The Moxy Tongue

Human ID

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:35:00 +0000

I think the word "social" is the problem with identity discussions. We have an identity construct today that is created and owned by Society's administration system. You are a social ID-slave by default today.

I want a Human ID; a personal data construct with sovereign source authority.

Society uses a social construct to give me an Administrative ID.

The difference is origin.

I do not participate in Society primarily as an AdminID.

I am a Human ID by sovereign source authority, backed by American Rights that I know how to wield administratively and matriculate accordingly.

Structure yields results. Therefore, if we get the origin of ID correct, we can get the data administration framework oriented right.

A Human ID -led Society with embedded structural Rights and empowerments is the socio-economic game changer.

That is my NSTIC proposal. That's my open proposal: a new data administration framework for identity.

Deployed across Society by opt-in opportunity structure.

Deployable across a global ecosystem by data design.

I see an ID as a door. The existence of the door is a social construct... a decision...

But once that decision is made, it is Human executed in every regard.

ID-slavery is what we have by administrative structure today. Our managerial intent in servicing it is flawed by design.

A Human ID comes with #vrm baked in. Such is the bi-directional transactional authority, multi-role nature of it.

And most important... we all approach the door on equal Terms... one door...infinite possibilities.

Self-driven socio-economic structure.

Call it whatever you want...it starts with your identity being structured right.

Baby Grabbing Society?

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:35:00 +0000

Target Data Profiles Pregnant Teenage Girl Before Dad Does

The following is republished from my musings at Project VRM, and expanded upon here for further clarity:

The source problem here is one of identity-structure and not privacy...these privacy issues we are reading about daily are just symptoms of that source structural problem. You are functioning as an identity-slave in every default market context because currently Society owns your identity within it's data administration model of freedom.

As I have said before, in a digital socio-economic administration system, there is one state of existence more important, meaningful and powerful than freedom... and that is the freedom you personally own via a data administration framework based on sovereign source authority.

Target is simply doing to data what every state-owned camera deployed across Society is doing to data... aggregating it and applying meaning to a market context that is owned by Society.

You do not own your own identity in Society today and as is becoming increasingly obvious... since you and your "real" identity are legal equivalents, you also do not have an operational 5th Amenedment Right anymore. Thus, these market behaviors on the part of Target, Path, Facebook, Google, etc, etc, etc... are all in compliance with the modern structure of participation in the data-driven marketplace. Customers are ID-slaves because citizens are ID-property under management. All of your market activity is self-incriminating if the aggregated meaning points in the direction of a "problem/opportunity" to be managed/serviced preemptively. Having your personal integrity as a data construct stolen from you because you are walking around in space defined as a marketplace is going to escalate into a problem more and more. It is simply amazing how few people understand how our administrative Rights as a Society, hard fought for, are being dismantled by technical structure through the default construct of participation as socially relational identity data.

NSTIC has $10million to fund the future framework of identity administration in Society. On the whole, this boils down to a simple choice that every identity solution has to orient towards:

Is identity really owned by Society, as it is today? When a baby is born American, is our Society really structured to grab ownership of that baby's data-life at identity registration? Really?

Or is identity owned by the Individual...the family... as an inherent Human opportunity afforded by life itself... as it is going to be whether NSTIC funds it or not, because that is common sense, and where the control vector ultimately exists in a distributed information architecture.

NSTIC, if it is conceived of properly, is a bridge to the future. America really needs to enable that bridge's development.

Identity has a social structure, yes, but it must start with sovereign source authority that mirrors Human reality, and not mere administrative designs of central control and authority. The future is edge-driven, and vrm tools will be easily defined once we get our default data administration model defined more accurately.

It is impossible to have a Bill of Rights and have an identity that is structurally devoid of the Bill of Rights by technical design and operational/managerial intent.

And on another Target front... the "scan and scram" issue was of specific interest at the just completed International Toy Fair, where buyers were openly probing for solutions with manufacturing partners. All I can say at this point is that there is some serious ethical problems in the dataverse coming down the pipeline based on what feedback I am hearing.

------------------------------------------------

The 5th Amendment states among its various Rights that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". That is the lowest-hanging fruit, but really all of this could apply:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As you and your "real identity" are legal equivalents, a networked data environment (Facebook, Google, your ISP, etc) that constructs your default operational structure under Society-ID Terms is potentially self-incriminating by default data structure under any number of unique scenarios. Since contracts of adhesion applied to the current structure of identity participation do not afford any real mutually-deployed process of law via TOS, there is a deprivation of structured Rights that could manifest in any number of ways imaginable in a data-driven environment that is advancing in form and market placement every day, and obviously, private property is being taken without just compensation by default structural intent currently, as can be seen in the birth of a new baby and corresponding "registration of identity" data that is immediately available to a market of profit-motives... such as Gerber Baby Life Insurance or inclusion in credit agency databases.

Think about how your legal identity is used in defining where you live currently, and the connection you have via your ISP to the data-driven network marketplace. Big data can today aggregate any number of data outcomes based on the priority of the big-data deployment, and your activity can be isolated by identity structure in such a way as to pre-emptively incriminate you, legal you... as an ambiguous "terrorist threat"... a threat, not a reality... and you are now liable to the temporal laws of the land with NDAA signed into effect whereby you can be indefinitely detained and deprived of the Rights of Society as a potential enemy combatant. This is a self-incriminating identity-structure outcome. Given the nature of our government to change forms and operational intent in time, while you might consider yourself secure today given your identity-based activities in Society, still the structure leaves open the possibility that your default structure could be used against your Rights of life, liberty, property and due process of law. This is a failed translation of Rights via ID structure. I do not operate freely independent in Society, I am always a possession of Society. A lack of awareness of this structural reality does not change this reality, it embeds it deeply in the unconscious ideas of what it means to be a "citizen" or "customer".

My concern with NSTIC is that it is an effort of our current data administration framework without a stated objective to orient the power of identity structure in the possession of Individual Society participants. My proposal is a call for a new data administration framework that changes the structure of identity as a Society-owned asset into a personally-owned asset. Extending our current model through NSTIC is DOA imo. I am not chasing "granted Rights", I am chasing structural control and integrity of use. I do not believe America is translating its own laws accurately under the current structure of identity, and I see Facebook as a market manifestation of that structural problem. As the dataverse becomes more and more refined, Society-owned identity matriculates a data administration framework that can not manage or manufacture the kind of freedom our nation was founded to ensure. And if we do not use wisdom in directing our own structure, then wisdom will direct itself, and while entirely possible, I believe there will be an unnecessary loss to Society's masses in that process of change.

-----------------------------------

Identity is not always a social construct. It always stores social meaning, but there is no guarantee that an identity processes that meaning socially.

Identity is like origami; it is made of paper in the form of our Rights legally documented... it is made of folds in the form of our accounts and transactions... and it is made by a folder in the form of a unique Individual life. The folder need not be known specifically at all times to participate with the paper and art of the folds. Indeed, there is a tremendous degree of choice in reality as to when a folder needs to be known with specificity.

Identity is a construct of participation in Society, yes, but by saying that "identity is always social", you are implying that identity as a social construct provides a consistent meaning to the word social. Being born is a social outcome. Being given a name by your parents is inherently personal and private, and most importantly, accurately gives structure to resilient social participation within Humanity. A live birth event is a social outcome. Connecting a family name to an administrative process used in creating the legal structure of Rights within Society is a very manufactured and contrived process.

I am not suggesting we remove the social value or accuracy from identity. I am suggesting we change how the data administration framework orients to the outcome of perfect personal identity.

There are certain times when accountable structure is a requirement in Society for it to function well. At all other times than these, anonymity by structural default is a value unto itself.

By aligning the inherent sovereign structure of your real name to Society's data administration framework, an Individual is divesting themselves of the structure of personal freedom and empowerment that life grants by default to Human Beings, and is providing centralized empowerment to a governing bureaucracy that instead manages the granted Rights of mankind in time.

Society requires transactional integrity... but the whitespaces between those transactions do not require the kind of ID-specificity that is being deployed today. The network is taking a structural perversion and broadcasting it in such a way that you can no longer operate within Society as a free structural entity.

I recognize the value in your approach to ID administration, but to suggest that "ID sovereignty is a category error" is irresponsible on a profound Human level. Unless personal ID sovereignty is the default of data administration in our Society, the control parameter of freedom is not free.

Society is a structural choice. An Individual in America should not be required to give up personal possession of their freedom to participate. It is not required, it is only how we are doing it today.

Information and data is a result of being alive as a sentient being... identity is the control parameter of freedom in a Society. Getting the structure of ID right takes care of the rest, because we do not have a privacy problem in Society, we have an identity structure problem.

---------------------------------------

There is a component of the vrm community that is focused on the capitalist qualities of a data-driven marketplace. They want to service the data market by aggregating value and applying personal mechanisms for participating in that data flow. They write legal TOS to define this new relationship and build a business around people buying into the idea that their services will provide privacy, leverage, and/or compensation for their activity in the marketplace. I support this approach philosophically.

