 Can you hear me? We'll wait for a couple of minutes. It looks like a lot of people are joining. Hello Florence Hudson. Hi Florence, how are you? Good, how are you? All right. So I'm going to wait for one more minute. And I'll start off with the usual, you know, the anti-trust policy and the code of conduct. Excellent. Yeah. After that, you can say, you know, you can request participation in your group. Thank you. A few minutes. And after that, we go straight to Kim, who has a beautiful presentation ready. Okay. Normally we go through introductions, but I think today we are going to be slightly pressed for time. So we'll go straight into this presentation after, after Florence's request for participation. So the first thing to do is to say that as part of the process, we have to respect the anti-trust policy, which means that we are not involved in anti-trust activities, namely price fixing or any other thing that might interfere with the anti-trust or with, which does not meet the anti-trust policy guidelines. You can see more from looking at the agenda and going to the public. There the second item is the code of conduct, which means that the hyper ledger community welcomes everybody. There was no restriction except that you follow the anti-trust policy and you are civil to each other. Even when you're disagreeing with them. There is a direct contrast to stuff that is happening around the world and here in the United States in particular. So we need to be kind to each other. That is the first, that is the code of conduct. So we have 15 participants, which is a great thing. I see people who are, who have not been around for a bit back in here, like people like Brian. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask Florence to do her pitch and then we quickly move over to Kim. I'll do a very short introduction to Kim. That's it. And Florence, could you please tell us about your project and why we should participate? Excellent. Yes. Thank you. And let me try to put my headset on so that this is still work. Hello. Can you still hear me? Yes. Excellent. Thank you. I'm in somebody else's office. I'm trying to be safe. So thank you so much. And everybody for having us join you. My name is Florence Hudson and I've been keeping track of a lot of the hyper lecture community work going on. Identity and security, privacy, healthcare, but I'm meeting an IEEE effort. It's been keeping me very busy and I want us to work more together. So I lead a working group for IEEE called clinical internet of things data and device interoperability with tips and tips as a framework. The letters are TI, PPSS, and it stands for trust identity, privacy, protection, safety and security. And also on the phone with us today is Mitch Parker, who's one of the vice for the working group. We are in the debris of the fund. As you see, here's a picture of you, and we have a picture of you looking at it. It's beautiful. And you can see so at Indiana University health. Mitch you want to say hi? Let me take my top off. You. After. We hear you. And so Mitch is here and William Harding might be joining as well. William. I'm actually here. Florence already. manufacturer in the healthcare industry and he leads the technical fellow program there so we're delighted to have both of them as our vice-chairs and then our secretary is Ganesh Jayarama Kushnan who is from United Health Care and we have 230 humans from 22 countries and six continents in this working group and it's quite a range of people we have industry you know the ones we talked about we have the FDA NIH NCI we have a professor from Brunei we have people from Africa all over the planet one of the things though as we're going into the trust and identity space that we've identified and I worked a lot with trust and identity in academia you know within common and trust and identity and I am and oh often all these things is we don't have a lot of identity experts in our working group yet and so what I was hoping is that some of the participants in the hyperledger identity group would like to participate in the triply working group the great news is that then we already had two or three who joined sent us information remission a couple of other people and they do you know DID and sovereign self-sovereign identity and those are the things some of the things we have to be thinking about at the technical level because we're looking to create standards and these will be global standards and we want to do it all together working with hyperledger and other organizations ISO and IEC maybe you well and this is a great opportunity for us to learn from each other and think about what type of global standards do we need in this space you know we we have a we have a number of subgroups in the standard we have a trust and identity subgroup we have a privacy subgroup you know talk to any groups about technology and policy you know so GDPR CCPA all these different things we had a protection safety subgroup security we have a use cases and scenario subgroup and we have an intelligent systems designed with AI and ML so we're really trying to have a very rich view and then we have to bring it all together to figure out what the standard recommendations are and I would love for us to be doing this together so thank you for giving us the opportunity to join you today questions or comments or William or Mitch you want to add anything no I think you this is William I think you covered it very succinctly and like Florence said we appreciate partnering with you all and hopefully some of you can join some of our subgroups and the working group I I will agree with you Florence incredible job and also again we can't emphasize enough the value of participation I'm on a couple of other I triply working groups and we heavily value all the work P-2733 is doing in the other groups as well and that's our project number for the clinical IOT data and device interoperability with tips yeah I have a link with a page set up already for that so if anybody I was gonna ask if you could I was gonna this is Brian I was gonna ask if you could put the link to the IEEE working group page in the chat that would help for us to contact you as well it is in you know from the from our agenda which is sent out you can go to the agenda and there is a link there unfortunately we have to hurry things along because Kim has been patiently waiting and I want him to have the maximum amount of time and obviously you can ask any question to Florence on email and Kim will make the presentation he is the identity master he was the identity architect in Microsoft for many years and he wrote the laws of identity and he's still active very active in this in the in the sphere and he has an excellent presentation for us and without waiting around too much let's go straight to him and if anybody else is got the phone on please mute the phone because we are hearing some background noises so Kim I can see your presentation okay great well first of all thank you very much for the invitation I'm a big admirer of the work being done by Hyperledger around identity and it's I'd like to actually participate in this group more regularly so it's I'm very happy to be here and to meet everybody so I'll tell you a bit about sort of my background just so a lot of you may not know about it you know I've been working in the identity sphere since the 1980s and I'm an expert on everything that one shouldn't do everything that has gone wrong and everything