The Semantic Inforg & The “Human Centric Web” — Reality Check, Tech.

INTRODUCTION

The history of enquiry into the nature of human consciousness has been a pursuit of homo sapiens (latin “wise man”) throughout history; but now, we must define ‘digital identity’, its relationship to AI and we hope, it won’t do us unjust harm.

Today, if we want to communicate and participate socially online, we must obtain ‘digital identities’ in specified platform services that offer the opportunity to ‘agree’, or be isolated.

World-wide, works on ‘digital identity’ are often narrow in nature, as enterprise and governments seek to forge new identifiers — with little more comprehension. All too often, the study has just not been done.

Google Search “define Identity”

The common use of the term ‘identity’ means different things to different people, which in-turn also relates to the role they are facilitating in life whilst using the term. Companies, Governments often use the term in relation to the definition of ‘sameness’, that a group have a passport from a nation, drivers license or login credential for a website of someform.

Yet others, when speaking of identity, do not mean this; rather, their use of the term seeks to denote their personhood, agency, character or more broadly, who they are as is distinct to all others.

In this paper i am introducing a somewhat broader approach that is intended to bring about an innovate solution to define ‘human identity’, for a ‘human centric web’ which attends to both forms of the definition, as may be applied to the intended purpose(s) to be employed, on the web. As to describe what this means — i use the term ‘inforg’.

Google Search — define Inforg

The term ‘identity’ can be used to mean ‘the distinguishing character or personality of an individual’; or for other purposes the term can refer to ‘sameness’, as to consider that ‘the Australian identity’ harbours Australians who were born or became ‘Australian’. Yet the inferred, or perhaps built-upon contextualisation of ‘digital identity’, brings about far more sophisticated considerations than have ever before been part of our societal considerations. As such, the concept of ‘inforg’ relates both to all digital records created and collated in association to a persons ‘identity’, but is therefore also extended by the choices made about how to make use of that data on networks, via AI.

Contextual records relating to the activities of man; as are historically studied as part of a global conscious ecology, now illustrate many forms of diverse fields of study; from ancient cultures and archaeology, through to modern day neurosciences, behavioural informatics alongside the countless array of unmentioned pursuits.

Some may say, the need to know ‘who we are’ is built into our biological fabric, as a conscious human being.

The Advent of Artificial Intelligence as active, artificial agents brings about new tools that act to supplement the capacities of humans, with new tools. This is in-turn expected to influence everything about us, and our world.

Artificial Intelligence will influence the means through which we learn how to better understand ourselves, how we may be safe and best grow — to meaningfully participate in our world, with dignity.

From the development of belief systems through to our means to engineer languages and through such means, form common-ground, in support of the development of our lives, our families; societies, and the creations that mankind share, at a foundational level — these are constituents of our shared interests. Whilst AI can communicate our virtues, AI itself, doesn’t have them.

Most of the time, work, is about making a more positive impact than the cost incurred for ones mere existence and the service of ones basic needs. This is an intrinsic and fundamental part of what it means to be human; indeed also, through an array of illustrative qualities that are often shared, with other living things.

Yet as a consequence of ‘internet’, we now traverse this complex concept in a manner that has never before sought to be done before.

Our goal as a species, should at a minimum, be, to understand how these tools will lead to controls by way of ever present custodial apparatus, that is now being engineered.

Irrespective of any personal views by any human being, ‘digital identity’ infrastructure is mandatorily required; and at a minimum, will be employed for the purpose of externally defining who we are as persons for others who need a characterisation. People today, generally — don’t ask “What constituent considerations, are going to be considered’ as the vast majority of people don’t have a reasonable grasp of AI and the way it interacts with activities, human experiences and law. They don’t know what has been set-aside…

In all too many cases, organisations employ sophisticated legal understandings, make every effort to mitigate risk, particularly in response to wrongdoings..

The Agents of legal personalities, are electing component of our lived experience; to be considered by them to be the made most important means to characterise a person by way of information systems. The operators of these systems are in-turn empowered to provide authority, of how we be defined whether this is based on full-facts or a fictional representation of the truth, illustrated using some facts which in some cases, can act as to be quite dishonest. Privacy can be employed by them, to protect themselves from repercussions and responsibility for harm caused to others for their wrongdoing. This is not what the spirit of privacy, nor identity was thought to be defined to achieve, yet those moral objectives have been undone.

These decisions, impact what we are able to do as a consequence of curated and ‘selective histories’ of our fuller, lived experience often misrepresented by poor skills (or wrongful acts) employed as to define the account.

These trends impact and influence our society and behaviours, as we become mindful of its role in our lives whilst some exploit it & others fall victim to it..

“It is not my fault”, the system gave me the wrong information, the person who made life altering and severely damaging decisions about another person says.

The machine itself, considered to be a tool that harbours no responsibilities….

The sources of information AI is being built upon today, repurposes old records, much of which may contain false information — for use with new sophisticated AI ‘predicative analytics’ systems, to build definitions of persons. This objective being sought based on the information entered into these systems that associate well to a story, that is all together, too often, false.

These records, may be inaccurate or poorly characterised considerations; stored in secret or in confidence; the status quo, is most probably considered the most convenient pathway; for those offered the role of this ratified undertaking, to classify mankind; with the promise of a better role, once the job is done.

Whilst notes are made and lost in the practice method of creating it, what is considered to be ‘out of scope’,

‘but i couldn’t advocate for those functions to be added to it, i wanted to keep my job’ says the paid employee, who knows the wrongs built into the system, ‘best efforts’ they say, without considering how it might affect ‘data subjects’ and how time may find that it disaffects someone they love or care about…

It is not that clarifying trustworthy information to improve support for citizens, for natural persons does not exist, it’s just not added for AI.

Today, we are engineering these ‘identity’ systems that actually say far more about the nature of the institutions creating them, than the human subjects they tell us they serve. The choices they have elected, to do so, implicitly corresponds to the structural nature of a small institutionally supported group; and legal needs of a market sphere operated by legal agents, who by short-term calculations, often seek to make more money, the more they consume.

Like ‘Bitcoiners’, The designs of how it is we build the tools to support the needs of humanity; and implicitly therein, role of all members of our human family, of mankind, as individual agents must be far better addressed.

I have not seen any public enquiry, seeking input from across the many fields of society asking how ‘digital identity’ services relate to those societal fields.

Yet, when all such people get home and spend time, consciously, thinking; forming opinions and solutions to their problems both via forms self-curated means and as curated by nominated groups, its often the case they know that people so very much deserve better.

When will they realise, that their seemingly small role, in something far bigger — has created something they don’t want, when there is a choice that is available, to spend the time and effort required to build a meaningfully better alternative.

When solutions fails to meaningfully provision the same or similar, levels of usefully available informatics; as is required to render the delivery of a meaningful positive societal decision, that’s when it’ll be too late.

The hope is that the means to engender sane, conscious awareness that,

What is of most importance is our means to retain human agency.

Yet it is still arguably considered, the merits of suggesting that it is essential we now consider whether its worth being bothered worrying about it; or whether it’s reasonably deemed easier, to simply consider these big issue “out of scope”.

Traditional solutions for enterprise systems & coupled digital identity, won’t work

Old designs, that have emerged and proliferated since the late 1990’s, are now a threat to our very existence; but few have taken the time to consider how, why and what the instrumental considerations to these historically poor decisions means.

Through a lens that is now able to benefit from hindsight, those involved in creating the infrastructure environment now in-place; have been integrally involved in dedicating their time, to defining a safe pathway out.

Whether it be Tim Berners-Lee, Vinton Cerf, Craig Newmark or the relatively small handful of others — there is a palpably high level, of mutual concern.

Introducing the ‘human centric’ approach

This document illustrates an alternative methodology that is entitled a ‘human centric’ or ‘human centric web’, approach.

I will canvas various aspects across the spectrum of social, technical and personal fields of research, with a view to forming a vastly simplified document; that is aimed towards providing an educational foundation for the exploration of an alternative series of socio-economic informatics systems & engineering principles.

I strongly believe the approach i have fostered with few others, will assist in laying the foundations to a better future, than those most likely to occur otherwise today without intervention.

This field of science and technology is amongst the most complex series of concepts to communicate.

It is not simply resourced from one domain of subject matter expertise, but many.

The traditional problem being, that the stakeholder frameworks incorporate all of humanity, both personally and professionally; and the means to coherently communicate solutions understood by all, is very, very hard.

