A Major Manifestation Problem

I would like to tell a story, but I lament, it probably won’t help. I want to tell a story about a journey, a body of work that has been part of my life since 2000.

I want to talk about the lessons I learned along the way, the challenges that came about; the problems, the successes and my perspective on how to better rationalise current affairs; the present-day circumstances where part of those works, produced by a limited group of persons; then appended to the capabilities of major global vendors now rolling out part of it; via a global policy related programmes known as ‘vaccine passports’.

The problem that leads me to write such a note, as this, is that the underlying ‘idea’ that these new ‘tools’ are simply about a ‘vaccine passport’ is a vulgar lie, and worst those making these deceptive and misleading statements — are getting paid, rewarded, elevated as ‘leaders’ as demonstrators of the moral requirements sought by those who are so very clearly inverting the concept of public servants.

I’m furious, and I’m also very aware both of the history of various constituencies flying around the planet; and, simultaneously the wilful flaws embedded, ideologically, well i cannot find peace by being able to reason the good of it all.

I am also very well aware that this underlying challenge, to shed away layers of bullshit; and to talk with respect in support of human dignity, about ‘digital identity’ on mass as to engage all those to be impacted by it, seemingly considered to have been ‘too hard’. So, the talk about what some worked to build via concepts defined as ‘government as a platform’, and the way this is now being deployed, as relates to a health related credential, but is in-fact much more. The reason why these layers of bullshit exist is because of a handful, perhaps motivated by an effort to get as a reward a promotion; but done with very little probability of any downside if the work harms the many.

Its actually increasingly interesting how; whilst I can point out, with kindness, and in a kind manner; that family were shareholders of what’s now one of Australia’s largest companies, specialising in Pathology; because my grandfather was a pathologist. I can tell people and show artifacts linked to a body of work that I started way back, in 2000. I can demonstrate the various people and the fairly comprehensive online records of the journey, I can show how I’ve had such an involvement over such a very long period of time, whilst in unstable housing, concerned for my life on too many occasions, whilst I have a list of others — now dead; but here’s the thing, the people driving this agenda really don’t care. its not about reality, its not about merit or probity.

I’m left thinking, wondering what citizens can do, when there’s a protected group working to apply stuff upon us all without accountability. An ecosystem that’s built to be resiliantly defined to prosecute outcomes by use of force, power…

But the thing — that really shows who it is I’m speaking to, is that, as I speak with kindness; they respond, seemingly demanding some level of violence in a way taht only seems to get worse if some level of intellect is presented in response. Whilst the purpose is to seek to be considered reasonably worthy of some respect, the best one might hope for is some sort of comment like ‘oh, can you put that in an email to us’…

There’s billions of people on this planet, all of whom, it seems, my work, most certainly done with others — but in the early days when the solutions were defined, very few, only a handful were involved; and now, it is going to touch the lives, seemingly, of every person on the planet in a way that is intended to relates to the concept of ‘identity’, as to be ‘put upon them’, like a #datacollar, a tag to apply upon persons in association to database entries that neither be true, accurate or shared with the ‘data subject’, but may be enforced by way of forced medical treatments.

It an ecosystem solution that remincent of sci-fi films of the ‘thriller’ kind, where corruption is rife and only outcasts have some sense of agency.

This was not the focus of the design considerations that were most importance, and nuanced; but now, it seems — a bunch of people delagated to advance old work do so, in a manner i consider to be deeply dishonourable.

In the physical world, if someone sets out to do you harm; then only apologies when and/or IF forced to — that doesn’t make them a good person.

The thing about bad behaviour is that it comes from a place that is ideological in nature; and so, consequentially, what i am seeing now is a group, corpus, fully funded — going about a process of curating tools to controlling how others are allowed to perceive them. It seems these people, as a group, seek to engage with malice.

Is it the case that a thing they fail to comprehend, is that they’re demonstrating ‘Australian values’ as is now being defined by them? Both, in terms of the actions they take but also most importantly care and consideration for the implications of it, particularly where harms are incurred.

Is there consideration about the debt, or voluntary compensation if they’ve engaged in wrong-doing or is the practice method designed to negate all such forms of risk as an organised approach in ‘service to the public’, of the people they serve? and how is it that works? is it the heads of departments that report in-turn to the parliaments who are in-turn operated by representatives of electorates? or has that been set aside, until an agenda can be fully rolled out. if so, who is setting the agenda, and how can mistakes be corrected? or are they designs…

The thing, seemingly they also fail to comprehend, is the sophistication of the underlying works that the few were involved in producing far far earlier; and the importance of being able to support ‘common sense’, and access to justice. Yet i say this in a way that is intended to be kind, as the alternative seems criminal?

