The Moxy Tongue

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.

Identity Ecosystem Understanding

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 21:17:00 +0000

NSTIC
Kaliya's intentions in conveying the need for this "Identity Ecosystem" is on the money. The structure of the debate is not. Government has a big problem that it refuses to confront. It's structure is flawed and perverting the power of "We the People", as a defined set of Individuals that willingly contribute our efforts to our sovereign Union. No one should doubt that there are good people working in the government. But equally important is the understanding that the current structure of government whereby Individuals are "serviced" as social liabilities by definition of "citizenship", and the government is the "owner" of all default asset value under Terms organized by certain men of a certain time, renders a formula of exchange that perverts itself with increasing efficiency as time passes. A baby born today in America is a citizen within the most powerful administrative bureaucracy to have ever existed, and yet, as a ratio of power between the one and the many, possesses less default power as a sovereign Individual within that same structure than was possessed by a baby in 1777. That is not a problem of intent. It is a structural problem.

Government, and its mechanisms of enforcing its structured laws, are neither "all good" or "all bad". Giving it fixed authority, and subverting Individual sovereignty in favor of its national sovereignty, is the core of the structural problem. Identity is the means by which this structure is enforced. Digital databases enforce the fixed nature of authority that government possesses in practical reality in a way that was never considered when our government's founding structure was conceived.

"John Hancock's" were sovereign by structure in 1776. Your "John Hancock" is not. How does an identity as now conceived and digitally structured actually possess the inherent power to "overthrow a king" or "overthrow this experiment", and by design, have the freedom to try anew, as was deemed essential to the founders of this nation? How could you escape the data correlation of relational digital databases?

When babies are born on American soil today, citizenship conveys a default socio-economic structure to their life. It is not based on a power that pre-exists the power that is given by man-made Rights... it is the power given by man-made Rights. The opportunity to participate in socio-economic exchange is not an American Right however, it is a Human Right. The black market guarantees that for all time in all ways, as deemed necessary by sovereign Individuals in relationship with the context of socio-economic practices of their day. No "Identity Ecosystem" is going to change that. It must be in congruence with that fact.

"Owning" your identity is an archetype that exists because in a socio-economic universe such as the one we all live in, freedom that is owned overpowers freedoms that are given everyday. We can all read history. We can all see the ownership contract and its relationship with the various stages of the social construct we call the "American Dream", from its conflict with native American Indian civilizations all the way to today as it overpowers our modern social structure and erases the middle labor class.

Identity must be constructed as a tool of empowerment that serves the right master. That is not our Union. That is you. That is me. The most important part of "We the People" is the Individual person who bears and makes identity meaningful. Corporations are tools and should service people, not the other way around. Reducing the power of our tools is no solution for progress. Distributing the power of our tools on Universal Terms to Individuals under their own private management as a function of the design and intent of Identity, by default, at birth... and at every transaction where the Individual and the socio-economic system meet... that is the foundation of an "Identity Ecosystem" that will make this world work.

No other conversation will. Guns and bullets guarantee that. And we all lose if we fail to recognize the need to get this right. Owning yourself as a pre-citizen, pre-systemic structure that recognizes the origin of Individual Sovereignty, and structures it within the design of all Human identities is the foundation of our future socio-economic system. The challenge is in laying out the process whereby Individuals seize their own power back from a system that has enjoyed taking it from them for WAY too long.

Whats Your Name?

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:38:00 +0000

Who Owns Your Identity?

Facebook/ Google+ - Its FU Time

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:33:00 +0000

Humanity, Becoming Less Human

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:20:00 +0000

Our future is happening. Everything is coming together perfectly. The grand master plan is clearly working. I stand witness to process.

Standardization and compliance is being rewarded systemically. Individuality is contributing energy to the momentum of progress in the direction of industrialized control. Voices of opposition have been deemed peculiarly unimportant in intent and outcome.

Everything about what is means to be a part of Humanity, is not what it means to be Human.

