10A/ The Principles of SSI
Session Title: The Principles of SSI
Conveners: Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay, Jasmin Huber, Johannes Sedlmeir, Chris Raczkowski, Joyce Searls, Drummond Reed, Feng Hou
Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:
From sankarshan : Session notes will be at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmPppQwrfPiGVVAaGMJaRdZsa-XegOdTpHs-d0NiQYo/ - hopefully we will have someone to take notes.
From Kaliya Identity Woman : to be fair this is a very SOVRIN centric articulation - there are those who are key leaders in the industry to believe that any permissioned chain is limiting relative to the freedom to “own” your digital identifiers - so it would be great to have a more inclusive frame for articulating these. The BTCR, SideTree, Element and ION are all permissionless
From Tony Fish : ? who's principles and aligned to whose oversight
From drummondreed : @Kaliya, I’ll definitely make that point
From Chris Raczkowski : These principles are developed by the SSI community - in a fully open, and collaborative manner. Essentially, these are the global SSI communities Principles of SSI. Sovrin just acts as the convener and organizer for the global community.
From sankarshan : Also, the principles are WIP and the conversation today is part of how we can evolve, refine and make it relatable.
From pknowles : Trust over IP is also much broader than “Identity”
From Kaliya Identity Woman : wait we haven’t heard principles yet
From Tony Fish : looking forward to them and how they align to Human Dignity; Subsidiarity; Solidarity; Covenantal; Sustainability; The common good; Stewardship; Equality; Transparency
From Chris Raczkowski : I have to drop - will be back in 30 minutes.
From Kaliya Identity Woman : The essay that first articulated the so called principles was written by one man - he wrote them alone - then “sought input” and when women like me gave feedback on how he framed the principles and the ecosystem - threw how a whole bunch of sexist tropes - and never really got input from anyone who wasn’t him. so no Chris it wasn’t open and transparent Sovran is not “the convener and organizer of “the global community” there are lots and lots of SSI people who aren not in the Sovrin orbit and don’t want to be.
From Tony Fish : +1 @kaliya ;
From Jeff Doctor : +1 @Kaliya
From Kaliya Identity Woman : since they have cut off the back channel in our zoom rooms here - pleas open the rocket chat
From sankarshan : The document being linked to on the slides is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YXJEFW2lNuPdhUmXQfO2xQZXwxrskH-lTrHk9pZ_aiM/edit?ts=5f84d3bb&pli=1#bookmark=id.207animqp3le
From mary hodder : So not to defend Chris because he should have done an inclusive process.. but how was that different than Kim Cameron’s Laws of Identity? He didn’t convene a group.. that I know of.. or it wasn’t put out to the community.. and yet this community cites him regularly. How does the community react consistently to things created by one person when they put out something like a list of principles or whatever?
From Kaliya Identity Woman : I was commenting directly on what Chris R. Said above about Sovrin
From Tony Fish : @drummond - rights are not principles; We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. The principles are: Universal and inalienable, Interdependent and indivisible, Equal and non-discriminatory, and Both Rights and Obligations.
From Karen Hand : maybe individuals and organizations?
From Kaliya Identity Woman : I was commenting on two things - one Christopher Allen put his first draft of the post out to about 40 people ; that whole thread went in some weird directions - unsurprisingly - happy to share that whole exchange I have it in a 40 page PDF ; I also was commenting on this from Chris R. “Sovrin just acts as the convener and organizer for the global community."
From PhilWolff : 4th Party Data Fiduciary Powers and Duties : ??
From Dave Crocker : Design Principles should specify a framework for realizing goals. Rights are a type of goal. Design principles are about pragmatics, not ideals.
From Jeffrey Aresty : Rights exist in law; conflicts of laws are where we are wihtout international law stepping in
From Jeffrey Aresty : the mechanism for creating international law is pretty broken
From Kalyan Kulkarni : +1 = Design Principles are about being pragmatic and not necessarily be ideal
From Scott David : How is “their” defined in “their “Personal Data”
From Scott David : Principles, Ethics and Norms
From Jeffrey Aresty : mostly public international law models are we know about - and, to make a right work in an international setting, you need adoption; this is how the Sullivan Principles were adopted (via industry pressure) against S. African apartheid
From Scott David : Duties and Rights must be declared to mutually support
From Jeffrey Aresty : We have taken a stab at this in session 11 - Universal declaration of digital identity
From Scott David : Group behavior is embodied philosophy
From Scott David : We have new blank interaction space in which to work.
