Read Write Web’s Marshak Kirkpatrick just posted a great article outlining the issues with the Carrier IQ issues that have surfaced. It also includes an extensive quote from me about how data has value and it needs to be accessed in ways that are in alignement with people.
Archives for 2011
Week one in Europe was busy. The day I arrived Esther picked me up and we headed to Qiy’s offices where i got to run into John Harrison who I last saw a year ago at IIW Europe. He is organizing a consortium to go in for FP-7 money (80 million) put out for projects around Identity in the European Union.
Wednesday was Nov 9th Identity.Next convened by Robert was great bringing people together from across Europe. 1/2 the day was a regular conference and 1/2 the day was an UnConference that I helped facilitate. I ran a session about personal data and we had a good conversation. I also learned about a German effort that seemed promising – Pidder – their preso in The Hague
November 10th I headed to London for New Digital Economics EMEA along with Maarten from Qiy. It was fantastic to be on stage with 5 different start-up projects all doing Personal Data along with one big one
- William Heath, Founder & Chairman, Mydex
- John Harrison, Personal Information Brokerage
- Marcel Van Galen, CEO/Founder, QIY
- Luk Vervenne, CEO, Synergetics
- Herve Le Jouan, CEO, Privowny
- Richard Benjamins, Director of User Modeling, Telefonica Digital
It was clear that the energy in the whole space had shifted beyond the theoretical and the response from the audience was positive. I shared the landscape map we have been working on to explain elements of the overall ecosystem.
Digital Death Day was November 11th in Amsterdam was small but really good with myself, Stacie and Tamara organizing. We had a small group that included a Funeral Director a whole group form Ziggur. We were sponsored by the company formerly know as DataInherit – they changed their name to SecureSafe. Given that Amsterdam is closer then California to Switzerland we were hopping they would make it given their ongoing support…alas not this year.
One of the key things to come out of the event was an effort to unite the technology companies working on solutions in this area around work to put forward the idea of a special OAuth token for their kind of services perhaps also with a “Trust Framework” that could use the OIX infrastructure.
It as also inspiring to have two two young developers attend.
- Leif Ekas travelled from Norway – I had met him this summer in Boston when he was attending summer school at BU and working on his startup around aspects of digital death.
- Sebastian Hagens – Sebastix
Immediately following IIW (post here). I headed to Canada to speak at the International Women in Digital Media Summit.
The iWDMS brings together professionals from traditional and digital media communities, as well as educational/research institutions from around the world. With high level keynotes, cross-sector dialogue, expert panelists, controversial debates and structured networking, the Summit will promote knowledge-sharing, and will explore innovation, skills gaps, policy and research in digital media–including gaming, mobile, and social media–and the impacts on and advancements by women globally.
I gave an “Ideas and Inspiration” talk for 20 min about the Personal Data Ecosystem called The Old Cookies are Crumbling: How Context & Persona aware personal data servcies change everything and will transform the world and was also on a panel about New Media Literacies.
There are a few things I took away from this event:
1) Countries like Canada are very small with just 30 million people and the center of commercial/intellectual life in Toronto an event like this really brings together a core group of high profile women in the media production business that represents much of the industry.
2) Both the government of Canada, provinces like Ontario and universities like Ryerson are very serious about attracting and retaining top technology and media talent with a variety of tax and investment incentives.
3) See point (1) because of that …one must think internationally about appeal and distribution of any media across the whole world not just one market.
4) The way they talk about diversity used lang had language I never heard before the term “designated groups” included folks with disabilities, first nations people (in the US they would be “American Indians”), women, and ethnic minorities.
5) The idea that people shouldn’t be stalked around the web to “monetize” them was new and provoked some thinking amongst those who made their living developing metrics.
It was great to connect to Canada again and I hope that with the IIW coming up in Toronto in February some of the women who I met there can attend and consider how media can change with new tools for people to manage their identity and data.
I got to meet up with Aran Hamilton (@Aranh) who coordinated efforts around the NSTIC of Canada in Toronto. We outlined the possibility of a Satellite IIW in Toronto and I learned more about what is going on there. Basically up to point (1) above…Canada is small. 95% of people have a bank account and of that something like 85% have accounts with one of 5 banks (Bank of Montreal, Toronto Dominion Bank/Canada Trust, CIBC, Royal Bank of Canada, Scotia Bank) and there are 3 telco’s. So it seems like getting an NSTIC like system in place in Canada could involves meetings with a few dozen people. They have the added advantage that Canadians have a higher trust in their government and institutions like banks and telco’s and have fewer “privacy rights” organizations. So our IIW should be interesting and I hope that we can get some good cross over between the January 17th event in DC and this one.