Movies and books speak clearly to what we know is happening. Corporate robots with artificial intelligence programmed by Individuals that have ceded interest in their Human past in order to seek their uber-Human future are on another plain of power. Exponential growth in systems run by non-Human processes and policies are dominating every aspect of life on this planet. Individuals are being made enemies, lone-wolves of great threatening structure.

Organic, sustainable, simplistic local Human practices of survivability and prosperity are fringe activities of interest only to unimportant parts of the Human formula. Farming Humanity is far more sustainable than farming tomatoes, cows, grapes, or alpacas will ever be. The formula is absolute.

You are born within a purpose that is not yours to claim or possess, only serve. Your pursuit of wealth and personal freedom is allowable to the extent that the end result yields systemic value. Compliance is not an option, it is a pre-requisite. You will not succeed unless you bear credentials born from standard processes. Your efforts to walk the path less travelled are being tracked, aggregated, analyzed and integrated without any effort on your part. Mere participation as a Human functionary within our design as a species is all encompassing. You are a captured asset.

Loyalty to the cause, patriotism for your brand of historical context, compliant participation within the formula of systemic success is the "smart path". You are born, you are systemically provided guardianship, you are mandated to go to school, you are mandated to learn, you are credentialed for compliance, you are rewarded for standardized success, you are given opportunity to learn and contribute more within a systemic approach to intelligence development, you are rewarded for innovation and success, you are structured, you contribute, you contribute more, you are free to contribute more, you are farmed, you are rewarded with benefits, you may retire when you have enough rewards, you die, you contribute power back to the source, and the next generation picks up where you left off.

Each generation is less Human than the one that preceded it, but Humanity is stronger. Individuals are more compliant to groups of standardized processes with each passing generation. And together, we seek opportunity to dominate each other, and all of the resources that ever may come to be, in pursuit of success as Humanity.

One day we will all awaken in a destroyed conceptualization of what we have been. Humanity is farming the failure of Humanity. We will awaken to the reality that we are, always have been, and always will be... a species of Individual Humans. We are an organism that needs Individuality to thrive, but that does not need to thrive to exist.

The structure of Humanity will yield it's results. This structural foundation is established with the processes we use to birth Individuals. Presently, we people have allowed 'Society' to be pre-eminent to Individual Humans. We have not protected Individual Humans structurally, we have established a framework within which they may be farmed and protected as cattle on a dairy farm.

After birth, the first Human event is the definition of Individual context. This act is found in the simple and universal experience of parents choosing a name for their new child. Every culture, every part of our species does the same thing. We define you with an identity. This meaningful act is the substance of structure. We need look no further than this act to analyze the reality of what Humanity is. The structure of your identity is the structure of our species. Identity matters because context matters, and without an identifier, there can be no Individual context.

So you are given a name. You are given context. You are an Individual Human participant within a larger organism that you will come to know in the years ahead. But before that happens, a process must be initiated. The simple truth you were born into is that you do not belong to you, you belong to the system that farms you and allows you to exist within a formula of participation that will define opportunity and success for you all your days ahead.

The freedom expressed in the initial process of naming you must now be registered, authenticated, and given Rights. Your subsistence as an Individual Human will not be easy or supported within a biosphere that is systemically controlled and guided by purposes well defined before your arrival. Your parents will understand, and you will comply.

Upon registration of your personal identity, you will undergo a transformation as a systemic asset. Your identifier will be organized "In Trust", and your Rights as a citizen will be defined. Any inherent rights, such as the right to exist, breathe, think, develop, pursue resources of value, communicate, love, need, etc will be overcome by the Rights that unions of mankind will now grant to you.

You are created equal systemically. You have been endowed with certain "unalienable rights" that mankind has unquestionably recognized and bestowed upon you. Your identity has been defined. You are an asset within a system much larger and more powerful than you, leveraged as a social liability with Rights that you may draw upon in such ways and under such Terms as may be permitted from time to time, as defined by the socio-economic processes that "We the People" confer upon ourselves legalistically. We welcome you to Humanity.