I am hopeful this document will provide a coherent summary, delivering an outline that posits important arguments for further societal considerations and/or, as may be considered historically, be vindicated, by its means, for this creative and intellectual contribution — to stands the test of time…

My Journey — Background of my research & related works

The Author, Timothy Holborn, has worked on how to form meaningful solutions in this problem domain, since first considering an ibank for the future advent of online data storage and ‘apps’, back in 2000.

Prior to the commencement of these more structured works, I had developed a keen interest in psychology / behavioural sciences, philosophy, ICT and was somewhat initially inspired by the works of Sir John Carew Eccles, who is an extended family relation.

From 2000, i started to conceptualise the ability to form an online software environment whereby users were the beneficial owners of their data/information.

When this was first conceptualised to be much like networking an operating system like Microsoft Windows and extending the functionality to both support ‘online data storage’ and provide the means to network information stored by a person, about themselves; with others, was a part of the starting point.

The difficulties embodied by this idea grew to be incrementally identifiable overtime.

Beyond the technical and commercial licensing challenges exhibited at the time; alongside my immaturity as a young professional, the broader and perhaps most difficult series of issues identified early on; was the complex nature of the impacts any such proposal would bring about.

Since that time, Web 2.0 evolved and with it, vast global silos of information about our world. Throughout this time (2002–10); I more simply ‘chipped away’ to garnish an understanding of the vast variety of fields that needed to be taken into consideration.

Whilst one such work led to a press notation of good work helping young people, the challenges brought about by foresight, was hard.

I knew, for some inexplicable reason; that if a structured ‘fit for purpose’ process, strategy and capability was to be properly defined at all, the insights needed to be inclusive; and this early insight, continues to portray troubling exhibits of over-simplification, through to the present day.

My path led to an involvement in numerous ventures across a multitude of fields, alongside actively seeking to both hone and develop my skills to undertake sophisticated evaluation processes in relation to socio-economic environments and business systems; and to resource the opportunity to evaluate practice fields beyond my area of expertise and skillset.

Amongst the more troubling areas of our communities that were evaluated from a ‘problem solving’ perspective, in a variety of ways; has been a means to study and review the effectiveness of governance systems, in relation to basic social needs.

With particular consideration about the means to employ a lawful response to acts that may cause injury to persons; and, the nature of complex strategies employed by those who knowingly seek to exploit a variety of endemic governance vulnerabilities, for ‘ill gotten gains’.

In 2010, It became inescapable to discern any choice about whether or not our systems needed to be better employed, to deliver outcomes that meaningfully support the spirit of law, our democracy, our means to grow, heal and improve our means to protect the most important of our human & shared values, consequentially.

Back then, the w3c standards activities needed work done.

So, from ~2010–1, i got on with the job, and whilst it appeared that the universe was on my side as such things as the opportunity to support a program to educate kids about our system of democracy, i took solace in the words defined and communicated by others whose works i admire, and set-out on a journey to make what may be considered a ‘vision statement’, real.

In more recent times, these studies have incorporated ‘entity analysis’ as to garnish a comprehensive understanding of the mechanical frameworks employed by international ICT apparatus supply chains, alongside related studies into socio-economic systems; and some of the emergent challenges that are now being brought about in a manner that is highly influenced, by the nature through which systems operate today.

With this comprehensively canvased understanding, executing a pathway that harboured the burden of seeking to maintain support for a role that sought to defend and protect the needs of natural persons in advanced technical specifications and related works; worldwide, a field of interest considered incapable of investment — a pathway was forged, and the rest is history.

Now, some years on — the scope of works, has become a globally recognised opportunity.

It is now broadly understood, that there are real-world opportunities to both do good; and help foster meaningful solutions for a sustainable socio-economic future. Through good architecture, these works have both forged; and, have been instrumentally involved, in the production of component tooling, with luminary others worldwide.

The consequential strategy, that was so purposefully employed, has tactically sought to dilute any proprietary intellectual property rights that may result in royalty fees being made payable to any entity; for the preservation of human personhood, agency and related fundamental tenants for the protection of human consciousness.

This strategy now has historical linkages to vast investments, world-wide; that have cooperatively defined the necessary pieces. There is no one-company who can do it all themselves, and those who are now implicitly involved to perform the role of international leadership are worlds best.

This impossible mission, has brought into a framework for consideration, the needs of interwoven and interoperable systems frameworks to form means through which our natural world is to be supplied a man-made ‘digital twin’.

Embodied consideration, for the meaningful use of this proposed socio-economic apparatus; could be best employed by social governance frameworks through cooperative works, in good faith, between a plurality of ‘permissive commons’ curators, and related participant structures.

Economically, the mechanics are designed to be sustained through the articulation of economic fees as may be attributed to be a cost that is applied to payments for work activities.

Whilst some other models seek to engender the means for persons to ‘sell their data’, my view is that this is an enormous hazard and that the commercial employment (and growth) of this strategy should best be avoided. With that in mind, the opportunity to make meaningful employment of social informatics advances the known sciences as a series of embodiments, that i suggest be considered along the lines of ‘permissive commons’, becomes tangibly made real by becoming ‘built into the web’, as to best power STEM.

The “ Human Centric Web” Concept Overview

The philosophical principles that distinguish this ‘human centric’ approach to all known others; incorporates the following set of principles,

1. That the cyber realm is one of many environmental embodiments of artificial tooling that has been made exclusively, for the benefit of mankind and through us; our means to positively impact our biosphere and advance our capacity as a species. The cyber realm is one of many forms of artificial apparatus, which are now interwoven into complex global systems.
2. Physics, quantum physics and related fields of knowledge used to engineer meaningfully useful things; incorporates a set of practical rules; or put another way, the means to communicate and make use of natural laws. Promoted solutions that act in a manner that forms scientifically contrary qualities, between the claims and science, is at best, inefficient; and moreover, capable of being far worse. Of most importance, is the means for natural persons to be reasonably made better equipped; to support their capacity to undertake ‘sense making’ activities; including but not limited to, learning.
3. The legal foundry through which; any thing is able to be brought about, is functionally a framework of instrumental importance. Whilst there are many issues that can be identified, within the text of law, and indeed also the practice of it; by professional law makers, law-breakers, and those who are masked as one whilst acting as the other; the advancement of societies worldwide is inextricably linked to the evolution of systems of law, lore and similar principle variants such as religion.
4. Infrastructure tooling that incorporates considerations for intellectual property rights; via business systems that ensures that there is a shared undertaking; to ensure that at a minimum, the technological tools and apparatus required to protect, preserve and serve the needs of the members of our human family as to bring effect to their basic rights to preserve custodianship over their conscious being; incorporating considerations of agency, personhood and the provision of tooling required to support any rights; must be made available upon the same commercial terms as all most important languages of the past. Should ‘identity’ not be made available unless a commercial license fee or payment is first made; then the same rules should apply to the use of any and all other local languages. The purpose and foundational importance of vocabulary is inextricably linked to any further means that may be made abl to be meaningfully employed; as to ensure the communicable capacity to form reasonably levels of trust, and their capacity to review materials as to support basic social sense-making responsibilities.
5. All (other) Artificial things are made and held under the custodianship (a) of human actor/s. Whilst the desecration to delegate agency to legal persons and their agents; is an instrumental part of how things are made to work, the underlying responsible party or parties; are those human actors who have some practical relationship to those artificial things, no-matter how complex or simple, that be made able to be articulated.
6. That it is most important to consider the maintenance of our biosphere and all natural life on it. It is believed that in-order to do so, an array of publicly available and machine-readable ‘charter’ terms need to be made available for the purpose of ensuring humankind have the means to evaluate services based on said form of merits.

Perhaps the most important of technical points: Maintaining the use of URIs.

In-order to form the means through which AI agents that form interference relationships with members of our human family, and through those means; by extension, the rest of our entire known world. Informatics storage must be made in formats that are both portable between service providers as authored by the moral owner; and made to be useful as a machine readable resource.

Only these means are able to encourage the growth of AI standards, as to support the goals otherwise outlined by this article / document.

What is the ‘human centric web’ concept of an ‘inforg’.

The Naming concept of an inforg is defined as an informational representation of an organic being.

In this environment, i use the term to define a knowledge informatics environment that is designed to equip its owner with their informatics environment.

This informatics environment is designed to make use of AI services as a trusted prosthetic to a persons life.

The name or concept is also similar to the idea of a ‘digital twin’, which refers to a digital replica of a living (or non-living) physical entity.

