Re: [DG-BSC] DRY systems, authoritative sources of data, and individuals

Jeff makes a very important point. At the Verifiable Claims F2F, Drummond Reed put up a nice 2x2 table (that I have no link to) that showed: Permissioned / Permissionless on one axis and Public / Private on the other. Sovrin is an example of a permissioned blockchain that is public (anyone can use it). Bitcoin and Ethereum are permissionless and public. Private blockchains are just "old fashioned" technology from this perspective. Valuable, and may benefit from standardization, but unlikely to disrupt as far as I can tell. Adrian On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:28 PM, j stollman wrote:

I would make a slight correction to the applicability of DLT.

From my perspective, Distributed Ledger Technology has two broad areas of applicability.

1. It supports Information Integrity by raising the bar for attackers seeking to compromise the data store by compelling them to modify a majority of copies of the data store to achieve consensus on the modified records. 2. It distributes the governance role of "trusted authority" when members of the community are unwilling to trust any of their fellows to be the keeper of the system of record.

But I do not equate DLT with Blockchain Technology. When DLT uses blockchain encryption in the datastore, I would consider it to be a Blockchain Technology application. This may be the current case for most currently envisioned DLT applications.

Alternatively, Blockchain Technology (i.e., blockchain encryption) may be applied to datastores that are not distributed. I can envision private blockchains that are run by trusted parties that intentionally hold data close to avoid compromising private or confidential data. The blockchain encryption may be applied to help ensure data integrity.

Jeff

--------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@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, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Adrian Gropper wrote:

...

I agree as well.

DLT is useful for: - maintaining reputation (such as control of an identifier) - timestamping, ordering of transactions, and related audit support - avoiding replay or double-spend

Mostly, DLT makes identity federations much less important if not actually irrelevant.

Adrian

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:33 PM, James Hazard wrote:

...

Agree with Eve that DLT seems usually to be the wrong platform when there are participants who can be contacted.

My impression is that DLT/blockchain is useful, perhaps necessary, when there is the possibility that nodes will have to act but will have no contact with a trust provider. E.g., the thermostat must be able to be authenticated vis-à-vis the furnace, and must be able to demonstrate ability to pay, even when the internet connection is down. (One can imagine much more compelling situations.)

The records of those transactions, however, should be synced to trusted nodes (e.g. AliceNode) as soon as they can be, and the history should be purged and just the balances carried forward.

Again, this is beyond my scope, but helps the ecosystem for codified legal.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:26 AM, James Hazard wrote:

...

Tagging this on to the newly named thread (ignore my other):

I think we are in agreement, but imagining slightly different scenarios.

If Alice paid BobCo, there would be a record of the payment, originating at AliceNode and synced to BobCoNode (by push or pull).

BobCo could then issue a certificate of prompt payment to Alice, which would originate at BobCoNode and be synced to AliceNode. Kind of like an Uber/Lyft/Airbnb rating.

When Alice wanted to demonstrate creditworthiness to Claire, she would create a record in AliceNode and sync it to ClaireNode which authorized ClaireNode to access a permalink at BobCoNode. Whether AliceNode would also sync this authorization directly with BobCoNode is a technical matter beyond my scope, and perhaps could be done either way.

When ClaireNode actually accessed the record at BobCoNode, BobCo could create a receipt that originated in BobCoNode and was synced to AliceNode and ClaireNode, as desired.

The difference between this and the scenario you describe is mostly that Alice has a record of equal value to the one that BobCo has of her payment, and of BobCo's statement that it was on time. This maps more or less to email.

A blockchain as sole database seems problematic because of data security, performance constraints and interoperability. But blockchains might be very useful for keeping a tally of threads of transactions, proof-of-existence validation, etc.

The permalink could be done by hashing, like in IPFS.

In any event, peer-based transacting would not be based on word processing, and therefore would free the legal profession and system to use standards-based data formats.

On Adrian's point about PDS, I can imagine that the term carries freight. I use it merely to mean a database of records created by or synced to a participant. The git term might be something like a repo, or perhaps a branch, to reflect the fact that the records are understood to be part of something bigger.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Gropper

...

wrote:

...

There are two ways to get trusted information: (1) verify a signed claim associated with an identity (2) present a secure (UMA) token to a resource server you trust

Adrian

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, Eve Maler wrote:

...

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@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 > 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-blockch >> ain-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@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 >>> 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@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/webpayments-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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:15:27 AM >>>>>> *To:* Scott L. David >>>>>> *Cc:* Eve Maler; dg-bsc@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@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@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@kantarainitiative.org < >>>>>>> dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Eve Maler < >>>>>>> eve.maler@forgerock.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:50 AM >>>>>>> *To:* dg-bsc@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@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@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@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/ > >

--

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/

-- @commonaccord

-- @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/

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@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/