Social Cooperation based on Trust, Voluntary Interaction and Human Capability

In many ways I agree with Malcolm Crompton’s conclusions 1-5 starting with the fact that we will not emerge with a way forward that is without flaws. That said there are keys omission I feel especially need to be addressed as well as one important requirement implemented.

Marcolm’s summarizing that “management of the risk of an interaction between two entities by the exchange of relevant, verified claims about attributes” is in my view inadequate. My reasons emerge below.  

The NSTIC and IDESG is dedicated to enhancing human capability through enhanced economic opportunities for all sizes of entities, including individuals, to solve problems, invent and innovate goods and services, including accessing and engaging  affordable education in cyberspace. Who would have concluded from reading the NSTIC Strategy and IDESG that the goal was in anyway to broker and exchange, monetize and churn the human attributes of individuals that participated in the Identity Ecosystem Framework. Often without his or her knowledge or consent.

My own view is that we are at a paradigm-shift tipping point. However dramatic that might seems it outlines a basic truth emerging from our efforts in IDESG and NSTIC.  NSTIC and IDESG is asking for voluntary interaction and social cooperation to adopt the NSTIC and IDEF plan even though important and basic questions of social and economic fairness, human capability, and equity have not been or are just beginning to surface.  Without justice as fairness what will cause us to come together, to cooperate, to voluntarily interact? This question goes directly to the basis of trustworthiness. If fairness doesn’t hold the IDEF functional model parts together what does?  Like it or not all of us are interdependent. The new commercial social and economic paradigm requires the development and empowerment of a new symbiotic market based on social cooperation and human capability. Our trust-marks must be built on the understanding that trust is to a large extent is a human emotion and we must answer:

Why should individuals agree to participate in the IDEF without?

1. An understanding of how it will benefit them socially and economically.{Not having to type in passwords in grossly not enough of a benefit for the risks involved).

2. An understanding of how other parties in the transaction(s) will benefit economically and socially.

3. An understandable and clear conversation among the parties as to the terms of an interaction, implemented at the beginning of an interaction.

While UMA IDEmix may preserve some fairness and economic benefit for individuals these measures simply put something in the middle of a transaction that may benefit some individuals but the benefits may be uneven and increase costs to the individuals. What happens to those that don’t know about or understand these systems. More importantly it is likely that those that are already in a digital divide will remain there and the inequalities there will widen and deepen. Those of lesser means or some other chosen attribute may simply be filtered out. It will  further stimulate and speed up the effort of large commercial entities to collect and secure for themselves the human attributes of people around the world often, without protections.

Additional Baseline Requirement 

Principle Assumption

It should be possible for a human being to start from the position that his or her attributes belong to them in some basic way and that if a commercial interests want to use them they need to come to an agreement with the individual(s) involved. Such an approach would give an incentive to understanding and valuing the human condition and further incentivize increasing human capability.

This might be called a Social Cooperation Requirement and read as follows:

IDEF participants must be able to have a conversation that educates each other and the system as to the desires each party is seeking in the relationship and stating risks of the interaction. This conversation must be in understandable language suitable to each participant and their human capability. This conversation method will be developed and tested in many communities beginning now.

Regards,

Ann Racuya-Robbins