That without those core tenants being upheld; they may never rely upon they’re medical test results ever again, as a consequence of the values based framework they’ve enforced upon others, intentionally.

I want people to think about the implications, not simply of the technology in and of itself, but moreover of the ideology attached to this particular form of ‘commercialisation strategy’.

I want people to think about the choices now being made; and I hope, that more people may be encouraged to get more involved, productively, about our future.

A means to ensure the people are equipped to enhance their voice, rather than having been reduced to little more than silent protest.

• I want to talk about the issue of ‘emerging issues’ and how I’ve experienced the manner in which they’ve been triaged in past, alongside my hopes for how ‘emerging issues’ can be triaged in future.
• I want to talk about Artificial Intelligence Equity and its interactions with how we perceive the world; a manifestation framework, that directly interferes with what we known of as ‘causality’.
• I want civil societies to consider whether; and/or where, past policies may have had the effect of building systems that negate important features to support citizens, whilst in some ways perhaps also acting to in-effect invert the concept of a ‘public servant’.

I hope that the purpose of works undertaken by me and a few others human beings globally, for good purpose; that may, if provided opportunity, yield the intended results, not the opposite.

A means to employ Cyber Infrastructure to radically improve our relationship between our techno-socio-economic infrastructure and human kind, our rule of law, access to justice; sense-making about reality; and the advancement of human capacity to solve problems that are impactful in our natural world.

I am hopeful that at this much later stage, now some decades on; as the tooling is increasingly enforceable delivered via means that associate to pharmaceutical treatments; that some consideration about the broader framework of use cases of importance are considered.

How is it that this infrastructure be designed to serve the people of a nation, rather than the people of a nation serving its public service workforce in a manner perhaps unnecessarily defined to provide impunity.

Does an employment contract working for government change the nature of a persons fallibility? is the concept of protection from repercussion, intended to support humanitarian growth?

What are the effects of business systems design protocols on the definition of success and leadership? How is it that our cyber infrastructure be defined, as to support productivity growth?

But the problem is: whilst I may want to talk about all these sorts of important pieces of history, the semantics of it all; people aren’t very interested at the end of the day.

What appears to be most important is to have a discussion about the derivatives of these long-standing works, to clearly describe — what’s in it for you.

Certainly on a historical basis, the underlying requirement was to answer the question ‘how does the observer get paid for doing anything in relation to’, this important thing. As such, there’s only really been a handful of people globally trying to do this ‘digital identity’ stuff, in a way that’s decoupled from this concept of the short-term, financial imperative.

Nowadays, as it appears digital identifiers will be delegated upon children, with a great number of people in ‘lockdown’, as the stories about ‘reality’ shift around, promoted by paid actors; who don’t really need to care about whether what they’re saying at any particular time stands the test of time.

• Some people are marching the streets, others believe COVID-19 is the first contagious disease known to mankind and we’re all going to die, that the global population has been decimated.
• Some believe we’ll all get vaccinated and then things will change, others are concerned about their kids, or a future where the clinical efficacy of a particular treatment protocol; only really lasts several months.
• Some are concerned about the visions of people being forcibly treated by police, others cheer it on.

The status of the observer is different for each; yet the definition of ‘digital identity’ made employable via these ‘vaccine passports’ is rooted in the concept of ‘sameness’ — that all persons will get a ‘digital identifier’ that will, by socially supported doctrine; define how a person is allowed to participate in society. There is no talk about how the electronic information stored and operated in relation to that identifier will be used, sold, sent, managed, etc.

I wonder if the advocates consider, that these ‘verifiable claims’ that employ the use-case of ‘vaccination status’ for a particular disease; is one ‘use-case’ of so many, that can be added onto these systems having been endorsed, consequentially, to be ‘fit for purpose’ for healthcare ‘data’ (information / electronic statements). Indeed the structure of what i believe to be the first ‘health credentials’ legislation (california)isn’t just about COVID-19. Governmentally defined policies, as the political leaders of juristictions stand in front of cameras telling us how it will be — have the effect of outlining how these tools will be needed to ‘economically participate’ requiring inter-juristictional support for purposes that will include the need to use them in assocaition to activities associated to many commercial businesses.

The thing about the technical / legal barriers, that have historically protected healthcare records; is arguably higher than most other forms of information.