From Jeffrey Aresty : It's not blank - the SDGs are there -
From drummondreed : Please feel free to put your hand to queue to talk
From Scott David : SDGs are not enforceable and many remain mutually inconsistent
From Kaliya Identity Woman : Kim Cameron put out the laws one a week for 7 weeks and got intensive community feedback via lists and blogs before he wrote the paper that is referenced. Way different then the process that Chris used just e-mailng a totally complete blog post to 40 people and asking for feedback - which he only very reluctantly listened to a little bit.
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Tony - Your work is on the same space as what we've been doing at The IO Foundation.
From Marc Davis : a huge challenged here is al it’s all personal data and digital identity are relational and therefore subject to join, rather t hsn
From Scott David : PEN - Principles, Ethics and Norms. Different sources, different applications.
From John Court : So for 2. As an example isn’t the principle the last part. Personal Data must not rely on a single administrative authority ?
From Marc Davis : typo: joint rather than individual control.
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Tony - Was a link shared? (I just joined the room)
From Scott David : Norms arise from “normal” behavior
From Tony Fish : catching up + 1 scott
From Scott David : Ethics arise from humans and apply to humans
From Tony Fish : @jean - no was just a post - will find you on rocket
From Scott David : Principles are aspirational behavior goals set by organizations to guide behavior of components. ; PEN is not set in stone, but is a way to recognize that origins and applications are different and must be accommodated independently.
From mary hodder : But show says what is “normal”.. for example it’s normal in the US govt looking back in history, to redline and discriminate against POC property buyers
From Kaliya Identity Woman : +1 PHil
From Jeff Doctor : Is the SSI “community” aware of
From Scott David : Rights are easy to state. Duties are difficult to adopt.
From mary hodder : that’s not something we want to codify.. but it’s been a norm until very recently
From sankarshan : The document being shared on screen https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YXJEFW2lNuPdhUmXQfO2xQZXwxrskH-lTrHk9pZ_aiM/edit?ts=5f84d3bb&pli=1#heading=h.3td7cxi237q0
From mary hodder : and still occasionally ‘normed’
From Jeff Doctor : Is the SSI “community” aware of related principles such as: https://www.gida-global.org/care
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Tony - Rocket giving me a 500.
From Scott David : Yep. Norms include messiness of the past. Just because call them norms, doesn’t mean they are good or aspirational. They are just normal.
From drummondreed : @Scott David: can you speak to that?
From mary hodder : right so how we decide what is a norm is crticial
From Scott David : Be careful what you wish for.
From Tony Fish : @jean cannot find you in the rocket messaging
From Scott David : It is edifying to explore non-self-sovereign-identity as a “negative space” of SSI. Maybe SSI is defined by what it isn’t.
From Jsearls : +1 Scott
From Scott David : Delegation questions in representative organizations
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Tony - 500 error for me, can't load it.
From Tony Fish : there is who is responsible. Back to yesterdays session with @scott. Directors are liable for this, does a director want to be responsible for this? Why as this creates new risk, and risk has to be priced in.
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : Gonna add our UDDR Draft on the doc.
From Bob Wyman : I typically think of a “right” as a thing which is a “side-constraint” that cannot be violated. Many of these “principles,” which are labeled as “rights,” seem to be things which should be provided, but, in many contexts might reasonably not be provided. Example: In many contexts, it is appropriate to forbid delegation. If it can be forbidden, it can’t be a “right.”
From Marc Davis : Since so much personal data and digital identity are relational: declared, observed, or inferred about the data subject by other entities, how do these rights apply to that data?
From Tony Fish : @jean email@example.com - might be faster
From Jsearls : @jean, ask the tech channel to fix your RocketChat. Mine got the error message yesterday, but they fixed it.
From Scott David : I define sovereigns as “entities that don’t need to ask for permission or forgiveness.” They are ALL teleologies to which we can self bind. That is why we grant them the monopoly of legitimate violence in society (Mills). Violence includes non-physical violence such as privacy intrusions, the violence of abstraction, etc.
From drummondreed : To join the queue to speak, just put your hand up using the Participants list
From Scott David : We have the opportunity RIGHT NOW to “constitute” sovereign teleologies for the future interaction space. The constitution of the sovereign will include a list of “self-constraints” which is what ALL constitutions do. They state the limits of power of the organization that is so constituted. Perhaps these principles are photo-constitutional provisions to bind the resulting system itself? From mary hodder : Rights should be things that cannot be given away, like a human right. I cannot sell my kidney and a company cannot ask me to give them one for some transactional or financial consideration, even if we both want to. It’s not allowed. Are the rights things that cannot be taken away?