Once upon a time, either past or future, things are different. You were born a universe of potential unto yourself. Your name belonged to you, as a gift from your creators and guardians. You were loved within a process that recognized your life as its own value. Your identity was pre-systemic, pre-citizen, pre-Humanity. You belonged to you.

We call this state of existence Individual Sovereignty. A brief reading of history will show it to be the structural foundation of all systemic success. Its inherency has overthrown kingdoms and made nations of free men more powerful than any other formation that has ever walked the Earth. But the contradiction you now exist within is a war that has always existed... always will exist. You and "We" have different structural intents. A managed process must be employed to protect, guide and develop the course of existence in either regard. And even the best laid plans have holes.

For us now, as Americans, our best laid plans are being laid bare. The Individual Sovereignty that "Declared Independence" from a systemic King has not matriculated well. Citizenship has not protected or adequately defined the structure of this inherent Individual reality, and your identity has been captured once more. While you are not a slave to any man under the Rights afforded by man-made laws of this land, you are systemically captured at the identity layer of existence, and this process has rendered you here today as an ID-slave within relational databases that manage and control your participation as a data-entity within the system of your living attribution.

You are a data-slave, and you will increasingly come to understand what this means in the years ahead. Our species has taken its sentient capabilities and developed digital transference methods to empower our lives as infinite resources of the thinking and acting kind. Your mind, your brain and body are now connected to an open web of digital communication methodologies that are all relational to your identity. Your context as an Individual is relational to your identity. And your identity is not structurally under your own control. You may act upon it as a single source, and protect its integrity as a single source, but its context belongs to a system that regards you as an asset under its own control and protection.

Individual Sovereignty has been captured systemically by structure. Your compliance is founded in mere participation and acceptance of your role within structures that most do not understand. W2's run the operational machinery of the vast majority of this management structure. W2's are the byproduct of a legalistic approach to systemic integrity founded by a corporate approach to Human existence that won a war against another model called enslavement. The process of moving from a system of enslavement to a system of employment has been vastly beneficial systemically. Ironically, it is the same systemic participants that were rewarded in each model.

Ownership philosophies, and ownership contracts, rule the world. Anyone seeking evidence of the power that exists within this systemic approach to Human life need only seek answers from an Iroquois or a Cherokee or any other Native American civilization. Owners own the world. Every resource, every square inch of space, every idea, every genetic combination or possibility, every future path that Humanity may traverse.

Ironically, most people who believe that they should wage Individual wars against "Ownership" or corporate control, are fighting with their backs to the solution. It is not the existence of ownership structures that is the problem in this universe; it is the unequal distribution. Let me make this perfectly clear, so that all interested ears understand. Ownership structures are tools, like hammers, and nothing is gained by making tools weaker. Going to war against hammers will not win you anything. The only fight worth fighting is the universal application of ownership structures to the structure of the Individual Human life.

In a socio-economic existence, ownership is the ultimate freedom. Freedom is dominated by ownership on a daily basis in a billion different ways. And while you are structurally configured as a systemic-slave, owners are configuring their freedoms to work in such a way that they may insure the integrity of their lives and the lives of their off-spring... from one generation to the next.

It is no coincidence that the first thing a new owner does is structure IDentity. Ownership is quite literally conveyed through the process of organizing an ID entity, whether 'C', 'S', 'LLC', 'Trust', etc in nature. And do not be fooled by those transient configurations of legalistic form. Law is temporal in nature, and may be modified in any way "We" deem necessary to accomplish the objectives of power and control, each of those owned by owners.

So if you want to rescue freedom for yourself, your kids, and Humanity... the process is simple really. It happens at the beginning, when structure is defined. It happens at the birth of an Individual. Your IDENTITY is the control parameter of Human freedom. Individual Sovereignty must be systemically defined as a pre-citizen, pre-systemic structure. On a digital data network that uses IDentity as the engine of context, this is an absolutely crucial factor controlling the nature of freedom for all participants.