After Toronto headed to the 4th MassTLC Innovation Unconference. It was great to be joined by Briana Cavanaugh who is working with me now at UnConference.net. The community was thriving and it was the biggest ever unconference that I have run at 800 people and lots of sessions. Jason Calacanis who apparently has relocated to Boston was there. Jeff Taylor was there and had a rocking “un-official” after party that he DJ’ed. The most notable costume was a guy in a suit with a 99% on his forehead. Yes Occupy Wall Street became a halloween costume.
IIW is always a whirlwind and this one was no exception. The good thing was that even with it being the biggest one yet it was the most organized with the most team members. Phil and I were the executive producers. Doc played is leadership role. Heidi did an amazing job with production coordinating the catering, working with the museum and Kas did a fabulous job leading the notes collection effort and Emma who works of site got things up on the wiki in good order.
We had a session that highlighted all the different standards bodies standards and we are now working on getting the list annotated and plan to maintain it on the Identity Commons wiki that Jamie Clark so aptly called “the switzerland” of identity.
We have a Satellite event for sure in DC January 17th – Registration is Live.
We are working on pulling one together in Toronto Canada in
early February, and Australia in Late March.
ID Collaboration Day is February 27th in SF (we are still Venue hunting).
I am learning that some wonder why I have such strong opinions about standards…the reason being they define the landscape of possibility for any given protocol. When we talk about standards for identity we end up defining how people can express themselves in digital networks and getting it right and making the range of possibility very broad is kinda important. If you are interested in reading more about this I recommend Protocol: and The Exploit. This quote from Bruce Sterling relative to emerging AR [Augmented Reality] Standards.
If Code is Law then Standards are like the Senate.
This is the latest from Google in their “names policy”
We understand that your identity on Google+ is important to you, and our Name Policy may not be for everyone at this time.
Kinda sounds like the owners of stores in the south who said their stores were not for everyone especially black people who didn’t have skin color they liked. It is a fundamentally discriminatory policy. If we don’t have the freedom to choose our own names in digital space and the freedom to maintain different identifiers across different social spaces we will end up in a very creepy world…Here is my TEDxBrussels talk.
Update: Google relented a bit, however I am still waiting to see if my name of choice was approved. You can read about the process I had to go through here. The New Google Names Process
For those of you coming from the Mercury News story on the NymWars exploding…
I STILL have my Google+ profile suspended for using a [ . ] as my last name. Prior to that I had “Identity Woman” as my last name and prior to that… before I ever got a G+ profile and since I started using Gmail and Google Profiles I had a [ * ]as my last name. [see the complete list of posts about this whole saga below]
It is my right to choose my own name online and how I express it. Names and identities are socially constructed AND contextual… and without the freedom to choose our own names, and the freedom to have different names (and identifiers) across different contexts we will end up with a social reality that I don’t want to live in: Participatory Totalitarianism.
It is a big day 11-11-11 for many reasons. One is that Personal emerged out of closed beta. Yeah! When I first met and talked with Shane Green, I was so excited because I met a kindred spirit who shared core beliefs with the community around IIW (user-centric identity, VRM etc). I knew after spending 5 hours in 2 days talking to him that with his experience, personal leadership, and the funding they had already secured (from Steve Case and others) that they were going to make a big splash when it finally launched.
As a bonus, the whole topic of Personal Data got coverage in AdAge yesterday mentioning both Personal and Reputation.com in an article:
Why Your Personal Data Is The New Oil
I think the biggest thing Personal has going for it its focus on design and usability. Wire protocols (the technical bits of moving data and formatting it) are easy compared to how people can easily understand, interact with and manipulate the vast range of personal data they have, that is information which is personal TO them – not their tweets and photos that they proactively share, but all the “stuff” they should have a record of somewhere. Their car serial number, passport number, codes to garage doors for baby sitters and the kids allergies that need to be shared with playdates, school and the soccer team.
It is pretty simple when you get started.
1) You can add empty gems and fill them out.
2) You can share them with others… and also revoke permissions.
