Is it time for a self-Sovereign identity work group?
Its just beginning to get social in this direction. I believe these are the early days of some people coming out to talk openly about something that has been very strategically placed within conversations and communities of interest. Individuals and the ways that self-Sovereign authority and identity get expressed are going to be diverse... that's good... but a work group would need an implementation constraint.
Self-Sovereign how? where? when? why? in relation to who?
For the purposes of internet identity, that takes on one color.
For the purposes of healthcare, it takes on another.
For the purposes of education, still another.
For crisis management purposes... we need another possibility.
This sounds like complexity when you evaluate it from a systems perspective.
But remember, you are only 1 human.
The most important conversation in the identity design process resolves to the accurate delineation between system and human. How a system works must obey a baseline human constraint that Individual people can self-administer. That is the beginning of a self-Sovereign ID.
I have ideas on what that means, they start with me alone. My personal workgroup fiddles with my personal Sovereignty all the time. I find it relatively easy to dominate systems in this way, but it is a human-led process of domination... not a systems-led process.
The system does not regard me as innately friendly... it regards me as a liability by default... as a risk... as an object to secure and be secured against... as a problem to manage with minimal viable processes administratively... and frankly, when it comes right down to it, as a pain in the ass every time I ask a W2 servicing agent to act on matters of importance to me that fall outside of their standard operating procedures.
Enter refugees to this process of self-administration of human needs... funds are always late to support such a process, must be requested, guilted, and repetitively authorized in order to exist, and then once possible (if possible), never get deployed effectively from a self-driven perspective where needs are being managed personally on a minute-by-minute, day-by-day basis. Non-refugees, and professionals wearing ties and nicely pressed pants will always tell you of the poor souls afflicted by this condition, of the danger they exist within, and the need for responsible administration by a system that will fail to adequately provision necessary resources in a timely fashion to people that could self-administer the most simple pieces of the puzzle...
Are you a human? Do you have Rights? Do Rights only exist post-administration for you? Will your Rights function in ________________ (enter National Sovereignty)?
For me, this is the core issue under-girding all self-Sovereign identity conversations and work:
Can you create and exist with integrity as a pre-administration being on planet Earth?
Can you bring your own identity to the party?
I want local resiliency built into the human species. I am a fan of diversity, I enjoy differentiation, and I love participating in human civilization as a social being, but I am unwilling to lose the integrity of my local life simply because of an erroneous design in the administration system of National Rights to which I pledge allegiance.
Poor imagination is not an acceptable failure constraint, especially amidst higher functioning possibilities.
Now, I will say one deliberately contentious thing here... I also know that the system workers and enforcers who live among us fear independence and want to protect our social politic from the possibility that independent lone wolves with bad intent can cause harm to any of us. They are vigilant in their attack against Sovereign independence, and have taken to calling lawbreakers out by this name, and constructing a message that Sovereign citizens are a terrorist threat.
This is a system response.
Management of human behavior, no matter whether any independence exists at all, will always be an issue. Free will is a bitch. First Rights and second Rights will never switch positions... people can always use their first Rights to kill other people, and second Rights will always be responsive to those actions when they occur. Making it illegal to kill is still a secondary constraint. The option always exists within an individual human being.
We do not limit independence as a system response if we are smart; we increase human social integrity.
Self-Sovereign authority and identity is about the hyper-local and resilient integrity of humans over every and any system that exists to manage them socially.
If sci-fi should ever construct a storyline wherein the autonomous systems we construct and fire up with artificial intelligence usurp human authority and begin managing people, we should all recognize that as the deepest kind of human failure... and act in real-time to never allow that to be possible in the Universe.
The first thing you learn about personal Sovereignty when you deploy it is that it does not mean you always win the most spectacular outcome. In fact, sometimes it prevents you from being able to do certain things. Not all possibilities are worth experiencing. For example, a beautiful plantation where you are treated exceptionally well by your slave-master. This is not an advisable choice structure.
There are many many humans who are vulnerable to this choice however. Facebook, providing the perfect metaphor, is 100% self-ridiculing in structure and intent... just look at the notes ("dumb fucks") that history leaves behind.
And for this reason, I will also say... self-Sovereign authority is not for everyone... not everyone will want it... but it will be an option, and it will be practiced by a growing and hyper-intelligent part of the human population. These people are already the actual leaders of human Society... but our methods are going to be improving dramatically in the years ahead for how that gets practiced and experienced.
Consider that as you wish....
No comments:
Post a Comment