else so I'd like to be able to share this with you and I started actually on this project of sharing it back in 2004 when I wrote the laws of identity so that basically came out of many many errors including a big one by Microsoft where Microsoft tried to set up this this this project called Passport that set itself up as sort of the identity hub for the world where all of the world's identity information would very conveniently be located in Redmond Washington and so it was the thing that I had sold my company to Microsoft and I got there only to find out that they were moving in this direction and it sort of became a vet noir for me and out of that and it actually attracted a lot of criticism from the rest of the industry right we so and I tried to teach others at Microsoft about why that was happening and then I saw other people doing exactly the same thing and I see them doing the same sorts of things to this day you know when you look at Facebook's attempts to become the identity hub Amazon and so on so the laws of identities started to try and analyze sort of systematically what was what was necessary in order to create an identity system that people would buy into and therefore would be able to sustain itself over a long period of time so I won't go into what was done there but you have the URL and I would hope that people would look at that because a lot of what was written even though it was written in 2004 is totally applicable today and I think is an important thing for us to bear in mind when we're when we're building the the new generation of identity stuff is coming along so I've retired from Microsoft what I'm trying to do is to continue trying to help turn the internet right side up I believe it's upside down because it's basically been formed by the enterprises and governments and large entities who can afford all of the technology and so on and they basically have devised things to meet their needs and in so doing it needs a lot of the needs of the ordinary person but it also misses a lot of those needs and and really we have to imagine the internet being turned around so that the needs of the individuals are central to it and individuals are able to control their their data they'll be able to have applications that can reason across their data rather than having their data stuck in walled gardens where they can't get at it and all those kinds of things and in particular internet identity is is is a problem and I'll be talking about that in my presentation today and then finally you know given my stage in my career I think one of the things I can do because I do know a lot of people who are in the identity profession and I would like to to help those people understand what is being innovated and help the innovators understand what the opportunities of working with the the people who are currently running these systems can be and how it really is a you know it's not a zero sum game everybody can benefit by by integrating these things so that's kind of my agenda my personal agenda is is you know so that the people innovating don't make the same mistakes that have already been made before and learn how to get their stuff adopted so I'm what I'm going to do is I've been trying to work with the with the identity professional community to change the big picture of their thinking and so I'm going to share with you one of my some of the ideas I presented at the most recent presentation and it's you know I began with the question okay what have we actually achieved as identity professionals and I think it's it's important for people who are working on the space and sort of an alternative view to understand actually what has been achieved because it is it is considerable you know enterprises have been going through it such a cliche but it's so true and real this whole digital transformation and people have created the identity systems at the that hold all of the technology and the enterprises together and actually do satisfy many many of the requirements of digital transformation from point of view of the enterprise we streamlined and professionalized technology all the technology for distinguishing between users and it began as just a horrible horrifying hodgepodge and leaking and insecure and everything else and we've been able to to to really change a lot of that it's it's it's in a great it's been a great improvement involved a lot of work by a lot of people we've transitioned the world from raw authentication to this concept of exchanges of claims the whole idea of claims originated in the laws of identity before that we called everything attributes and and it betrayed the fact that in the pre-internet world you had little little fiefdoms where you had some kind of a system that was godlike and knew exactly what people were whereas when we got into the internet where you have a whole bunch of different actors there is no ultimate source of truth everything is really just being claimed by some party about some other party and that created if you don't understand that basic starting point you you can't you you can't solve any of the of the problems that arise once the fiefdoms dissolve and you're in the current situation that we're in they have enabled we have enabled a reliable identity dial tone for these big services and and everything else and now there's interoperability between a lot of systems we've increased the security of the internet over what it has it's still tremendously in need of the kinds of things that are being worked on in the hyperlegic group they hold decentralized whole decentralization of the internet has yet to happen but there has been a lot of progress made so I sort of go through this and I say I reassure the the people who I'm talking to that yeah you've done a lot you've done a lot that's important but what have you done how you failed and and here I I think the center is that the industry has failed to recognize that the digital transformation of enterprises causes the digital transformation of individuals but we haven't recognized or responded to the to the new needs that all of this creates in people and what happens is that you know people now have to as as all of the enterprises and parties in offering services become digital each individual has to deal with ever increasing number of digital relationships and they have this new problem of scale it's not like they had two or three of them one day you know one time I mean that now they'll have well people estimate that many have have thousands of such relationships they need to deal with the intensity the change of intensity in other words the immersiveness of all of this the fact that you're using devices all the time and so identity becomes more and more of the friction in identity becomes more and more disturbing and that we have multiple devices now and so the whole approach that we've taken of binding your identity information to single devices you know run by some manufacturer you know is really is really not adequate to the needs of people in in in this period of personal digital transformation where they're gonna use multiple devices that are suitable to the different environments that they're in and there there's been a change in the need for technological longevity you know we we're going to have to change and upgrade devices over time we're gonna have to have to be able to change service providers as they wane and ab and as we get fed up with them we have to accommodate aging memory