An Open Letter: What is your Digital Identity Mandate for Humanity?
Note: edit last made 11th September 2019. (i added the JFK video)
To the Leaders of Corporations, Governments, Courts and 3rd Sector Leaders & Advocates World-Wide.
Dear Worshipful Leaders, of Mankind;
In the context of you being amongst our societal leaders, both locally and worldwide, there is a pervasive trend with digital identity I find troubling.
Institutional systems are stripping away the meaningful capacity to make legitimate (human rights) complaints, as the evidence is curated by institutions.
If the considerations of cyber-physical human identity systems are confusing to you here are some basic diagrams illustrating what i am talking about...
On behalf of mankind, I find myself compelled to ask you these questions.
- What is your intention for the curation of humanities digital identity ecosystems? Why is it now the case that the curation of Human Identity online be solely provided by institutions, for their interests; without the legal and technical infrastructure, to support our identity for our needs?
- Is it your intention to act (or fail to do so) to support human rights or make them redundant?
- Is it intentional, to stymie the availability of statistics and economic instruments, to support useful and productive works that done, online?
- Is it the intention of our worlds leaders; those who are traditionally auspiced by the people, to (provide safe) harbour (for) positions of trust and societal influence; is it truly your intention to build digital identity frameworks that knowingly do not serve mankind; but rather support other objective ideologies (“golden handcuffs”) that meaningfully support, greed and wrongdoing, by design. Is this your expressly elected option, intentionally built; both with intent, and with your express support?
- Do you recognise that the production of institutional systems, that weave both ICT & operational (governance) practices; now operate asymmetrical controls by persona ficta, that act to pervert ‘rule of law’ & distort reality; as to serve the few, at great expense to society?
- Is it understood that this curated policy framework delegates implications between the financial reports of participants at less than zero (-$???) net benefit? As moving costs from one to another, is not a societal gain…
Isn’t it the case, that by any common sense view, to do so wilfully is both dissociative and negligent; when the act of doing so is known to be a choice.
Which due to the advancement of ICT & STEM, the advancement of what can be done for some today, could be considered to be a divisive, policy centred choice.
The world as we know it; and as is influencing the lives of children and our broader biosphere; is now operated using information systems that are managed by institutions & corporations. The business systems employed wilfully excluding vast technical capabilities to support natural persons, that could otherwise act to serve the interests of us all, as citizens.
Why is this, ok?. Why is this deemed to be acceptable?
Applications that are made and those that are not, form impacts upon us all.
Today, It is their systems that support for human identity and artificial intelligence capabilities is considered a ‘content asset’, that are governed by institutional database platforms; to serve their needs, not ours.
Yet this makes no sense, as the systems themselves are engineered by humans, for income. Whilst the problems most disaffect the poor, the repercussions result in meaningful negative impacts to us all.. No one is safe, from employed tyranny.
There is a technical capacity (for example) to change this paradigm as to support human centric services, that requires support that is not available currently.
Consequentially, today — there is no legal or financial apparatus to support ‘knowledge banks’, that could otherwise serve human beings by providing secure informatics environments to store, use and curate the use of data relating to them; our interactions & experiences, with knowledge, & all other ‘things’, in our world. The means to support more than corporate personhood.
Providing the infrastructure required on the internet to support our means to make use of electronic knowledge infrastructure, to uphold our law, support Our democracy and preserve the meaningful capacity to preserve our role in it.
- Is it a wilfully intended and curated act NOT TO MAKE ICT able to support these basic needs, as our society migrates from the print era to electronic (ICT) alternatives — as an intended outcomes sought by worshipful members of our society; or,
- Is this an oversight, that worshipful members of our society both desire, and are ready & willing to address?
Is it the intention of our governments to ensure our ‘digital twins’ provide an extended service for our natural rights, our legal rights; or, is it intended to build systems to undermine those rights and ensure no funding for solutions that might act to provide the meaningful capacity to deliver these capacities, to citizens?
How could any solution possibly be produced correctly, without the express support and inclusive participation of sovereign governments?