IMO, that is the lowest rung on the ladder. Its a step in the right direction, but...

Facebook is like the dirt beneath my feet. You can plant yourself in it if you want and produce a social harvest, but you are giving up more than any self-respecting data construct should. Thats not to say it should not be allowed. Its just the technical foundation of a very naive social structure. Perhaps it will evolve....? If it does, it will be based on a new relationship model applied via identity.

Additionally, I am of the opinion that "identity" is beyond capitalism. In fact, I do not think that an identity construct used by Society in structuring the Rights and administration of default participation via technical data administration systems should even have a profit motive. I believe it is a baseline construct for participating as a socio-economic entity within Society, and as such, should be managed "at cost". That is a fine model for governance of a Society-defined commodity. The structure of that commodity will define the managerial structure of that governing body. In that sense, today we are all ID-slaves and our technical structure is defying our founding ideas about what America is.

Upon that foundation, everything we do with identity should be under the mechanisms of a free marketplace operated by sovereign accountable data structures.

Otherwise we have a problem moving forward, because identity may be organized outside of the accountable framework of Society.

Imagine that every new parent in Society starts to see the duality of identity, whereby your "real legal name" and your actionable social identifier need not be the same. Parents start naming their children in a dual process: at home, as a family, a child receives a sovereign family name and local identity structure. In Society, a child is simply a database entry referred to as "Identity Identity"... or how about "'''""""''''''".... you can call her magic quotes for short.

Our current approach to identity administration by Society will fail so long as the origin of identity is not under sovereign control. If babies need to have identities structured in such a way as to take administrative control of their participatory context away from the administration framework, then Society loses.

What we are doing today with identity is destroying Society's data administration model because it changes the meaning technically of what an Individual Human Being is in a free marketplace. It is not hard to make slave structures of people... it is hard to build a free Society composed of sovereign source authorities.

The current approach to identity, as an industry, is flawed. The current structure will not endure. It does not matter to me how many heads or social contexts have ideas about my identity, or give publicity to my name... I do not operate my life based on a social reputation alone... my integrity and character have a personal context, the storage of my personal meaning and private wealth is not a social construct. Everything I do in my Society, or in yours, is relational to my own sovereign structure... and every other social construct is playing catch up trying to aggregate enough data to make their picture of me meaningful and somewhat accurate. But I do not need anything social to do that for myself.

Song of Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 02:03:00 +0000

5th Amendment ID[entity]

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:12:00 +0000

What is a "5th Amendment ID[entity]"? (READ FIRST)

In a digital data administration system, you and your identity are legally equivalent. So legal existence as a digital identity is self-incriminating under modern identity structure. This correlates to the fact that as presently defined administratively, you function as an ID-slave within our data-drven Society. Everywhere you go, as such, you are contrived as data-prey, as customers, present to be hunted by open opportunity. Facebook is this model of data administration writ large.

A 5th Amendment ID[entity] does not self-incriminate, does not deprive itself of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and does not allow private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

America has been defined. Any socio-economic structure that violates our founding documents in so far as our Bill of Rights is suppressed by technical intent risks the counter-use of our military assets directly. That is the United States of America. As a citizen living within the Law, that is the statement of FACT we live with every day.

24x7x365...

Programmers of the ethernet, code what we are declared as first, then experiment with infinite possibilities freely and code what we can be. No one is penalized for taking risks on this planet, only for negligence used in taking action that affects this planet and its inhabitants. Make the Internet empower Individuals, Society and data value throughout the Universe. Start yesterday. Cease falling back on the inherent value that the Internet espouses in justifying your approaches to data administration, and start recognizing that code = law, and as such must be held accountable to our highest aspirations and structural intents.

As a documented example of how important this is, consider the article titled: "Private data, public rules" in The Economist January 28th - February 3rd, 2012 issue, page 59-60 wherein the issue of self-incriminating data structures being used against Society and it's Individuals is addressed:

"A Eurobarometer poll last year found that 62% of Europeans do not trust internet companies to protect their personal information. A big reason is history. In the 1930's Dutch officials compiles an impressive national registry. This later enabled the Nazis to identify 73% of Dutch Jews, compared with just 25% in less efficient France, notes Viktor Mayer-Schonberger of Oxford University in his book "Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age".

Enter Facebook's Top Cop

Whitehouse Privacy Framework: Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World

What is "Sovereign Source Authority"?

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:03:00 +0000

What is an Individual Human Being prior to "identity registration" in Society? What is the data administration framework of default participation in Society today?

Society is an Agreement. It is made by and between Individuals. Within any Society, Individuals have an established Right to an "identity", and to all of the benefits and responsibilities of some form of "Nationally Sovereign Structure" of governance and administration. Sovereign Source Authority (SSA) refers to the actual default design parameter of Human identity, prior to the "registration" process used to inaugurate participation in Society.

Currently, the administrative act of "registering new (baby) identities" eliminates SSA and replaces this default structural data model with a National administrative point of origin. There is a natural conflict inherent in this approach to data administration via identity. The act of "registration" implies that an administration process controlled by Society is required for "identity" to exist. This approach contrives Society as the owner of "identity", and the Individual as the outcome of socio-economic administration. This violates common-sense and the nature of Human Rights. It also cements the model that default administrative participation within a data-driven socio-economic ecosystem is as an ID-slave with granted Rights. In any given identity-centric deployment of opportunity, this yields an untenable relationship between an Individual Human and the opportunity to possess data relational to a given Individual identity.

The Constitution of Humanity, would certainly be written on sacred material stored in the most powerful structure possible. Everything that Humanity wants to be and become is represented at birth by each of us as Individuals. Declaring a national sovereign structure for identity at birth inherently denies a basic Human Right to the Individual; the Right to self-declare participatory structure and authority. Government is not formed to manage this process, but to be managed by this process. The structure and origin of administrative identity is the control parameter of freedom and Rights in a socio-economic system. Our current model defies the stated objectives of our founding documents.

Indeed, we may use John Hancock as the identity muse for our structure as a Society: citizenship should not produce a data model via identity administration that directly harms the ability of any person to participate in our free Society. Of utmost importance, identity administration frameworks should entice actions which produce relational data effects that are aimed at restoring credibility and functional integrity of the governing system used in our temporal advancement as a Society of free Individuals.

Currently, under the administrative framework of identity management as it relates to citizenship and default legal participation in our American Society, each of us are construed as data under management. This data model and identity structure makes each of us the dogs of our government, rather than our government being construed as man's best friend. Identity structure defines this outcome, as relational data is not under the managerial control of Individual citizens, and lacks integrity of use within a Society that contrives the data structure of Individual participation as a commodity to be preyed upon.

Society is a choice. Participation is a choice. The alternative is Individual resilience. The sprawl of Society and regulation of your activities as a "non-Society participant" are a different matter, defined on a per Society basis. As a choice, Society is opt-in by data-structure.

Administration systems do not give us "identity". Individuals use their IDentity to administer Society. The structure of the initial exchange of actual value is the structure of socio-economic intent. Free-society thinkers can express this structure in absolute Terms. Ownership-society thinkers can universally distribute their private ownership philosophy and practices in predictable systemic Terms. In fact, our ideas concerning what "Society" is and could be are all up for debate and declaration. But in every regard, the structure of identity speaks to the managerial intent of Society.

SSA is no less than a complete-overhaul of modern Society via the structure of data administration and the possession of operational Rights by free Individuals within Society. This will be the focus of my proposal for funding via the NSTIC federal funding opportunity. I remain open to collaboration.

The opportunity to reconfigure the default data administration model used in managing identity in Society does not require permission. In fact, I am not sure it can be stopped really. That is simultaneously why NSTIC should fund this concept of identity, and why it does not matter if they do not. The evolution of Society requires SSA, and data infrastructure will be driven to this outcome by Individuals in due time. The opportunity is to speed up this process, to be conscious about the structure of freedom and Human Rights within a data-driven administration framework used by Society to successfully grow itself.

That said, I am sensitive to the pursuit of this FFO; it requires an enlightened process of socio-economic management to restructure Society via identity in such a way as to place SSA under the control of Individuals. While I love and respect my country, I am not naive about the nature of its current governing bureaucracy and administrative intent. So a warning is appropriate; SSA is not something that can be stopped because of what it is. But the choice of where it comes to be is something that can be controlled. America would be wise to bring it into existence in the world yesterday.

My short answer to the original question... What is "Sovereign Source Authority"?:

SSA = a 5th Amendment ID - a non-incriminating construct.

SSA = John Hancock - a perfectly accountable legal construct.

These are the North and South poles of a Human data administration system. This is a self-sustaining resilient archetype of Human identity. A non-incriminating identity with perfectly accountable legal structure produces managerial intent in-line with the founding documents of freedom and opportunity in America.

The result is a Society with constructive integrity by choice across an infinite data-spectrum.