loss the problems of what happens when you die what happens to your digital environment so this whole problem of longevity this is all part of this digital transformation at the personal level and why have we failed to respond well I think the main reason nobody in the in the world of people working for enterprises think has has been very conscious of it because it's also gradual this this increase in the number of relationships all of this sort of stuff is very very gradual and it isn't really it isn't something that is on a front burner because it isn't a crisis in the short term it's a crisis because of the way that it it continues to add and and turns from a quantitative thing to a qualitative thing in fact people themselves aren't haven't been conscious of all of all of these problems but once again they their changes in perception happen very qualitatively you know as for example you can see from the changes of perception that people have had around social networks and things like that and and if one day people's memories start to fall apart which which is actually a fairly common occurrence amongst the elderly then all of the systems that we have that depend on memory are just really totally inadequate and people are disenfranchised and unable to handle the world they live in so we've been oblivious to the impending disjuncture so my my theory is that the gradual changes of personal digital transformation will eventually make and are making the current systems unsustainable but the people in the organizations and the organizational management and so on don't have a clue about I mean it really depends on people who are working in the sphere of identity to perceive these dynamics sound the warning bell and adjust course so so I'm I guess part of what I'm trying to say is that only those of us who are working deeply in this stuff can take leadership and we only we can recognize and address these emergent realities so you know we've gone through the same thing around privacy you know if 10 years ago everybody would say privacy is dead get over it all the industry leaders were going on about it that way and it was absolutely maddening for those of us who thought privacy was a characteristic of human of human nature if you wish but having ignored it it just became a bigger and bigger underlying unseen problem sort of like an iceberg and you know and so then you end up with the kind of activity like the GDPR where where all kinds of systems have to be undone and redone it costs cost many billions of dollars to try and adjust to something that we should have been doing from the beginning and we're really in the same way in the same situation having having not recognized that the personal digital transformation is absolutely key and it's caused by the enterprise transformation so I my theory goes on to say that well this PDT requires us to actually transpose human identity that evolved in the physical world into the digital realm you know in the physical world people have been handling identity perfectly at the unconscious level but there's been no mean no attempt really to to replicate those abilities in the digital world instead the digital services just solve their own problems the enterprise solves its problems the government so it solves its problems not the problems of the people using their systems and so I guess my my my thinking is led inevitably to the fact that systems that that we've been creating cause the problems that the personal digital transformation brings to the forefront so if you want to do this transposing of what what is natural about human identity how it's worthwhile looking at how it was done in other other digital realms and I think we can agree that well first of all there was a deep understanding of the phenomenon and that led to innovation and innovation made it possible to do transposing and so you end up with a holistic digital equivalent so for example if you look at digital music digital you know digital audio scientists had a very deep understanding of sound as waves there's no ends if there are buts about it the innovation was oh yeah we can sample those waves at periodically and figure at the amplitude amplitude and therefore we can turn that into a set of digits representing the at the amplitude and we've now got a digital representation of sound a holistic digital equivalent because it doesn't just transpose one sound it transposes all possible sounds and that makes possible once you have that nailed this amazing phenomenon that we have where we now have hundreds of millions of songs and music of all kind available in digital form and you can look also anything you look at let's look at say the banking system or casinos whatever people there are people it's not scientists in this case but it's people with a deep understanding of the phenomenon and they understand how a bank works or a casino works and so therefore they're able to innovate and transpose and create the digital equivalent but in the area of identity who really has or had especially amongst technical people a deep understanding of the identity phenomenon and if you don't have the understanding of the phenomenon then you can't innovate to actually transpose it in a holistic way you're just sort of being very pragmatic and responding to short-term needs in a in a way that it's just yeah very short term that's what's that's what's been going on in the world of identity so I looked around for a long time who has actually got a deep understanding of identity and you know except for for understanding the problems of identity amongst the government systems and so on you really won't find scientists or psychologists who have anything crisps to say about identity as opposed to identification and not only that you have a lot of people who are just sort of making things up and my view has become well that that's actually pretty problematic because we all make up different things and we call it the same thing and so we create a tower of Babel around the word identity and all of its concepts and so I've come to believe that we really should use the actual meanings of the words rather than simply making them up and so if you want to look at the meanings of words you know dictionaries are certainly a helpful tool the Oxford English dictionary is is the tool of tools when it comes to language for English language I'm trying to learn more about the equivalents in other languages but it provides a very comprehensive resource it's used by scholars and the thing about it is it shows not only the current meaning of the words but the way they've been used over time and so you can really get a sense for how how ancient some of these concepts are and so you you know I suggest you people should look at the OED's definition of identity I'll be publishing a paper where I will get permission to reprint it but if I take their their their cons that you know their definitions and these are actual just quotes from from the definition I I ended up realizing there are really two aspects to it one is what I what I call selfness and one is who knows and I've told you I've just said I don't think you should think up words and just make them up like that but you know what selfness comes from 1574 and who knows comes from 1611 in other words people have been thinking about these things for a very long time so by selfness we're talking about the sameness of a person or a thing at all times in other words you're you're not