Irrespective of the repercussions, upon long-standing societal principles; from those of a moral standing, to others, such as commitments to “rule of law” & the implications upon principles declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No solution can be made without the active participation of government; and no solution, can be reasonably expected to be made ‘for free’ by anyone, for anyone.
The purpose of economy, of currency is to pay for useful work; Without support for this basic principle of economics, the economic systems themselves, falter.
Without identity systems, there can be no payments made.
Payments for work relating to cyber-physical systems; in-turn, require the capacity for a person to be supported in making a gainful economic claim for work that they are able to prove they did, and was usefully employed by others, who at a basic level, owe a moral debt to pay them for the meaningful utility of their work.
These principles, are now knowingly exploited. Whilst the propaganda machines speak about unemployment, this does not reflect the scope of unpaid work carried out by an entirely new sector built upon widespread practices of ‘web slavery’.
The reason why that’s ‘considered ok’ is a consequence of no ‘knowledge banks’ and the only reason why that’s the case is due to ‘high level choices’ being made.
Or is that not the case? If so, why it this not the case, how are our worshipful leaders of society actively investing, actively working to solve these problems?
Is appears to be the purposeful intent, to solely fund the engineering of systems, that make ‘what a person does’ and the means to evaluate circumstances, a ‘redundant and ‘out of scope’ consideration’. As a consequence, this impacts how societies are made to work through dependencies that are built into society via ICT.
Is this the consequence of what you have considered to be ‘the best options’?
Is the situation breed as a consequence of learned choices, Irrespective of what could otherwise be considered through the lens ‘of what an individual needs’ to seek lawful recourse?
That the capacity for individuals to be recognised for their work; either or both, socially, economically, as a constituent facts relating to them, to the identity of a citizen? that is of particular importance when engaged in activities that purposefully seek to deliver social good.
Why is this considered; reasonably set aside, made technically via ICT a series of qualities that have been defined at the design stage, to be ‘out of scope’?
Irrespective of what position you believe you demonstrate by your wilful acts. How your influences & choices have contributed to modern ‘digital identity’,
- On what basis is your innate, declaration of intent built upon?; and,
- How does the economic justification for projects that support the delivery of your intended goals stack-up? in this area of instrumental value to our world.
With respect to the manner through which systems work today,
There is no technical reason with merit; why this must be the case…
The means to produce an informatics environment that provides institutional services akin to banking for money, to natural persons in our world; to improve Security, Safety, AI and broader informatics services, can be produced, if the political will required to do so, is made clear by way of your acts, and support.
Delivery of alternatives would be less expensive to produce than a single olympics, a major infrastructure project or the first trip to the moon; and,
Would act to tell the truth, knowledge, as to yield (global) economic growth.
To the contrary of; the statements made by all too many today,
- Those who form alliance with people who have something to hide, or something to gain on behalf of their institutions irrespective of law, as it be made mute and irrelevant;
- those who suggest, as corporations irrespective of law or the lack of it, that they’re better equipped to manage the identity of mankind; that they’re better equipped to be relied upon, to define who people are, what they do, what it is they’ve done that could be considered by others valuable.
The acts carried out by people, that could be considered ‘work’… Firstly made available to them, as a requirement for anyone who wants access to an identity.
The remarks and considerations made by such parties, that building support for natural persons identity and personhood in cyber-realm be truely considered a cost or burden…whilst acknowledging, that it may well be the case, for them...
The cost of no commitment, by our worshipful leaders, to supporting the sanctity of human rights in the cyber domain; which now therefore, requires infrastructure built to support it as the lack of it,
is in-fact an enormous cost-burden upon society, far out stripping the gains made by the few; who seek to compel us all to accept, that any alternative is too hard..
It is suggested that this is the case due to the wilful support of your intended acts. Whilst the facts are that these claims are false and misleading, it is suggested that our governments, our worshipful leaders — support these decisions, being made.
The consequence of this agenda is far more damaging to the world than any one issue; such as fake news, distorted facts & incumbent productivity burdens, alone.
There are very broad and meaningful implications set upon us all, causality.
When people are arbitrarily subjected to wrongdoings, there is causality effects brought about that in-turn require funding to govern, so why is this the choice?