Beastie Boys Plays Politics - X Generation Rising

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:14:00 +0000

Beastie Boys Plays Politics - X Generation Rising

Do not overlook the generation called 'X'... short for "what the fuck?" A moniker of disrespect and misunderstanding.

The leaders are starting to rise, one by one.

The Path To Steal User Data Is A Busy One

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:13:00 +0000

Path Steals User Data

One of the challenges here is that there are so many opinions on how to "handle" this issue. Reality is, most people could care less. You tell the grandmothers and mothers who have been using Path with their families because someone told them this was a good place to use computers to keep in the family-loop that their contact lists were downloaded by the servers... and you get silent air in the room, followed by an "okay..." and "why does that matter again?"...

Customers have been trained not to care about this stuff. They stop caring the moment they sign up, because lets face it... if they actually do put anything important within these data tools... they assume that they are vulnerable to the system administrators running the tools, who have wayyyy more technical chops than they do... and are hardly visible from any accountability standpoint.

Trust frameworks are great conceptually, but the one's I have read thoroughly don't add up to change in any meaningful way. Breaking trust is something that everyone knows is going to happen in a marketplace with 7 billion different versions of what "trust" means. Ownership agreements based on contract law move us downstream in some cases... but again, how versed are you in contract law and Terms of ownership? Is your life as a working commodity and asset storage entity defined explicitly in ownership Terms? Or are you just an ill-formed customer freely participating in a marketplace that is preying on your participation because that is what participation means in the world we live in today.

Real change is individually implemented today. There are people who are accessing tools online without risk. They do not necessarily use tools like Google and Facebook or Path in the way that the standard unthinking user does, but they are using them. Their exposure to data risk is managed at a level approaching... well, what is the data risk of participating in default Society?

How many parents have secured the birth records of their children? How about social security numbers and credit reports? That birth certificate that the State generates in recognizing the existence of a new Human identity under management within its data framework for citizenship... how is it stored, managed, secured? How many parents even know this stuff? Most do not even care to, they just "trust" the systems that are not used by choice, but by systemic requirement. They comply.

When you register for kindergarten and expose the systemic identity of your child for management within a public education system, are you aware of the structure of the data that correlates to that identity? Do you know how the files function, how access rights are managed, where your Rights exist in the administrative process?

Where I live, there is one "Cumulative" file that stores all of the data about each and every student in the county, managing all of the documents, both hard form and digital, relational to a student. It has complicated relationship structures built into it to protect against unintended discovery and use of said data related to children with special needs, or developmental challenges, or sensitive socio-economic factors like free-lunch vouchers and the like. And most important for all, the administration system generates, stores and uses this data for its own purposes... administrative purposes... in an effort to serve the best interest of the students to which it applies... which are formally constructed as administrative data-slaves under management.

What part of that data-structure do you think is "ownable" or "controllable" today? Wherein do the individual students receive an inherent education in personal data resiliency and advanced administrative planning as a function of default design? They don't... because there is no professional dialogue of the structure of data under such design parameters. Why? Because in Society today, citizenship is ID-slavery by administrative process and structure, and your data is free to be preyed upon by a free market with vastly more empowered data structures than the average individual person.

We can approach this from any direction, but in the end this is about the structure of data that is implied across the whole of our Society and world. No one seems to have been concerned that structure yields results when considering how identity is constructed and managed in a "free Society", until now, and still only in limited circumstances. As with most things it seems, the most innovative path in the direction of our hopes here on this list is not the result of focusing on fixing the problem, but instead on using the problem to make the problem even worse, until inaction and lack of personal concern on the part of average normal people produces change in the opposite direction by systemic malfunction on a proportion that it gets covered by the 1950's style nightly news.

Changing the structure of identity and the data that correlates to it is a radical idea in our Society. NSTIC is providing $10 million to speed development of an "identity ecosystem"... and my understanding is that Facebook was even on-board this effort... perhaps Im wrong, as this amended S-1 of Facebook, Inc. has put a clear focus on the structure of this corporation's intent where user identity and data are concerned. How can Facebook be part of an "identity ecosystem" with contractual stipulations like this with partner Zynga in force:

"For Zynga’s own websites, “the Facebook Platform will be integrated into the Zynga Mobile Games and Zynga Properties and FB will be the sole and exclusive Social Platform”. This permits Zynga to build games on other social networks such as Google+, but not to use other identity providers to power games on its own sites."

Structuring your use of the web, via identity and data structure, is a really important sport. You are prey by default. If you want to function with the intelligence of at least the predators hunting you, today you need to take pre-emptive participatory steps to structure your data involvement. Real ID's? Make mine disposable.

Take no action that you do not want to exist in an open marketplace. Keep your sovereign structure empowered at the edge of the network, do not use storage tools in a way that dilutes your control over your own data integrity. Non-participation is still the most powerful tool of social-disobedience within a system that makes no bones about telling you what an individual data life actually is within the structure of modern Society.

Society = administration
Data administration = Society

You have to change the inherent structure of the one to change the operational intent of the other.

When we can operate within an "IDentity state" that maintains sovereign source authority by structural design, and allows for data context to be folded into accounts like developmental origami based on the understanding that a Human identity in a digital socio-economic system is folded from sacred paper we call the DOI/Constitution/Bill of Rights here in America... then we will understand what a collaborative ecosystem like Society actually is.

Path just needs to be reminded that when they take custody of a login ID from an American citizen, they are managing 2nd Amendment bearing data with relational integrity and meaning that is not negotiable. No one should disrespect the integrity of a Human ID... especially not the default structure of participation in Society via the citizen marketplace.

Own Yourself... structurally.

SOPA: What Wikipedia Won't Tell You... Bastards!

noreply@blogger.com (Moxy Tongue) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:56:00 +0000

Hey Cary,

When you are done with your mouthpiece role there with the RIAA, down-grading the act of authority that the commons unleashed upon your institutional efforts to uplift SOPA and PIPA, perhaps then you will be afforded a stage to talk with credibility on this matter. For at this time, in this market, if you speak for the RIAA or MPAA, you will not receive ample space to pontificate on matters that affect the public. Go bitch and moan to your paid-for "leaders" costing our Society self-respect.

Your organizations have blasphemed their purpose for existence under managerial practices that are sold to your mis-informed constituent entities which are afforded the plausible deniability of claiming your organization's tactics as their own. The reason that there is no "balance" or "reason" to these discussions is because of the efforts of your organization to slide slimy additions to legislative issues like the Patriot Act in an effort to manipulate and distort the well-functioned forward-moving progress of the free marketplace to the detriment of Individual people.

It is true, employment in your Industry is down. Good for it. These people are no longer necessary. Like manufacturers of the horse whip prior to the innovation of the combustion engine vehicle... those are dead jobs... never coming back. Not that anyone has even noticed they went missing, considering the nature of their input in exchange for the revenue they suckle off the market cow.

No Cary, your organization is the problem on the scene. Increasingly, your management practices and philosophies are corrupting a market space that is capable of functioning and evolving, if only we could get the damn lawyers out of the way of progress. Between your likes, and those of the congressmen and women that you bribe with your institutional power, we have a fiasco of epic Societal proportion growing before us.

Look around; Facebook is taking its users through an IPO wherein those users will be traded directly as product on the stock exchange. Doubt that? Go use the Facebook software on a day when there are zero people logged in and tell me what the stock is worth. As I see it, that makes Wall Street a modern day slave stage, with Identity Piracy being the real piracy that has been enacted on modern Society by the current structure of socio-economic participation.

So while you are popping off at the mouth because thats what you are paid to do like a well-paid W2 should, we have a Societal structure issue that is of far more importance to the long-term success of our species, culture and nation of Individuals.

Yes, there is a solution to intellectual property laws being openly abused and ignored. No, the RIAA is not helping progress move in the direction of a solution. But are you even really trying? Nah, you are riding the backside of a business model that was predictable at its founding. So ride on. You will get no respect from the people though. And you will get no respect from the Internet and its developmental hoi polloi.

Instead, your antiquated and ill-formated bureaucratic machine will continue to confront the entrepreneurial process; creative destruction is what you are experiencing. Napster represented peer-to-peer exchange in a market. It was a tool without an operating model, a marketing platform as much as a content acquisition platform. Your organization's inept approach to its arrival in the market was immature, counter-productive and founded on a premise that continues to reap destructive rewards for your constituents. The real problem is that then, as now, there was no incentive for your institutional mafia to work with this innovative market technology, and still no real discussions deserved the light of day in a world that refuses to empower peer-to-peer connectivity.

A true Supreme Court would not rule to appease an employment model over the progress of Society, unless the structure of progress were counter to the model that the Supreme Court itself was hell bent on protecting. Truth is, sovereign Individuals expressed via identity formed at the edge of Society can manage their own involvement in our socio-economic design of a free market-driven Society. But when a command and control model of governance deems Individual peer-to-peer empowerment counter to the central operational goal of said governance, a war of intent is inevitable. The RIAA and MPAA have the support of the government structure today, but this will not last. Read your history well, the only thing you can count on from the Government is that they ALWAYS end up on the side of the winners. The people, not Institutions, will win this war. Yes, this is a war sir. A war for managerial control.

