| Here’s the chart I find instructive, p.148
 On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Guy Jarvis <
" class="">
> wrote:
Stephen Hick's book, Explaining Postmodernism, comes to mind,
particularly Chart 1 on page 8 that provides a list of key
differentiators between premodern and modern in order to help define
postmodernism.
See http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hicks-EP-Full.pdf
What I take from this comparison is that (in the "western" context at
least) cultural history is pendular ie pre- and post- modern represent
unmodern and this provides a useful framing of the self-sovereignty vs
mass collective compliance relationship.
So if we accept that post modernist thinking has been in the ascendent
for the past century then to my mind this means what western societies
at least have been experiencing is a return to feudality which
technology helps to foster eg the surveillance society, the digital
plantation.
To take a different analogy, if we consider a graph of the potency
ratio between the self-defensive tools/tech available to the
individual vs those at the disposal of the state against time, then
there appears to be an interesting correlation between the ascendency
of modernism with its focus on the self-sovereignty and those periods
when individuals have been most closely matched to the state.
For example, in both the English Civil War and the American
Revolution, the individual citizen had access to approximately the
same defensive tools (eg muskets) as was available to state actors and
that rough parity enabled self-sovereignty, through free association
with like minds, to challenge and defeat the status quo ((Bill of
Rights, US Constitution).
Whereas pre- and post- these periods, the big players (state,
corporate) possessed a winning advantage over individuals (eg medieval
knights and nukes respectively).
Now I'm not suggesting that every individual seeks to do a Kim (Jon
Un) literally by tooling up with actinides, however as an analogy for
effective VRM pushback against those big players then perhaps the
self-sovereign individual needs an equivalent technological leveller
to create the conditions for mutual respect, otherwise there is little
to no incentive for vendors to countenance their relationship being
managed.
Guy
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Devon Loffreto <
" class="">
> wrote:
Amazing story, didn't know that, and wouldn't have guessed it, but makes
sense why you are so keen on appreciating self-sovereign ideas in HC and
generally.
I have a close cousin who went to Russia when Gorbachev made perestroika and
glasnost a thing and started a newspaper there. You might imagine how
provocative that was, and the chaotic stories and emotional experiences that
produced.
Asia in general, China in specific is fascinating to me. I studied Japanese
Business Management at GMU in early 90's, and focused on Entrepreneurship
until departing with my own venture early. Being in Fairfax, VA at that
time, I met Steve Case and had conversations with Vint Cerf while he was at
MCI. As a student, I asked him why ownership at the infrastructure level did
not happen wrt identity and tcp/ip, and learned it was "considered in 1976,
but discarded".. presumably as impractical from that time basis. Sometimes
we just dont think big enough, and IPv4 needs IPv6 to course correct... silo
busting had priorities at DARPA, but civil Rights via ID was not one of
them.
Obviously China is changing rapidly, and history has a heavy hand
influencing behavior. Society is only capable of so much change in
short-time. And historic ideas certainly weigh in to the notion of what is
permissible by any culture.
Which is the startling point concerning America. When it comes down to it,
looking at "America" through the lens of an immigrant, there really are
relatively few people that function as an "American" would/should. This is
one of the points my friends from Asia and China specifically make
repeatedly. The apathy of people to willingly sacrifice "Individual Liberty"
and "Personal Security" in operational terms stems in large part to the
massive influence of employee-thinking in our Society.
Public schools do a couple things really bad in America... things that are
fundamental to functional literacy... 1) Entrepreneurial thinking and
knowledge of free enterprise, 2) Computational thinking and knowledge of
computer systems. Going to school to get good grades, so you can get a
degree, so you can get a job so you can climb a bureaucratic ladder so you
can retire on pension benefits has dominated our public infrastructure. K-17
EDU is less a learning system as it is an employment system.
When something as egregious as the "Individual Mandate" is presented as a
solution to health care access and delivery, people in large numbers have no
context of its meaning, treating people as property of the State under
penalty of Law and taxation. Lose-lose. Meanwhile, social-entrepreneurs can
fix most of that problem independently, and the systemically failing
components stand apart as failures of our mis-represented bureaucracy than
actual problems. Its just sad to experience.
But try telling that to a system that operates as though Individuals are a
problem rather than a solution path.