A dangerous precedent is being set. But as Eben Moglan warned in 2012, these decisions are being made ‘in a press release’, as parliament is set aside.

Extract from: re:publica 2012 — Eben Moglen — Freedom of Thought Requires Free Media

The most dangerous part of this entire accumulation of lived experiences; by the masses, is an underlying engendered assumption that appears to have been purposefully modelled as to nominalise any potential for any negative repercussions to impact persons who brought this about, if it does great harm.

What becomes more offensive, at least from my point of view, is how this appears to have been internationally curated in a manner that I find hard to consider ‘in good faith’.

When a series of curated and organised activities are set-out by a class of persons held to be by institutional capabilities — above the law — whilst others, are treated with a form of contempt that brings to mind the concept of state sponsored, intergenerationally negligent usuary; It just leaves me feeling as though the situation is entirely hopeless.

That the worst for them may be a time at some stage where they plead ignorance and impunity for their gainfully funded activities, whilst engendering nothing more than a pity puddle of their own makings, in their own fluids. Whilst in the same manifested environment, seemingly expecting to still trust the results provided by the medical industry down the track, after they’ve been sold out for short-term political wins — by people who seek, to stand above them, yeilding unchecked power stating by force it is necessary.

I am repulsed by the efficacy of those paid in a manner fairly consistent with the demands of the 8 hour work movement so long ago; who have employed that legacy, in a manner truly shameful.

But — what does any of this mean, unless, people are made able to consider aspects of the real-world implications associated to the choices made by said people, and most importantly; those they failed to make.

Whether by negligence, convenience or otherwise; it’s the choices they didn’t make that should outrage those who may now only act with some form of human agency in increasingly confined ways.

The question is not about whether or not our ‘cyber’ capabilities were able to provide ‘pervasive surveillance’, whether or not we have identifiers that can be tracked by some for quite sometime now; but rather, what it is they’ve still failed to support whilst funded to serve the public (and in some cases seemingly also, the crown).

Commonwealth Charter
The Commonwealth Charter is a document of the values and aspirations which unite the Commonwealth. thecommonwealth.org

Understanding the response to any such statements will of course be the ‘we’re doing it all, already’ speech; that one, I’ve heard for so many years, because — that infrastructure support modality of ensuring some people are ‘above’ others, regardless of reality (or indeed perhaps, as a design requirement for the protection of some people because of it).

So, whilst the ‘approved thinkers’ have of-course, always been ‘doing it all, already’; as though, it’s a statement supportive of the leadership qualities expected of those in such roles for our society; here’s the thing.

If you wanted to challenge that narrative properly and effectively, bring gumboots, its systemic and there’s no one that’ll be paying for the costs that’ll have to be worn by you and the better you are at it, the more it’ll cost…

What this means, in-effect, is that although now, unlike circumstances back in 2010 when i started on these works now being brought to market; or 2000 when i started the body of work to begin with; it can no longer be claimed to be a problem relating to lack of technology or patent-pool supported ‘open standards’ to deliver solutions at scale. NOW, the choice to deny an availability of evidence in relation to events assocaited to costs upon citizens and the crown — is a wilful choice being made by those granted power (over others).

Many years ago(~2012), i had the honour of being asked to make persons aware of how it is a vision of how our democracy (should) work(s), to kids.

The Australian Way, written by Thomas Keneally

Verifiable claims (verifiable credentials, as they’re now called) was intended to meaningfully support the realisation of those values for all Australians…

The underlying purpose of the technological ecosystem in which ‘verifiable claims’, which is part of a far broader ecosystem and the underlying tooling employed for ‘vaccine passports’ of the various kinds being delivered world-wide presently; the underlying purpose of these pieces, in a bigger technological ecosystem, was about providing the means for people to store important information relating to their lived experiences. The designs sought to ensure a capacity, via a particular methodology (‘creative work’) to support an individuals relationship with Artificial Intelligence acting in relation to them. AI supported in a manner, that supports the use of a persons ‘digital emissions’ to, if required, walk into a court of law and seek access to justice.

The problem, that I find most offensive, (although it may be that i’ve used that concept a few times) is that these important purposes have in-effect been set aside and out of scope.

How do people store their digital point of sale receipts, their medical information, their payslips, the electronic recordings made in relation to their activities and lived experiences when engaging in some form of activity involving others.

Well, the answer is — support for human agency, digitally — has seemingly been set ‘out of scope’ by our Governments.

What this means, when combined with other changes to law that have occurred over the past few years; is that the recording made about something experienced by a person, may be altered, deleted or made inaccessible to a person, even if the implications are such that lives are put at risk.

