Difference between revisions of "ID-Legal "straw man" blog"

From IIW
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 3168 by Igiwydijok (Talk))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
=[http://abaviteha.co.cc UNDER COSTRUCTION, PLEASE SEE THIS POST IN RESERVE COPY]=
 
 
'''Conference [[Notes_iiw8|IIW8]]  Room/Time:''' 5/E
 
'''Conference [[Notes_iiw8|IIW8]]  Room/Time:''' 5/E
  
Line 44: Line 43:
 
2 points on process
 
2 points on process
  
Resource on Q&A
+
Resource on Q&A
 
Encourage dialog
 
Encourage dialog
  

Latest revision as of 15:27, 3 February 2011

Conference IIW8 Room/Time: 5/E

Convener:

Notes-taker:

Attendees:

Technology Discussed/Considered:

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:

5E ID Legal meeting – mapping the gap

Lucy introduced the ID Legal working group.

Notes mapping the gap issue

Questions that technologists and legal/policy bring to the table.

Dan also looking at way to raise and answer questions online – Ways to explore the issues. Blog, hypotheticals, etc.

Dan – E-mailed Lucy a summary of issues. [link here] It is a summary of issues in the area of identity.

Dan is working on branded blog relating to identity. Lucy mentioned doing scenarios to post of ID commons wiki. So can have general discussion of legal issues that may crop up in identity. Challenges include ethical constraints. Question of rendering legal advice and atty client relationship. Fear of suits for malpractice. But it is something to explore. Could be a valuable resource. Also can help to educate the client.

He has looked at project management folks looking at scenarios.

Question of how make space attractive to folks to post concerns. Also, how structure so that identify the legal issues.

We moved to Dan’s summary for discussion.

Dan went through law journals, blog posts, and mined the various postings. What are conceivable issues that clients interested in. Very general list. Suggested issues that thought were relevant.

Question of level of how out of sync. Laws and technology are. Digital signatures for example.

Personas, avatars, metadata, biometrics, presence, privacy and security, impact of mobile devices, trusted credentials, anonymity incomplete.

Lucy says lets talk about the process instead.

2 points on process

Resource on Q&A Encourage dialog

Context of ID legal interactive space.

Biometrics To what extent do best practices fit into identity Maybe not want to focus that narrowly.

Transaction histories Identify areas of concern. First question to ask might be who owns your transaction history. Maybe own and control.

How is it used.

What kind of standard reusable architectures are applied. What architectures at the business, legal and technology level are applied. What kind of standardization could be applied and could it be automated.

Can it be transparent

When architect legal backgrounds, is there any way to make it non-waivable to preserve

Veracity of the identifiers in the payment history. Is it reliable

Whether or not ownership can include the notion of permissions, and the application of conditions based on context. Asset include conditions for reportage and leveraging. Reciprocally agreed means of control. Conditions that could apply to the confidentiality based on context. Based on mutual interest. Need teeth to support. Could consider, what default sets apply if left changed.

Need to put in framework around affinity – Framework of 3x3 matrix touches on assurance, legal structure law, regulation contract and on the other matrix privacy assurance liability.

Interest in future transactions stuff. Should be a standardized contract to use for future transactions. Standardized way to deal with agreements.

Legal differences of transactions that are not denoted in legal tender. Barter and virtual currencies.

What happens after death.

Move to discussion

Treat as something else

Something that can be thought of as property – can alienate Person hood

EU has different defaults US if I transaction with you and you are not regulated. Own the information jointly and severally.

Highly undertheorized – None of this is developed.

Robust emergent model – conceptually dominant around personhood.

Best single treatment is from the OECD. Paper on personhood.

If identity is emergent – what use as structure for discussion.

How should we attack the issue – One way is to do this is summer project of Media lab and Berkman center – civic engagements. Dazza offers software. Using it for crowd sourcing of legal questions.

Also, pattern language on group process. Outlining that and then doing search

Could use bar associations.

When does identity matter.

Question of providing open forum processes – not really a help. What do people think is a plausible deliverable. What are people building? Tell me what you are building and I will go write about it.

But want to create a space to develop a cohesive community. Focus is on community, not just space.

Prompt could be t e presentation of a problem statement. Unique problems here. Presented.

Suggestion of a process where start with a survey-type issue. Here is a legal project related to identity, understand what is already happening and problems not already attacked. Resource for lawyers to get up so speed. Recruited legal minds into the space. Might be helpful to the business folks. Suggestion is way to provide a simple framework. Survey course. What is going on. Use a FAQ to present.

Alternative is a more dynamic/shared learning approach. May look like an understood definition of terms. When have the players in the area. Do these things have context and meaning so that not stumble in without knowing it. What are the customs. Common language. This is a surrogate for custom.

Diamond matrix is

Terminology is still primitive. Common tereminology.

Useful to have ideas in a reference project. Unconference on an open public integrated architecture business, technical and legal. What words would you use. Can do this now.

What are we trying to do. Is it community building or is it trying to do something specific.

Pattern language concept – leader defines scope, so solidifies. End cycle.

Many terms are undefined. Could pick some subset.

Concrete work items – survey to figure out current landscape – how approach in various contexts.

Also, shared definition of terms on a small scope. If do the second, get the first.

Definitions – some will have multiple contexts. Some have different contexts.

Everyone come to the list with one or two terms that relate in legal and technological

Good model is restatement documents. Make statement and tell stories.

Lucy will send e-mail to ID legal list.

Each should send a term and a example of how it is used.

Adjourn.