From Scott David : There are many types of assignable rights.
From Mike Kiser : +1 Mary
From Scott David : Contract rights, etc.
From mary hodder : Scott.. understand, but for these rights.. about personal data.. are they rights that you cannot ‘lose’
From Scott David : We should identify those rights that are not amenable to assignment.
From Mike Kiser : The term is “unalienable,” I would think.
From sankarshan : As we continue with the various perspectives on this topic I’d also like to request that we have some specific next steps we can take with this document and set of principles. As a straw man and WIP - this will require more extensive outreach, inclusion and discussion.
From Scott David : Numerically, Most of our identity “rights” at present are contractual, rather than “god given”
From Mike Kiser : And that’s likely a different session - would have to think about data dividends / selling your personal data.
From Marc Davis : This list does not include the EU’s “right to be forgotten”.
From Scott David : This is an awesome discussion. Everyone is a little bit right. Synthesis of all of these consideration is the “constitution” of the future organization
From mary hodder : Scott.. right and that’s a huge issue because we are constantly giving them away in TOUs and PPs that we don’t even read
From Tony Fish : ownership is framed by your context (geography) and it is not universal.
From Kaliya Identity Woman : I think it is good - to step back and start fresh with principles that are not from the head of one man…(who is highly problematic in how he relates to women and people of color - as evidenced by a string of interactions over the last 5 years) So yeah - I also look for how we get really diverse perspectives of non WEIRD people (western educated industrialized, Rich and democratic). From Scott David : This is beautiful stuff. We are at the Pupae stage of metamorphosis.
From Karen Hand : In my work we talk about this in relation to an animal - their attributes, the data they generate - where would they fit? Who owns their identity and does it move with the animal - as an example
From drummondreed : @Marc Davis - the EU right to be forgotten is part of #3.
From mary hodder : the distance between what is happening and the concept of these ‘rights’ on screen is huge
From pknowles : Passive items are identified by passive identifiers, a type of identifier that has an association with a cryptographic hash of digital content which acts as an immutable fingerprint to identify a passive non-governing entity, an inanimate object or a static data input. A passive identifier can either be (1) controlled by an active identifier or (2) not controlled.
From Jeffrey Aresty : We can use all the help we can at our upcoming summit, Building the Justice Layer of the Internet, Nov 17-19. Next step is a presentation at this meeting Session 11 - Universal declaration of Digital Identity
From Marc Davis : @Drummond gotcha thx.
From Karen Hand : very relevant in livestock markets
From Tony Fish : individuals, and animals and living things and legal entities and non-legal entities
From Scott David : Living forms are “autocatalytic and entropy secreting” we are among living forms and cannot exist alone. Rights of living forms is associated with limiting how each NIMBYs their entropy exhaust. The SSI
From Scott David : The SSI “constitution” will state responsibilities to other living forms, including humans. Otherwise it is unnecessarily solipsistic. The value add immediately will be for humans to avoid avoidable harms.
From drummondreed : @Jeff Aresty - you should mention your upcoming session before we close this session as it may be of interest to attendees here
From pknowles : It is all about the capacity to govern in the digital realm. Active identifiers identify entities that have the capacity to govern. Passive identifiers identify entities that do not have the capacity to govern (e.g. a cow), an inanimate object (e.g. a passport) or a static data input (e.g. a schema).
From Jeffrey Aresty : The session which Jean (currently speaking) and are running in Session 11 is related to this- Universal Declaration of Digital Identity as a foundation for Universal Declaration of Digital Rights - making it real will require hard work - but it starts here -with the builders of the technology
From PhilWolff : Places can have legal standing. If I recall right, a wild forest/stream was given legal standing so humans could act in loco parentis. We also need compounded rights, maybe arising from the Agency rights. Families (with various levels of collective identity, delegation), Corporations, Governments, and informal groups (like friends who play a game together).
From drummondreed : @Jeff Aresty - that sounds very relevant to this work
From Scott David : Right now programmers (and their employers) are “sovereigns” - They don’t ask for permission or forgiveness to do this or that thing
From pknowles : In the case of a pet, they would be identified by a controlled passive identifier. A passive identifier (for your dog) that is linked to an active identifier (you, the dog’s caretaker). From Scott David : That sovereignty is understood by people, who now look to companies to provide vital services, without government oversight. See contact tracing, etc. ; Atheists included
From Karen Hand : Excellent, rights of the community
From Scott David : Nice. Rights of individuals acting in groups
From sheldrake : +1 Jeff.