Whilst a possible distinction between the two concepts is that a digital twin is considered to be a ‘digital replica’ and an inforg is considered to be a collection of information, without necessarily represented as a ‘digital replica’; the underlying concept that is brought about is that this type of functional tool; requires a series of technologies to be integrated, or incorporated in a functionally defined way as to support the functional requirements, of this sort of platform tooling.

As apposed to traditional tooling, the intended purpose of an inforg is to provide an interconnected online space and related tools; as to support the means for data or information, to be both stored and provided trusted computational and networking services on behalf of the natural agent (human being) that this ‘inforg’ operates to represent.

The (technically plausible) conceptual framework, would require means to depend upon a group of trustworthy social and technical foundations.

In terms of the more important social foundations;

Those would include, the means for this computational environment to undertake its intended purpose with the means to be able to legally depend upon the characteristics required by the inforgs owner; such as to include, privacy, security and other legally accessible rights that provide certainty and support for the inforg owner to reasonably and deeply trust this computational service; in a similar way to how most would trust that the money in their bank-account, is unlikely to be stolen as to leave them without their funds, for no fault of their own.

It is envisaged that the necessary means to accomplish these social goals is for the services to be operated in relation to the same jurisdictional territory that the inforgs human host is bound to as a citizen, in the real world.

Upon the basis of this underlying consideration being supported by the operational environment of the inforg; it is expected that governments will need to define and legislate a series of particular laws as to ensure the services are ‘fit for purpose’.

The technical foundations have been engineered to principally make use of semantic web technologies and related informatics ecosystems.

Semantic Web technologies provide the means for URIs to be employed for describing information in a format that can be made use of by machines to perform the cyber equivalent of ‘sense making’. To do so, the computationally important design elements are centred around the qualities of semantic web technology that makes the information ‘machine readable’.

The practice of so doing; brings about two different forms of the web.

1. Web of Data: all the brains, without a coupled user-interface
2. Web Platform: web pages, for traditional ‘web browser’ Interactions

The qualities embodied in the ‘web of data’ functionality are critical for providing the capacity for the ‘inforg’ environment to work.

The Web of Data is a technically defined framework, which is empowered through the creation of vocabularies.

These Vocabularies are call ‘ontologies’; and from a machine point of view, that is, a ‘cyber agents’ or AI, the web becomes interconnected world-wide in a way that distributes to ‘cyber agents’, all known knowledge about any particular permissively obtained description of a thing, and its permissively discovered relationships, to all other ‘things’.

This practice method; in-turn, requires as many people as possible to contribute towards ‘permissive commons’.

OPEN DATA vs. PERMISSIVE COMMONS

I am using the term ‘permissive commons’ as a means to both describe ‘open data’, whilst also seeking to ensure the practical ‘social requirements’ relating to the contribution of useful resources is known to associate to electronically certified others; across our globally interconnected world-wide-web.

In society, we have different roles and in-concert, working together, mankind has achieved many wonderful things.

The Web of Data benefits from this constituent of social-reality best, when every person is made able to contribute towards the available knowledge of humanity, on this hyper-media empowered global communications environment; both in life, and in relation to our roles at work, and in other forms of group work.

The Web of Data; would be made best able to thrive and improve the lives of all; if the means through which we interact with it every day, sought employment of a social contract that forged a means for each little micro-task, making connections between different things; contributed towards commons knowledge facet, that could be made use of; by others across on the web.

Importantly therein; these ‘connections’, between otherwise disconnected ‘things’, is required for our Cyber Agents to form the computational means to better serve our needs; and, it is most desirable, that we do so in a way that means we do not unnecessarily waste energy, by requiring our computing systems to privately learn what is otherwise ‘common knowledge’.

In simple terms, it’s like agreeing to provide “DNS (like) services”, for AI.

These types of computational functions are not new. Presently, the vast majority of ‘web use’ is predominately restricted to a few major sites produced by fewer global companies. Over many years, those global companies have been building tools that collect as much information as they can get, from us; and then producing other tools to help us train the ‘cyber agents’ that they have developed, improve upon; and consider to be their private and commercial asset as a key component of their business critical infrastructure that helps them to profit from the use of their services by humanity, as to serve the financial (and governance) interests of their customers, and shareholders.

The difference brought-about by coupling the ‘inforg’ framework with computational services; that are purposefully designed to produce, promote and improve upon a global framework for ‘permissive commons’; is that, these raw resources, as are required to make any ‘cyber agent’ (ai) function, would no-longer be the property of the very few; but rather, is formed as a humanitarian investment that is cooperatively developed for shared benefit; as such this should, minimally, provide an alternative to commercial offerings that can be improved upon cooperatively, as to ensure the tools of mankind are made to serve, and not to rule.

It’s like an AI empowering version of ‘open source’, for knowledge graphs

So, in the interests of reviewing these important points.

1. The environment where a human beings ‘digital twin’ is being grown, is called an inforg.
2. The inforg is really important to a human being, and needs to be protected by law.
3. The inforg incorporates technologies that are designed to support the creation of an artificial intelligence helper
4. The way that technological creation is made able to work, or perhaps in simpler terms — the tools needed for the ‘artificial intelligence network based operating system’ — is created by employing programming languages, that are complimentary to ‘semantic web’ based functional requirements. This ecosystems framework provides the means to build into the web as a ‘human centric service’, available knowledge of the world from the across the web, in standards based machine readable formats, so that the artificial intelligence system can understand what it all means, across the web; and this is mostly made possible, by through the use of ontologies.

Informatics & storage

Today; the data, information and/or content that is being created as a consequence of the existence of a human being whose life relates to the use of the web whether by themselves or others, but in most cases both. In todays present world, there is an enormous amount of data or information, that is being generated about us, in relation to us; and as a consequence of our wilful acts or (probabilistic) intents.

All of this data is stored on systems, all around the world, operating within different legal frameworks — many of which do not consider your legal or moreover moral rights, whether or not you are a citizen of the country that is identified to be the operator of that ‘data service’. Making matters worse, the way these systems work often leads to information produced and stored for one (or some) purposes, being shared elsewhere.

In other circumstances, the information produced and recorded in relation to a human being, may never be provided to the human being. In all too many cases these systems store information put into a system by someone else, that can incorporate statements that are misleading, simply wrong, perhaps about someone else entirely, entered by mistake.

As there are no ‘built-in’ accountability systems: Sometimes, it can be the case that a person may intentionally enter data into a system, without thinking about the implications; that may cause long-term negative impacts on a human beings life… If for some reason this sort of thing is identified, it may be very difficult to resolve the matter with meaningful lawful remedy.

In many circumstances; human beings, as natural persons (rather than in association to a role as employee or similar); are not provided information in a useful digital format. The volume of informational resource being collected also includes many straight forward examples, like retail purchase receipts, payslips and other information assets that are stored by the seller (or provider) of a transaction; but not provided to the human (customer).

In modern societies world-wide, it’s fair to say that ‘our lives are saturated in data’, but it’s not being provided to us, for our use.

Part of the more practical issue that must be fixed, if any solution is to be found; is that human beings, need a safe place to store that data….

The Inforg is designed to be that place for human beings to store furnished copies of all the records that relate to them, providing an opportunity for governments to be encouraged, legislative acts, make law, more important.

Whether it be the information about your whereabouts, or the logs about who you interact with, what you buy, what the doctor or police officer has to say about you; the benefits of ensuring the collection of all of this data is something that human being can be made able to do.

The Web We Want needs our elected representatives to prioritise the changes we all, as human beings, need; and it is the case, that this will provide an enormous opportunity to ensure we are all made ‘most capable’ to make the world a better place, in all too many ways… cooperatively, one job at a time.

But this inforg environment, is not simply about the information produced by others. It is also about a place to store the information produced and stored somewhere today anyway; about the interactions the person has with their computer powered things.

A photo, to an inforg — isn’t just a photo;

The photo, may have

1. particular people in it,
2. particular identifiable objects (whether they be flora, fauna, place-names — and related sensor data)

All of the pieces of information, now more simply considered to be ‘a photo’; incorporates an array of information that is now able to be both human, and machine readable. This, is a BIG part of what the cyber agent, linked to a permissive commons framework-is about, and is covered in more detail in some of my other posts, such as this one about hypermedia.

Similar functional capabilities are today operated by a few big companies.