Anyone who sees a gem you have given access to has to agree to your “control” of the data and that when it is revoked they don’t keep a copy of it. They also can’t share it with others without your permission (you would give that other party access to your gem if you wanted to share with them).
3) You can look for gems that have already been created by others about things they own or preferences/needs they have.
4) And get the mobile app.
Now that they have launched, I am going to dive in and start playing with gems and sharing relevant ones with friends and colleagues.
Other key items to note are the coming anonymity features they are planning on rolling out.
We believe strongly in your right to remain anonymous when you choose. At present, we only support remaining anonymous when publishing community gems, but will be rolling out new anonymity features in the very near future.
I am coming to Europe in November for four events that are all Identity related… Instead of doing an IIW “in” Europe we have decided to support IIW like events :). I also need to find interesting things to do for 9 days in November.
Identity.Next is in TheHague on November 9th http://www.identitynext.nl
1/2 the day is an unconference that I am helping to facilitate. If you can make it I highly recomend it – it was a great event last year and should prove to be again this year.
Digital Death Day is happening November 11th in Amsterdam. http://www.digitaldeathday.com
It is a super ineteresting topic – What happens to your Data After you Die?
Please spread the word about this event it is totally grassroots, and the conversations in this are are really amazing…if still not yet a mainstream part of the digital identity community.
I will be speaking about the Personal Data Ecosystem ( you will be happy to know there are 6 startups from Europe in the Startup Circle) at the STL Partners New Digital Economics event in London on November 10th that will be the only time I am in the UK.
I am looking for interesting things to do and people/ places to visit between November 12th and November 21st on the contenent. Drop me a line if you have ideas or invitations – firstname.lastname@example.org.
I end my trip speaking at TEDx Brussels on November 22nd about a “day deep in the future” still trying to figure out what I will say but I am contemplating…open to community ideas actually as I am focused on getting a clear vision of the talk in the next week.
I first met Dan Whaley last spring via an introduction from Jim Fournier co-founder of Planetwork. I was inspired by the vision he was working on building Hypothes.is – a way to have sentence level annotation of news and other articles on a web wide scale. Really a foundation for peer review on the web. The motivation for his work is to support greater discernment of the truth around climate change and other key issues facing our society and our planet. (Another area I could see this being really useful right now is around accountability in the financial system and ways to make that real.)
He asked me to be a part of the project as an advisor particularly around identity issues and technology options for identity. He is taking my advice and coming to IIW this coming week. Its an honor to be amongst other distinguished advisors like Brewster Kahle, John Perry Barlow, Mark Surman and others..
He has been working on a development plan and has a solid on one in place. He has launched a Kickstarter Campaign and stars in the video that articulates the vision of the project. If you are inspired by the vision I encourage you to contribute.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Google Profiles Support wrote:
Thank you for contacting us with regard to our review of the name you are trying to use in your Google Profile. After review of your appeal, we have determined that the name you want to use violates our Community Standards.
I am curious what community developed the standards? If there really is a community behind them, where can one engage in dialogue about them and have one’s needs addressed.
Please avoid the use of any unusual characters. For example, numbers,symbols, or obscure punctuation might not be allowed.
(.)’s for last names are permitted for mononym people. I am making this choice.
If you search my name “Kaliya” in Google, I am 1/2 of the links, the other 1/2 are for the Hindu mythical figure that happens to share my name.
It is my name. I claim name sovereignty.
Most users choose to use their first and last names in the common name field in order to avoid any future name violation issues.
I am not “most users”. I am unique individual with my own name.
How can a name be in violation? What is a “name violation issue” anyways? Who says?
I feel violated by this experience because I do not want to use my (soon to be ex-) husband’s (who I’ve been separated from for 3 years) last name, Hamlin, as the headline on MY profile. I am fine listing it in the “other name” field – it is an “other name” to me.
I do not want to use my old last name, Young, last used in 2004 before my professional career began. I am also fine listing this the “other name” field as some who knew me before this date will be able to find me this way. Again, it is not appropriate for the headline on my profile.
I was fine using my professional handle/title “Identity Woman” as my last name for the headline of my profile but this was rejected by your acceptable name algorithms for having a space in it and being words not commonly in last names.
I actually do often list “Identity Woman” as my last name when I attend conferences so it is on my badge prominently on my badge because my current last name (my ex-husband’s name) isn’t relevant. My Identity Woman professional handle IS relevant to the context, being at a professional conference so I choose to use it as my last name.