you know the fact that you're in different environments or doing different things doesn't change the essence of you as a self it's the condition of being a single individual it's the fact that you are yourself and not something else and it is your individuality and personality all the things that the OED defines as aspects of identity can be grouped into the into the self or all of those things are I grouped them into the self and all the other things it defines I group I group into the who who or what a person or thing is a distinct impression of a single person or a thing presented to or perceived by others a set of characteristics or description that distinguishes a person or thing from others so we all we all deal with identity as as as who-ness and you know if you if you if you want to look at it sort of graphically you have the aggregate of all the attributes and experiences that a person has through their life that is what constitutes the self the self is aware of all of those things and in different contexts they expose specific aspects about themselves to other people and those are those are it's not the same no no other has a knowledge of the entirety of the self they only see what is revealed in specific interactions and so if you put this together you can imagine there's the self with its aggregate and then there are the who-nesses and I just made some up friends from school colleagues at work online store social network government in other words just each of those knows a specific slice about the the self and the definition of privacy in this in this in this paradigm is the very fact that only what is contextually relevant is revealed in a who-ness and nobody has any knowledge of the of the entirety of the self except except the self and if you if if if you have followed the discussion about profiling which of course is a hugely bothersome area profiling is the is the attempt by others to develop us you know a to project or assemble an aggregate of attributes to represent the self-ness as opposed to just the individual properties are that are being dealt with by the who okay so if we have that as a model how did that how does that map to the current digital identity technology well digital identity identification I really think that what we've got to date is just digital identification rather than digital identity and if I would change anything in the laws of identity it would be I would use the word I would be talking about digital identification as opposed to digital identity because I didn't really deal with the wholeness of the situation it wasn't it wasn't holistic enough but the you know and that and that was that reflects the fact that I was working you know in the industry you know for enterprises but the we've become very good at representing who knows you know and and so you know a lot of the systems that we have have done something about that you know governments can you know in any countries have government government identity systems and schools know about their students and at work you work in a everybody can recognize your own stores and so on but none of this has there's and there's been no technology for the self no technology to handle the problems of the aggregate so what in order to to move to a solution to PDT we need a whole bunch of new construction in the selfness and at the same time in order to to handle that problem of privacy that is so essential to selfness we need to make the the systems for wholeness we need to really retrofit them give them a major renovation so that they're compatible with selfness with this new construction so the self needs its own technology and we need services and associated applications enabling the self to remember and manage their relationships and all the things that we've been talking about here and digital who knows must evolve to embrace selfness so you know current digital who knows is a set of claims issued by an observer but it conflates the claims with the mechanism for recognition so the observer assigns identity identifiers secrets and keys you know like the company that you're visiting or whatever and it creates these problems of scale and intensity so the new technology for the self allows it to create the identifiers and the keys and this is to me the the essence of decentralized identity it isn't that it determines the way people are perceived or it determines all aspects of the wholeness but is able to be determine the identifiers and keys through which it's recognized so the claims that constitute wholeness can then be provided to the self and the self can be in control of presenting them solving the problems of privacy e.g. what are what are called verifiable credentials and other similar titles so we have these precursors of digital identity wholeness you know that is and that needs to be refactored at two levels one is sort of the level of characteristics expression of what the characteristics are and one is at the expression at the level of the recognition and digital impression and if you think about it things like the OIC you know open ID connects their idea aggregated in digital claims are a very prevalent and widely adopted mechanism for transferring characteristics and we have a new technology called verified credentials which add certain capabilities to those although DC is adding them as well in a somewhat simpler fashion and then at the level of recognition and distinct impression we have DID's we have open ID's open ID connects si op self-issued provider and we have FIDO 2 although FIDO 2 is fundamentally broken because there are there the enterprise again assigns the key to the individual which is locked up inside the individual's device and therefore not available to the self meaning that it's per device it's it's it's it imprisons the user in a device so when I say that to really be to be you know part of this of this holistic digital identity did FIDO 2 has to has to be transformed in order to recognize the needs of the self did DID's and open ID connects si op those are the new recognition technologies that are consistent with the needs of the self and those are also technologies which are capable of allowing the user through through things like wallets and through you know all of things that you guys are developing around agents allow the these things to be brought under user control in the self-ness arena though I mean we're just it's just actually pretty pathetic there's so little I mean we see these things called authenticators and those are you know those are represented step forward and show that the notion actually has legs because they are adopted in the sense that they allow the user to have representations of multiple different relationships but they're still so primitive and the notion of wallets are well once again very skewed to the paradigm the the payment paradigm and just in need of a tremendous amount of evolution and then at the level of services we have you know the diff hub and the hyper ledger agents and though you know those are very those are very promising especially as all of that becomes more unified and and so on so anyway I'm going to conclude and leave it open to discussion but my conclusion is that a bullet train is headed straight for us in the form of personal digital transformation and we need to see it coming and get out of its way by evolving to holistic digital identity in other words that the enterprise and I guess what I'm saying here and the reason