[foaf-protocols] Important Video from Zeitgeist 2010 re. Linked Data and Privacy

Ed - 0x1b, Inc. semantics at 0x1b.com
Thu May 20 18:07:20 CEST 2010


Well I think we all understand that all systems have an ethic, and
some become notorious for them.

As a matter of design, I think the ethic semantics "can" aspire to is
to treat the life of each person as a work of performance art, with
all rights reserved. I guess I'm just pissed that a piece of art would
have more rights than a person, but I also think that FOAF (and
semantics) has the tools to to manage such a chaotic state. When I say
"performance art", I would identify the purchase of an item as part of
your performance, in collaboration with the seller, and that the
resultant data is available to the participants, but the privilege to
re-issue the art work - the transaction data - is not a part of the
basic transaction. So transaction aggregation, and credit reports, and
deep packet searching, are all forced into being an explicit
transaction. Before semantic tools and FOAF, this extended level of
detail complexity and decisions could only exist in nice valuable
aggregations, at least of some value to the vendor(s). Part of what is
being traded is the simplicity of the transaction, and the trade is
for unlimited redistribution rights to the work of art called your
life. (or at least bits of it hear and there, because I think the
whole thing is covered under the Thirteenth Amendment)

So is emancipation for the moment, for the act, as important as
emancipation for the whole?*

The technology, this technology, has changed enough that we can have
better ethics in a very significant system. I think a design objective
along these lines would be helpful in orienting the development of
things like foaf:knows and FOAF+SSL.

2¢
*so maybe you understand why the modern world feels so much like slavery....


>> As for use and abuse, we need to connect HTTP logs to data space
>> ownership. The referrer links can be sponged to figure out a whole raft
>> of things including abuse (I tried to explain this to CC folks at
>> Semtech 2009 last year, but don't know how much resonated with them).
>
> Logs is definitely one approach, and certainly useful in the mid term, I
> guess ideally we'd have server side applications and people identified
> by webid's which could then be logged / monitored / banned etc; and on
> the clientside hopefully digital signatures will provide a means of
> recognising client side apps.
>
>>> Indirectly, it also brought to my attention the importance of a single
>>> channel of communication, or should I say a funnel of communication
>>> which we can control - the web at present has multiple disparate
>>> methods of communication from the standard email/xmpp through to the
>>> plethora of social sites and comments where communications can reach
>>> us, there is no notion of control, and most importantly no notion of a
>>> universal filter or universal block - Mrs Green cannot find a way to
>>> block all communications from her abusive ex partner.
>>
>> If ex partner has verifiable identity, it makes things harder for him.
>> If Mrs. Green is able to construct social-networks based on her rules
>> she would be better off than she is today re. Internet and Web enclave.
>
> Hmm, I've always envisioned having a central URI that notifications of
> messages get POSTed to, open to every(one|thing) with a webid to post
> to, then Mrs Green could simply place the filter there - regardless of
> how the message was originally sent, or how it is finally received, that
> central notification stream / funnel could handle everything from
> anti-spam to delivery rules, and through to filters.
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list