These qualities are brought about by choices that are being made by persons who are deciding a future system that has very different ideologies in relation to the concept of ‘law’, if indeed it is appropriate to use that term at all.

But, some may say, oh — lets argue, lets defend the stance of those, who should have known better so long ago — that the continued behaviour as it pervades the ‘police news’ of today; even though, we’ve all seen that media where someone is trying to record wrong-doing, whilst another person sworn to upholds the law, stands in front of the camera — in the interests of justice? So — how and what can we say or do about it?

Well…. Here’s an important concept.

When defining technology infrastructure or business systems; the way it is done, is that a series of requirements are defined, which subsequently informs the process of defining technology that may later be considered ‘fit for purpose’. If there are no civilian voices involved, their needs are set aside.

Sadly, this is very much apparent to have been the case for longer than may be reasonably considered an ‘oversight’.

In any case; the way its done is that a group of ‘user stories’ are defined,

• User stories speak about a type of situation in a format that is understandable to any reasonably educated and intelligent person.
• From these ‘user stories’ an array of ‘underlying use-cases’ are defined, which are slightly more technical, seeking to refine a functional definition of a particular element or constituency process.

Now here’s the ‘fun part’ of it.

When designing technology that has complex socio-economic, legal and technical implications (to note a few areas of consideration); the ‘use-cases’ or user-stories need to be considered through the lens of all of these particular fields of expertise.

Some, such as the economic aspects; may consider liability, productivity, functional profitability, and similar sorts of characteristics; legal, may consider intellectual property, responsibility, liability / risks, etc.

Social-sciences constituencies may consider the causal implications of different designs; for instance, if a system is able to quickly and cheaply support access to justice and compensation for a person wronged, then there are different implications to those if a person is wrongly yet systematically antagonised to suicide or worse; a live defined as ‘disability’ electronically, physically, psycho-socially or by intentional acts to deny lawful remedy, all of the above overtime.

Its like abusing an animal over an extended period of time, then wondering why it suffers — seeking, to blame it on the animal or anyone else.

This is not about moral behaviour, i believe this clearly and dissociatively demonstrates a successful modal prosecution of power that has the effect of doing the opposite for the vast majority of people & is rewarded.

There are inter-generational implications, very different to the problems of the past.

The greatest of all of these problems today, is that, the infrastructure that was designed to support the needs of citizens to prove facts of lived experiences via electronic evidence; this infrastructure is not being employed to support the needs of citizens, rather, it appears the apparatus of government has intentionally and strategically undertaken to nominalise support of access to evidence by citizens; whilst simultaneously working, without consideration for compensation or lawful remedy to disaffected persons, constrain the rights of citizens, improperly.

CHOICE OF LAW IMPLICATIONS (CALIFORNIA)

The implications of ‘choice of law’ and the contractual arrangements deployed globally via ‘choice of law California’, which may be identified on many of the online platforms that are now almost exclusively the means available for communications throughout much of the world; is also, directly associated to the growth of Vaccine Passport Legislation.

In the past number of years, works were also undertaken to address ‘fake news’ that has now evolved into capabilities that are deployed on these global platforms to ‘mute’ and/or punish accounts (linked to legal and/or natural persons) that make statements inconsistent with the views propagated globally, with global effect towards what appears to be a globally consistent narrative. Due to a lack of moral hygiene over such a long time, there’s now very few alternatives that could otherwise protect people locked in their homes.

It leads me to wonder whether discussions held between government and global platforms are led by demands and if so, who is it that’s making them?

In past there were debates about such things as the types of thing people from different regions or religions held faithfully as common beliefs, these areas of discourse often linked to falsehoods. Yet the consequence of the growth of technology now appears that it is users of platforms that are said to hold a series of (commercially motivated) common beliefs, on the basis that disagreement may result in platform punishments that may be socially or economically harmful and without meaningful available redress.

But when trying to break-down the problems and try to provide some ‘sense-making’, perhaps not reasonably assocaited to what could or should be referred to as ‘common’, but at least in an effort to make utterances that are consistant with a string of facts firmly rooted in reality; there are so many parts to the broader ecosystem of ‘fear engendering forcefulness’, i think its reasonable to suggest that it is not reasonable to believe any one person has a capacity to have in-depth expert knowledge about all of the highly sophisticated fields assocaites to these ‘current affairs’. Most of which, are more specifically about certain emergent technologies in the plurity of fields that have been consequentially ‘graphed’ together in an agenda driven framework, with some sort of reinforcive self-correctional redundancies; that are entirely implausible to achieve without the use of advanced technology.