I'm putting it this way it's kind of weird because I'm telling you about the messages that I've been trying to convey to the existing identity world the pre decentralized world and trying to explain to them that the PDT is really it's leading to a unsustainable situation so that they can look at it and understand that that these decentralized technologies actually are very important for increasing both the security and the usability of the of the network that there are the response to this I also think that oh I DC and I know this is like kind of unusual in the world that you live in but I think oh IDC is it's very very widely deployed information technology that it can be triaged to determine how it fits into holistic digital identity it's the one that is most triageable and in fact even in its current specification it has a whole discussion on the self-issued open ID provider which is really the it that's a that's a misnomer because it's it's it's it's self-issued keys but it's able to pick up and convey assertions made by attribute providers and in fact that whole technology has has evolved very nicely to separate the the ID provider or the key provider from the claim provider and here I should I should say it to me it's a sort of a Trojan horse it's kind of so many enterprises have developed mechanisms for interacting with it that I believe it can be used the SOIP system can be used as a way to get the the decentralized identities quickly integrated into existing enterprises and to get enterprises to to not be worried oh gee this is all an unknown technology we can we can make it appear to be a technology that they've already deployed this this open ID connect it's just got a few tweaks because it comes from individuals making up the keys but it still gives them claims and blah blah blah it's a it's an interesting way to look at it I also conclude that SSI and DID OIDC SIOP FIDO should be rethought by all of us in it in these different parts of it so that they fit together to solve the problems of personal digital transformation otherwise they're just going to make things worse wasting everyone's time and money because the user will be if they have all of these things being deployed simultaneously will be absolute absolute nightmare for them and it's essential for us to predict that nightmare and to avoid it and finally that we need to keep focused on the big questions raised by PDT and ask ourselves how the existing infrastructure can be incrementally transformed to the new world because you can't the the weight of the existing infrastructure is so vast we need to find you know how to penetrate it and and and and transform it incrementally as opposed to trying to build some other thing parallel to it which in my view is just a castle in the sand so that's basically it there's a lot of detailed thought needed here i'd love to be part of that conversation i would urge anybody who has thoughts about this to get in touch with me and i'd like to get to know know you all okay thank you thank you ken if people have questions they should ask it i have a question or rather a couple of comments one is the selfness versus wholeness seems to hark back to the philosophical you know duality theory in the sense of the self and the world but you made a statement that the self is aware of things that the who is you know the the attributes that are exposed or collected by the who you know the people from the outside the institutions the the various things from the outside but in a sense since the self is sort of disintermediated from the past why or kind of disconnected from the past by memory which is an imperfect thing you know we have mnemonic devices various other things this who you know people in the in the who not people but institutions applications in the who realm often have much more detailed information about some narrow part of your world like for example your cell phone sends out signals to the cell tower which is connected and and it you know is perfect memory so for that narrow sector that particular segment has so much more information about you then i myself i may not remember like five years ago where was i on this day but if you ask the cell tower you know if you look at cell tower records they probably will will know exactly where you were so there is that that asymmetry of power between these two and how do we reconfoil that in you know in creating this self controlled device how do we get access and control of that that vast trove of information that is actually stored by others and is not accessible to the self yeah i i agree with you a hundred percent and the i wasn't implying uh you know when you're interacting with others they they they are able to record their memory of the interaction just like you are and as you say their their ability to remember if they're if they're using sophisticated sophisticated computing capabilities is a lot higher than you a poor you know individual with no technology for the self we have nothing we have zip right if we if we had the proper technology for the self we would have access to all of that same information that's that's my theory so uh so it has several implications one is yes as i said the the the the the biggest fear is not the the details that are given a given who knows remembers it's when all of the details all of the who knows is collaborate to recreate the self and as you say a frankenstein self because so so so much detail but but um our technology our technology in the past has not done a good job of separating contexts so for example everybody gives their their email address to to everybody and and so all of that information can immediately be assembled across all of those who noses um we can uh with the decentralized world and and the proper use of pairwise keys we can we can provide recognition immediately without using a universal identifier like a like an email address and and therefore creating all of that consolidation of information across the the who's so that's kind of uh what i was trying to underline but but i agree with you that um there's also the question of uh you know this is this comes back to the european union's concept of the right to be forgotten or the requirement to delete information after certain periods of time and and all that so a lot of this stuff it will be dealt with if we don't have mechanisms technically to deal with it it will be dealt with uh through legislation um over time can two points uh can i follow up one on your point on legislation i would say in general legislation has proven to be the worst solution to the worst process to define a solution to any problem i've seen in history usually so they come out make a look whatever the rule is and then usually it's figured out from the consequences that it doesn't work and it takes forever to slowly improve what the end result is the other thing that you're bringing up on this whole identity space talking about self and who this and all that other stuff you talked about the the in a sense the challenges over 25 years if you will of the world since the internet was born trying to digitally model and and find solutions to problems and so 25 years ago i was working in a different space and it really helped not to look at what i call technological solutions to anything the right answer in my case when i wanted to think about something was to step away from the technological world and step into the human world and where i have not 25 years of