This is why we war Cary.

We are opposed at an infrastructural level. Your model of America is not our model of America.

There will only be one survivor in this model of debate.

So instead of fighting a losing battle Cary... consider the next stage of multi-stakeholder negotiations surrounding a topic that is personally relevant to every Human Being... personal data that is relational to the identity constructs that imply your involvement in Society and its infrastructure manifestations... like the marketplace:

Facebook: Death By IPO

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:33:00 +0000

There will be two market events involving Facebook, Inc that will change the world:

1. The IPO - a massive media frenzy will surround this event, wealth will be created, and a new software era driven by social data will accelerate its expansion.

2. Short:Disable:Profit - Facebook users, structured as product being traded on the stock market and sold to advertisers within two separate but interconnected business models will choose an important moment to express their market intent with political force never seen before in the world. By allowing such a direct correlation of people to product through data-context, Facebook and the SEC are empowering their own destruction by giving people the chance to show what happens when "product" is empowered with the right to turn itself off, thereby turning off the stock value and service value to customers of Facebook, Inc.

Facebook, Inc. has convinced the market that its software is valuable, but in reality, it is the users of its software that are the real commodity being traded. How can the people who make this market obtain and use unprecedented power on Wall Street as a result?

If you are a Facebook user, you are about to be a product traded on the stock market in the most literal sense ever. You will have more power post-IPO than you do today, and this is going to matter.

The relationship structure that Facebook, Inc. is using is going to experience a profound shift in the months and years ahead, and users of the Facebook product, product themselves of Facebook in selling access of their personal data to advertisers, will become owners of themselves instead.

Identity is going sovereign by design, and UDPO by intent. This means, rather than having your identity organized for you by a piece of software like Facebook, you are going to be empowered to structure your own identity under different Terms, and to assign its use in different contexts without giving up control and value.

Upon IPO:

Facebook declares its users an economic unit on the stock market with the power to self-express socio-economic intent.

Facebook users will be given a choice:

To remain as users within this construct as a product of the stock market itself...

Or

To "disable" their account as an Individual statement of non-participation...

Or

To "delete" their account as an Individual expression of self-possessed Rights.

So to deal with this reality amongst what is sure to be a total hype session of wealth creation and awesomeness... might I suggest a potential social strategy.

Ride the stock up on its frenzied ascent... buy a share, come on... then, when the stock starts to balance out, take out a short position, one share... then go disable your account... and wait to see what happens.

There will come a 2nd time when Facebook users wish to express their intent via the stock price of Facebook, Inc. And when they do, SHORT:DISABLE:PROFIT is a three step process to unprecedented power on Wall Street by free Society.

On the Internet, there is only one ultimate model that data structure will correlate to, as Society itself correlates... and that is edge-driven, privately owned, free market, open access and infinite opportunity to the hilt!

ID is going sovereign.

But first we IPO Facebook!

Suckers!

Identity Piracy

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:17:00 +0000

Put copyright piracy on the back burner for a bit folks, we have a much bigger problem in our Society. Identity piracy has been intentionally designed as the core concept of modern civil-administration systems, and every account-based administration outcome is duplicating the injustice.

Consider this tweet:

Greatest piracy in all of Society is #identity..not #copyright. At birth,national constructs pirate sovereign source authority for "Rights"

Facebook and Google are leading the charge against the current data model of Identity.Identity piracy is a systemic issue,where sovereign source authority is destroyed at birth via the process of citizenship data administration.Result is systemic data slavery, and accounts structured as ID plantations. John Hancock was not given "Rights" prior to possessing his own sovereign source authority, and he used SSA to overthrow the King... which is the exact power being denied to modern citizens by managerial intent.

In a world managed by geographic controls with real time and spatial constraints for participation in the Society one's life was claimed by, this model of data administration flew under the radar of most all citizens, civil rights advocates, socio-economic theorists, and legal scholars. In a digital distributed administration system that has overcome these antiquated time and spatial constraints, identity is become rightfully seen as the control parameter of Human freedom within Society.

Identity is a unique Human phenomenon. The fact that it is used by Societies as the organizing principle for deploying systems of law and order is no small matter. That is the reason its structure is of such important consideration.

Currently, at birth, a Human Being enters the world as a zero, a valueless non-Right bearing entity. Depending on the geographic location of one's actual entry into this biosphere, citizenship is deployed as the organizing process whereby identity is originated systemically in exchange for Rights granted by the particular socio-economic system managing the geography wherein the live birth occurred.

What is often missed in this data model of identity is that the process of forming systemic identity suggests that a Human born into this world does not have an identity until the act of systemic administration occurs. This is clearly counter to common sense. A Human Being is born with innate Rights and structure granted to it by the Universe through the natural processes of existence itself.

Governments are formed by mankind to manage the Rights of the people from which governments derive their just power to administer law and order in a social politic. This administration is Human in origin, in the same way that sovereign source authority is Human in origin, meaning that prior to systemic administration, Individual Human Beings are already composed of basic Human structure and Rights that governments base their authority on.

The consent of the willing is a sovereign consent, not a granted consent. For identity to exist in a post-citizen administration process alone is a misconstruence of the structure of true Human power and potential. The current data model of Society and socio-economic participation is fundamentally flawed, and freedom is paying a tremendous price for this erroneous mistake.

A sovereign Society, such as America, which claims to respect freedom, democracy, free ownership and other such liberating expressions of Human Rights succeeds or fails based on its actual administrative structure and implementation of its philosophies. Currently, America is practicing systemic data enslavement.

Every account based administration system, which should be recognized as the whole of modern Soceiety, is being founded on this flawed data model. Public schools, health care, Government administration of Rights and services, social networks such as Facebook, Google, indeed literally every instance is using the model of ID-slavery within data plantations to structure Human transactional participants as customers under management.

Worst of all... this is all happening by managerial intent. And because of the lack of awareness or concern by average people, American Society is being subjugated by systemic enslavement, and the people are doing it to themselves. Mankind is always responsible for enslaving itself. No man can enslave another man without the subjugation of the Individuals Rights to self-possess the integrity of their own life. This is a natural law of Human nature.

Individuals are born, not as zeros without any Rights, but as sovereign owners of a Universe of opportunity, protected by the sovereignty of a family or the structure of law and order in a Society that respects Human life, Rights and the gift of Individual sentience within our species. Any other construct runs counter to this fundamental idea.

If Internet activists want to make a real impact on the structure of the world, start paying attention to the true piracy that is taking place in your life and every other life of the neighbors in your community. If America wants to compete with China and socio-economic structures that capitalize on near-slave labor conditions, cease the structure of wage enslavement via the W4-W2 administration process, and give default ownership status to the people who comprise your citizenry. Compete in this world with your philosophical strengths, not your need for control through administrative weakness.

The default construct of IDentity in a world that respects freedom and Individual life is as follows... it is a gift to Humanity:

Sovereign_Owner_Entrepreneur_ID_Citizen_[entity]+[entity]+entity]+(infinite expressions)...

Own Yourself.

Customers Are Prey

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:35:00 +0000

There is way too much talk about empowering customers/consumers/users rather than shifting the model of participation in such a way as to put systemic leverage in the hands of transactional participants.

I do not care what the nature of the transaction you are engaged in, if you are organized by default as a customer, you are prey. Increasingly as we operate in this new socio-economic dataverse enabled via technical innovation, being construed as a customer, with any notion of Rights or empowerment, is akin to giving a deer radar before they walk across a field being hunted by silent and camouflaged lurkers in the trees. Sure, the deer has radar...but the structure of their participatory needs are still in that field, and the nature of prey is to be preyed upon. Tools can make you better equipped prey, but it can not change your definition in the ecosystem wherein you are being preyed upon.

For a real change in participatory structure, we must look to the nature of ~~structured leverage~~ opportunity. If you do not want to be prey anymore, then you need to be something new structurally. In this world we live in today, you are prey by default, protected prey, but prey none the less. The first act of being preyed upon is the administrative process that Society uses in claiming the value of your life. As a Human, you enter this world without Rights, only to be given Rights by nationalistic constructs via citizenship. As data, you enter this world without Rights, only to be given Rights by nationalistic constructs via citizenship. The United Nations has gone so far as to declare that it is the inherent Right of all Human Beings to have a nationalistic origin and identity, so that in theory, they may also have Rights, as prey... or customers of security and freedom, depending on where you are contrived as a citizen in this world.

But that identity that is applied to your life is an administrative function. And as an administrative function, it can either inherently be created to define you as prey, or as something else yet unknown by most citizen participants in this world. Identity is a truly Human phenomenon. Its structure is of utmost importance in defining the nature of your participation in Society. And today, by default structure, each and every citizen is organized as "identity prey", or as systemic ID slaves that correlate to data which is freely preyed upon in a global socio-economic markletplace.