So, in considering even without merit, the underlying factors; of why traditional responses are likely pointless — here’s some of my considerations and assumptions.

DIFFICULTY OF SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW

Why is it, that so many are concerned, upset, overwhelmed and/or ‘circling the drain’ whilst it seems, so little is done pragmatically to address what appears to be common-place concerns. Not simply here, but also elsewhere across the world.

Is this the ‘peoples choice’ for the ‘new normal’? i doubt it, but can we prove it? no we can’t. we don’t really have ‘independent’ communications infrastructure nor are many legally allowed to convene in the real-world.

What effect does computationally controlled online accounts and promotional patterns have upon the sensemaking of the people, generally?

How it is that these technologies that show such enormous capabilities in some areas, also feature such enormous flaws consistently across an array of other areas that are more meaningfully important for the rights of citizens, as natural persons, subject to rule of law as defined by representatives (not rulers?).

Well, my thinking is that there’s a major problem with the issue that we are ‘locked down’, unable to participate in group events in the real-world; whilst simultaneously controlled electronically by foreigners who are cooperatively engaged with areas of our government traditionally linked with secrecy provisions, whilst patterns of coeasive behaviours are seemingly widespread.

As such, whilst most people would ordinarily turn to an online platform (that features a ‘choice of law california’ (or Microsoft)) from America; perhaps that is no-longer a reasonable option, and perhaps the underlying circumstances to this problem will only worsen?

In-order to understand the dynamics relating to Artificial Intelligence, Structured Information Standards and functionality; alongside the associated legal, governance and commercial aspects associated (sometimes linked / incorporated, across many ‘platforms’ / vendors); a deep understanding of technology and the ICT sector is required. These skills are relatively rare.

Then, regardless of the history of how COVID-19 came about; the knowledge required from the clinical field, is another area of difficulty is that the areas of medical sciences experts need to ‘get a grasp’ of, in-order to have cooperatively meaningful understandings of the entire embodiment of health & welfare implications is enormously complex; arguably made impossible, due to the way platform issues, interfering with communications, analysis and interpretative capabilities linked to the creation of new knowledge; subsequently made useful, by further communications.

Even if, there’s an evolution of usefully important and scientifically accurate ‘new knowledge’ there is a high probability the creators of that ‘knowledge’ will be attacked as will attempts to communicate it to others.

Part of the underlying areas of concern link also to the economics; the potential ‘upside’ economically, for a particular execution strategy if well deployed could be worth so much money (/power) overtime that the ability for investors into any such scheme to deploy billions to ‘competitively’ protect ‘future revenues’ could theoretically be considered economically sensible.

I have heard persons, even doctors, making false statements often linked to basic concepts, such as a statement that suggests ‘all vaccines are the same’ when clearly they’re not; so why is this sort of thing occurring? Perhaps its due, in-part, to the other issues that in-turn form part of a broader ecosystem

Consequentially; thereafter,

Political / Legal / Defence related Know-how required and considerations.

Whilst confidentiality considerations are of importance for all of the above noted professions, the implications when blended with those of the political, defence and legal secrecy obligations make this situation an artfully designed ‘cluster fuck’.

As an over simplification of the problems; there’s multiple actors who have different obligations that they must maintain, but can sometimes lead to a situation where they’re able to respond to something considered ‘known’ in the public domain, but are moreover not allowed to provide knowledge to the public domain. This is becoming increasingly complex as people move away from hostile online platforms and related information management norms; seeking privacy supportive alternatives that may natively make it very difficult to identify provenance, as may become more reasonably understandable overtime.

Nonetheless, presently; The ability to access unencumbered experts in a manner that dispenses an ability for them to make statements that are free from repercussions that may be considered improper or counter-supporting to the expectations held by a court of law for free and honest responses to questions asked. (ie: getting people with those skills being able to tell the truth before a court of law)

Jurisdictional ‘games’

States vs. federal jurisdictions; And, any underlying foreign interference and/or influence appears to be a problem that make void the relationship between the people and they’re elected representatives charged with the responsibility of stewardship of the ‘public servants’ on behalf of the people & the crown.

As such, the people are unaware of any undelying interference other than as does clearly impact them in their ability to buy toiletries, go outside or communicate if they feel their circumstances are of a punitive form as results in some sort of complaint, which may then both be nullified in addition to the nullification of the account, left as an increasingly limited means to maintain addressbooks and/or communicate with others in the manner prescribed as to be allowed.

