On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Mary Hodder <
">
> wrote: Is this: This is part of the Open Mustard Seed project towards creating a full Trust Network reference platform
what OIX also set out to do?
Or is Open Mustard Seed (which I have to admit, sounds vaguely like Mustard Gas -- sorry.. not great branding for me :) )
I assume the name derives from Matthew 17:20: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
doing something different? And if so.. what?
The OIX question is a good one.
Doc
thanks, On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Doc Searls wrote: Fred was talking, I believe, about activities outside the Web.
What he and others among us get is a growing sense that giving people control over privacy, identity, permissions, agreements and social interactions is hard or impossible through the Web alone — and instead must be addressed at the level of the Net below the Web.
That's not just because the Web, or at least its commercial sector, has become corrupted by bad acting. It's also because the Web is client-server, or calf-cow, in its architecture. It is hierarchy built on heterarchy. This isn't wrong; it's just inadequate. (Adriana Lukas, who has been active around VRM and related issues since before the beginning of this list, has been doing some great thinking around heterarchy.)
The is what telehash is about, for example: "It works by sending and receiving small encrypted bits of JSON (with optional binary payloads) via UDP using an efficient routing system based on Kademlia, a proven and popular Distributed Hash Table " Jeremie Miller leads that. He also led development of Jabber and the XMPP protocol for instant messaging.
A Framework for developing and deploying secure cloud applications to collect, compute on, and share personal data
• Developer support enables rapid creation of cloud based private social mobile applications
• Secured access using OpenID Connect
• Modular structure of service APIs and access control defined using legal constraints
• Automated deployment of Service Components (from hardware to complete cloud-based mobile application deployment)
• Personal Data Service providing cloud storage and secure computation
The Open Mustard Seed project is an open-source framework for developing and deploying web apps in a secure, user-centric personal cloud. The framework provides a stack of core technologies that work together to provide a high level of security and ease of use when sharing and collecting personal and environmental data, controlling web-enabled devices, and engaging with others to aggregate information and view the results of applied computation via protected services.
The scope of this effort is largely driven by the needs of the Trust Framework architecture for personal data ecosystems being developed at ID3.
Overall, the project aims to contribute a layer of software and methodology for the development, deployment, and management of user-centric, data-intensive, and distributed cloud applications and services.
Within that, there is openPDS:
This is part of the Open Mustard Seed project towards creating a full Trust Network reference platform. openPDS follows the recommendations of the WEF, the US NSTIC and the US Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. openPDS allows sensitive data processing to take place within a user’s Personal Data Store. The dimensionality of the data can thus be individually reduced on a per-need basis before being anonymously shared. The framework allows for PDSs to engage in privacy-preserving group computation, which can be used as a replacement for centralized aggregation.
The core principles of openPDS are:
• Answers, not Data
• Permissions for Sharing
• Auditability
• Governance
It consists of five layers of social technologies, each of which deals with distinct challenges in securing and sharing personal private data in controlled digital contexts. The five layers deal respectively with Core Identity; Identity Management and Authentication; Trust Frameworks; Core Services; and Applications.
The purpose of the Social Stack is to help establish distributed systems to manage personal identity on open platforms. Together, the five layers can enable trustworthy forms of collaboration, exchange and governance of resources. These technologies are already actively developing and starting to coalesce fitfully into a more integrated, open software platform. It is a process that ID^3 is actively facilitating in a number of demonstration projects.
The basic goal of the Social Stack is to enable people to develop trusted online social and commercial relationships that can persist and scale. This capacity depends upon people being able to control their own personal information. They must also be able to efficiently authenticate other people’s identities based on self-selected criteria for mutual association, trust and risk.
If equipped with the proper tools, distributed networks and groups could allocate their resources and privileges among their participant-members as they see fit. The Social Stack would enable sustainable, bottom-up forms of governance to take root and grow. The system could be used to advance commerce, civic engagement, social purposes or non-market provisioning.
In this sense, the Social Stack has sweeping implications for political governance in both theoretical and practical terms. It could transform the role of the State, by empowering citizens to devise new forms of self-actualized institutions that exhibit greater social legitimacy, efficacy and adaptability than governments. As a technical and political matter, the Social Stack would not consist of a single, monolithic set of protocols and software systems, but rather an evolving plurality of approaches animated by users themselves. It would also be completely decentralized and open source, and so the platform could not be “captured” by any single player or group and would always be capable of evolving and innovating.
As Fred said in his talk (and many among us have also been saying), it's still early. We have lots to do.
cc'ing Jeremie, John and Adriana, whose thoughts I welcome on the matter.
Doc On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Peter Cranstone <
">
> wrote: We already have a Privacy Protocol - it¹s called HTTP. What we don¹t have
is a way to get rid of cookies which run on top of HTTP.
We need to come up with a way that allows the Vendors web site to still
function without cookies, and for the user to not have to re-type data due
to missing cookies. In the irony of all ironies the intention signal is
the cookie¹s replacement. Because it solves the problem for both consumer
AND vendor by creating NEW VALUE without requiring a change in behavior.
Peter
On 12/14/13, 6:29 PM, "Doc Searls" <
">
> wrote:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2013/12/14/fred-wilsons-talk-at-leweb/
Further thoughts welcome.
Doc
|