Re: [projectvrm] So what?

[Devon M T Loffreto < >]

I agree Kevin. In building my own tools, the most challenging part is how the underlying data structure is able to flex to accommodate those changing choice structures. 

Real life is a moving target... as people concerned with using data-driven systems that are people-centric rather than system-centric and automated for administrative efficiency, a key consideration resolves around the structure of the primary key used in constructing administrative authority, and how/where in the use of the tool this structure is enforced. 

There are some novel and interesting efforts out in the world today that instigate this conversation further. John Light, IIW participant, has been pointing at them for many. The Open Badges project at Mozilla is instigating some valued work. Many others too.

Devon

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

+1 Devon

Very useful to me in confirming that we need to build flexible and adaptable systems so that individuals have choices and that the choices are able to change.  

Kevin

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I think confusion is a good place for our present conversation... the nebulous state of affairs we exist within kind of requires it. 

From a developer standpoint, the question is:

What is "minimum viable privacy" as a policy that steers dev choices?

Lets look at a tool directed at kids, for educational use and play: http://scratch.mit.edu/privacy_policy/

How does it look? 

There is much philosophy packed inside of dev choices made by developers/organizations/corporations/etc. We have this unmitigated administrative sprawl happening in Society. Partly it is driven by a legal apparatus that does not really use creative entrepreneurial imagination, but instead relies on precedent to frame decisions.

What happens when 'precedent' is the problem?

Some would argue that copyright and patent law can answer that question. Privacy may be on a similar track.

On this list, we are dealing with relationships. What role do Individuals occupy in a relationship? With vendors? With each other? With Gov? etc.

What effect does the reconstruction of an Individual as a legal identifier that is no longer personally Sovereign have? How about as a W2/W4 employee ID? How about as a corporate tax ID?

Who/what do you think you are doing business with? What dev choices do you make as a consequence?

It turns out that "identity equality" is an issue no one has heard of; what respect needs to be recognized by default participation in Society to an Individual when the literal structural identity suggests that "privacy" is not inherent, and is negotiable along legislative lines that will flex in time based on the nature of leadership philosophy? How does that work structurally?

An NDA or a TOS is a legal Agreement with legit legal standing... both are violated constantly. What is the affect? Individuals and organizations are free to pursue recourse when such happens, but always at cost of capital and time... when is it worth the effort? That is a real consideration that runs directly into the actual natural Right that Crosbie points at to disregard either of those Agreements freely. What is the risk in actual Terms?

People confront and make those choices all the time.

The difficulty of these conversations involves how people prioritize ideas concerning leverage. For instance, is it worth the effort to reconstruct your participatory identity in the socio-economic system to regain parts of your personal Sovereign authority given that modern data structure within the database state has denied it to you? Is it worth the effort to push for legislative changes that affect the ways in which freedoms are allocated and managed by people among other administrative entities? Is it worth the risk to roll the dice and act freely while doing business with the status quo, Agreeing to TOS that make a mockery of the law and relationships it should be servicing with integrity?

As developers working on tools to empower Individual people, and to perhaps yield organization success based on that service value, what choices get made? Why? What is the VRM 'mvp' that involves all these choices? Who wants to share their creation for public dissection and interrogation? What is the long term value of being that guinea pig?

Revenue is the ultimate silo; prioritizing Individuals can not reasonably be about destroying revenue silos and expect it will find favor. Sometimes it can sound like their are people that want to give power to people in ways that do not respect the work involved in even having the choice to be a customer. Silos are not and can not be bad in and of themselves... instead it is the manner in which these revenue silos are able to build collaborative relationships.

This list has never made an adequate step in that direction... it needs to.

When a developer builds a tool of value, and offers that tool to people, she can choose whether that tool has a business objective or not. That is a freely availed choice. We all likely share great respect for each of those choices in context. 

But, when the inherent flaws of participation in our Society are leveraged against us, so that we are captured as social-beings structured as data-slaves simply due to the inherent way that Society is configured at the identity layer, or at the legislative layer by mis-represented choices that "We the People" never actually Agreed to, but were the recipients of the outcome by administrative capture and one-off authority by people that we supposedly elected (ie George Bush and the Patriot Act)... then what are the socio-political consequences?

We are living in a Patriot Act Universe... and it is not just the US that is affected...everyone is. 

So now, how does the perversion of Rights due to inherent data structure affect the choices you make as a developer?

What is VRM to you?

That is the conversation happening here... and it is not getting any clearer from my perspective, but I think Crosbie is pointing at one reason. People have a mis-understanding of what Rights are and how they are supposed to be protected and represented. 

Collaborative commerce/creation is thus affected.

Devon

 

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Marc Lauritsen < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I'm sure I'm not alone in hesitating to question Crosbie's assertions out of fear of being lectured, if not ridiculed.  And even though I've lived a reasonably examined life, I realize I wouldn't likely withstand interrogation about my intuition that 'natural' rights may only be natural to someone who doesn't seem to acknowledge the slightest possibility that his carefully worked out philosophy might be incoherent. Yet it's frustrating that the many back & forths in this forum don't seem to have gotten us to the bottom of our disagreements.

For me one nagging set of questions is:  So what if I'm at liberty to violate agreements I've made?  Does that make it right for me to do so?  Or unreasonable for society to impose penalties (short of forced labor) for my doing so?

On 1/10/2015 11:00 AM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

From: Guy Higgins

A contract, by it's very definition, limits my freedom to act.

It would be interesting to know in which jurisdictions contracts had such a
definition.

If I sign a contract to buy a car, then I have limited my freedom to use 
that money for other purposes.

You have agreed to part with your property/goods/money, not your liberty.

I don't have to sign a non-disclosure agreement or an agreement to vet 
documents intended for publication with an agent who will review them
for classified material.  It simply means that I don't get access to the
information. No one is compelling me to sign those "contracts."

Firstly, a contract is an agreement, which, by definition, is a voluntary
one, so this is vacuous.

That you aren't compelled to sign an invalid contract, doesn't make the
contract valid.

Now, it annoys me that I have to sign an agreement that gives the other

party,

what I think are, unwarranted rights to monitor me, what I say and what I

do 

if I want to use a certain application or capability - but, again, I do not

have to have that application or capability, and the decision is mine to

make.

One cannot decide to surrender that which is inalienable. Your power to
decide, is not power to do the impossible - your rights do not become
property to dispose of as you see fit simply because they are referred to in
the possessive sense (compare with 'your shadow').

Thus, you can also not surrender your privacy. You can give someone
permission to monitor you (within your privacy), but not the right to do so,
i.e. you can rescind permission at any time (even if you agreed otherwise).

If enough people refuse to sign the agreement and buy the widget, the

overbearing

agreements will go away.  It seems that you're objecting to the inclination

of 

too many people to sign away their rights which is, in turn, affecting you.

Sorry

about that.

This is not about me.

It's about helping those interested in developing VRM facilities understand
their limitations.

We're not going to convert everyone (or even a majority) into being privacy
advocates, but we probably can create a sufficiently large market that it 
becomes attractive for vendors to participate without demanding rights to

our

information.

This is not about conversion either. It doesn't matter if the masses remain
ignorant about natural rights (or even misled). People still have rights,
and instinctively, subconsciously recognise them.

But, yes, you're right otherwise; VRM facilities will be so useful and
helpful (without needing to get anyone to sign an invalid contract, or even
a valid one), and consequently attractive, that they will enjoy popular
uptake, by all traders, whether primarily customer or vendor.