CONSEQUENCES

Are there any?

Well, the first — is that this sort of thing would have been impossible only 20 years ago; the difference between then and now is the development of online and mobile applications.

The scope of impact brought about as a consequence of this ‘pandemic’ and moreover how it has been responded to; is of world-war like proportions. The nature of this ‘war like’ contest, is different to kinetic war other than as may have been felt by few who dared to do, as to be harmed by police.

Choices & implications: Reality Check tech vs. something else.

An underlying principal for Reality check tech is that the recordings of online activities that occur anyway should be stored in a distributed / decentralised manner, associative for the beneficial ‘ownership’ of the ‘natural or legal’ actor/agent; and that consequentially, should this provision be made safe, there’s an underlying capacity to support investigative processes to better figure out ‘what occurred’.

A problem that has become far more significant since the introduction of the pandemic and related activities; is that the ability to have a safe and trusted place to have recordings of persons activities is becoming increasingly mute, consequentially persons seeking reasonable circumstances of being able to support their own human rights must take into consideration a means to do so, with a higher-level of security / lack of available records of activities; as a consequence of bad actors seeking to attack anyone who may harbour or communicate something in relation to some sort of view considered to be inconsistent with the demands of the establishment.

In-effect, there is as behaviour whereby systems are being used to debase investigative developmental studies into differing views about a contextual reality; whilst others are prosecting particular false-statements of ‘fact’, in the same environment; that has the applied sciences affect of curating a particular course of action, opinion and moreover — economic agenda.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS

There’s a couple of aspects to this; the first, is that I think action is reasonable response indeed the idea that inaction be best, has only really become the recommended way for the public since the success of the global lockdown in its capacity to deliver a home detention method for 3.5Bn people world-wide.

Yet, the problem is that the lemmings (I hope some played that game); those who have uniforms, those who will stand and fight you like it’s a right and the position is appropriate and just; well, they’re the lemmings. The people who are pulling the strings on so many, are far away…

Given the commonalities in different nations, it does not appear that the thrust of these major decisions about humanity, are happening on a domestic basis (perhaps not even on a ‘inter-national’ basis, but rather a ‘globalist’ basis. (indeed, I think, this is a reasonable belief to have at this stage)..

Chatham House - The Future of Liberal Democracies: In Conversation with Henry Kissinger

I think it is a reasonably appropriate precaution to look at how to migrate computing and information systems away from companies who provide online ‘services’ (mind-management, in a way) from American jurisdictions and in particular, Californian jurisdictions, aka ‘silicon valley’ (+ Microsoft).

So — What does this impact?

Well, a lot. Some of it is too hard to get away from, the best examples being the operating systems Android and iOS operating on the vast majority of phones.

It is important to be mindful that the corporations managing the capacity for persons to communicate (or exist at all, seemingly) is done on a commercial basis. So, if there’s options, they’ll be more competitive. If it looks like they’ll loose customers, that may impact the decisions they make about how it is they want to define the management structure of their products and companies as to seek to ensure they do not loose customers, value or wealth.

There are differences between how people are allowed to protest, as a protected human right in the real-world, somewhere in our biosphere; and how those sorts of considerations may relate to a digital equilivence for our ‘digital health’, our ‘ai related health’, and the implications that has on both parts of us in a ‘digital twin’ related thoughtware war carried out worldwide.

If we find outselves in a position where we cannot do anything as we have no choices — then that is a bad situation for anyone to be in. So, I guess part of the lesson for people who believe they’re here to help the world, from california, could be that we need to do some testing, that’s about our wellbeing, to ensure that we’re in a relationship with them because we choose to; and not because we’re forced to, whilst in an abusive environment broadly.

Maybe by seeking to ensure that we can all find the solutions that can support us elsewhere via market based mechanisms that prove we are not ruled by few; that perhaps we’ll learn and be able to teach kids better about how California is a globally significant bright light for the support of liberalised democracies around the world and all people, in support of they’re human rights, who live in them; or if not, that the funnel can be made bi-directional.

In-effect, if its found that the ‘good faith’ concept is wrong; then given the finding would suggest they’ve sought to ‘hoover’ our democracy away from us for their commercial benefit; perhaps, we can ‘hoover’ away the benefits they desire, and make them servants to us all.

Perhaps rather than focusing on ‘global climate action’, we can first make the USA including but not limited to all of its controlled entities globally, carbon neutral.