This alternative business systems model that could be employed, as an alternative, would be operated in a manner that makes your AI empowered knowledge; known, owned and operated by you.

Why? Because it’s your digital twin.

Your inforg is essential for your means to be the beneficial owner; rather than more simply being considered to be — the consumer, of all the information that can be found, stored and sold — about your life..

Every document you write, the history of the web-pages you visit, it’s not going away…

Increasingly, by law, all of this information must be stored somewhere for a period of many years.

So why aren’t you asking why it isn’t the case that all of that data be stored by you, rather than being stored by all of those other companies all around the world?

Why is the idea of labelling humanity to be more merely consumers, considered to be so reasonable; that in so many ways you cannot even easily make use of data relating to the facts of your existence; as they make use of it by engaging with other businesses to share profits, employ consumers who work in a business that tells us,

Its here to help OUR World.

So to summarise this point;

1. The inforg is the place where all of the information produced by you and in relation to you;
2. is stored in a particular type of format, so that you can use it;
3. you’re able to make use of apps that understand these standards to use it; and,

That you’re able to make use of it with your ‘cyber agent’ that is a functional part of how you define your digital twin.

But not everything you say should be blindly trusted without some real-world, social context.

What we call the necessary ‘fact proving’ tamper-evident, cryptographically supported practice; is, a verifiable claim.

Some basic examples of a verifiable claim (otherwise known as a ‘credential’) includes; a birth certificate, drivers license, government issued IDs, academic qualifications, working with children checks, professional certifications, insurance certifications, event invites, bank-cards; and the means to control IoT things.

Basically, a credential, or verifiable claim, is a document, that for the purposes of an inforg — is made to be ‘machine readable’ and cryptographically validated as to support the means for an inforg to make use of these tools provided by issuing authorities, to support the means for the inforg to communicate statements made by relevant authorities, in relation to the fulfilment of some sort of sensitive request.

Examples include; purchasing alcohol, or filling a prescription; voting in an election, or going to a music festival, with your digital ‘credential’ ticket.

In summary; the inforg environment is provided important ‘reality checking’ support tools, that provides it the means to support the capacity for its physical twin, to present important information when required and be supported by the cryptographic proofs that a variety of related ‘claims’ are shown by the interconnected systems, to be trusted as true.

Not everyone needs to know everything, and we all have the right to ‘change our perspective’, which is an important outcome — instrumental for learning…

Self Engineered Informatics via and your Dynamic Intelligent Agent

The most important functional characteristic of this ‘inforg’ environment, providing the means for the ‘digital twin’, to be defined by the physical twin.

The functional property brought about by all of the complexity; is the way through which the custodial decisions made about how data is stored, and and useful using semantic web technologies; leads to the means for this otherwise static informatics environment to be made use of, by an artificial agent.

The design choices that are so very different to traditional ‘digital identity’ strategies and works, delivers a means to ensure the physical twin, is able to be the agent who defines how the digital twin is programmed, to represent them via cyberspace for matters of importance in the real world.

Agency is only reasonably made part of the design decisions of ICT, if the person the environment is designed to represent, are able to make their own choices about their own lives.

The way this semi-engineered ‘inforg environment’ is designed to store information incorporates support for temporal informatics. This is in recognition that overtime, decisions are made and that this fluid process is an important constituent that must be reflected in the systems. As such, the otherwise inferred characteristics include;

• The ability to ‘go back in time’ and look at ones life.
• The means to ensure that agreements made; that may subsequently be updated, are known to be considered, in association to the time of the decisions made.

The means through which this environment is programmed makes use of semantic web tools, in particular, to produce temporally unique programmed functional settings; that are able to interact with all other ‘agents’ dynamically.

What does ‘Agent’ Mean, in this context?

The term ‘agent’ is used to define something that the cyber agent is able to communicate with, or categorise to have some form of ‘identity’, such as: a person, group, software or physical artefact.

The intended purpose of this inforg is to create, what is called, an ‘informatics environment’ that is able to make use of the available knowledge a human being has about (and in relation to) their lives, overtime (past, present and means to help inform for the future).

Through these means an inforg provides the ability to use applications developed by people (and groups) around the world, using world-wide-web standards; in a way that provides the capacity to uniquely define ones self, in the cyber environment.

There are no known means through which anyone else is able to reasonably and properly profess their capacity to define another.

AI does not act like humans, it never will.

This underlying, dynamic agency relationship between the cyber realm and the real-world; is amongst the many ‘core issues’ that needs to be fixed for the benefit of all real-world stakeholders. the choices about life, should append to the agent who harbours the most responsibility for it.

Why is this ‘inforg model’ superiors to the way the internet works today?

Amongst the many, many benefits; the greatest benefit, likely to be of most importance for humanity, is the ability to make use of the broad electronic library created and stored about a persons life (and socio-environmental / socioeconomic interactions.

The unique qualities of this inform method, is envisaged to empower humanity with vastly improved means, to employ ICT capacities to apply the use of knowledge, with a privately operated artificial intelligence agent.

Blending the capacities of human consciousness via ontological design, with an AI agent, to carve pathways through the world overtime.

To figure out solutions to complex problems, that would otherwise be impossible to consider, review and resolve or solve. To make use of our tools, to solve problems in the world.

Part of the socio-economic design is to resource the availability of these ‘inforgs’ via a marketplace; whereby it is my belief, the means through which this is done is in the form of what i call a ‘knowledge banking industry’.

In the USA there has been talk about ‘information fiduciaries’, and in the UK talk of ‘data trusts’. The embodied distinctions have been considered in relation to the DIKW Pyramid. In a draft Wikipedia entry i have created about a future ‘knowledge age’; the object components that are able to be distinguished by this ‘inforg’ orientated, ‘information management system’ supports knowledge engineering in a fundamentally different way.

Therein the philosophical considerations are that,

• Wisdom, is in a persons head;
• Knowledge, is not simply the information that one might export from leading platforms today; but expressly incorporates (or packages) the ‘metadata’ and AI related informatics that helps to distinguish the characteristics of information, as to form ‘knowledge objects’. (which is in-turn supported through the conceptual availability of ‘permissive commons’)
• Information is the resource employed as a resource for informatics enrichment; and,
• data — is the raw resource, that makes the mediums, work.

Dignity enhancing design, privacy, ‘permissive commons’ Informatics

There are emergent capacities and opportunities to radically enhance our capacity as a species to analyse enormously complex problems. These include medical &medico-legal problems, that can be better responded to by making use of the vast amounts of data about a persons life, activities and inter-relations that can be deeply personal, and if used improperly, able to equip a bad actor to cause severe injury and/or death. Part of how the beneficial use of our knowledge technology can be safely brought about, is through the use of ‘permissive commons’. Where permissive commons systems are built into the web in a manner that supports decentralised and private use; knowledge artefacts that are instrumentally required to find solutions can be made available to help solve problems that would previously have been impossible to figure out.

This envisaged business systems embodiment of informatics networking can improve access to the knowledge that is needed by researchers studying in all so many fields; who need to understand the dynamics of how the problem that they’re trying to solve; impacts our societies today.

But perhaps — in consideration of the importance of understanding the importance of economics; there’s a means to figure out how to associate the work that people do, and the meaningful benefit provided to others consequentially. The cost of doing this, is that of accountability. Part of the point of ‘permissive commons’ is that the actions of people, is appended to the records and/or resources that have involved them in some way. If mistakes are made, if mistakes are regularly made; subject to permissions, this can be easily identified, studied, evaluated and responded to, as to quash nonsense.

Critical Cyber infrastructure to power the growth of Knowledge Nations.

A society that is built upon the use of Inforgs, powered by a knowledge banking ecology; is able to usefully bring about new types of economic tools, that are better defined for use; with the world-wide-web.

This view is predicated upon a subjective opinion that WWW infrastructure is not simply content informatics supplied over the HTTP protocol; but moreover, becomes a term used to encapsulate the development and growth of the information management environment produced on top of the platform first proposed by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.

Whilst the provenance of contributor co-inventors of this platform remains unclear, there is a growing problem that may most easily be characterised as ‘web slavery’ and other forms of widespread biosphere (including but not exclusive to homo sapiens) exploitation that desperately needs to be addressed.

As to affect change, the information management topology needs to bring into the framework — inforgs. Without inforgs, the means to address the role of natural actors (human beings) as foundational participants in an economic landscape of knowledge equity and knowledge-based capital growth.