history or even whatever it was at the time but really 12 000 years of history and really complex problems have already had good solution patterns developed in the human world you know in the social human world and when i wanted to do something in the digital world i took that problem in that context moved it to what i call the human social world then looked at how it was dealt in that space and said oh look you know here's one or two or three great solutions that i can steal from and apply that approach to the digital world and in every case that led to huge huge results compared to just trying to i'll put incrementally move forward based on what i call the current digital solutions that have been built you know what i mean i'm literally no i'm with you uh i'm either stealing or borrowing and i can see you're doing the same thing in the identity space that's what i'm calling for us to do it uh yeah and yeah because just look how how well uh human how beautifully it works you know that's right 12 000 years of evolution didn't go for waste really is it only 12 000 i wonder if it's impact before well 500 000 or a million i just uh right different scale i but you know unless you're unless you believe that humans came on earth only about 12 000 years ago i'm talking social system i love where this conversation is going this is good hey kim this is this is liam um and i got a quick question for you and you don't have to it's probably a little bit more loaded so i won't expect an immediate answer but and you know sound initial a little crazy but there's a reality to it actually so i totally agree with your statements related to an entity or person's individual the individual entity or one-to-one relationship with single devices and you know how we further changed to a state of an entity now being represented by multiple devices but with that in mind what are your thoughts related to our evolution to what i'm characterizing is multiple identities um and multiple devices or kind of a many to many representation of entities versus a many-to-one relationship and to clarify that further for example outside the scope of mental cognition scenarios associated with like personality disorders in yada yada there we definitely involved at least in my organization a need to create multiple identities and thus the need to process data from entities represented by multiple entities where that data and individuals can i know this sounds a little holistic but in a way this applies to your holistic digital identity is where that data and the individuals can best be described as kind of in a superposition the multi-state and the logic behind some of these applies to iot mesh environments some of our efforts around competitive analysis and how we're representing those personas you know through various entities various devices and processing kind of in a heterogeneous type configuration so it's all the question goes back to the multiple over one-to-one excuse me the many-to-many relationship any thoughts on that yeah i i think you're completely right the it's to me it's not uh it's not i mean i believe that when we use the word identities you know where that is is really not the definition of identity that we've been talking about right so right and so that's what i call the recognition level and and to me the recognition level should be pairwise as it is i think when you think through the the physical world thing it's pairwise it's between you sense the other and the other senses you it's not it's not it's not a big universal identifier it's a whole set of pairwise identifiers that then get somebody will come along and say oh that's the guy who you know beat up so-and-so whatever yeah exactly and that's sort of a set of claims get gets put on the the thing that has a recognition at a different layer so i'm totally with you and and and that's what enables this whole well it enables both that's what i was hoping you would say exactly because i was afraid you were kind of doing that kind of more one-to-one and so that actually helps you know now that helps me i now believe i believe that we should just never have a universal identifiers at the recognition level ever should totally agree pairwise and we should be really really serious and brutal about making sure that that happens okay and then that doesn't mean we can't have things that are known about people that that transcend one of those identifiers that the the claims level is completely different level of reality as it is in the traditional model so to go back to the gentlemen's concepts yes it's a matter of let's let's embrace the the world we come out of and and civilize okay but in the sense of bringing our historical acquisitions to the internet i totally agree i like that perspective specifically because it really will even refute some of the original foundation for e-m-r-e-h-r's in the healthcare industry and so on and you know so when i look at that yeah when i look at the existing processes or systems versus what we're talking about here is they all seem to be so antiquatedly based based on what was known you know around paper systems or individual identity like you were saying so i'd like to back to you answer that way thank you well thank you very much uh you know what you i i hope people will will share their their thinking about this that they have from uh their own specific experiences like for example the healthcare and everything else i i think that would be really wonderful and i would like to see a conversation um you know not necessarily in this group because this group has its own mandate but you know maybe we could just have some interaction on the web etc to sort of uh make these ideas more more profound and and flesh them out in in and show okay tell me and what is okay i'm kind of okay you know what um we can and we do have we have taken upon ourselves a wider mandate because uh i mean we are identity working group inside hyperledger but we don't confine ourselves to just the hyperledger platform we go a little further so i can provide some space for that interaction or you can start it up on the internet on the emails and then we can capture them in inside our systems uh the other which is a wiki uh other thing that i want to say is that we don't have to stop exactly at one o'clock we can go on for a few more minutes because there's nothing else sort of colliding with this but it depends on people's appetite uh whether they want to continue to have a conversation at least for five minutes more uh about all this so bitman i'll take you up on that thank you i knew that you would i can't shut up i apologize so shortly i apologize for that but i will say kim one of the big takeaways i'll say is that we've always had this absolute view uh in the digital world or anything it's pretty much binary across everything and one of the key things go back to your look at hewness who knows rather as you defined it and what you realize is yes you can define maybe a base an initial relationship of one entity to another self if you will and call that who knows but the reality is if you look at it um fully what you're going to realize is it's not absolute it's relative and that as additional information comes in that who knows relationship changes all the time and none of our systems i didn't imply i hope i didn't imply that it was uh that it was done once but what no what i wanted to imply was that the recognition was was done sort of at an unconscious