The implications of privatising identity, strips us of personhood, and citizenship, and as a consequence the telling of lies, now benefits those who tell them far more than those who act upon a moral basis as to do otherwise. Is this, what you want?
There is no such thing as a scarcity of work to do, there’s a scarcity of ways to get paid for doing work, and it’s one lie told by many, that is part of a broader agenda that is becoming an increasing moral hazard, upon us all.
Most people are able to use a computer, even if they’re elderly, why can’t they ‘work’ as contributors? too old?.
Why preclude our ability to add value, with expressions of knowledge, and if it’s useful for others, know they’ll get paid for work done via micropayments (or otherwise).
Why must labour, as forms of new forms of work, be made “free”, due to a lack of consideration by societal leaders?
The socioeconomic impacts of shifting the default moral and ethical position of how Human Identity Infrastructure should be supported by Cyber-Physical systems, is known to yield enormous economic, social and societal benefits.
- So, please explain the decision to not support the creation of this infrastructure?
Please advise why? I don’t understand why the act of doing so, is tenable…
I don’t understand, after progressing works to support what i call a ‘knowledge banking industry’, over 19 years, i’m still having people, senior leaders of society who suggest their sane, that they’re statements and acts supporting the opposite, should be accepted as official acts ‘in good faith’ to be deemed, acceptable..
That the ability to employ technological advancement to preserve human rights, is considered to be at all important to them; as they know there’s a technical means to do so, but choose not to and tell me that it’s a just decision.
A series of decisions that is about not supporting basic needs of citizens, as societal systems migrate to cyber-physical systems, they feel supported to make & defend. That these acts, in seeking to preclude themselves from any responsibility that results to harm human beings as a manifest implication of an organisations acts; which in-turn, acts to produce systems that only compound the perversions
I want to understand why it is, our worshipful leaders of society have decided to prosecute this pathway, to go about funding the infrastructure that does this, and why it is they’ve decided not to support infrastructure for mankind.
Perhaps, thereafter — as to example acknowledgement, both to myself and others, the understanding of consequence for the decisions made, that act so instrumentally to define society, define leadership, define a persons worth; the means through which a persons work is defined to be valuable, or ‘free’,
I ask that you reply via medium. As to respond the same way, we are required to use to address issues that affect us as natural persons.
Today there are few global websites that act in particular ways, excluding a great deal of value, of mankind. Whilst i acknowledge, this request is likely deemed to be unacceptable, and i doubt i’ll get few if any responses as a result.. Perhaps this will in-turn act to demonstrate the answers to the questions i’ve posed herein.
Technically speaking; this is something that’s technically supported today,
You’ll find the response function provided below, noting you’ll need a medium account in order to do so, linked to you personally, unless you negate the terms of service — which would in-turn infer a suggestion for us, as part of your response.
In Good Faith,
Timothy Charles Holborn
Founder of Trust Factory | Web Civics
Background
I have been working on the concept of an information bank from 2000.
This work has evolved into a framework for defining a knowledge banking industry, and has incorporated works / time with many world-leaders some of whom are now working on how to produce solutions, with minimal funding available even with their own projects to do so.
As a consequence of no economic interest or capacity being made available to progress these works, the ecosystems I have worked to define over many years are now the subject of articles online:
The underlying works are now being used to define institutionally centric alternatives that build digital identity frameworks to suit institutions, without support for human beings to beneficially own and make use of the data about them for lawful purposes.
Whilst those who have worked on these ‘human centric’ architectural alternatives have largely been unpaid, internationally; those that have intentionally do the opposite are for the most part, gainfully employed to do so. How is this fair, how could this possibly be considered ‘in the interests of our world, our democracy’..
This exhibits a series of wilful decisions by our societal leaders, now 19 years on from where i started this pursuit; i now find myself asking,
why is it not supported?
It is now some years after the Inventor of the World-Wide-Web has himself started working on how to solve this problem, it seems foolish to consider that our societal leaders should reasonably be expected to suggest it’s not a possible option for them to reasonably consider supporting or supporting funds, to bring about..
If you’d like to contribute to this post, find the google docs draft here.