As a constituent to these economic constructs, inforgs, and ‘knowledge banking’ infrastructure is designed to support sophisticated ‘graph enabled’, financial products (economic instruments) that provide means to incorporate traditional workers rights, for people who do valuable work in connection to the web.

Whilst there are many new forms of ‘financial products’ that could be offered by ‘knowledge banks’, one example includes the means for this infrastructure to support the curated supply of a wage through thousands if not millions of tiny financial contributions being streamed across, in acknowledgement of a useful contributions that have been carried out by a person over a payment period (ie: week, fortnight or month).

An easy way to think about this has been considered by forming the term ‘frictionless employment’, where this inforg based online realm, provides a means for persons to identify a ‘job to do’, and to very easily — go about getting it done.

IF our online frameworks sets out a ‘set of terms’, to develop and build upon a mutually agreed set of principles, a moral equity framework of ‘fair dealings’; then,

• The means to attribute human activity, in addition to natural resources, energy, advertising and similarly already embodied online economic value chains; and,
• The means to attribute the activity of a person to positive socioeconomic effects, can be brought about.

This means humans are defined by the core fabric of cyber infrastructure to be more than a consumable resource; but rather,

As first class economic participants in the cyber realm.

Inforgs solve the otherwise inexorable central problem, that a network of internationally curated, organisationally issued ‘identity’ (instruments) cannot otherwise solve.

Today, ‘human identity’, is considered to be a ‘content’ issue.

The primitive identifiers that make internet work, are now legally allocated to be controlled by legal personalities (persona ficta / corporations); and as a consequence of this, natural persons are not considered to be the primary custodians of knowledge equity today.

Without (legally protected) ‘inforg’ environments, we have the tools to fix the underlying socio-legal and technically instrumental problems, that now stymie sense-making, as required for social-systems to better invest in solutions, rather than repairs.

The tooling i proposed to employ — is not all new

The body of technical works that have been required, to make this opportunity viably available, has a long history.

My proposed ‘inforg’ solution (incorporating thereafter the socio-economic apparatus required to make them work) is a creatively incorporated and curated methodology overall.

The underlying tooling is most easily characterised by the historical timeline of the creation and improvement of semantic web.

Whilst an unfortunate majority of technical specialists are for some reason still, of the opinion that ‘semantic web was an idea, that didn’t pan out’, it is in-fact the case that today — our web, is powered by semantic web technology.

The remarkable task that has been successfully undertaken via un-incorporated consortia such as W3C has now led to a circumstance where the vast majority of technology companies, world-wide have cooperatively produced the underlying tooling AND provided royalty free use of their Intellectual Property as to supply component ‘standards’.

Without those tools, we would not have an ability to make choices about the future of our world.

These (and other) tools, form a permissive-commons framework for a standardised syntax, that is able to be used to perform these many very complex functions, in concert; on a global basis, has taken about 20 years to build.

Yet some may ask — then why hasn’t this sort of thing happened yet?

Having been instrumentally involved in works relating to some of the pieces that have been needed, in-order to realise my broader long-term goal; in works such as the creation of standards for ‘credentials’ or verifiable claims, what i experienced was a situation where there were very few natural persons involved in the creation of standards, through the lens of what it was that THEY needed as individuals, particularly at the later stages.

The vast majority of these works are produced with a set of interference related qualities, whereby the perceived purpose of standards work, is to obtain the royalty free use of the underlying patents (“intellectual property”).

Those who are paid to do work on these standards, are members from Universities whose actions are often related to the needs of academia and academic sponsors (such as GOV); and moreover, Corporations, whose representatives have very specific interests that relate to revenue growth of their corporations.

Often, the needs of individuals are considered ‘out of scope’ both, as a consequence of those design requirements or ‘use-cases’ not having been raised at all (no representatives in the participant pools); and/or, because any functional requirements would be considered to be contrary to the interests of key ‘intellectual property’ providers.

An effort by W3C to resolve this problem was undertaken in 2015, called ‘webizen’. Sadly, this effort largely failed.

Webizen

Describes a ‘citizen of the Web’.

A Webizen is a person who is adept in Web techniques and who essentially lives on the Web.

Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Webizen

In my experience of having engaged in creative works, meaningfully contributing to the creation of particular attribute components; embedded into a suite of component standards (payments, credentials, rww, ontology works, media analytics, platform, crypto, etc.) My findings were that there was a complete lack of economic support frameworks for activities to be performed at this instrumental level through means of gainful employment. The reason for this was due to the structural repercussions of intellectual property & corporations law; which when considered in a historical context, was not then supported by the leadership related communications of problem/response activities, by world leaders.

Today, the situation has changed. Both our Technology and political leaders are amongst those vocally calling for change, and are now doing something about it.

Nonetheless, my studies have shown that the underlying concepts, of seeking to use our advancements in STEM for the betterment of mankind, is not new.

One of the most important considerations was set-out in an article by Vannaver Bush in his (post ww2) 1945 article ‘as we may think’ which should be considered, in unison to the broader efforts made by leaders of the time..

Whilst Vannaver Bush made considerations, back then…

“Consider a future device … in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.”

This was at a time where humanity started such works as to commence international diplomatic efforts to form the United Nations and through this means, set out a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to) recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

stating clearly is said declaration that; ‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.’

So many years prior to the advent of ‘fifth dimension operations’, in warfare;

The editor of this seminal article ‘as we may think’ introduced the purposeful objective of STEM works in the field of information sciences; by the following,

As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Dr. Vannevar Bush has coordinated the activities of some six thousand leading American scientists in the application of science to warfare. In this significant article he holds up an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased. He urges that men of science should then turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. For years inventions have extended man’s physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. Trip hammers that multiply the fists, microscopes that sharpen the eye, and engines of destruction and detection are new results, but not the end results, of modern science. Now, says Dr. Bush, instruments are at hand which, if properly developed, will give man access to and command over the inherited knowledge of the ages. The perfection of these pacific instruments should be the first objective of our scientists as they emerge from their war work. Like Emerson’s famous address of 1837 on “The American Scholar,” this paper by Dr. Bush calls for a new relationship between thinking man and the sum of our knowledge. — THE EDITOR

Some years on, in 1965 the early works by Ted Nelson spoke of a systemic methodology that sought to expose the relationships between cerebral concepts and indeed also, the means through which Copyright, or transcopyright could be employed in an embodiment of considerations he called xanadu.

Whilst it is hoped that an elegant derivative that may be formed as a derivative of these works; is the means to ensure a far more comprehensive view of ‘where the web first started’ and a semantically navigable graph to explore all those who were involved; Today,

Society is looking to its leaders hoping they’ll make brave decisions at this time of great importance to the world.

These designs are ‘human centric’, which is distinct. Alternative considerations embodied as ‘human centered’ (design), ‘people centric’ (noting ‘sameness’ by law of legal person, and natural person) or any other ‘similar’ vocab — can be distinguished by these means, for some very important reasons.

The concept of a ‘human centric’ approach forms a call to action, to review the way our societal administrative systems work today; and for all of us to ask ourselves, how are we serving the needs of our biosphere, and humans who are involved.

Some Barriers: A picture of Thames Barriers

Some may argue that the implications of accountability is all ‘too inconvenient’.

My research, overtime, leads me to form, what i’d consider to be a well-founded position; that,

a. it doesn’t take long to do the study required to understand benefits; and,

b. that they way things are being built to work today — is actually far worse.

Enormous mistakes are made all the time, there are millions of dollars spent by governments world-wide to investigate how important societal systems, now still continually under enormous strain — are only getting worse.

As may be illustrated overtime, the likely reason for this is rigidly coupled to the information management practice of asymmetrically storing information about all things in our world, in databases that are operated in the interests of legal personalities.

That through this lens, the answer to systemic problems is often suggested to be that ‘there is a need for additional funding’, whilst the underlying circumstantial statistical resources required to analyse trends relating to poor performance of existing business systems, remains ‘out of scope’.

That human experience has been factored by ICT as to be consumed.

Even though, the knowledge of harm and economic cost does now exist; these ‘silos’ of information, as is operated by legal personalities for legal personalities; as now separates by law important ‘knowledge artifacts’, that acts to discourage non-organisational use through means that are rationalised as important, as to preserve privacy — exhibits effects contrary to ‘common sense’.