This is not how it should be for free Human Beings. Freedom demands much more self-respect be given to Individual Humans via an administration process that is responsible for managing the integrity of participation of the IDentities that comprise a lawful and ordered Soceity.

Before any rule of mankind can be applied to an Individual Human Being, via the administration process of identity creation, an Individual Human Being is whole, composed of inherent Rights and opportunities that the Universe bestows upon living sentient beings. In this pre-systemic state, the nature of Humanity is defined.

Governments of and by the people are organized to protect and empower this default state, and not the state that may commence after citizenship identity has been defined. Modern government is operating counter to this administrative structure and process.

Additionally, identity should not organize Individual Human Beings by default as prey, or as customers of freedom and opportunity, but instead should be organized to guarantee that participation in any and every identity based administration system, including citizenship, the Internet and "e-business" operations conveys the power of self-possession to the Individual.

In a socio-economic Universe, we call this form of self-possession "private ownership". Identity is the organizing principle of self-possession, it is the control parameter of Human freedom within an administrative system, and it is the default construct defining participation in any Society. Society of this time must innovate the structure of IDentity to provide Individual Sovereignty by default construct at birth, private ownership and entrepreneurial structure by default at first participation, and self-possessed freedom by operational and managerial intent.

This is the ~~ONLY~~ only management structure that will work moving forward. No Society or operational construct, such as Google or Facebook, will persist in flagrant violation of this default IDentity structure while instigating a relationship with prey structured as ID-slaves.

The writing is on the proverbial wall. Facebook has a projected and pending IPO scheduled based on the valuation of its services in organizing its users as corporate owned property, data, and ID-slaves. This relationship model will fail. Investors should take heed of this warning, and Facebook executives should seek a new relationship model with which to build their service. There is only one thing better than free in a marketplace, and it is a state of universal, distributed private ownership. Each person is a self-possessed market structure with the capability to act as buyer, seller, marketer, agent, entrepreneur, owner, distributor, etc... simultaneously. Got it?

People should not be prey. Customers are prey.

In the world of tomorrow, we each are self possessed ID structures, self-possessed market structures.

In the future we own ourselves.

That is how you will know what "the future" looks like when you meet it.

Everybody owns themselves.

1 Door with infinite expressions....

Screwed By Managerial Intent

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:48:00 +0000

We are screwed as a Society by managerial intent.
You have to unscrew yourself.

#SSA is key.

#SSA 2012?

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:38:00 +0000

The whole Identity discussion is like a merry-go-round.

The problem with identity "eco-meta-technical-infrastructure-systems" is not actually about identity... its about the management structure of control and decision making. Its about the management structure of budgets and the bureaucratic context of progress... or the impetus to define what that even means. Employees don't build sovereign systems, and they are not nationally deployed. They exist for Individuals to opt-into. They create a new context that allows free people to opt-out of old models that are mis-structured by design. Sell that to DARPA... see if you can find a manager with the authority to support that identity model. Its a real need, and it has real value on the battlefield and in the market.

Identity systems lack sovereign source authority. Period. There is no institutional effort to change that. Is there?

Reality is that the government (a central authority) should not authenticate me, my existence, or my context identifier. In a free system built from the efforts and integrity of free sovereign Individuals, I am the agent of authentication... I authenticate my government from the edge. Every legally accountable transaction? Every day when I show up to work? Every quarter when I pay my taxes? Every year? Every two years when I vote? Every four years? Every ten years? Never...?

There is the rub... the freedom of "never" is a problem in our present system design. Life does not come pre-packaged with an "identity" built in. Systemic Identity is structured at the moment you declare your personal participation in Society. And the structure of identity declares the intent of the social system that manages it. Today, we grab babies, pre-independence... and we define them once and for all... we declare them... packaged freedom.

We are all ID-slaves by design. We all, at participation, cede personal sovereignty and family sovereignty in exchange for national sovereignty. We all contribute our personal and family asset value within a base construct of socio-economic life in exchange for the "Rights" that Society confers upon us as social liabilities. We function as protectorates, customers of our social structure and the military might that "humbly" guarantees it.

Until shit goes wrong that is. Then Society shows itself clear as day. Liabilities sit on the curb waiting for "hero's" to act with the sovereign force that founded this national construct. And the resiliency of a Society is donated to it by those sovereign Individuals that refuse to let failure overtake their personal life or community. Society clings to the idea of independence by exchanging actual independence for hero worship. And the media system sells it loud and clear... repetitively.

So when you start a systems discussion about Identity, it must start with the discussion of managerial intent. That is the opportunity the Internet exposes. That is why we are fighting SOPA and other such ideas... this is a war of managerial intent. Identity is the control parameter of Human freedom and Society.

Every part of our system wants you structured as a protectorate customer today. The formula of public education is founded on it. The fact that Individuals and entrepreneurs are the most resilient aspect of our structure as a Society and species is an after-thought. Jobs are the priority. W2's that pay bureaucratic systems before providing for themselves are the basis of modern Society and its managerial intentions. This is deliberate.

So when you are talking about identity, unless you are talking about the structure of sovereign source authority, and its affect on protectorate customer identity design... no conversation from the future is actually occurring. I consider that a waste of time.

Facebook's version of systemic ID-enslavement is just a spruced up version of citizen-ID data-enslavement. And open gov data people have the cart ahead of the horse, because defining stakeholders defines ID-value... which defines data-value. Opening data value before defining ID-value accurately is just immature, no matter how well-founded the intentions are.

Until we get there... the sovereigns among us will keep one foot in Montana, ready to make a Y2K bolt to freedom. I don't know where you live, but the counter-voice to "Facebook" is getting clearer and more widely distributed in my local rural community. And the "smart" President of the US saying that "one day our medical records will be on Facebook" is really just a highlight of how piss-poor the definition of modern "intelligence" is. This ship is sinking for good reason.

Structure yields results.

ID[entity] #SSA #War

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:25:00 +0000

When a species sends technology into the Universe that transmits and receives digital data that directly correlates to the intelligence of that same species, the MOST IMPORTANT design factor is structural control that GUARANTEES HUMAN CONTROL at the data access EDGE.

ID[entity] Sovereign Source Authority #SSA

Women Rule Internet

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:55:00 +0000

TechCrunch Article: Why Women Rule Net

Rarely useful to stereotype, but macro-trends are useful. I find that the subject of data privacy, rights, protection, concern, leverage, etc causes women to "tune-out" quicker than men in casual conversation. In using web services like Facebook, there seems to be a utilitarian consideration that takes place that prioritizes the value of use above the value of intended consequences or longer range effects. The "geek-factor" of talking about how data is moving, being used, creating unintended consequences does not correlate equally on gender lines in my experiences. I am talking about average users of the net... not technically advanced developers in this regard.

Wondering how, psychologically this plays out as we move deeper into the user-as-data-slave model of the net. Provoking an antagonistic response is a male-centric idea. Where is the hot button for women? What causes an underground railroad to organize?

I was recently watching a show, which I do not know how to reference by name unfortunately, which was talking about the slave-trade between Africa and the new world. It delineated the "unslaveable" Africans that struggled, fought and were thrown from the boats en route from the "slaveable" Africans that endured and survived the experience... and consequently are the lineage of modern African-Americans. There was a gender difference in this regard as well.

Again... stereotyping is not very useful... but the gender responses to operating models that have abuse and utility embedded within simultaneously is interesting from an evolutionary perspective. Wonder if there is a real VRM angst that women would respond to, or if it is more about providing the advanced utility that women would actually care about... and how that might be different from what men would care about.

Living within a protectorate as a customer without the overt option of a personal sovereign structure is a "geek" problem today that will increasingly become a real problem for average people in the years ahead. Operating on the net as a happy-data-slave enjoying utility without awareness of consequence is an alarming trend... and one that is seemingly being led by women... created predominately by men.

What is the "change in methodology" hot button for women in this regard?

Such a delicate but important subject all the way around...

The Customer Problem

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:20:00 +0000

Succinctly defined, customers are a problem because they are artifacts of a past relationship model that can not empower itself. Customers exist because the opportunity to exist as one is provided to them.

Providers to customers come in all shapes and sizes. Some give a deep respect to customers, others exploit them. That is as simple as it gets. Leaders make choices concerning treatment every day, and customers react in-kind.

More important than this relationship model however, the structure of opportunity itself drives the structural possibilities within relationship exchanges.

When a customer has the tools and incentive to simultaneously act as a customer and a provider in any given market relationship, the idea of a customer is no longer applicable.

For example, in the Toy Industry, at any trade fair booth you will find customers that simultaneously operate a provider role, often defined as "mommy bloggers" and the like. These customers enter relationship conversations receiving the respect of customers. However, structurally embedded within their activities is an incentive that inherently disables the provider-customer relationship. These customers have an incentive to get noticed, to generate buzz, and build attention by whatever means they can. The platform that is utilized to do so is the customer-provider relationship model.