From PhilWolff : Death. which of my rights survive my bio life?
From Scott David : Beautiful.
From PhilWolff : Can I give up these rights? Surrender them? Or are they inalienable?
From Jeff Doctor : https://www.gida-global.org/care
From Vic Cooper : If I create a thing does it have any right to exist on it's own? What happens if I sell it to you? What happens to the things I create after I die?
From Tony Fish : @phil death of whom, we need to define death.
From Scott David : Hip. Hip. Horray.
From Jeffrey Aresty : @drummondreed - yes, and, this group has the strength to say - this is what we are going to build as a global group and those of us who sign on pledge to work according to these principles in our lives (our day jobs, our volunteer work..)
From Scott David : ALL sovereigns are stories. Not all stories are universally shared. We were one village in East Africa 100k years ago. We radiated around the earth creating different language, food, music, behavior, religions. Now the Internet has brought us together for show-and-tell. Not ever culture is represented.
From Scott David : Not every culture is represented. AND the Internet is commercial.
From Tony Fish : when a pet is in care or abandoned it is under the authority of a legal entity. indeed most birthed pets that are sold are owed by a company and not a person
From Scott David : We commodify cultures on commercial internet. What is the “platform” for non-commercialized cultures. Must a culture subject itself to appropriation/enclosure by capitalism in order to survive?
From Jeffrey Aresty : @jeffdoctor - in our program - Building the Justice Layer - Nov 17-19 - we have examples of youth from indigenous culture (Hawaii - Australia) who can benefit from SSI - just one example of empowerment; we need guidance from more people from these cultures and histories
From Karen Hand : Animal's in the ecosystem - their identity and rights will greatly impact how VC's build traceability in food systems
From Kaliya Identity Woman : The next session is European Demo hour ; so we can go past the hour
From Tony Fish : thank you - made me think.
From Vic Cooper : We seem to be are focusing on identifiers. How do these rights extend to connections and communications. Do I have the right to connect directly to anyone? To communicate with anyone. Who can I deny connection and communication with?
From pknowles : It is all about a signing key. If a company identifier requires a signing key to authenticate information, that is covered by an active identifier. A company can be a governing entity (as is a human being, as is a self-certifying IoT device9.
From Jeff Doctor : https://www.culturalsurvival.org/
From drummondreed : Thank you
From Jeffrey Aresty : Session 11 is after demo hour, so our session doesn't start in 17 minutes, but it is the first session after demo hour
From drummondreed : Thanks Jeff
From Carly Huitema : And pets can be sold to the 'person who cares for the animal' while the other party maintains ownership (common for animal shelters). This way they can recall the animal if it isn't getting care etc.
From pknowles : If you have a very clever dog, maybe they can sign stuff! That dog deserves to be the controller of an active identifier! (Thinking of the clever IIW dog!)
From Tony Fish : +1 @carly
From sheldrake : Jeff, are you in touch with Kaye Maree Dunn re. https://www.ahau.io/ ? … And you may enjoy the session in just over an hour (Breakout G) on generative identity — going beyond SSI.
From Jeff Doctor : yep ; Their work is super cool
From pknowles : KERI can help with the provenance chain re … “And pets can be sold to the 'person who cares for the animal' while the other party maintains ownership (common for animal shelters). This way they can recall the animal if it isn't getting care etc.”
From sheldrake : Jeff …. thought you might be, just checking :-)
From Kaliya Identity Woman : I was just looking up Kaye Maree’s work
From drummondreed : Yes, Generative Identity is really interesting
From Kaliya Identity Woman : to share
From Vic Cooper : My do agrees with you @pknowles
From Jeff Doctor : Me and my team wrote about similar stuff here https://niiwin.ca/ (links to articles at bottom of page) - disclaimer I work for Animikii
From Vic Cooper : My Dog
From Iain Henderson : + 10 Scott, use the Duties
From PhilWolff : In terms of storytelling, consider the Data Seder session. Poets, songwriters, imaginative creatives are welcome.
From Tony Fish : @pknowles - the issue is not provenance and linerage (easy) duties, rights, liabilities, risks and governance appear to be more complex
From pknowles : Oops … gotta run. I’m demoing!
From Carly Huitema : How does the system? description? have a right to change and growth? There will be future use cases that will bring new prinicples
From Vic Cooper : Please come chat with us at the HearRo demo hour!
From Arnon Zangvil : I think this rich discussion is proof that a much larger and more diverse ‘space’ is needed for this discussion\
From pknowles : Tony - Identification is much more simple than that. Can the entity sign or not. Yes = active. No = passive.