I decided when I began using Google+ that I would present and put forward information relevant to and related to my work persona Identity Woman and I am sticking with this persona in this context. My Gmail address is after all email@example.com.
Last week I went back to what I had before we began this name silliness back and forth a symbol in my last name field on my Google profile for the last 4 years. I have gone ahead and listed other names as “Hamlin, Young, Identity Woman”. You are refusing this option. This seems like the best compromise position all around. A win-win.
So I am not really sure where to go with this. Is there a human being I can talk to? How do I actually move through this process. Continuing to interact with faceless, first name only people in e-mail and via ever changing rejection notes on my profile is not working for me.
You can review our name guidelines at http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
If you edit your name to comply with our policies in the future, please respond to this email so that we can re-review your profile.
I am not editing my profile. I want to talk with a human being to resolve this or alternatively we can a committee meeting with your team at Google.
This feels like I am being put on trial for my choice of name.
It feels dehumanizing and unjust. I expect better from a company like Google.
The Google Profiles Support Team
ps. What is your real name? I am curious to know more about you by looking you up on the internet and then maybe will have a better idea about how to persuade you to let my name be.
Welcome to the Identity Woman Blog
I am an advocate for the rights and dignity of our digital selves.
Where I am in the World
Latest Media & Papers
Posts about Identity & NSTIC
Organizations and Events I share leadership in
Click more to see below the line and find out all this.
With the nymwars unfolding (Nym = Pseudonym , Anonymous and other varities on this theme) this video of the Google-Zon story in the year 2014 seems more prescient then ever.
EPIC in this video stands for the Electronic Personalized Information Construct
The computer writes a new story for every user (sound like the Filter Bubble?) everyone contributes and in exchange gets a cut of the revenue…
We stand for the exact oposite vision at the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium where people have control over their own data and manage the rights to access it and shape things.
I started a new “job” last week, serving on the OASIS Identity and Trusted Infrastructure (IDtrust) Member Section, member steering committee. I was elected to a 2 year term on this 5 member board. This was my candidate statement and remains as my profile. On my first call as a member of the committee I was part of approving 8K of money including sponsoring the upcoming Interent Identity Workshop.
I shared with my fellow board members
- Peter Alterman – National Institute of Health
- Bruce Rich – IBM
- John Sabo – CA Technologies – Chair
- Anil Saldhana – Red Hat
in my introductory call that I was keen to link this work with other work that is related and ongoing at other standards efforts like the W3C where I have been participating in the Federated Social Web work. There is also independent efforts like OpenID and OAuth happening within IETF. One of our next tasks at Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium is to outline the core standards relevant to personal data. We are not going to invent anything new – rather help what is be found and adopted and adapted.
Why Does participation in an International Standards body matter?
If “code is law,” then standards are like the Senate. – Bruce Sterling, commenting on the April 2011 Augmented Reality Standards gathering
I don’t need to say much. This graphic from the New York Times explains it simply Computer Science and Engineering are getting worse for women and have been for 10 years. These industries are where law and medicine were in the 50’s and 60’s. I share this fact with people from other industries and they look at me funny and say “really” – YES really. They have believed the myth that technology is a a meritocracy and really progressive.
|I got this note today from the folks at OpenID. I will be attending some of the event. If you are keen on understanding the future of this technology it is worth attending. I am actually quite positive about the user-experience and research that is informing this next generation fo the OpenID protocol and hopeful it gives an alternative for the whole web to Facebook Connect.
OpenID “Connect Tech” Summit – September 12-13, 2011
The OpenID Foundation is launching its third OpenID Summit for 2011. This event is co-sponsored by Microsoft and will be held at the Microsoft Research Campus in Mountain View. The OpenID Foundation’s 2011 series of OpenID Summits focuses on use cases and topics of interest to key developers, executives and analysts in the online identity industry.
This OpenID summit gives web site developers and technologists a closer look at the OpenID Connect protocol, its use cases and adoption plans by leading companies. We will introduce “Account Chooser” its implementation and user experience and provide interop testing and feedback for next generation OpenID adoption.
Please join us on Monday, September 12, 2011 from 12:00 Noon until 5:00pm PDT and Tuesday, September 13, 2011 from 10:00am to 4:30pm PDT.
Registration is now open at the following link: REGISTER NOW!
Let me be very frank.
Kaliya says to Google:
“Why should I have to justify my name to you?”