I have a prediction to make:

Either "We" systemically figure this out as Human managers and leaders, or we will figure this out with guns and bullets. Facebook, Google+ and any other configuration of our present ID-slave systemic structure will fail in the long run unless they understand the true promise and nature of their innovation. Individual Sovereignty is not to be captured on a very long time horizon, and my IDentity must be structured the right way to guarantee that I do not need to destroy my systemic oppressor.

The future does not know customers, it knows partners. The future does not prioritize W2's, it gives respect to owners. Only when IDentity is "Universally Distributed, Privately Owned" will we have a model that truly works for our species. I have been saying it for a long time, and it continues to be true. No system can own me. I own myself.

Own Yourself.

Your Emergency Structure

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:00 +0000

How much redundancy do you have in your communication system? Where do you spend your time, and what are your needs on a per location basis? How are you mobile, as a function of the tools you possess in relation to place? Have you tested your systems in real-time stress conditions?

I know I am not the only person who understands this, but it sure does seem like I am surrounded by a bunch of compliant cattle wearing really nice clothes and jewelry, but having no idea or plans for how to take care of themselves when life is ONLY about that. In emergency situations, intelligence rises to the top, luck keeps you in its presence, and everybody else suffers until it intervenes on their behalf.

I will describe for you some basic ideas here which have recently been tested under emergency conditions. I have been concerned with the structure of community systems for a good deal of time now. I am invested deeply in communication technologies, and depend upon them to operate both a global and local existence and supply chain. I have been designing redundancy into my own life for over 20 years. I believe my local community and national Society are at great risk due to their respective dependence on bureaucratic structures and market structures which do not reward "Human Intelligence" as their primary motives. Instead choosing to follow control structures that yield sub-optimal results as a means of driving monetary exchange systems.

Local Hardline Phone/Fax

Maintains network connection in local power outage

Local Cable TV/Internet + Routing/WiFi

Multi-channel broadcasting, distribution, services until power outage, unless operational with backup power supply such as generator

Mobile Phone/Data/Web

Mobile connectivity, but phone loss at network overload, data (texts) loss at network load, web email and services enable multi-channel access despite network overload

Satellite Radio/Data

Non-local source affected by local power/signal access conditions

Peer-to-Peer Ad Hoc Network Node

Non-hierarchy design offers local access redundancy without central provisioning control at rate of local use

That last one is of great interest to me. In the recent earthquake on the east coast, a redundant peer-to-peer communication system would have been extremely useful. Unfortunately, this technology has been demonized for years by the media industry (See Napster) due to the initial affect it had on traditional commercial exchange systems. This has affected community awareness and utilization profoundly. Obviously, this issue seems low-importance at most times, with all the other destructive bureaucratic outcomes our modern society is manufacturing. That said, its worth a second look from anyone interested in self-sufficiency.

Here is an example, there are many: Lifenet

VRM Hopes

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:34:00 +0000

"Vendor Relationship Management" is a complex concept, to say the least. Depending where you enter the conversation, you may come at the issue from any number of different angles. In an effort to make this concept useful for change sake, I am interested in bringing all of these different VRM perspectives together into a process of change that any developer may engage on common grounds.

I believe this starts by addressing how our current market is structured at its deepest and most functionally meaningful way. In order to adjust the relationship that an Individual has to a market mechanism or supply-chain process, we must address the current design of that relationship.

I am currently operating within a VRM market structure that is demonstrating what is referred to here as a conversation with a 4th party operationally present and accounted for in the negotiating and execution process. The theory behind this idea, being that a 4th party is valuable and necessary in so much as it represents the interests of the 1st Party is true. This design is operationally meaningful. The attempt to automate it through tools and services would seem to have merit. There is a structural issue with executing on that idea however. That being, 4th parties do not currently operate or perform their valuable service in a transparent manner. And in fact, transparency would be detrimental to the execution of the 4th party service. No 4th party is going to divulge their operational capabilities transparently in the marketplace currently, because to put it in simple terms, there is no way for that to work in a valuable way. The leverage of a 4th party currently is founded on providing services within a market structured to provide "plausible deniability" to all participants in the transaction. 4th parties make transactions better, smoother and more nimble, but they do not operate in open view.