The good news is that Individual leaders can make an impact. Self-Sovereign
identity is a known & actively considered thing among Superintendents across
NY State because of real pain points and patient presentation of methods
that can be casually discussed without stress or media-hype. As an indie
developer, I am already working with partners managing over $3 billion in
budgetary funding from the State, State Senators, and other State funding
entities that are engaging these conversations in practical ways, and
looking at the road map ahead and considering what it means for changing how
public EDU is organized. I wrote a PR piece not long ago titled "Overcoming
the Great Firewall of Public Education" because China has got nothing on
American public schools in 2018.
Structure yields results...
Our Society will not course correct as customers of services, especially in
relationship to our Gov. That is not the American structure of participation
that matters.
Origin of human authority... ownership of personal markets with both
BUY/SELL integrity... these are the structures that matter. Evidence of
progress is everywhere. In fact the head of technology for the WEF has his
kid in my learning program at kidOYO, and we discuss self-Sovereign ID and
its implications globally from time-to-time... but the mere fact he is aware
of the concept is a win in my book... time & effort.
There are many on this list to thank for that progress..
Dev
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Adrian Gropper <
" class="">
>
wrote:
Thanks, Devon. I'm being serious.
I was born behind the Iron Curtain and experienced, mostly through my
parents, what it means to live in a surveillance society. My parents would
travel to other communist countries when I was little. They were afraid to
be noticed for having enough money to travel and so they would tell me that
they were in the hospital so that's what I would share with my colleagues in
school. Then, when they returned from "the hospital" they would bring me the
most amazing toys!
My serious point is that people adjust to universal surveillance and that
China and the US and everywhere else are experiments in progress.
Adrian
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Devon Loffreto <
" class="">
>
wrote:
Is that a real question or are you being humorous? Its going as you might
expect. Compliance is a social norm. Individual liberty is not, at mass
scale.
I have a team walking factory floors across China currently. One is
returning home after 5 years in US. Immediate reaction to seeing role of
WeChat domination was startling. From city to deep rural, cash is
disappearing. Social structure drives operational results.
People seek convenience. Individual liberty is never easy. Compliance is
always easy, until its not. State planning in China is a force w/o limit,
and alternative models are breaking w/ ease b/c "easy" wins mass-adoption.
Credit.. still optional.
Devon
On Feb 7, 2018 9:50 AM, "Adrian Gropper" <
" class="">
> wrote:
The experiment Guy describes is already being run in China with social
credit scoring. Does anyone have an update on how that's going?
Adrian
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guy Jarvis <
" class="">
> wrote:
At a conceptual level, what instantly occurred to me was "udontnomi"
which might be achieved through a couple of different pathways.
The first perhaps more obvious route is to (attempt to) block unomi
from gathering any personal data, the main drawback that comes to mind
is that blocking may prevent access to a desired resource
The second route is to appear to willingly accept unomi then poison it
with junk data to render unomi worthless.
In the latter case, I guess the programmatical challenge is
client-side browser coding to fool the server-side unomi, plus some
means of p2p sharing junk between clients.
Guy
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Tom Barnett <
" class="">
> wrote:
http://unomi.incubator.apache.org/versions/1.2/concepts.html
I wondered if anyone had any views on this?
'
Profiles
By processing events, Unomi progressively builds a picture of who the
user
is and how they behave. This knowledge is embedded in Profile object.
A
profile is an Item with any number of properties and optional segments
and
scores. Unomi provides default properties to cover common data (name,
last
name, age, email, etc.) as well as default segments to categorize
users.
Unomi users are, however, free and even encouraged to create
additional
properties and segments to better suit their needs.
Contrary to other Unomi items, profiles are not part of a scope since
we
want to be able to track the associated user across applications. For
this
reason, data collected for a given profile in a specific scope is
still
available to any scoped item that accesses the profile information.
It is interesting to note that there is not necessarily a one to one
mapping
between users and profiles as users can be captured across
applications and
different observation contexts. As identifying information might not
be
available in all contexts in which data is collected, resolving
profiles to
a single physical user can become complex because physical users are
not
observed directly. Rather, their portrait is progressively patched
together
and made clearer as Unomi captures more and more traces of their
actions.
Unomi will merge related profiles as soon as collected data permits
positive
association between distinct profiles, usually as a result of the user
performing some identifying action in a context where the user hadn’t
already been positively identified.'
--
Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/
--
Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/
--
Devon Loffreto
Founder/ Developer/ Mentor
kidOYO/ OYOclass.com
________________________________
Important: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain
information intended for the exclusive use of the party or parties to whom
it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged,
confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing,
copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to
legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail
or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message
without making any copies.
|