Perhaps part of how that can be made to work is by first ensuring they’re not the economic beneficiary for the existence of mankind or that we’re not engaged in a form of dependent behaviour that is unwittingly rewarding any such person whose existance is built upon seeking to profit via any such form of ideology…

So, if we’re going to look to shift from tools produced and made available via America / California, and migrate across to Europe — what are the alternatives?

What are the implications and differences related to the use of those alternatives from a legal standpoint — do privacy and human rights considerations become better supported? Or less?

I wrote another article that seeks to start a process of thoughtful consideration about those sorts of things, as is linked below…

Is an International Cyber Migration Even Possible???
_Post ‘lock-down’ are there any alternatives to the tools provided from Silicon Valley that allows humanity the…_medium.com

I think one of the aspects that i was not so clearly aware of until recently; is that there are enormous trends relating to all sorts of health-data that all seemingly link back to companies in California.

Whether it be trying to get all the nutritional information about consumables (food, beverage, etc.); or ‘health apps’, linked to wearables and so much more. It is quite troubling to me the global centralisation of infrastructure used to manage humanity, into, in-effect, one juristiction world-wide. I do not think this is an oversight.

I just think, we’ve really been let down by so many, including those in california. If they cared about human rights, they would have decentralised their terms of service to provide inter-domestic (or inter-national) support for they’re users in different juristictions in a way that could be operated as a federated network, which is not a great deal more complex than the applied requirements they have already to use a CDN that has servers all around the world as to do the same thing, to serve up their software said to ‘serve us’…

The Parable of the Two Sons

“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

“‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Source: BibleGateway

or as is linked in a way described by American People,

In my opinion, as long as possible before major elections come about; it is incredibly important to ensure there are safe alternatives to the systems that appear to share a common ideology, juristictional territory and in many cases also, underlying shareholders / investors. As such, in-order for silicon valley to grow better — it seems right now, they need people to start using alternatives.

Then, perhaps those in california with good hearts, can be heard by the stakeholders who may suggest they were only making these decisions because they were legally required to consider, solely, how best to make money.

Over the past many years i’ve been working on constituency elements, in a way that has been undertaken as to support freedom of thought, ensuring the most important aspects required for interoperability between multiple vendors was able to occur without ‘vendor lock-in’ or similar, which was referred to by a Sun Microsystem Lead as ‘GSM For Media’ (referring to the mobile phone system, that means phones work around the world from back then (2001)); which, is directly tied to these works being commercialised now.

Some of my writings about these works that have been made public are available on the WebCivics site here:

WebCivics
_Creative Works for a Knowledge Age - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/_medium.com

alongside an array of other historical documents published (whilst i’ve been under-attack by those linked to the commercialisation of ‘vaccine passports’, something i very much disagree with ideologically, at this stage)

Timothy Holborn
Presentations and Documents via www.slideshare.net

Back in 2016, i prepared the video below, which is fairly comprehensive; as a way to brief the speakers who flew from many parts of the world to present at a conference Trust Factory that i put together to support the growth of these underlying works. This video (per below) is long, but goes into many very complex areas that are all linked together with identifiers (ie: ‘vaccine passports’) in a way that’s not being discussed by those who now seek to change causality retrospectively as to suit themselves, and so few others.

There is an agenda going on, which is impacting me in many ways including various costs that are likely to result in more of my past works, and related 3rd party server defined dates (proving particular aspects at particular times, prior to the works of others built upon those examples, etc.); being taken down. Sadly also, whilst the journey has been difficult for me, there are others who i’ve worked with (and i don’t work with many people) who are now deceased, some known to have committed suicide; or perhaps, as McAfee put it ‘got suicided’, and there’s an array of other harms, of various forms that have been negatively impactful upon many. Now if the work resulted in the intended outcome of being able to prove the specificity of what actually occurred in historical circumstances involving wrong doings; then, it could have been sorted out, however i am now very much convinced of a concerted organised effort to ensure no such capability exists for the vast majority.

The implications of this, is not at all good. I suggest people spend the time they have locked in their houses or otherwise, building a solution that can provide a more appropriate degree of safety for themselves and family.

These problems, aren’t like those before broadband. In this environment, it doesn’t matter what actually happened; those empowered by the public, are using powers to provide a capacity to control synthetically, records of history.

As a result, there may in future be no rule of law, and they’ll be protected as they say it had nothing to do with them… but medical records may never be reliable ever again, so i’m not sure how they’ve caculated the risks (costs).

I do hope my concerns, have no merit; but if there’s concerns, why leave it.