Obviously this is a problem for the kind of change that a VRM community is hoping and working for. Changing this is not accomplished by deploying VRM services alone. In order for a structural change to emerge that reformats transactions in a VRM market model, something else must be addressed first.

The structure of a 1st party and the structure of a 2nd party are the reason why a 3rd and 4th party are currently structured in the manner they are. The 1st party customer is a structural problem, as has been aptly pointed out by showing how he/she functions within this calf-cow design.

The structure of the 2nd party is the more important problem however, because it is the control mechanism that yields the structure of all other parties in a transaction. All 2nd parties are structured as corporations, in one form or another. These corporations exist as legal living entities within the marketplace, with increasing Rights afforded to their operational structures. Corporations come into existence in a very simple manner by defining their IDENTITY, operational charters and by-laws. These aspects of a corporation represent the shell of a corporation, which is a protective and empowered administrative structure allowing for any number of operational capabilities in a local-global marketplace. But this shell is not what gives a corporation power.

A 2nd party has power in the world today because within its shell, or corporate veil, 1st parties have taken on a role defined administratively as a W2 worker construct. These W2's represent all of the operational tendencies and capacities of the corporate shell. A well-formed corporate shell is designed to provide plausible deniability to the W2 worker construct in exchange for output that aligns to the corporate charter, while exchanging benefits for that output. This output is all too often categorically deemed necessary even in cases where it produces destructive end results by the logic that "putting food on the table" is a moral high ground. Ths is the structure of plausible deniability.

In order for VRM to exist, a 1st party must be capable of managing its relationship with a 2nd party corporate shell. This is currently not possible in practice however. In the event of a problem, it is all too easy and common for a transient W2 worker construct to engage a 1st party in a meaningful time-based manner with a real-cost, without actually yielding any opportunity for management of the relationship between the 1st and 2nd parties. A W2 in current practice is routinely capable of being disintegrated from the corporate shell, rendering the corporate shell untouchable by any Human process, while preserving the gains and secure integrity of the corporate shell. No VRM is possible under these constructs, and the fault lies in the structure of the W2 worker construct.

Corporations have emerged and expanded their influence as a result of the Industrial revolution. In many regards, the result of the Civil War in America was that an economic model supported by enslavement was replaced by a model of employment. In both models however, the same master was empowered. The owner, and ownership contract is quite simply the top of the socio-economic mountain. A W2 worker construct empowers ownership without necessarily participating in the design of empowerment personally.

If we want to change the structure of power in this world, we must begin by changing the structure of work. A 1st party customer is systemically motivated in a circular process to function as a W2 worker-customer. Our public schools enforce this model. Our government policies enforce this model. Real world needs enforce this model.

There should not be a time in the life of a Human being when they cede their personal power to a corporate shell without personal accountability remaining intact. The negative consequences of this current structural flaw are real and pervasive across the whole of our species existence as a socio-economic organism.

We must confront the nature of socio-economics. Freedom is not the highest ideal in a socio-economic Universe. Ownership trumps freedom everyday, in a million different ways. For Human babies to be born and structured as anything other than OWNER_ENTREPRENEUR by default, is a direct afront on the freedom and liberty of Individual Human beings. In this digital dataverse that is now taking shape and taking over the whole of our socio-economic model, we can not afford to misappropriate power, defined within the IDENTITY of every Individual life, any longer. We are introducing our young to a forced model of data-enslavement that is unsustainable. This can not remain a high-minded conversation. Humans make slaves of themselves all too easily. Leadership is required to create change and to protect the integrity of what it means to be an Individual Human.

I call on the VRM community to confront these ideas directly, to put a priority on addressing the base structure of socio-economic participation so that we can move towards a healhty and fruitful market relationship between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th parties and the services they enable. It will be impossible to fix the structural flaws inherent in market transactions without first addressing the strucutral flaws found in your personal IDENTITY and its correlated activities.