These harms, poorly impacting the dignity of all persons; are now most commonly ‘treated’ after public outcry, engendering a reaction to make a new plan. In-so-doing, those ‘siloed’ custodial informatics markets, largely centred upon the needs of existing knowledge capital participants; has built, incrementally, using the same underlying business systems that have been applied through the adaption of pre-cyber business models, that will continue to deliver, worsening results overtime if the role of natural persons is not built into the core frameworks for how it is, ICT systems are made to work.

If we build ‘human identity’ solutions by simply providing identifiers tied to 3rd party systems, who by an exclusive business systems model are the beneficiaries of the informatics systems relating to human activity, we can’t solve the fundamental problem, responsible for many, symptomatic effects

Why? one might ask.

So, here’s ‘the thing’….

Over my 19 years of study, as to be able to produce & describe this framework, that i know can and will work; My learning pathway, which others cannot be expected to ‘get’ by simply reading my derivatives, leads me to know that human consciousness has a material relationship to both physics, and quantum physics.

AN ADDITION The idea that quantum physics has anything to do with anything, is a topic that i’m not able to consider better, whilst i have (in particular) sought expert advice in this area — which has been incredibly difficult and quite discouraging as an experiential process. As such, i wrote this article that provides by some basic level of narrated means, the views of experts; that appear to be considered completely unfounded by the vast majority. I am hopeful greater clarity will become available, from experts, consequentially.

The methodology i now put forward describes a practical method and set of tools; to bring the natural agent, into the equations.

This concept is somewhat referred to in the video below highlighting considerations made by Henry Strapp…

Although more sophisticated considerations have been more broadly illustrated here.

The methodology does not simply consider these causality related influences on an individual basis as to consider the concept of ‘self’ in a vacuous form without considerations of environments & society; but rather,

forms a practical means to support both the needs of the individual or the ‘human agent’, in alliance with others, rather than merely and more simply being considered constituent resources, to be consumed.

When quantum physics professors and luminary leaders describe the specific traits of their fields of endeavour; they speak of ‘interference’ arrays, where causality of an act, produces a ripple effect overtime.

They speak of their studies that show to them; that our perception of our world, must be taken into account when considering the function of it; and that a distinction cannot be rationally made between the information a person has about their reality, and their reality.

Interference

Whilst i’ve gone into my considerations about the implications of these theories with respect to social-informatics in my earlier writings, the easy way to understand this is that it is like dropping pebbles in water.

Overtime, the actions of entities cause interactions with other entities, and this is in-turn an interference pattern.

Where those interactions are based on falsehoods, lies or ‘bad information’, this has an affect of causing a dissociative outcome; when comparing the reality of a situation and the ‘sense making’ derivative produced by the recipient or consumer of bad information.

In-effect, the theoretical implication is that the impacts these ‘informatics’ characteristics have is not simply something that’s about ‘choice’, but rather brings about an array of considerations that have a foundation in quantum mechanical sciences, as is applied to informatics systems and human agents.

The impacts on this rudimentary basis, it is postulated, affects how we are able to consider external includes that then occur ‘in the minds eye’; and that, consciousness is not simply built upon a ‘mechanical universe’, but rather, functionally embodies quantum mechanical effects; that provides reason to the concepts of ‘freedom of thought’, and the physics that help describe such human traits as creativity.

Our systems today, are not known to take, these nuances into account.

Thereafter the implicit consideration is that this design framework for inforgs, provides a material way through which agency is brought about is via linguistics — which in semantic web terms means, ontology.

The inforg environment produces an informational representation of a human beings life, that is socio-technically defined to be principally curated by the human person; as is conceptually similar to a series of modals for the personal custodianship of ones own “digital twin”.

An informatics environment about a person or ‘thing’ creates an ontologically unique fingerprint, which is in-turn networked across multiple peers. This is defined whilst making use of authoritative structures that can now include the creation of ‘fit for purpose’ knowledge banking infrastructure, that can co-exist in a form that is interoperable and able to extend across the web.

The knowledge banking sector is required for a number of reasons, not least of which is that of security and moreover systems of trust.

What this inforg based, knowledge banking systems apparatus is able to do in a manner unlike any known other — is to form a means of social-encryption, which is through to be capable of ‘quantum (cryptography) resistance’.

Unlike ‘blockchains’, this cryptographically enhanced security methodology works upon the basic premise of making use of networks of cryptographically enhanced constituent components, across a network, that taken into account ‘human experience’ as a component of its cryptographic security methodology.

This methodology is thought able able to be employed in many forms, for proper purpose; In a manner that is thought to bring effect, to an extremely secure capability ‘sense making’ capability.

In-consideration; there are a large number of very sensitive use-cases where tooling needs to be produced to conditionally support ‘authoritative’ changes; that may cater for the needs of international & national security use-cases, amongst many others, some of which are considered in this article that reflects upon dignity and societal attempts to preserve security and privacy.

Amongst the underlying considerations; are those that consider, that as a consequence of this infrastructure design paradigm being employed, there are many problems exhibited today that are unlikely to be so prevalent in future.

What if this ‘vision’ doesn’t end-up materialising…

Are there alternatives?

The answer somewhat depends on the specificity of the question.

The technology ecosystem framework i have described above has very few technical differences to the infrastructure now operated by large corporations such as facebook, google, apple & Microsoft; noting that those such as Microsoft, IBM, Visa, MasterCard and many others have been instrumental to the creation of the underlying tools required to bring this sort of ‘human centric web’ about.

It is the case today, that those such as (but in particular) Facebook, Google, and Microsoft HAVE the capacity to produce these sorts of environments fairly easily today.

One of the main constituent components to how this can be made technically to work, is now being developed by a business co-founded by Tim Berners-Lee called Inrupt, which is now the primary communications silo for an otherwise open-standards based implementation methodology called Solid.

The difference between the set of tools (primarily) produced by way of incubation in W3C that is now ‘branded’ ‘solid’, and existing infrastructure that makes facebook’s platform work — is nominal, from a technical standpoint.

For the most part, the Facebook Graph API (and related tooling) performs most of the technical functions operationally required to organise and curate an ‘inforg’. Facebook, in a project called ‘libra’, has led an international initiative obtaining ‘non-binding letters of intent’ from an array of global groups in an effort to bring about similar infrastructure outcomes.

Immediately prior to this initiative being made public, My works sought to establish a global Infrastructure fund that was aiming to be set-up as a public/private partnership (BOT or DBOT model) for the production of critical platform solutions.

My investigations led to gaining a better awareness of historical factors that relate to the city of london, and thereafter the hope was to establish an office for the purpose of financing this global infrastructure endeavors in ‘holborn’;

whilst i wasn’t sure which more specific postcodes was best suited.

The Operational intention was to then, distribute the first implementation capabilities across the world, in a manner that could be operated on a domestically interoperable basis via the ISOC Chapters; in a manner that could be curated via an ISOC ‘global topic chapter’ (noting they have an office in Geneva).

Thereafter, the operational activity was thought to be best brought together via a deployment framework that focused upon ‘civics’ applications and was restrained against the being employed for other broader activities.

The reason for this restraint, was to ensure the first implementation did not become the last. I am concerned that the first to deliver commercially may not do so in a manner that would make it viable to form market-based competitors.

A strategy, that could bring about solutions within years — is sought to form a means to make use of this emergent & operational infrastructure.

As to render assistance for cross-functional, society-wide stakeholder ecosystems to evaluate the requirements brought about by this distinct informatics system, as required prior to forming a means though which the operational system was made ‘safe’ for the production of a market-based knowledge banking industry.

Whilst former attempts haven’t work out…

The announcement of Libra was enormously helpful, as the implicit result is that i don’t need to talk about the benefits of this kind of ‘idea’ anymore, as the biggest companies in the world have now not-only announced plans to undertake similar works — but can do so on platforms used daily by billions of people, in months.

Consequentially, this quickly led to senate hearings which in-turn acted to supplement topically related senate hearings, that amongst other things canvassed the need to bring about micropayment standards.

On that basis, i’m supportive of Libra. I’ve written some notes in their community forum, and have found more engagement in one of their facebook group communities that has been established since the announcement than, has ever occurred when collaboratively working on things such as solid.

Yet: The problems, as i see it, is about a set of choices that need to be made about how the prosperity and international growth of relations, as have been fostered since the advent of the united nations.

Whilst libra, and projects like it — might rapidly deliver real-world solutions far more quickly than can be achieved by any other means — we best need these works to be directed by our governments to be articulated in a manner that be bound to (moral) standards.

This cannot be achieved, if our law-makers don’t understand what the implications are, for the decisions they may make about deceptively complex (made simple) series of considerations that impacts our world.