My name is Kaliya
Just me. That is what it was on my profile before you decided that i had to have letters in my last name.
Type me into Google nymrods, 5 of the posts on the fronte page are me…the other 5 are for a figure in Hindu mythology.
What is the top post for “me”? Its the “Identity Woman” blog, then my Fast Company blog post on NSTIC written as Identity Woman, then my flickr photos (Kaliya), linkedIn (Kaliya), Slideshar’s (Kaliya) and finally my unconference site (Kaliya).
I chose to have Identity Woman as my last name when you rejected my choice to go with the mononym “Kaliya *”. That is how people know me. It is how I want to be known.
I am NOT putting my soon to be ex-husband’s, have been separated amicably for 3 years, last name as “my name” as the top of my profile on Googoe+.
[TO BE CLEAR. My ex and I are on good terms and I really didn’t want to bring this up in public-public on my blog because it is not my practice to discuss personal matters on this blog and cause it is nobody’s business what my marital status is. I made the choice to share this very real personal life situation I face to make the point I am trying to make. On another note he is also very supportive of my work on these issues for freedom on the internet.]
I am totally fine listing this last name in the “other” field along with my maiden name. I am not particularly attached to either name. I have a an idea for a future last name and I might change it in several years in the mean time I don’t want to promote this “other” name that isn’t “mine” as the headline of my profile. Both Young and Hamlin are part of my legal name. They are my wallet names (as Skud has so aptly put it) and in some way they are my names but they are not “my” names.
When people who don’t know me that well call me “Ms. Hamlin” I object politely and say “please just call me Kaliya – Hamlin is not “my” name”. Everyone who I have made this request have honored it. If they didn’t I wouldn’t be their friend for very long. As Bob Blakeley from Gartner (formerly Burton Group) explains, names are social and if you don’t call people what they want to be called they won’t respond.
Google, My name is Kaliya.
If you don’t honor this request. I won’t be your friend any more. Just like Bob explained.
Ok, now we know what is wrong Google is on the [autism] spectrum.
“The obstacles primarily exist in the realm of social interaction. The fundamental problem is akin to blindness, as the term social blindness suggests.”
They keep doing well meaning but awkward feeling things because well they know how to technically but it isn’t how human beings act or want to be treated.
Internet Identity Workshop #13 October 18-20 in Mountain View
The Internet Identity Workshop focuses on “user-centric identity” and trying to solve the technical challenge of how people can manage their own identity across the range of websites, services, companies and organizations that they belong to, purchase from and participate with. We also work on trying to address social and legal issues that arise with these new tools. This conference we are going to also focus some attention on business models that can make this ecology of web services thrive.
The first time I had my “identity” erased was actually by O’Reilly. Ok, to be fair it was by his people.
I was invited to attend Foo Camp in 2006 and was then invited to speak at both Web 2.0 Expo and Emerging Telephony in 2007. So, I was asked to fill out my speaker information and list my “company affiliation” as Identity Woman. I didn’t really work for anyone (I really never have) and that was my “identity” after all. So I think they will get it and its all good.
I am really excited I was asked to speak and really like wow! its an O’Reilly Conference and Wow! and I want to see my name in the program – for the first time ever…in a program of a major conference….I open it up and well…I’m not Identity Woman. My identity was erased because “Identity Woman” didn’t meet their “style guidelines”.
30% of the panels at the SXSW conference are picked by people’s votes so please if you care about these topics and want to see them covered please Vote for Me!
Personal Data Triple Win: People, Business & Gov – Kaliya Hamlin solo short talk
Obama & NSTIC: All Your IDs Are Belong to U(S) – Kaliya Hamlin on panel with others
Let My Data Go! Open data portability standards – Kaliya Hamlin, Phil Wolff
Rules for Innovators of User Centric Personal Data – Mary Hodder panel organizer
Successful Unconference Patterns – Jennifer Holmes, Kaliya Hamlin
Its been a month now.
I have filled out the “application form” 3 times. This was my first post about it: Google+ and my “real” name: Yes, I’m Identity Woman
The most recent rejection letter when I applied to be a mononym (which I was before this all started) was from “Anonymous Nick”…
Re: [#859600835] Google Profile Name Review
Following my post yesterday Google+ says your name is “Toby” not “Kunta Kinte”, I chronicled tweets from this morning’s back and forth with Tim O’Reilly and Kevin Marks, Nishant Kaushik, Phil Hunt, Steve Bogart and Suw Charman-Anderson.