You must be an OWNER_ENTREPRENEUR by default in this world. Your IDENTITY must be SOVEREIGN by design, meaning that its point of origin must be accurately conveyed administratively. And the power that you give to the "We the People" construct must deploy this sovereignty from its inception through the same willful act afforded the founders of this nation via a sovereign signatory.

On that foundation... a VRM future is possible. And no other.

Im Watching Qiy

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:19:00 +0000

Twitter Terms of Service : DevonLoffreto Terms of Association

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:29:00 +0000

By extending the Twitter service into the public marketplace, Twitter operates on the same playing field that my public presence operates within. In consideration of this or any potential service relationship, I maintain equal Terms of association that apply to any and all service providers who willfully choose to operate in the public space under universal Terms of engagement and legal responsibilities.

In respect of the services that Twitter has dutifully and contractually defined in provisioning for my "free" use, I have hereby provided dutiful and contractual Terms defining the relationship structure that exists between Twitter, Inc. and Devon Loffreto incorporated interests and structures. This implied 50-50 relationship co-exists with the construct of a free marketplace. It is the sole responsibility for each party who is found operating within a transaction to manage their own interests, including the structural relationships that exist between two contractually consenting parties within a service relationship.

Therefore,

Devon Loffreto is the sole OWNER of asset value associated with the incorporated interests and asset structures of Devon Loffreto activities, byproducts, speech patterns, brands, and any other form of data that may be insured, securitized, traded, shared, absorbed, cloned, distributed or otherwise have value to Devon Loffreto.

Devon Loffreto uses services in the public marketplace freely, and voluntarily associates his endorsement of the services he uses. Devon Loffreto uses Twitter freely and endorses Twitter as a service of current value:______________________[Dated present]

In recognition of the esteem with which Devon Loffreto holds the developmental world of the Internet, Devon Loffreto applauds Twitter for its recognition of real-time personal communication systems in the service delivery value spectrum, and especially for its recognition of user-control by way of the simple engineered solution of providing for data-locks on a per account basis. The Internet honors its leaders in constructing the most valuable version of the web we want.

In response to this relationship of respect, we have concluded that certain two-party relationships require mutual representation in a shared space, given that editable Terms are not available under current ad hoc Terms of Service Agreements, leaving responsibility in the accountable structure of each side Individually to be aware of and understand the positions they assume by enabling a relationship in the public marketplace. Since Twitter, Inc. has shown good faith in initiating this relationship, Devon Loffreto has reciprocated and freely provides access to the non-editable Terms of Endorsement that all service providers Agree to by initiating a service relationship in the public marketplace with Devon Loffreto and his incorporated interests and asset structures.

In mutual consideration of this known relationship structure, Twitter and Devon Loffreto do hereby Agree that the following communication, profile design, account information and contextual value stream are the property of their Individual Owners under Terms respectively. That each is held harmless from damages resulting from any reason or occurrence, except whereby fraudulent activity is perpetrated by the one against the other. That All Rights Are Reserved by their respective OWNERS under International Law as governed by the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Delaware.

Twitter:Devon Loffreto Feed

Signed by:
Devon Loffreto
4.21.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terms of Service

These Terms of Service (“Terms”) govern your access to and use of the services and Twitter’s websites (the “Services”), and any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”). Your access to and use of the Services is conditioned on your acceptance of and compliance with these Terms. By accessing or using the Services you agree to be bound by these Terms.

Basic Terms

You are responsible for your use of the Services, for any content you post to the Services, and for any consequences thereof. The Content you submit, post, or display will be able to be viewed by other users of the Services and through third party services and websites (go to the account settings page to control who sees your Content). You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others under these Terms.

Tip What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly. You are what you Tweet!

You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations.

The Services that Twitter provides are always evolving and the form and nature of the Services that Twitter provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you. In addition, Twitter may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally and may not be able to provide you with prior notice. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time without prior notice to you.