Often at great expense to toy innovators and providers, customers with the structural incentive to do so, are able to showcase products being used in ways that seems to suggest a safety issue. In the highly litigious and consumer safety conscious world of toys, this yields recalls and administrative burdens that destroy innovation and the rewards of effort on the part of legitimate providers, while reconstituting those rewards in the possession of the customer-mommy blogger that is able to garner the attention of the market. In our time-strapped world, people do not have the time to dig into the details of what caused the recall to find out it was a product being used beyond its intended scope. Government employees wanting to justify their jobs and efforts in protecting the safety of customers lack the incentive of digging deeper to find real problem, instead issuing recalls that make their functions look valuable and of sufficient merit. But who loses when valuable innovators suffer really?

The Internet is the foundation of this new dynamic. Information transparency is not structural, it is directed. And the entrepreneurial innovators, the people who produce 100% of the jobs in this world, are supporting the greatest burden.

Obviously... and I do mean obviously... not all mommy-bloggers are unethical... and not all toy innovators are targets or deserving of tolerance. But the deeper issue is the destruction of the relationship model.

As a nation, it has become the standard operating procedure of normal people, citizens, to behave as though they are the customers of their government. In response, citizens have started being serviced by bureaucrats and leaders as though this were a structural reality. Policy is more and more being framed from this perspective, rather than from the perspective of the citizen populace that is the producers of its government.

This is the customer problem. It is closely linked to the W2 problem that exists in a symbiotic role, as customers are more than often operating as W2's with needs that they expect filled as customers. The structural problem with the W2 primarily being that it empowers the wrong entity first, and the right entity second. W2's pay the government tax revenues before being paid themselves. This unaccountable structure yields a government that functions as it does, believing it has the power to service customers as it chooses.

Reality is, we are all protectorates in the world today. The Constitution no longer functions as it was designed and intended to function. As protectorates, there are two manners in which we each may be structured; as customers or as sovereign Individuals.

Sovereign protectorates no longer exist. As a function of the design and implemented structure of identity, all of us are protectorate customers.

That is the customer problem.

Perhaps you like being a customer of life. Perhaps you consider it a disrespectful notion.

Bottom line, we need a resilient structure for our communities and an empowering structure for our relationships. Customers produce neither.

The solution is for every identity that exists to be inherently structured with the capabilities of a buyer and a seller, a customer and a producer... by default. At birth, every identity should be structured as a socio-economic OWNER_ENTREPRENEUR by default. The leverage of such a structure is the leverage of true empowerment, and the lack thereof is the lacking empowerment that our world is clamoring for.

Next time you are looking at the Occupy Wall Street movement, remember that it starts by occupying yourself. This starts by occupying your identity. This is how you occupy the tax code. And that is how you occupy your government.

Make no mistake, occupying power is what this is all about.

Own Yourself.

ID[entity] Sovereign Source Data Structure

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:19:00 +0000

Great Global Data Census

In case you didn't get the memo, we exist in a time of a great census. A global market census aided by computational facilities, legacy systems and account-based transactions have yielded a treasure trove of data that is relational, contextual, predictive and personally meaningful. Us, We, They, IT... the system... wherein you are administered, managed, bureaucratically confined by and as data... rules the world. No traditional census ever dreamed it could collect data like Facebook and Google already have.

Privacy and concern for PII (Personally Identifiable Information) is a day late and a dollar short. We have taken some of the smartest minds and put them on a fool's errand, in pursuit of a technical impossibility. Perfect security. Perfect privacy. Perfect administrative accuracy. Perfect data accountability. Per-PHooey!

The market doesn't need it. What the market needs is a little advanced strategic planning. We need to take account of the most important missing commodity in the entire exchange; it's your life, your ecosystem, you. If Society is akin to a parent and each of us are it's children, it is obvious that our parents do not think much of us as Individuals. Unless we throw off the "ties that bind", and walk our own path less traveled, our personal relationship with our Society is predicated on dependency and aggregate value alone. Individuals are the lone wolves of time gone by... rebels that defy the messaging priority implicit in our standardized, credentialed and compliant model of social design.

There is a profoundly missing FACT in this approach to social management. You exist pre-identity. You exist pre-system management. You exist pre-citizenship. You exist pre-market. You exist with inborn value and opportunity, before any Rights of mankind are applicable to you. You are universally sovereign. The fact that our socio-economic design does not correlate to this FACT is not mere whimsy. It didn't just occur by a flight of fancy. It is always possible to enslave a man. That will never change. That is the inherent truth of the creative moment we are all a part of via the Internet. Our collective consciousness needs to know what "We" are. Our infrastructure will bend to our design parameters. Identity is the design parameter of Human freedom in a digital socio-economic system. "We" will be data-slaves until I & I are sovereign source identities.

This world, your community, my home needs strong edge-driven decision structures. The resilience of a battlefield, a community or a market depends upon the integrity of intelligence at the edges. There is only one source of any guarantee at the edge. Single source authority of ID[entity] must be sovereign by design and operational intent. It is or it isn't. That is all that matters. Today, by administrative default, it is not.

This model simply does not exist anywhere. At least not in a digital data-driven life. In my resilient always-local life, outside of digital dependency, it can be found and nurtured. Its not hard to build, its just a matter of will, but its still pretty hard to come by. In times of war or emergency, the true structure of existence emerges. Market mechanisms fail and systems that customers of life depend on for successful navigation of their days go away. Its sad really. Sometimes we watch it on TV... like a soap opera. But what we see is real life, failing. Within it are pockets of success, stories that inspire. These examples are the purpose of research and education, right? We, as professionals, should be tasked with empowering these examples, democratizing them, distributing them as functioning systems, operating them within sustainable Human communities. Are we?

Boy am I glad I am not a professional in the "identity space" today. All the smarts in the world can not solve a problem that is defined in the wrong way. Getting identity right under current presumptions is akin to believing you can tell the soil what seeds it is absolutely not allowed to grow. So many lives squandered chasing folly.

There are many smart people on the ID Commons mailing list. I've read many smart things. NSTIC is DOA...no matter how smart. Why? Because it flows from a management model that has yet to structure the administrative layer of Society under accurate Terms. When the government is again man's best friend, rather than Individuals being the dog of their government as a function of structure... then the solution will appear. Until then, we loot, en masse. Occupy or join in, it doesn't matter... it all ends the same.

Identity is the control parameter of Human freedom in a digital socio-economic system. Its broken. So we hack.

What is UDPO?

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:00:00 +0000

[Republished via Noiz Ivy .org Permission UDPO Original Post 7/12/2009]

Universally Distributed Private Ownership is an idea; it is the notion that if all people alive on planet Earth were contrived as entities with administrative privileges equal to those of corporate entities, our world would be organized in a manner that more accurately reflects the inherent intention found within the motivation for inventing every product, service and management system in the world.

At the root of the idea is the belief that you, the individual life, are in possession from your first moment as a distinct living entity on this planet of the core component of humanity. You are born an owner. At that moment of tabula rasa, before any act of man may influence the nature of your life, you possess all of the rights and privileges of a sacred being. Nations derive their existence and vitality from the willing consent and participatory energies of such beings.

Therefore, at the first moment of your earthly administration and inclusion in the digital database infrastructure which will increasingly come to manage your human life on this planet, and in this universe, you MUST be ordained all of the administrative rights and procedural privileges of personal ownership over the data related to your distinct entity.

No other alternative which gives to the whole of humanity prior to giving to the individual is acceptable in so much that it is contradictory to the inherent structure of the human species. Humanity is an organism that grows in value as it grows en masse. However, all of the capabilities that the human organism possesses or ever will possess are the byproduct of individual beings and the expression of their energetic outcomes. Even when working in collective harmony, the creative leadership of humanity is the task of individual beings working within the mass of the whole. Truly, no man is an island, none of us can survive alone for any significant period of time that matters on a survival metric, however, even before the whole of us are given the opportunity to survive and prosper, we require individuals to show us the way.

Read your history well. Put down your private motivations. Cease fighting for your brand of power, freedom or righteous expression and consider the truth of human life. We are I + I across time. To the degree that we empower the individual we empower the whole. To the extent that we are accountable as individuals, we will be well formed en masse.

So UDPO is a strategy for reflecting the true nature of human life in a socio-economic management system. It begins by providing ownership rights to individual human lives universally, and restructures the participatory framework of all markets to better reflect the role of individual owners in all of the transactional exchanges they are afforded the opportunity to participate within. It is a simple matter of implementation, but one that carries with it pervasive ramifications that will be felt across all parts of our species and its varied civilizations.

A day will arrive at a point in the not-to-distant future that will change our notion of what it means to be alive as a socio-economic entity in the universe. Babies will be born owners, and the world will be better for it.

VRM Work

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:54:00 +0000

(Original Post via ProjectVRM Mailing List)

VRM Work:

Remember when YouTube was acquired by Google? There was a faint outcry about the news of certain employees becoming millionaires overnight...including recently hired entry-level office managers... while the user-base that was responsible for actually developing all of the inherent content "value" of the acquisition received nothing from the exchange. The outcry didn't get very loud, as it is pretty well understood that this is how the modern world works. But it rubbed people the wrong way.