Amongst the many other things, is the means to be made ‘best equipped’ to support the an intellectually and policy environment to support creative works by any person, towards positive species level, cooperative growth.

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright Clause, US Constitution

This means we need to figure out how the sentiments enshrined by law for the benefit of sovereign citizens of one nation state, may be applied also to those considered to be by law, legal aliens.

It means our legislators need to think about the needs of its citizens, as a resource that is instrumental to its role as a sovereign representative and protector of their rights; in a sustainable manner, that draws into the considerations various broader aspects that relate to our means to both manage our biosphere & what it means to support the good tenants of it.

If we consider the current ‘epoc’ to be an ‘information age’, what i believe we’re talking about here; is the evolution of mankind into a ‘knowledge age’, where the federated permissive commons powered international (and perhaps interplanetary) communications infrastructure; isn’t plagued by ‘fake news’, and empowers any member of our human family to find a job to do, and to go about getting it done.

We need to be clear about how prior works such as the UN UDHR, related instruments &principles; and how those principles can be made to apply to the creation, management and use of our ‘digital twin’.

What do we need to retain human agency, dignity, what is most important for us to preserve freedom of thought and ensure we can continue to support systems of government such as a democracy, which depends upon courts and the ability to supply a court evidence in relation to a complaint and/or breach of law.

What if we decide that the meaning of success is not about obtaining a billion dollars, but rather; positively affecting the lives of a billion people — perhaps.

Perhaps it is those words by Jason Silva that must now be made to better resonant, given the tools now exist to be provided new options.

And perhaps, If we do, we just might find — we get what we need…

Broader, Ethical Considerations

There are several inter-faith declarations and historical references that lends support for the linguistic notes afore mentions; summarised in other related ways as to manifestly deliver a sense-making capacity that is greater than as mere animals, naturally able to sense and act upon a form of ‘moral grammar’.

An Excerpt from: Noam Chomsky: 2009–10–29 Human Rights in the 21st Century

“The fact that there are pressures and costs does not absolve people of their moral responsibility. The primary custodian of one’s actions is oneself.”

Noam Chomsky, April 2018

In early April 2018 i sought input from Noam Chomsky, in an effort to seek support in communicating the issue in terms that relate to his field of work.

My considerations were that if the informatics environments were operating in a manner that resulted in ‘consumers’ receiving bad information, then this would logically have an impact on human agency and the means to support ‘sense making’.

This in-turn appeared to me, to have a series of real-world implications that were echo’d in works and words discussed in the context of quantum physics.

“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger

Henry Stapp on Quantum Mechanics and Human Consciousness

That whilst the decision to radically change the nature of our telecommunications, banking and software industries sounds like an enormous undertaking; only eleven years ago, the first iPhone was announced.

The types of large-scale problems occurring world-wide as a consequence of these informatics design flaws — built into the systems at a basic framework level, is preventing us from solving much bigger issues; and the means to go about solving our capacity to build a form of library for humanity in 2020 onwards; isn’t that hard by comparison.

Rather, and in consideration — the means to solve the sorts of bigger problems without it, i’d consider to be impossible.

With the benefit of the length and breadth of my journey; it is, my opinion that the opportunities brought about already by some of the worlds leading firms.

Today, as noted earlier, works called ‘libra association’ provide an opportunity to ‘speed things up’. Yet, underlying issues squarely relates to the means through which we define world-wide, an elevated geopolitical heading.

In this future ‘knowledge age’ it is expected that the answers we seek can be found locally via services governed by our law? Or only via US law & ‘google’.

Today, we have societal options to decide whom it is we entrust; to define and manage our ‘digital twin’, as may direct our lives; with (or without?) agency.

Emergent fields of nuanced design requirements.

Accepting the present as it is, as to get on with the job of fixing the problems…

anecdotally, in my life i’ve found that when bringing about significant social changes, the practice method of doing so, can be quite isolating.

A component of the lived experience reality is, that when someone sees a problem that they believe is such a thing that it must be attended to, as to change the situation for others in the future…

The problem for those persons who do the work, becomes, that as a consequence of influencing change; the problem doesn’t happen people who might have otherwise been faced with that problem.

Consequentially, there’s an isolating effect, that’s particularly hard where provenance systems fail to even substantiate whether or not someone had a positive influence in making positive changes to systems, as to benefit others.

Inforgs & informatics; can have applied economics & employment virtues.

This is somewhat similar to the broader issue of slavery over the ages, illustrated by the stories from the book of exodus through to many more modern day examples. Perhaps the most destructive component that forms part of the embodiment for how our information systems are made to work today; is that, these designs encourages a new form of ‘web slavery’ which has two significantly distinct qualities.

a. Those who are in-effect, enslaved, are expected to find the financial means to survive elsewhere.

This is distinct to former forms of slavery, where the beneficiary of the slaves labour needed to maintain that slave labour resource.

b. that the work-product of these ‘web slaves’ is now moreover suggested to either be; i. the exclusive work product of those employed by the recipient organisation; and/or, b. for the exclusive (whether in-effect, or otherwise) commercial benefit of the recipient entity and their partners.

In-effect, the problem of this new medium (www) being embodied as a platform that supports a frictionless approach to being able to ‘get work done’, without the means to support an economic articulation of ‘upon fair terms’.

Now therefore; this means that inforgs become instrumental to solving the problem that today; there’s alot of people, doing alot of work, )particularly in fields considered to be ‘good for humanity’) whereby available socio-economic terms now results in many new forms of slavery. Amongst the most destructive, are those where neither income nor acknowledgment be reasonably furnished to those who have done the (useful) work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+work

In the 1800's & 1900’s an industrial era workers rights movement, characterised by such things as the ‘8 hour work movement’ led to the proliferation of a middle class, through which the social foundations of internet was born. Sadly, on the new frontier ‘internet’, these rights and many others are now being stripped away.

The qualities of what is called more simply an ‘idea’, and the inaccessibly high cost of seeking lawful redress for exploitative behaviours is now so challenging, even governments are finding it difficult to form readdress. It has been made to be considered ‘acceptable terms’; upon basis such as;

• Your good ideas will not progress, unless those whose creative efforts brought about a later opportunity, consider giving their work away freely (at their own expense) to be entirely acceptable.
• That unless it is ‘gifted’ without any form of economic attribution, the consequences will necessarily be that the individual actor will cause harm to humanity in a way that all good people should fight them to prevent.

Whilst these types of considerations do not appear to be equally applied to the activities of an employee of a corporation, to that of an independent natural person.

Well funded & organised reinforcements to this proposition, often undertaken whilst being rationalised as ‘philanthropy’; also include means through which shaming of those who struggle with said terms being necessarily put upon them, that if they make complaints — be therefore excluded.

As though the consideration made by consideration to an entire ecosystems evaluation, is that to support a means that may pay a person even most simply, with acknowledgement & a minimum wage for their work; that to do so, would mean that a person is thereby working to monetise everything as to cause incurable injury to the entire world — when in fact, it just undermines their own personal ability to live with dignity, whilst making a choice to ‘do good things’, as apposed to the poorer choices made by others.

In reality, that’s moreover articulating a ‘human as natural resource’ ideology, that’s now better able to be understood to be the case, for how recipient markets members, operate, so ineffectively, today.

Silicon Valley ‘brain rape’ scene

The basic problem to this strategically employed ‘business as usual’ approach, as is part of what most say is simply ‘capitalism’; is that the derivatives of a persons work is not a ‘full embodiment of knowledge’ produced by the originator of a creative work, usefully summarise in some form of derivative embodiment of work.

Making matters worse, is that we have consequentially not made & implemented the technology embodiments required to ensure that it is a choice to participate with others where these ‘group rules’ and ethics are employed.

On Christmas day 2016 I pulled together a set of considerations, relating to this body of work, that may help those interested consider the implications

IT’S NOT ABOUT BLAME: WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THIS OCCURRED

Only two decades ago, computing infrastructure consisted of mainframes, laptops and desktop computers only. Digital camera, palm-pilots and very basic mobile phones were emerging into the market; but since then, the world has radically changed.

So whilst it’s somewhat understandable, why, we find our world faced with these problems; noting therein, my ideas of an ‘iBank’ in 2000 through to my writings made today — have been shown historically, to have merit, whilst arguably a foolish series of considerations to pursue. Yet with that in mind,

The World Side Web

dave lorenzini from keyhole present’s at siggraph 2001

Through discussions & collaborative works with Dave Lorenzini (since 2017), known for works such as his earlier role with Keyhole, a term he communicated was this concept of the ‘web side world’ or the ‘world side web’.