The Services may include advertisements, which may be targeted to the Content or information on the Services, queries made through the Services, or other information. The types and extent of advertising by Twitter on the Services are subject to change. In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.

Privacy

Any information that you provide to Twitter is subject to our Privacy Policy, which governs our collection and use of your information. You understand that through your use of the Services you consent to the collection and use (as set forth in the Privacy Policy) of this information, including the transfer of this information to the United States and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by Twitter. As part of providing you the Services, we may need to provide you with certain communications, such as service announcements and administrative messages. These communications are considered part of the Services and your Twitter account, which you may not be able to opt-out from receiving.

Tip You can opt-out of most communications from Twitter including our newsletter, new follower emails, etc. Please see the Notices tab of Settings for more.

Passwords

You are responsible for safeguarding the password that you use to access the Services and for any activities or actions under your password. We encourage you to use “strong” passwords (passwords that use a combination of upper and lower case letters, numbers and symbols) with your account. Twitter cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your failure to comply with the above requirements.

Content on the Services

All Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content. Any use or reliance on any Content or materials posted via the Services or obtained by you through the Services is at your own risk.

We do not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content or communications posted via the Services or endorse any opinions expressed via the Services. You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. Under no circumstances will Twitter be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Services or broadcast elsewhere.

Your Rights

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

Tip This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. But what’s yours is yours – you own your content.

You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.

Tip Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how API developers can interact with your content. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind.

Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

We may modify or adapt your Content in order to transmit, display or distribute it over computer networks and in various media and/or make changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to any requirements or limitations of any networks, devices, services or media.

You are responsible for your use of the Services, for any Content you provide, and for any consequences thereof, including the use of your Content by other users and our third party partners. You understand that your Content may be rebroadcasted by our partners and if you do not have the right to submit Content for such use, it may subject you to liability. Twitter will not be responsible or liable for any use of your Content by Twitter in accordance with these Terms. You represent and warrant that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the rights granted herein to any Content that you submit.

Twitter gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software that is provided to you by Twitter as part of the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Twitter, in the manner permitted by these Terms.

Twitter Rights

All right, title, and interest in and to the Services (excluding Content provided by users) are and will remain the exclusive property of Twitter and its licensors. The Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign countries. Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features. Any feedback, comments, or suggestions you may provide regarding Twitter, or the Services is entirely voluntary and we will be free to use such feedback, comments or suggestions as we see fit and without any obligation to you.

Restrictions on Content and Use of the Services

We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services and to terminate users or reclaim usernames. Please review the Twitter Rules (which are part of these Terms) to better understand what is prohibited on the Service. We also reserve the right to access, read, preserve, and disclose any information as we reasonably believe is necessary to (i) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, (ii) enforce the Terms, including investigation of potential violations hereof, (iii) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, (iv) respond to user support requests, or (v) protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public.

Tip Twitter does not disclose personally identifying information to third parties except in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Except as permitted through the Services (or these Terms), you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the Content or Services.

Tip We encourage and permit broad re-use of Content. The Twitter API exists to enable this.

You may not do any of the following while accessing or using the Services: (i) access, tamper with, or use non-public areas of the Services, Twitter’s computer systems, or the technical delivery systems of Twitter’s providers; (ii) probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of any system or network or breach or circumvent any security or authentication measures; (iii) access or search or attempt to access or search the Services by any means (automated or otherwise) other than through our currently available, published interfaces that are provided by Twitter (and only pursuant to those terms and conditions), unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Twitter (NOTE: crawling the Services is permissible if done in accordance with the provisions of the robots.txt file, however, scraping the Services without the prior consent of Twitter is expressly prohibited); (iv) forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any email or posting, or in any way use the Services to send altered, deceptive or false source-identifying information; or (v) interfere with, or disrupt, (or attempt to do so), the access of any user, host or network, including, without limitation, sending a virus, overloading, flooding, spamming, mail-bombing the Services, or by scripting the creation of Content in such a manner as to interfere with or create an undue burden on the Services.