Facebook is going to have the same issue if/when it goes public. The "value" that will be distributed within the present structure of Facebook does not accurately correlate to the structure of "value" created by the Facebook system. Again, the users...organized as mere product currently... will receive zero recognition of asset value in the transaction.

Now, lest we make the mistake of thinking that free enterprise and entrepreneurial activity should be centrally managed with asset values being controlled by some Institutional process... let me kill that idea out of hand. I do not think we need a new central management model that distributes value "more fairly".

Quite the opposite; I think the model of "value creation and distribution" just needs to be more accurately organized to recognize the true role that the edges play in its inherent constitution. In other words, "value" is not a one-way relationship anymore. It never really was, but geographic isolation and time were constraints of participation that afforded unequal leverage to market OWNERS. The net fundamentally changes that... and so participation is gaining its own leverage.

VRM work by nature is universally distributed privately owned (UDPO) work...whether internally orchestrated (via 'employees') or externally orchestrated (via 'customers')... it defines empowerment ubiquitously on equal Terms. Those Terms, like any contractual arrangement, possess differentiated attributes that may be personalized as desired. And the structure of this VRM work is an opt-in process that exists as a strategic opportunity for Individual decision makers to weigh against the current alternative. Thus VRM work exists as a competitive market model. VRM and non-VRM services are written to their respective markets by virtue of their embedded operational models.

In a VRM market, every participant is an OWNER_entrepreneur by the default structure of opportunity itself. Services connect to administrative identifiers that enable transactions that reinforce this construct. Rights and empowerments are baked into services by leveraging the ubiquitous nature of equal partnerships between participants. Whether a service provider or a service user, the end result is a reciprocal objective and operational integrity as service partners. VRM services place a priority on edge empowerment rather than central management because the operational goals demand it... value is being distributed to the edges for growth, not aggregated in the center for value capture.

In the VRM model, the next YouTube...or the next Facebook... could be the present YouTube, or the present Facebook. Its a question of re-engineering internal management to leverage the empowered nature of a re-engineered user-base. Obviously, there needs to be an operating model to drive that decision. One that displaces the ROI and profit formula now in use with a new and more empowered one. And obviously, these entities don't need to make the decision to "go VRM" at all. Thats what free market competition is all about.

Of correlated importance to the empowerment of the edges, P2P infrastructure has always needed a business model to legitimize its systemic use as well. Like VRM, there is a place for central management in a P2P user-driven world too. The question is how big and powerful does the role really need to be? Distributing power to the edges of society scares the hell out of many people because it de-legitimizes current control structures. But fighting against this inherent opportunity implied in the structure of the Internet is a losing proposition... its like telling the soil not to allow certain seeds to grow. The system can do so to justify its own operational control, but its a losing battle with way too high a cost.

As Neal Stephenson said in his "Innovation Starvation" piece... we are stuck on small things that are preventing us from doing big things. This is THE small thing. People are being disenfranchised by our default operational model... and evidence of it is everywhere. Its overt and obvious. People want the power that they know they should have. The system doesn't want to give it to them at the pace that is possible, or in the most direct manner... instead believing it can choose when and how to do so. Time will render its own verdict... but I have placed my bets that the system is going to get this wrong.

VRM represents an operational takeover of the managerial systems and implied philosophies used to control participatory power in every Society. Just think about it against the backdrop of the electoral college for a clear indication of its disruptive nature. We are proposing an edge driven social-structure... with centralized management of opportunity integrity for all participants on equal Terms.

[This Post Was Preceded By This Post:]

Steve Jobs - RIP

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:47:00 +0000

Think Different

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:30:00 +0000

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:39:00 +0000

Facebook Is Evil

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:31:00 +0000

Facebook is evil, because it is advancing a naive social structure through the implementation of its innovative technical platform. Facebook is a living entity with legal Rights and responsibilities on this planet. It is an empowered entity with asset value that grows and shrinks based on the value of its contrived outputs. Facebook is an amalgamation of the efforts of many people, including its founder, CEO and majority owner Mark Zuckerberg, its employed staff of engineers and executives, as well as all of the inputs from its products, its users, who constitute the breadth and substance of its main asset, the open graph.

You may argue that Facebook is not evil, but instead is simply technology writ large. My response to that is that the proof of Facebook's evilness is found in the structure of its social conversation. This is well justified, as the technology that Facebook is building is in itself generating a structured social conversation between identified entities. So lets look at the conversation.

Facebook becomes evil before a conversation begins, at registration of your personal, private and social identity under Terms defined by Facebook, within boundaries defined exclusively by Facebook and by motives owned outright by Facebook. This founding moment establishes your existence within the corporate territory that is Facebook. Who ever you thought you were before you arrived at Facebook no longer exists within Facebook's structured service. Despite any overt statement otherwise, You become Facebook.com/You in all future activities that are captured and oriented by your relationship to the Facebook service.

Through the open graph, this context of Facebook.com/You becomes your context on an increasingly large swath of the Internet itself, as each website that interacts with the open graph protocol and implements social tools for your "frictionless" interaction is instigating this context for you, and on your behalf. The conversation that you are having on the web as a result looks like this:

"Facebook says that You say X, Y, or Z."

This conversation structure has gains of efficiency within it that are quite meaningful. And as has been shown aptly in history, Individual Human Beings are more than happy to make subjects of themselves, slaves even, if there is a promise of "easy" or "better" or "free" attached to the transaction. The real problem is found slightly deeper in the structure of the transaction however.

I would suggest that nearly EVERYONE wants for themselves what Facebook is pursuing and contriving for itself. Structured empowerment at the hands of technical capabilities points to an exciting future. The problem is not that Facebook is pursuing it as a service provider, it is that as delivered, I have to cede my sovereign power as an Individual in order to participate in Facebook's construction of its own corporate power. As an owned account, the problem is that I do not actually maintain my own structural integrity and context within Facebook, but instead add myself to Facebook's structural integrity and context. That model has already been tried. It is a failing model that is disenfranchising people rather than building collaborative power, and Facebook is using new technologies to implement these old structural ideas on a dying socio-economic platform, rather than moving us towards the future.

Maybe Facebook didn't know what it was getting itself into when it innocently launched its early service at Harvard. Maybe Sean Parker was again ignorant of the true ramifications of the innovation he was shepparding. True enough in hindsight, since it is becoming ever clearer that the Internet is a technical platform capable of overpowering and transforming the entire socio-economic platform that the world uses to organize Human life. Every transaction, every Industry, every social structure, everywhere, forever. Using this technical platform to reinforce a dying systemic model is counter-productive to the best interests of Humanity. This is why Facebook is evil today. A change is necessary.

Individual sovereignty is a force of nature. It is the power contained within Human nature to self-determine one's life, to overthrow kings and destroy kingdoms when they fail to protect and advance the best purposes of our structure as an organism of Individuals. Identity is the organizing data-structure of Individual sovereignty within a social system. John Hancock did not need to authenticate himself to Declare his Independence from the King of England. His signature did not require verification to carry the weight of his clear meaning and powerful intent. John Hancock is a sovereign identity structure, self-declared and operative, backed by the full force and conviction of an Individual that knows how this world works.

The problem with Facebook, like the problem with our modern day National sovereign structure, is that Individual sovereignty has ceased to exist within the definition of Your life. Facebook.com/You may be a choice of participation for all of us, but in every case... every single case... if you participate, Facebook has sovereign control of your personal representation within their structured context as a service.

I, like you, want to use technology to empower my identity, to empower my personal relationships, business activities, medical care, government functions, charity, educational outcomes, indeed everything.... Facebook prevents that conversation and destroys that hope. Facebook turns my peers into problems to be managed in much the same way that the Nazi's turned children into security liabilities. Yes, I recognize the extreme nature of that idea. So I further clarify that I am not saying Facebook = Nazi... but instead that the structural example of the one is akin the the other in terms of how our social model is disempowered and used against us as Individuals and Society. That is real. Have you validated a friend's information yet? Violated a "secret" in favor of "social accountability". Are you being told that "its good for you to do"? That it "protects" the integrity of the ecosystem?

Facebook is evil because it works against the best interests of strong Individuals, free individuals, and a species that respects its operational integrity as we struggle to understand ourselves within civil-social-economic transactions. Facebook is evil because the outcome of its engineering brilliance is aggregated power possessed by Facebook, Inc without proper recognition of the true role that Individual play in enabling its service value. And Facebook is not alone in this; Google is just as bad.

The Internet represents a hope that should not be taken lightly. In fact, we have come too far for it to be taken lightly. Our structure as a global Society is on the brink... the brink of what is the question. We can create a better future with more power in the hands of people, or we can create a worse future with more power in the hands of Institutions. The experience will be profoundly different on each path.