level and and that allowed precisely the uh the the knowledge to be deepened over time in other words it created the glue between the different temporal moment moments when more and more information would be assembled right um that's right and so the in a sense that what that who knows if you describe what the who knows is the relationship of me to you let's say then the answer is over time that's going to change significantly as they realize oh wow he's a better tennis player than i am that's not something that was in our initial recognition state stage if you will right that's why the the the the um the recognition is not the is not the who knows it's the means that's why when i did who knows i showed uh i don't know yeah here who knows you see it's got two layers right the characteristics and the recognition and the argue is that maybe i shouldn't have put the impression the distinct impression in the bottom maybe that confused you um but i just the fact that over time in a sense whatever the starting i think i think that the characteristics uh being evolving over time is really the you know observed characteristics i think that's that's what was implied that it's already there that it's not a static view it's just like the personal dynamic uh you know yeah we have to do what we do in in physical reality okay and physical reality as you say um you're always adding um and changing your view of the of the other um yes you know unless you're unless there's something wrong with you i mean a lot of people get stuck and they don't recognize when others have changed right but well i don't think we want to necessarily replicate that part so if you put that this diagram kim i would argue maybe there's another column here that could be added so given that hoonus is not fixed it's not a constant that changes in the relationship you and i have i would argue that therefore the value of that relationship to me might change so i would say initially my recognition is oh he's an identity expert but then as i realize you're a better tennis player than me all of a sudden your value to me now has changed as well because your hoonus has changed if that makes sense so the value thing actually is a big thing because that's the outcome that's the net result of these relationships is the potential value delivered from them if that makes any sense yeah that's interesting yeah because i tend to especially in business you know working on business systems you're always asking the question well what's the payoff what's the value for this thing whether it's immediate or sustainable whatever but you're always you're evaluating everything uh against some sort of criteria to say what's it's worth and i could say yes i now know he's a great tennis player too so you're value to me change right but but the individual if we do some of this discussion in writing because you know in a public forum because uh then we can actually hone it you know that that's what happened when i wrote the laws of identity i i mean you know i credit like about 40 people in the laws of identity who who who participated and you know we should do the same thing i i yeah i mean so interesting but but just i'm so glad that somebody cares about this because i was really afraid to even give this talk to you because i thought oh well i'm actually cares but it's it's it's abstract you know it's it's high level but you know i don't if we don't figure this out we aren't going to actually solve the the real problems you know we're going to be bounded by our um by what we happen to be doing if you know what i mean so so i'm very i'm delighted really so i yeah so i know i think this interesting discussion i had a different point but i wanted to get back to this you know where we talk about these individual identity attributes that have as stated here verified credentials you like my um if you look at a passport my photos of verified credential and it does change over time that's why the issuing agencies put time limits on it for children it's going to be five years for adults 10 years and that that covers the that's one attribute that does change over time and you have to you know have a policy not a technology that says i need to update these very verified credentials if you're a better dentist player and you make a you know get another championship well that's another verified credential anyhow my the the only thing i wanted to introduce in the discussion is we're focused on human identity at least in isotc 307 um identity digital identity identity is is a natural person um legal entity thing or process and i think we need to keep that in mind otherwise um you know it will will break down because if we just focus on human identity um we need to focus on iot and other other yeah i i agree with i agree with that and if you read the laws of identity it it's based on the notion that identity is about subjects and the subjects can be all of those things okay good you know the digital identity here though i think and i think that is fairly well uh defined you know uh the way that but the problem is once it's the part where that device gets associated with a person where things get weird because of the fact that well you know my cell phone my my cell phone and and so it's almost and it's almost an extension of me and uh there are a whole bunch of devices and and they are part of the self really uh you know even the uh i mean i mean not all things but say in a home automation system or all of all of these things that have no security you're looking at a point in time on evolution on these devices yeah where we're not today is just it's not where i was with the i'll quote the ibm pc in 1980 and so it won't be where i am in 20 years either i back in the early 90s recognized this change in digital technology to the point that at the end the end point is more of what i call dxh a digitally extended human where you don't have independent devices they're just part of you exactly but there are also going to be independent devices like uh dan was saying there's the devices as well independent in the sense that you know some things that are on the street let's say measuring carbon emission of course they are going to be saying okay they are under the control of the city authority but you know in a very loose way it's not as the connection is not as intense so i mean just like in every other sphere there's a spectrum that goes from a close association like a cell phone to something that measures uh you know the up the uh chimney output of a power plant that measures the carbon coming out of there or some other um you know devices that are in other other areas that you know like the the cameras that are put on the streets and observe people they have they are iridescent they have their own supposedly identities so all of these you know it's it's it's like a spectrum that goes from a human to these uh uh you know the the tc 307 definitions which cover a lot more ground and i suppose they all will have different rights and in in the sense that you know well corporations are people too but i'm talking about uh you know a camera on the street what right so right do they have right so kim i'm going to throw a problem back at you and just leave it with you because it's not going to get answered but the question is who am i so you talked about who this you talked about self and i'll throw it over the fence and say okay who am i because at a point with all this technology am i just