Copyright Policy

Twitter respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects users of the Services to do the same. We will respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable law and are properly provided to us. If you believe that your Content has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide us with the following information: (i) a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf; (ii) identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed; (iii) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material; (iv) your contact information, including your address, telephone number, and an email address; (v) a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and (vi) a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.

We reserve the right to remove Content alleged to be infringing without prior notice and at our sole discretion. In appropriate circumstances, Twitter will also terminate a user’s account if the user is determined to be a repeat infringer. Our designated copyright agent for notice of alleged copyright infringement appearing on the Services is:

Twitter, Inc. Attn: Copyright Agent 795 Folsom Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94107 Email: copyright@twitter.com

The Services are Available “AS-IS”
Your access to and use of the Services or any Content is at your own risk. You understand and agree that the Services is provided to you on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis. Without limiting the foregoing, TWITTER AND ITS PARTNERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. We make no warranty and disclaim all responsibility and liability for the completeness, accuracy, availability, timeliness, security or reliability of the Services or any content thereon. Twitter will not be responsible or liable for any harm to your computer system, loss of data, or other harm that results from your access to or use of the Services, or any Content. You also agree that Twitter has no responsibility or liability for the deletion of, or the failure to store or to transmit, any Content and other communications maintained by the Services. We make no warranty that the Services will meet your requirements or be available on an uninterrupted, secure, or error-free basis. No advice or information, whether oral or written, obtained from Twitter or through the Services, will create any warranty not expressly made herein.

Links
The Services may contain links to third-party websites or resources. You acknowledge and agree that we are not responsible or liable for: (i) the availability or accuracy of such websites or resources; or (ii) the content, products, or services on or available from such websites or resources. Links to such websites or resources do not imply any endorsement by Twitter of such websites or resources or the content, products, or services available from such websites or resources. You acknowledge sole responsibility for and assume all risk arising from your use of any such websites or resources.

Limitation of Liability
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, TWITTER AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS AND LICENSORS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF PROFITS, DATA, USE, GOOD-WILL, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES, RESULTING FROM (i) YOUR ACCESS TO OR USE OF OR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR USE THE SERVICES; (ii) ANY CONDUCT OR CONTENT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE SERVICES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF OTHER USERS OR THIRD PARTIES; (iii) ANY CONTENT OBTAINED FROM THE SERVICES; AND (iv) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, USE OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR CONTENT, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER OR NOT TWITTER HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE, AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

Exclusions
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, so the limitations above may not apply to you.

Waiver and Severability
The failure of Twitter to enforce any right or provision of these Terms will not be deemed a waiver of such right or provision. In the event that any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Terms will remain in full force and effect.

Controlling Law and Jurisdiction
These Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to or application of its conflict of law provisions or your state or country of residence. All claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising in connection with the Services will be brought solely in San Francisco County, California, and you consent to the jurisdiction of and venue in such courts and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum. If you are accepting these Terms on behalf of a United States federal government entity that is legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you but instead these Terms and any action related thereto will be will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

Entire Agreement
These Terms, the Twitter Rules and our Privacy Policy are the entire and exclusive agreement between Twitter and you regarding the Services (excluding any services for which you have a separate agreement with Twitter that is explicitly in addition or in place of these Terms), and these Terms supersede and replace any prior agreements between Twitter and you regarding the Services. Other than members of the group of companies of which Twitter is the parent, no other person or company will be third party beneficiaries to the Terms.

We may revise these Terms from time to time, the most current version will always be at twitter.com/tos. If the revision, in our sole discretion, is material we will notify you via an @Twitter update or e-mail to the email associated with your account. By continuing to access or use the Services after those revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Terms.

These Services are operated and provided by Twitter Inc., 795 Folsom Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94107. If you have any questions about these Terms, please contact us.

Effective: November 16, 2010

Demo: OAuth 2.0 with a Personal Data Store on Vimeo

noreply@blogger.com (on|off) — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:59:00 +0000

OAuth 2.0 with a Personal Data Store on Vimeo