As Individuals, there is something you can do. Destroy Facebook's open graph. Use a pseudonym that can not be connected with 100% accuracy to your credit report, drivers license, passport, citizenship, bank accounts, etc. Let your friends know that they should vouch for your change of identity. Claim yourself. Claim your social graph. Do not let Facebook, Google or any entity own you. If you do, you are no different than those people who saw the Nazi problem coming and did nothing. If you come to understand it one day when it is too late, you will only have yourself to blame.

You must emancipate yourself. Originate yourself. Authenticate yourself. Administer yourself. Own yourself.

This is the only future that matters.

Facebook, as presently conceived is going to destroy the Internet, because there is no way in good conscience that the children being born today will be constructed as facebook.com/slaveID without resenting the ignorant generation that did it to them.

Identity Origin & Resiliency

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:10:00 +0000

Edited for clarity, excerpts from conversation on ProjectVRM mailing list regarding the administrative structure of any identity as presently conceived and used in the market:

In a vrm universe, =You (Individual) has less structural “Rights” and “Empowerments” than @Inc (Organization) and in theory (sovereignYou) predates the existence of both data entities… as I argue that I am not “AdminI”, but may lend my native sovereign power to any version of “AdminI” that I wish to from time to time.

Dataspace is swallowing all other known spaces because all other known spaces exist as dataspace. There is a natural preeminence there. Even meatspace (physical personage) is dataspace... BUT within meatspace exists a sentient space that is its own dataspace... in fact is the source of all knowable dataspaces and thus has a natural preeminence in Human nature. If we regard ourselves administratively as mere meatspace, as we do now structurally, then we arrive at a sub-optimal routine that disregards the preeminent role of this inner dataspace. The sovereign space within is the source of all Human power and productivity. So digital identity must understand the necessity of managing its administrative construct without degrading its sovereign structure.

...within meatspace exists choicespace and freespace, which collectively constitute a "sovereign territory" -- and so the problem with originating any standard identity and applying it to a digital ecosystem has been that, the sovereign construct must place origin on the "other side of the administrative transaction" in creating the =You relational construct. The only way to maintain sovereign integrity is to originate =You with local relational control by making all other "public" administration instances apply as transactional instances to an identity construct that =You is sovereign source of.

If we can support the sovereign formula with a process that originates and manages Identity within a digital ecosystem... we will have done something right for Individuals.

The Origin of Identity is not something I hear talked about. There is a robust community forming around the topic of Internet identity, but the notion of sovereignty within the structure of identity is not discussed. I believe the reason is that most people are of the idea that law grants integrity to individual identity in such a way as to protect sovereignty. This belief is structurally backwards and thus flawed. It is Individual sovereignty that grants integrity to law. By example, I will show you how this mis-formed construct is conceived.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

Law does not make pre-law distinctions very well. Human existence it could be said, begins when, where and how the law says it does. Its a nice idea. It manufactures authority where there was none. It creates order from chaos. But it is not inherently true.

Identity is not just who you are in the world. Identity is also who you are within yourself, and as such, is represented by the existence of "free choice" that truly pre-dates all forms of law. The origin of identity is your existence. Without a name, nationality or family relations, you are you. And that fact has practical utility, as any parent will confirm and defend.

This matters. The language used in the UN crafted document are pointers to a systemic approach to identity management that is self-referential only, and ignores the inherent truth found within a Human life in a pre-law state. It is as if there is a lack of recognition that in those few seconds when a new baby has arrived, and before a legal framework may "Immediately register" a new Human life... there is a state of sovereign power and integrity within that new Human life.

I do not think any parent now living would be willing to deny their child or any future generation's children of this inherent Human structure. And yet, our approach to administering identity is doing just that. The acts of "immediate registration", "naming" and defining "nationality" are being implemented in such a way as to remove the inherent sovereignty of Humanity from an administrative likeness. The fix is simple, but requires a complete systemic 180 to the processes now being implemented.

The language of "The child shall have the right to acquire" used in article 7.1 is immediately juxtaposed by the language of "States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights" in article 7.2. This is a process of forming Individual identities so that national sovereignty may be structured from the root material of Individual sovereignty. This is profoundly foolhardy, and its use systemically is a prime factor in the structural distrust of modern national sovereign constructs. No system may remove Individual sovereignty in favor of some other collective formation for very long. The collection inherently lacks the reality of integrity that the Individual possesses by natural rights of existence. This can not be usurped or even borrowed. The Human organism is an inherently organized life form that exists and stores its vitality and integrity in the life of its Individual constituents. No man-made philosophy can change that, and should not try. We must be as we are... fully empowered within our shared experience of life on this planet, or any other we may come to know.

Consider an example; under extreme conditions of survival, such as wars, natural disasters, or other such unforeseen calamities where centralized management infrastructure is disrupted, the simple truth of what is important emerges. At times such as these, wise Humans are not standing at their windows waiting for a sovereign national construct to save them. The sovereignty of Humanity is stored locally, within Individuals who have complete control and mastery of their own faculties of survival. Any infrastructure approach which seeks to change this fact rather than empowering it runs counter to the inherent truth that Humanity must store its power in Individuals, not Institutions.

Why would we construct an identity model that places management integrity within a centralized model of management? Perhaps the reason is as simple as ease of implementation. Pre-digital infrastructure would have struggled to manage the transactional complexity of a distributed identity model where sovereign origin remained at the edges of the transaction in the possession of the Individual. So in this sense, a digital network is an enabler of a new infrastructure model because of new management capabilities.

So why are we still beginning the process of identity formation as a process that exists external to the Individual? Even in cases where OpenID on the Internet is seeking to streamline the capabilities of identity with single-sign-on capabilities, or NSTIC is seeking to form an identity ecosystem amongst identity providers... we find all using this same external origin process. Why?

Identity must be a structural representation of Individual sovereignty if we hope for it to enable systemic integrity in the long run. The "immediacy" and "national" angle of identity registration and formation is counter to our survivable structure as Individuals living in communities with other Individuals.

I do not need to be a "Citizen" at all times as a function of my identity registration and origin. I only need to be a citizen when I am transacting the integrity of my "Citizen" role within the infrastructure managing those rights. This speaks to the point of origin. We have methods to make this happen. We need more people to understand the ABSOLUTE need.

If ever there comes a time when we are reduced to our prime structure as Humans, and it becomes necessary to hold and privately possess the hopes and capabilities of all that it has come to mean to be part of our Human organism... our powers must be securely organized to ensure the possibility of survival with integrity. Being systemically captured and managed for stability and predictability sake is the hallmark of our present design. And it is failing miserably in many important measurable ways.

We must return sovereign structure to Individual identity.

"Open" Government

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:27:00 +0000

The problem with the current approach to open government is structural.

Open for who? Open for what? Open how?

"We the People" are an imaginative construct of Individuals existing within an "Agreement", one with another.

In order for this Agreement to be structurally sound, stakeholders must bring the integrity of their entity with them to the table.

This stakeholder integrity has been attacked, misconstrued, misappropriated and mis-formed. Citizenship is not a privately possessed asset any longer. Our Union has taken the asset value of our Individual lives and co-opted it so that we may offer social services to all citizens defined as leveraged liabilities. Debt and unaccountable political processes have risen with each loss in Individual integrity and sovereign empowerment that our modern definition of citizenship has wrought.

Upon this foundation, open government is seeking to democratize access for all. But this is mis-structured. A government of, by and for "The People" can not be construed by entities on behalf of its stakeholders. W2 employees working on behalf of stakeholders can not speak with the same integrity or leverage that stakeholders must. It is impossible to delegate authority of your Individual sovereign power and associative Rights.

Therefore, what we are experiencing is a process of establishing a "Trojan Horse" in the name of open government.

Before open government can be processed, stakeholders must be redefined in relation to the governing bureaucracy being managed. We, each Individual, are not subjects. Government is the subject, I am its master. You are its master. Modern leadership has it backwards because we have the structure of citizenship backwards.

Citizenship is defined by the structure of your identity. Your identity exists as a tool of management. Within our present default construct for citizenship, you have lost "Individual Sovereignty" and given national sovereignty power over your existence. That is a perversion of intent, created by a mis-drafting of the US Constitution.

Open government is an attack on stakeholder Rights, because it is not opening our social infrastructure in a way that inherently rewards its stakeholders directly. In fact, just the opposite is true. Any degree of empowerment gained by the process of opening government is offset by a loss in the value of citizenship. We have arrived at a point when citizenship is near-zero value, and our collective efforts are being driven into a state of bankruptcy.

Open government may have the intent of transparency, but what gains it makes in this arena are immediately squandered in terms of stakeholder leverage over the asset value of our collective empowerment. We may be open for the world to see and interact with, but my value in being defined within this open communion is more negatively associative then ever before. And a baby born 100 years from today will be even worse off than I am. Our roads may be paved in gold, but the baby will be without any leverage to change the open construct of the machine that has come to possess their inherent asset value.

Identity administration must be reconfigured to put sovereignty back in the hands of the Individual. On that foundation, and no other, open government may exist.