me the biological me or as these what i call decentralized intelligent systems become part of me which part of me are you having a relationship with you know what i mean so is the self just the biological self that i was born with or is the self this larger entity and if it is this larger entity then the question is which part of myself are you having a relationship with when you look at who this well i i think it's i think the self is all all that of which i am conscious or can be conscious and the problems have been well but just like blockchain right i started a long time ago i was programming for bill gates and the answer is today we have this what i call a decentralized intelligence model on the blockchain and we can have literally the same problem if you will um when it comes to who a human self is there's a point where we have decentralized systems that have their own level of intelligence that are interacting on our behalf right whether it be lexers you know ring doorbell and whatever it is so there's the model of who i am but you're right ultimately the question is which part of me are you talking to or building that relationship with so it's the who am i question i guess or who are you that's very interesting yeah that's funny though i don't know has i don't know if anybody has been following this there's a group forming called tx off has anybody followed that tx off tx off tx a u th anyway and it starts with the proposition the only reason i mention it is it it starts with the proposition that you know they're going to work on authentication really and the authentication standards really do need reworking i mean they're terrible but um they they make the statement in their charter um that one of the things that is within their charter is the um delegation of identity now that really got me uh going because the delegation of identity cannot be delegated identity if you look at the definitions of identity as it's been used over these 12 000 years it is not something that it is the characteristics it is the who-ness it is the self-ness and it can't be it can't be delegated what can be delegated is some kind of a capability so you know i can delegate that to another identity but i can't delegate the identity that's my view um anyway and you know and it's so interesting because you know this is to me it was an example of why we need to to crisp up our language and and cause people to hold on to these definitions that have been in use and and and that actually describe our human-ness yeah it's a great point i think the the only other thing to think about is this notion that things and we all of us have mentioned it that things change so the entity that was me is not the same me as i was 10 years ago whether it be my photographic phone through tsa or the knowledge i have but that's but that you know actually well i will there is a great quote in the oed's definition of identity and they're quoting from somebody i don't know lock or one of the philosophers um and and you know people in those days were aware that your identity even though all of the atoms one of them says you know even though all of the atoms in your body change right you're still the same your yourself does not change and and and so really that that is is and has been understood for like four or five hundred years which is amazing i mean that that amazed me okay when i was yeah as in that you exist independently so you exist independently of the specific manifestation of yourself and so i will say a lot of people in the digital world fight what i call bringing in what you've been doing which is applying what i call the understanding of the human world in a digital context i cannot tell you how many digital architects and everybody else fight that they go no no it's not the way it is best example is a quarter century ago we had a language called small talk that had the notion of self in it everything was a self you could be a self this object could be a self everything had the notion of self in a relationship and the other thing it had was you didn't program it you discussed it just like you and i talk i learned from you you don't program me to learn about identity you talk to me and i learned from you and the whole model of that language is fundamentally different than other programming languages because you didn't teach you had conversations you collaborated and you learned from experience you learned from sharing information and that was unlike regular programming and i can remember having discussions with other developers saying gee i don't talk i don't program the number seven i actually can talk to it it can tell me what it knows and they're like where are you from mars that's like no no those models they couldn't understand them because they weren't simple digital models they were human models but they actually work in a digital world which they just literally said no it doesn't compute for them and they just literally left it by the roadside as something i couldn't deal with so it's interesting because we do that i'll go back and say we have models for this in every case that have existed as you point out for 500 years 12,000 or 500,000 years um jim um maybe we can ask somebody else if they have questions and then we can move on and we can continue this interaction if you want so i'm asking anyone else they have anything for kim all right i've exhausted everybody no no no it's it's more the you know people don't want to no i appreciate it uh actually but really appreciate the opportunity of speaking with all of you folks and you know hope that this that we can carry this on and clean up our clean up our concepts yeah i think i think that's the key uh we need to really continue this conversation but also i like the fact that you went into some concrete stuff in terms of the wholeness and the because you do talk about the you know specific standards widc and syop and idol too and you know those kind of things so some kind of a relationship to the abstract to the concrete is is very important and uh you know there are lots and lots of unanswered questions so maybe uh we can continue to interact um maybe you can come back uh after a while to give another talk whatever you know whatever you want to do that is uh we are open and uh we also would like to make a line to the hyperledger frameworks uh that we have and i know that you mentioned aries uh it was incubated uh here we are the you know kind of a launchpad for a lot of uh for indy for aries for other identity related topics here so we are very broad in our thinking but also we can be very focused on specific topics thank you thank you and uh we'll speak soon shall i uh thank you very much thank you thank you very much it was extraordinary thank you thank you that was awesome i second that thank you very much thank you guys this is like that chipmunks thing where they keep bowing to each other that's right just got back from japan and i looked out the window as the plane was uh was taking off and you know those little guys those guys who are out on the tarmac with the little lights in each hand you know for they as as the car as the plane took off they both bowed to us the way they do when you leave a restaurant or something like that i was so touched anyway uh i i love the fact that they appreciate each other you know they show so i appreciate you guys all right talk to you soon okay bye bye bow down to you about what's on that's what i call it all right bye bye