

2 1

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, October 25
by Eve Maler 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-10+%28October+2016… Agenda: - Report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> writing – Sovrin Foundation questionnaire answers discussion Attending: Eve, Thomas, Matisse, Kathleen, SteveO, Thorsten *Meeting logistics:* Just a reminder: No meeting this Thursday. Also, when we take up meeting again next week, UK and Europe clocks will have changed, but US clocks won't have, and US Pacific is our normative time zone (see timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/2016.html> for "summertime skew" details...). Please keep an eye on and/or subscribe to our calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar>! *New book:* Don't miss Thomas's new book, called Trust::Data: A New Framework for Identity and Data sharing <https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Data-Framework-Identity-sharing/dp/153911421X/…>! Wow. Congratulations! *Sovrin answers:* You can find them in your inbox or in the email archive <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/2016-October/000289.html>. See also the paper <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/blob/…> Thorsten mentioned in email. Overall, Eve's question for each use case, differentially, is: How much does limiting the risk of a "pure public blockchain technology" approach impact the goals of the use case, and particularly in our case where the use case goals are for empowerment? E.g., for some fintech use case where you want to speed up business and protect against legal risk, maybe limiting the "distributedness" of the blockchain to your enterprise – that is, inside your firewall – could be fine. But for other use cases, that could seriously harm you goal. So for today, given that Sovrin has a goal of self-sovereign identity, have they been able to successfully mitigate risk while enjoying/providing the benefits of blockchain ("walked the line correctly")? "Self-sovereign identity" sounds like an extension of the previous notion of "user-centric identity". Thomas's CoreID paper caused some people to accuse him of being a communist for proposing a blockchain identity system that enables anonymous credentials. Eve's question is: What ecosystem that involves both individuals and services could function without at least some (probably the lion's share of) use cases of *identified* sharing? There are some "anonymous authorization" (Shibboleth) and "claims-based access control" (UMA) use cases, indeed. (And notice that these use cases didn't require blockchain to be solved) But quite often, (empowered) service operators do need to know who they're dealing with among (currently disempowered) individuals. See Latanya Sweeney's research <http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html> on the ability to re-correlate individuals from a few attributes; hence Eve's skepticism about ZKP approaches (which Sovrin criticizes as well). Users also have real incentives to share data with services in many cases because otherwise the services can't function. Are there any services accepting Sovrin credentials yet? These are apparently called "stewards". We looked at the Technical Foundations <https://www.sovrin.org/The%20Technical%20Foundations%20of%20Sovrin.pdf> paper. The observer/validator/governance paradigm seems well thought out. Thomas noted that the widening circles of nodes looks like what Ripple has. The governance model could perhaps be a model/template for other use cases as well. Not depending on IdPs sounds like a big benefit. People have been become persona non grata on various services that function as IdPs (such as being shadowbanned or outright banned on Twitter), or have been monitored by government IdPs. However, the reality of many service providers is that they rely heavily on these 30 social IdPs <https://rpxnow.com/docs/providers#microsoftaccount> for a lot of what they do, both the user population and the information provided by these service sources. ("Social login" is when they rely totally on the incoming IdP for information, and "social registration" is when they explicitly collect additional information and do separate login thereafter.) What is the value proposition for these RPs? Also, how would legacy "federated SSO" work (a la SAML or OIDC) in this new world? *AI:* Everyone please continue to review the questionnaire answers (two sections left to go) and provide thoughts in email. We can send our questions to the Sovrin folks after our review is complete. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

1 0