From Jeffrey Aresty : @drummondreed November 17-19
From Marc Davis : test the principles on a set of real world use cases. example, personal location data
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : Makes sense to me.
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : For info: UDDR White Paper Draft
There's a second document, the UDDR Draft itself
From Scott David : One approach, that anticipates the contact with existing power structures, is to apply the following general test. For those structures that are “technically feasible” are they also “BOLTS reasonable”. BOLTS is business, operating, legal, technical, social.
From Jeffrey Aresty : @kaliya - thanks!
From PhilWolff : listserv?
From Tony Fish : @scott - with the purpose of influence or to ask for more rules.
From Scott David : Collect practices that are consistent with the principle. Put the practices in a pile and stare at them. Derive best practices/requirements.
From PhilWolff : Example of a practice?
From Scott David : Practices to best practices to standards to institutions then will organically grow into institutions.
From Tony Fish : more rules/ regulation is unlikely to get to where we think we want to be
From Scott David : Practice examples are drawn from BOLTS categories. Like Christopher Alexander work in Architecture
From Katrie Lowe : +1
From Arnon Zangvil : Sounds like a tail wagging a dog :)
From Tony Fish : @scott best practices require maturity …. we are not at ubiquity or known outcomes
From Kaliya Identity Woman : Oh… lets go full post graduate - and work on a pattern language for SSI
From Scott David : It is the tail/dog. Because it is “normative”
From drummondreed : “Pattern language for SSI” <== cool!
From Tony Fish : @marc +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1
From drummondreed : “So much data is relational” and has joint rights” <== Marc Davis
From Scott David : @ Tony Fish - That is okay. We can use the old stinky practices as the “Before” picture in the analysis of future practices/duties. Synthesize existing knowledge
From Iain Henderson : Agreed Marc, many of the key data attributes are co-managed.
From Tony Fish : @scott +1
From Arnon Zangvil : @Scott David - tail/dog indeed
From Dan Bachenheimer : looks great... does "CONTROL" include delegation?
From Scott David : Data as Body. Interesting. Autonomy will work well with Hegel and Kant based-identity constructions in EU
From drummondreed : “Data as body” <== Kaliya bringing this as a different “centering point”
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Kaliya: I never managed to get an answer from them. ; (Data as body)
From Kaliya Identity Woman : they may be impacted - we need to find resources for marginalized folks and groups to be able to contribute
From Vic Cooper : thanks Drummond!
From Johannes Sedlmeir : @Dan, definitely yes. Many of the design principles rather should be described by "the opportunity to" - like full privacy and full control, but often we may want to relax this by intention
From drummondreed : My pleasure. Thank you to Sankarshan and everyone who contributed to this session!
From Chris Raczkowski : Great work, Sankarshan!
From Melody Musoni : Thank you everyone for this session and all the informative information you shared.
From sheldrake : +1 Scott. Generativity trumps efficiency.
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : Thanks for the session :-D
From Arnon Zangvil : @Kaliya - “Data as body” which I am not familiar with sounds very similar to an embodied media perspective, which is definitely an important perspective that should be integrated into our thinking
From Jeffrey Aresty : Very exciting work - great session
From Jsearls : +1 Scott
From Kaliya Identity Woman : I think these are the notes for the session you are talking about marc - https://iiw.idcommons.net/Metaphors_and_Models_of_WHAT_IS_%E2%80%9CPersonal_Data%E2%80%9D_Implications_for_Policy_plus_Technology
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : @Arnon: Check our Principle I "I am my data".
From Kaliya Identity Woman : maybe this session - https://iiw.idcommons.net/Common_Ontology_for_Personal_Data_Interoperability_%E2%80%93_(Part_2)_The_What_and_How
From Scott David : Good stuff. Thanks everyone
From Jsearls : come to session 11 on generative ssi to discuss what scott was saying about “human scale”
From Arnon Zangvil : Wonderful session! <3
From Tony Fish : you cannot be your data :)
From Scott David : See book “staying with the trouble” (Harriman?). Feminist/ecologist view of identity; Haraway
From [TIOF] Jean F. Queralt : Your data is you. Contextualization.
From Arnon Zangvil : Very much looking forward to session 11!
From Scott David : Complexity and emergence is the action; We are emergent embodiments of “viral promiscuity” through deep time.
From Tony Fish : data is data ….. Heisenberg problem of observation as it creates more data; @scott +1
From sheldrake : thanks Drummond, thanks Joyce, thanks all.