Dave is now an expert in the field of ‘Augmented reality’, where our shared interests extend beyond the headwear, to consider the implications of the web in ‘augmenting’ our world; and through these means, the way in which we form a new cyber layer.

Today, these emergent ICT patterns are accelerating major shifts, and are known to be introducing an array of complex new considerations.

The inclusion (or exclusion) of these considerations, significantly impacts our means to define outcomes that can be considered upon release — fit for purpose.

These fields include; but are not limited to,

• ‘Internet of things’ which incorporates; smart buildings, smart cities, smart environments, cars, robots, sensors and the interconnection of all such things.
• emergent ‘human interface devices’ that include; but are not limited to, biofeedback tools and devices (ie: wearables), photonics eyewear, brain-computer-interfaces, audio and video sensing equipment (which may learn to understand sentiment, mood alongside high-resolution activity monitoring);

These two, very simplified, fields of ‘computational device, diversification’ is going to lead to our world be digitally mapped and managed by a multitude of enterprise systems and supporting infrastructure.

It is in this field that the concept of a ‘digital twin’ is most-often used.

Perhaps the most challenging of all considerations, is the likely impacts this will have upon the means through which gainful employment by mankind is going to be supported, in what is expected to be a very rapid transition.

The platforms established today to govern the widespread introduction of robots (both software & hardware); have very much defined a global framework for a company somewhere in the world, to deliver solutions world-wide.

The concern is that may well dramatically impacting societies in a timeframe never before seen; that is unable to be responded to adequately by governments worldwide; and that a viable solutions, is to build inforgs, and bound to support this infrastructure, the creation of a ‘knowledge banking industry’ that could be defined to support regulatory terms, ‘fit for purpose’.

In so doing, it is believed that many of the greatest threats, are able to be tactically responded to and that this methodology provides the capacity for members of our human family to be materially (and legally) involved in defining how these solutions are made to work.

Any other alternative risks is thought to more simply defining ‘natural person’ entities as being declared, by business systems, as a resource.

As such, the ‘business as usual’ alternative, looks to grow an almost exclusively ‘artificial agents’ framework, continuing to be incrementally empowered to consider mankind, just another form of ‘natural world’ commodity made available as to be consumed with the aid of a few, who care mostly, about wealth.

In-so-doing, even they may end-up trapped in the machinery.

The Human Centric Alternative: Empowering our world via Inforgs,

The Inforgs concept can aid in establishing the underlying tools for a ‘knowledge equity fabric’ that is made able to better respond to the needs of citizens.

Put most simply, this is achieved by incorporating the legally defendable, technical means to ensure there is a capacity to bind decisions made by human beings/citizens, to legal relevance of any other decisions.

This means that we’re able to build tools that means we (humans) are more easily able to meaningfully be engaged in ‘work activities’, even when their organised, in non-traditional ways.

It means we’re able to support the basic accounting needs to support new economic flows to uplift our circumstances from a time where it’s said that there’s a global scarcity of work; to a ‘knowledge age’ awareness, that there was more simply — far too few ways to pay people, for their work.

That we (could have) decided to build the means for our societies to engage in producing far more ‘frictionless employment’ tools, than is otherwise exhibited today.

That the means through which natural persons are socially considered useful, becomes better supported through the growth of information systems that provides natural persons the ability to quickly communicate an array of verifiable claims about their life choices and the history of what they have done.

That the problems of exploitation, confidentiality and wrongs of today, end-up becoming part of a programme scheme of corrections, to support state works that seek to form a ‘knowledge nation’, where STEM requires the means to better re:instate the value, of reality.

Where virtue, is more cost-effectively found by supporting research, long before any post mortem enquiry be found to be required by legislators and those who are most responsible to support the sovereign economic, safety and security needs, of a people that it is their sovereign responsibility to ensure all acts support fairly, their ability to grow.

At its most basic level, there is no good technical reason why infrastructure cannot be deployed to provide the means, for people to communicate ideas about ‘jobs’ or ‘projects’ that could be done; and be provided the means electronically, to easily engage with others to progress those ideas into outcomes that form employment opportunities; as are expected to be plentiful in nature.

Governments in-effect have a responsibility to fix these problems.

Economic Growth? how does money work…

It is important that people understand, how money works.

Money, tracks back in our western world via roman times, Londinium and the advent of the templars, from the champaign region in France; it was the templars, who first formed a means to have a ‘ledger’ or sorts, so that knights to trade on their journeys.

From my perspective, as a Holborn, the story gets quite interesting thereon; but, that’s not the topic.

The point is that the way our money system works, is that there needs to be people doing this that are of value to others; and that through general ‘work activities’ there is the distribution of income, which is in-turn redistributed within the community by way of trade.

This system doesn’t work very well when people store all their money, nor does it work if the money is ‘gobbled up’ by the few or taken somewhere else so that it cannot be reused. By creating new employment empowering or related infrastructure; there’s a means to redistribute wealth, and get things on the right track; & by producing tools that radically improve the means to create ‘frictionless employment’, cost of work goes down.

What about ‘national security’, law enforcement & stuff like that…

In countries like Australia we have a system of democracy that is built upon ‘rule of law’ principles as was established and fostered several hundred years ago. These systems are particularly fragile in circumstances where the purposeful design of how these systems work, becomes poorly maintained.

Yet irrespective of these sorts of problems that do certainly deserve the means and opportunity to be addressed; the principles set-out by these systems of law outline a set of rights, responsibilities and benefits unto law.

(most of the time) → It should be your system of government, who is best equipped to protect your safety and the universality of your human rights needs; far over and above the interests of any foreign country.

But today; the data those who swore an oath to protect the people, a promise they should be bound to; for their nation — are all too often, finding it too hard.

Our governments are finding it too hard, and too expensive to get the evidence they need, in a timely manner.

Imagine a world where no matter how poor you are, you can walk into a court and seek immediate lawful intervention, with all the data at their fingertips.

Whilst government, has in cases such as Australia, legislated the requirement for these foreign companies to pay government some tax income; this is not, in any stretch of the imagination, enough to protect the safety of Australians (for instance); where critical information could technically be provided, under lawful provisions, instantaneously — to solve a problem that may cause incurable harms, to those made victim of the technical and commercial choices of foreign companies, most interested in ‘other things’…

The capability enhancement, unto lawful provisions to protect sovereign jurisdictional territories and their systems of government; should, if well rendered — provide the means for any citizen, whether homeless or represented by another due to having been made unconscious; to seek lawful remedy for harms committed to them, by simply offering a judge the means to make use of their ‘digital twin’, to figure out what happened, and what is fair.

Many might say this is intentionally not in place today; to which, i have lived experiences that lend my comprehension of some very unsatisfactory ‘bad actors’ that may at times, be considered to be part of difficult and systemic problems; that are all to hard to resolve, save sacrificing ones life, in tribute to malfeasant others — who are often enough shown, to simply be not worth it.

Whilst a video embed might say it’s supporting ‘do not track’, don’t be fooled.

imho; The most rational thing to consider, is not whether you serve someone, but rather who it is you choose to serve, and how you define, on just terms.

The best outcome, i now therefore suggest, involves a future where your government acknowledges and protects the informatics environments depended upon by you; in the conjoint understanding, that any jeopardy brought about that may be of concern to you, is also a concern to them.

That the concepts of moral grammar and its means to be coupled to reality; illustrate fast facts, such as the means to be confident, that no-matter the role, job of achievements of any person — we are all, first and foremost — human. For this reason, amongst the many others — we need a human centric web. No matter how we decide to make technology investments, into promoted solutions — that should, at a minimum — fit, with our moral outlook in life. There is an express understanding that could be said through words such as ‘walking with footsteps, in the presence of god’ but moreover — this work has garnished me an express understanding, that you’re going to have to serve somebody… — and perhaps, my tireless efforts may help us all get away from the fake news and start to build far better infrastructure capabilities to invest, in reality.

Perhaps, those who benefit after we are gone will remember how difficult these next steps were for those who became thought leaders of our time, in defining the means for a sustainable world — that leads humanity to a new era, where our investments were instrumental to the way in which they were provided the means, to thrive.

To learn more about the technologies that can bring this about, see my article about tools that can help naturalise the web.