Versions Compared

Old Version 19

changes.mady.by.user kellycooper.2ds

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Vipin Bharathan

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

...

Rohit Shitre - Working with IronWorks AyanWorks as a blockchain developer. Working on H HL Indy. 

Tony Bellan

Recording

audio

video

Minutes

Anti-trust Policy and Code of Conduct

...

The 'State of Identity' consider a comprehensive view. Kim Cameron will present 2/5. Identity of IoTs - smart city initiatives, Guardianship, and more presentations for the rest of the year. Open for presentation suggestions.

Identity TSC report - link on wiki to current report.

Personal Data Protection laws recently launched in India. Vipin will discuss transnational privacy laws. 

Image Added

Looking for patterns in the regulation and consider how we can adopt blockchain implementation to come up with ways to approach. Challenges - 

Image Added

Data - such as surveillance - emergent effects led to problems such as subversion of democracy, social credit scoring, and other ways in which unregulated state of affairs led to complete destruction of privacy. Europe started campaign against unregulated data collection - led to regulation written by legislators and lawyers - those with little exposure to true technology. Regulations, meant to be technology neutral, resulted in overreach. Both pendulum extremes led to the current situation. Some of the laws led to data localization - what happens if someone commits a crime and flees to another country? Will the data be available? Priority is to control data - in country. Exceptions include programs such as National Right to Information. 

Image Added

Comment: Tony Bellan. US Citizen - discussion sparked with GDPR. California with CCPA - did something similar to, not quite the same as GDPR. Learning differences between the two scopes - not necessarily models to follow. Since established, seem to be working off of that. Data rights, identity, using GDPR and CCPA as benchmarks.

US on map - no initiatives or information - lack of federal law for privacy. US and AK shown in white. Also have white in China; however, China wants to or has already developed privacy law that no one knows. In China - on the one hand people wanting to protect, on the other hand mass surveillance and social credit scoring. 

If developing a global blockchain platform with transnational collaboration - how do you implement cross-jurisdiction protections?

Perhaps as simple as no private information on the blockchain, including private DIFs. What is the scope of the conversation? 

PII not on blockchain? How to localize? How to access by authorized parties? Not only PII that is protected - transaction information, metadata. 

Privacy - personal data - laws are in place - privacy protection and comply with GDPR. Conversation is separate - privacy or privacy on blockchain.

What about correlating with transactions? Then poor design. Scope of DLT - if audit transactions on the ledger - can't be pseudo anonymously identifiable. 

The ledger becomes pure proofs? Yes. Hashes? Workgroup 29 EU GDPR - encrypted data should not be put on chain. Hashes or salted hashes, maybe? Privacy lawyers? Reverse engineer? Gray area - don't do it. Don't put hashes of PII on-chain. 

Other systems will do PII storage and identity proofing? Identity management systems, covered ISO 307. Security and Identity management systems. 

Safe? Not according to the news. Perhaps insider threats or poor implementation. Not a DLT thing unless you scope it into the conversation. DLT is a system of records somehow. CORDA is a bilateral system, visible to parties on transaction, not others. 

Right of erasure? How do you remove? Direct impact on adoption of adoption of a particular ledger.

Focus - what is written to the ledger, including transaction audits. And, what should transaction audits be comprised of? Transaction audits to PII? In India or CORDA conversation - if implemented based on based practice - pairwise pseudo channels with service requestor and service provider. Only those two know - like FIDO - you can have a different DID - thousands of private DIDs for one service provider? How do we have privacy protection on the ledger? 

Have to expose data to verifier? Verifier has the right to copy the data? As service provider. You can de-link Issuer from Verifier. On the ledger will be whatever available to make pairwise DID conversation more private. In the end, the Service Provider is capturing data and associating it with a person. The doctor knows who you are. 

How do you protect on-chain in a DLT. As soon as I give a pairwise pseudo-anonymous channel - we're off-chain and in a different domain. That's any Identity management domain. Rife with leak problems.


Image AddedImage Added

Image Added

Certain headings, if you go to Consumer Rights and Business Obligations - all are present in one form or another. Some laws do not protect certain items. Say all going to be implemented in Identity and Access Management Systems and we are the 'glue'. 

If a customer wants access to collect data and ask for it - lots of ideas with cryptography, zero knowledge proofs, etc. Need to discuss what is stored and not in the ledger. Do we need a ledger? The accumulator and transaction audits. The accumulator keeps track of valid verifiable credentials and revoked verifiable credentials.

SSI - what is the latest state of DIDs and SSI technology including Indy, Aries, and other associated. 

End of meeting.