I guess the problem is that people feel threatened, that they’ll be harmed; and maybe that position, that considered position, is entirely reasonable. But, if you can’t figure out a problem because its based on someone elses dellusional representations about some fantasy land, and your can’t sleep because the puzzles just don’t make sense — the implications are likely to harm you, overtime, and yeah, in all likelihood any suggestion it has anything to do with anyone else is unlikely to result in any form of recgonition or otherwise and it will certainly neither be an isolated case nor entirely unusual…

There are enormous consequences from the mental and physical health implications through to far broader ecosystem related issues, that will have repercussive impacts for a long-time to come. Around 2001 as these global ‘super-silos’, capabilities that span the earth that influences life, behaviour, belief and the future of anything were developed; as the ‘war on terror’ commenced from way back then — the implications of this, is far far worse.

The greatest thing that can be done by the vast majority is not to protest about the sorts of things that are being done, but rather, to make a list of the very significant amount of things that could be done with the use of technology; that isn’t being done, principally because it would more greatly benefit citizens. If this list of applications, examples of how technology could be used to improve access to justice, ability to maintain ones own life at less cost to government than is otherwise the case; tools, that in our western world could be used to radically improve productivity — then perhaps, that’s what can help us make the case that those who were elected to serve us in our electorates have failed and it is not about parties or brands or incorporated legal persons / entities of any form; but rather, what is is about a human being that provides us the rewards we should reasonably expect for having invested our faith in them.

How it is they have stood up to seek the resources they need to do what they have promised us to do for so long, without enough resources, without any significant change in electoral office funding perhaps materially since the 1970’s — as such, regardless of back-room party elders or they’re desire to leave the burning buildings and support the emergence of new faces, as is part and parcel of the business — perhaps it is time candadates truely focus, on what it is they really need to do the job they ask us to cast our vote in faith they will do.

It seems to me, they’ve not done that, and as they jab kids as quickly as possible regardless of future options that may cause fewer injuries; as they go about sharing some agenda to become a class of mini-zuckerburgs, building the apps they want to control our lives with their version of a zuckbuck — as though, via unhygienic ideologies they could possibly compete.

Perhaps the greatest of all wake-up calls that they need, that we can give them; is to vote every single one of them out as failures, and start fresh having made it clear that the public sector serves the public, not the other way around. They are not our rulers, it is our country and they must be honest and mindful or else go do something else.

We should not be sold to foreigners in secret and it shouldn’t matter what they have to say about it, that its about information, that all information should be classified or that the public sector has every right to find any good invention put the inventor in the ground, claim it as their own, commercialise without morality and get a promotion for it. Frankly, the problem about that sort of behaviour is what makes now so very problematic.

If there was more support for honest people, the effect, called causality — would have resulted in different outcomes.

Its important they care, are accountable and that those who get harmed by wrongful actors are afforded the means to be compensated if they do not break the law in retaliation as should be the sort of thing that our society discourages by way of ensuring those who do the right thing, who help our society; that it is those people who are known to be the sorts of people others should look up to, not the opposite.

If the sorts of things that can be done to make our ability to have common-sense mute, are done without any checks and balances; then there is a very limited amount of time whereby any sense of ‘liberalised democracy’, ‘human rights’, capacity for ‘truth-telling’, meaningful utility of a court of law other than as for something akin to ‘procedural ceramonial purposes’; and very little purpose of having elections at all. I think, to leave you with something to think about; whilst there’s protests around the world about ‘vaccine passports’ the underlying reality of what its purpose is all about, can be shown via china.

The below video shows (~14:30 onwards) a bunch of examples of how, what people know of as ‘qr codes’ have changed the way that city, created in decades, now functions.

Yet the means to achieve exponential productivity (extremely rapid innovation, implication, growth, responsiveness, etc.) in china has an array of qualities that are very different to the circumstances of liberalised democracies around the world; indeed in some ways, it also appears somewhat more honest as a world ruled by one juristiction is not a representative democracy…

In terms of the more illuminated ‘thinkers’, and in particularly an incredible mind who was invovled with me in creating these technologies from very early on — providing the much needed leadership at a very early stage, Pindar Wong provides a fairly remarkable outline of his views about harmonious growth in his presentation — The TAO of Web3 that was presented in 2019 as the Odyssey Polaris Keynote (netherlands).

Given he was actually involved with the creation of these underlying works / technologies, his words, as a real-world luminary — may provide those who say they’re experts, something to think about as the future be now forged in a manner subject to choices.