I wrote the original post after watching the Bradley Horwitz (@elatable) – Tim O’Reilly (@timoreilly) interview re: Google+. I found Tim’s choice of words about the tone (strident) and judgement (self-righteous) towards those standing up for their freedom to choose their own names on the new social network being rolled out by Google internet’s predominant search engine disappointing. His response to my post was to call me self-righteous and reiterate that this was just a market issue.
I myself have been the victim of a Google+ suspension since July 31st and yesterday I applied for a mononym profile (which is what it was before they insisted I fill out my last name which I chose to do so with my online handle and real life identity “Identity Woman”)
In the thread this morning Tim said that the kind of pressure being aimed at Google is way worse then anything they are doing and that in fact Google was the subject of a “lynch mob” by these same people. Sigh, I guess Tim hasn’t read much history but I have included some quotes form and links to wikipedia for additional historial context.
Update: inspired in part by this post an amazing post “about tone” as a silencing/ignoring tactics when difficult, uncomfortable challenges are raised in situations of privilege was written by Shiela Marie.
I think there is a need for greater understanding all around and that perhaps blogging and tweeting isn’t really the best way to address it. I know that in the identity community when we first formed once we started meeting one another in person and really having deep dialogues in analogue form that deeper understanding emerged. IIW the place we have been gathering for 6 years and talking about the identity issues of the internet and other digital systems is coming up in mid-October and all are welcome. The agenda is created live the day of the event and all topics are welcome.
Here’s the thread… (oldest tweets first)
Note all the images of tweets in this thread are linked to the actual tweet (unless they erased the tweet). [Read more…]
This post is about what is going on at a deeper level when Google+ says your name is “Toby” NOT “Kunta Kinte”. The punchline video is at the bottom feel free to scroll there and watch if you don’t want to read to much.
This whole line of thought to explain to those who don’t get what is going on with Google+ names policy arose yesterday after I watched the Bradley Horwitz – Tim O’Reilly interview (they start talking about the real names issue at about minute 24).
I decided to go in and change my profile basically back to what it was before all this started. I put a ( . ) dot in the last name field. In my original version of my google proflile my last name was a * and when they said that was not acceptable I put my last name as my online handle “Identity Woman”.
Appendix 11 of Kaliya’s NSTIC Governance NOI Response – please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.
Excerpted from Protocol: how control exists after decentralization, by Alexander Galloway, MIT Press, 2004. Page 245-246. (I first mentioned book on my blog in 2005)
Protocol is that machine, that massive control apparatus that guides distributed networks, creates cultural objects and engenders life forms.
This is an excerpt of about 1/2 of the authors summarizing moments selected from previous chapters:
- Protocol is a universalism achieved through negotiation, meaning that in the future protocol can and will be different.
- The goal of protocol is totality. It must accept everything, not matter what source, sender, or destination. It consumes diversity, aiming instead for university.
- Internet protocols allow for inter-operation between computers.
- Protocol is a language that regulates flow, directs netspace, codes relationships, and connects life forms. It is etiquette for autonomous agents.
- Protocol’s virtues include robustness, contingency, inter-operability, flexibility, heterogeneity, an pantheism.
- Protocol is a type of controlling logic that operates largely outside institutional, government and corporate power.
- Protocol is a system of distributed management that facilitates peer-to-peer relationships between autonomous entities.
- Protocol is synonymous with possibility.
Protocol then becomes more and more coextensive with humanity’s productive forces, and ultimately becomes the blueprint for humanity’s inner-most desires about the world and how it ought to be lived.
This makes protocol dangerous – ….A colleague Patrick Feng said recently: “Creating core protocols is something akin to constitutional law,” meaning that protocols create the core set of rules from which all other decisions descend. And like Supreme Court justices having control over the interpretation of the American Constitution, whoever has power over the creation of such protocols wields power over a very broad area indeed. In this sense protocols is dangerous.
It is important to remember that the technical is always political, that network architecture is politics. So protocol necessarily involves a complex interrelation of political questions, some progressive some reactionary. In many ways protocol is a dramatic move forward but in other ways it reinstates systems of social and technical control that are deserving of critical analysis.
This post is part of Kaliya’s NSTIC Governance NOI Response – please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.
This is the section before: Who is Harmed by a “Real Names” Policy?