Trust Frameworks Analogue to Digital Converters
Issue/Topic: Trust Frameworks as Analog o Digital Converters
Session: Tuesday 1B
Convener: Scott David
Notes-taker(s): Jamie Clark
trust_framework, taxonomy, contracts, risk_allocation, UI
Facilitating Personal Data Transactions in a Secured Manner on a Global Scale": part of presentation for WEF (Davos) prep session on "Rethinking Personal data" workshop, New York, September 2010; should be posted shortly to OIX website
What's the international law of identity?
There isn't any.
Can we do things with law and/or rules and/or tech to weave together the disparate systems that interact?
What should identity systems do? Meet "system participant" (user) needs. Such as:
- data subjects need identity integrity
- replying parties need assurance
- identity providers need risk reduction
These high-level 'needs' share some basic lower-level functional requirements like, security, reliability, UI, etc.
What can tech and law do about this?
- technology tools guide data movement & protect data at rest
- legal rules create duties to incent behavior
-- By far most of the data breaches I've seen (S. David) were human error, not tech failure. So the human rules and incentives matter.
A "Trust Framework" is a possible documentation style ("term sheet"?) for the agreed risk and reliance arrangements between system participants.
There is some "low hanging fruit" of law and practice guiding these duties:
- In the US: NSTIC, Levels of Assurance. In some states, data breach laws.
- Privacy laws like HIPAA, Gramm-Leach, FICA, etc.
- Fair Info Practice Principles (originally US DHEW 1973) - levels of
ABA drafting a report on Federated Identity which addresses a taxonomy of issues and actors; OIX doing a "risks wiki"; some out for public review now; posted work product expected early 2011(?)
One difficulty is operationalizing assurance which is mostly processed by end-users as emotional states like "trust", "reliability." Quantification needed, to clear the semantic fog here.
The idea here is to address some recurring liability issues, but not all. 80/20 approach, not boiling the ocean. May be industry groups and self- regulatory efforts that give rise to the best evolving solutions.
First step is a candidate common analytical framework, to get to "apples-to- apples" on some of the risks, practices and concepts
Inspirational vision: UI simplification - risks and control issues displayed simply like red-light-yellow-light-green-light displays.
Audience: Frameworks generally get developed in a context of siloes - non-interoperable specialized cases. Is there a "metalanguage" for crosswalks among the privacy practices of those siloed players? Or 15% of them, anyway, for scalability's sake.
there is a PPT deck associated with this session: "nov 2 Rethinking Personal Data Workshop.ppt"