Re: [projectvrm] Corporations cannot be discreet nor can they be trusted - they ar e not human beings

[Devon M T Loffreto < >]

Corporations are not a "they"... it is an administrative structure.

Corporate management and Human-led work processes within a corporate admin structure would be a more accurate context here.

Is it the people leading the work processes, or the admin systems aggregating the work processes that can not keep data secret, as you suggest?

Here is your "bingo" moment:

"For a human being to trust an identity, they need assurance it corresponds with a human being."

This is where the most useful vector of reforming the customer relationship really starts with employment practices under the Law. Human labor should be owned by the Human beings that represent it. The relationship of that labor to the corporate entity that has contracted it should be explicit. Our current model of plausible deniability and liability protection for the Human labor within a corporate entity is self-defeating us across the widest spectrum imaginable in socio-economic Terms.

In order for Human labor to be owned personally, administrative precedence requires a deliberate identity formation process. Root authority and Human control over identity must map to the Individual. This sovereign source authority should be edge-driven, and never centrally registered.

Participation within the framework of Society, and allocation of citizen "Rights" should be an opt-in procedure made by Human beings at an age of accountability, and protected by family/guardian in a pending state until that time. This act should enforce the sovereign structure of root authority, and maintain edge-driven control. In exchange for assuming the responsibility for personal accountability in Society, the structure of socio-economic participation should be personally owned as an opportunity equally available to all by default. This citizen identifier, should function much like a 'DBA' "doing business as" functions today. An Individual need not be explicitly identified by their root authority in any transaction, but must stand accountable for their 'DBA' identifier in any case where a transaction is contested under the Law. This act of resolving transactional disagreements requires bi-directional accountability under equal Terms. It must cost as much to enforce as it costs to be enforced upon.

As was stated by President Obama last night, we are heading towards self-governance in every data-driven context. For this to happen, every context must map explicitly to Human control, and administrative precedence must reiterate this fact. Centrally managed bureaucratic administrative systems should not authenticate Human participation, Human participants should authenticate administrative systems. If we fix root authority, we can fix administrative precedence, and we can fix the relationship Human's have to the market in every context. 

The most difficult aspect to this is that incremental change does not get us there. Root authority is mapped incorrectly today. Citizens do not reflect the inherent structure made clear by 'John Hancock' in forming our present administrative system, and declaring independence from the King's administrative system.

In a system espousing "self governance", root authority must declare its independence Individually, and our Constitutional integrity must protect and empower that structurally in every context.

Devon Loffreto

Noiz ivy.org

 

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Crosbie Fitch < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Corporations cannot even keep data secret today - data that it is in their
interest to keep secret. I don't know how one can imagine that data they are
interested in sharing can be kept secret by having them tick a box saying
"Bloggs Inc. agrees not to share or disclose this data to any party aside
from its trusted parents, subsidiaries, partners, and affiliates".

Trying to create a system that prevents or even inhibits unauthorised
disclosure of personal data is a pursuit of the holy grail. Corporations and
people will communicate whatever it is in their interest to communicate.
People can be trusted to be discreet because it is in their interest to be
discreet (they are at liberty not to be discreet), but corporations cannot
be trusted, and 'discretion' is a label you can attach to their cost/benefit
analysis of non-disclosure vs discovery of disclosure.

As for systems that provide information concerning participant identity and
reputation (even reputation for discretion), I think these are eminently
feasible, worthy and useful, even indispensible.

Bear in mind that reputation becomes extremely valuable. You do not need to
pretend coercion (penalties for disobedience) by the law, nor attempt to
assure compliance via contract. Loss of reputation is quite sufficient. See
for example on eBay just how important a high reputation metric is to
vendors (though it is pretty crude).

Trade needs only identity/reputation - from which traders
(human/corporate/virtual/robot) can obtain a degree of confidence in those
they trade with (without needing to know which human or corporation they are
controlled by).

For a human being to trust an identity, they need assurance it corresponds
with a human being.

States and corporations may 'desire' that they can establish which human
beings correspond with which identities, but this isn't necessary. Though,
because they 'desire' it so strongly they will want everyone to use their
identity/reputation systems that build-in body/identity correspondence at
the outset.