My Digital FootPrint

How many people do you need before identity has value - two! How come, as an industry where 3.2bn ( McKinsey ) people have a digital identity, are we so fragmented, uncoordinated and disagreeable?  It is evident that our ongoing discussions about identity, ethics, bias, privacy and consent revolve around a lot of noise (opinions) but little signal (alignment), but why?  Recognising that in 30 years of digital identity, we still lack coherent and coordinated action to make it work for everyone is a reality. Perhaps it is time to recognise that it is “us”, the industry, who are the problem.  We continue in our self confirming opinions, righteous products and determination to win at all costs.  I am not saying we have not made progress or done amazing things, but we have not done as well as we should have! As identity now takes several forms insomuch that it emerges from interactions with a system (say payment & reputation), is foundational (given by an authority,...

image source :  http://www.buildbridgebond.com/ As a context I have explored the thinking that nature’s memory is not a digital memory and what are the implications of having perminancy of data (memory) in there two posts What type of memory does identity need? and Data is not Memory -- When in the charity (thrift) shop earlier this week, I was looking at the trinkets/ orderments that are largely from house clearances after someone has died. To that person who died these items were precious, valued and important. The trinket acted as a prompt or reminder of an important time, place, activity or relationship. However, without the person who made and holds that memory, the value of the item is lost to a resale value in a charity shop. Whilst it would be good to be able to create and pass on memories, which we do as learning and stories, we actually don’t pass on everything it has to be learnt and created in every case ( unlike machines and compute). Giv...

Whilst the quote focuses on the human memory as a means to create personal identity, the question to be looked at is “What types of memory do we have”, and “what do these memory type mean for identity?” The types of memory we have is somewhat easier to break out and explore, in fact so are the types of identity. The core of this article is the thinking about complexity that arises when we explore the interaction between memory and identity. This is very much a thought piece that needs lots of debate, I hope this starts it. Memory Before we go to far, it is worth reading the wikipedia entry on all memory as it breaks out the many uses of the word in different contexts. Nature has a wide variety of memory techniques, but none of the naturally occurring ones are similar to the one we propose to create for digital identity (near perfect). Our existing paper identity systems are closer to nature than the digital one we propose; existing schemes generally get worse over time, solve...

Plotting your view of private self to a public self, against wanting to be more private as a citizen or more public as a person. Broadcast ( where you are public figure) Identity in the form of recognition Professional ( have to be known and have a status) Identity in the form of reputation Obscurity ( ability to hide in plain sight) Identity I am who I say I am (or others) Privacy Laws (where so much case law exists) Identity in the form of want to hide and have protection

Source https://qz.com/1525661/your-digital-identity-has-three-layers-and-you-can-only-protect-one-of-them/amp/ My version of the concept is here  from 2009 I would add to this excellent work by  Katarzyna Szymielewicz  that it is not about me and my data and what analysis of my data tells anyone.  It is about all data, and once anything leaves my head it is shared.  There once was a (useful) set of boundaries and limits to the capability that sharing of data could produce; now there is no boundary and no limit. Get the full version  here

The Strange Order of Things: Life, feeling and the making of cultures by Antonio Damasio Follow him on Twitter ---- For decades, biologists spurned emotion and feeling as uninteresting. Antonio Damasio, a professor of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy, sets out to investigate “why and how we emote, feel, use feelings to construct ourselves and how brains interact with the body to support such functions”. He demonstrates that we are our chemistry and that feelings are central to the life-regulating processes which keep us alive and thriving. What the body feels is every bit as significant as what the mind thinks and we can turn to emotions to explain human consciousness and cultures. It is worth spending a few minutes reading the praise section as the depth and quality will confirm this book is worth taking seriously. You may not like the content or agree with it - but it is worth reading. The link here to data and sensors is that maybe we can deter...

This is also published on LinkedIn and Medium as well  Data is Data.  It is not Oil or Gold or Labour or anything else! Words, in general, are a creative symbolic linguistic invention through which people invoke concepts and meanings that are flexible enough to enable we Homo sapiens to shortcut detailed explanations.  A dog = mammal, furry, four legs, barks, teeth etc. However, words; because they are a shortcut, often lack context and relationship that add “meaning”. Words are “data” which requires the addition of meaning derived from context to “inform” the listener - to become “inform-ation.”   Love, for example, can mean, or be interpreted to mean, many propositions depending on context and relationship. The 2019 update to the New Oxford Dictionary brings in the words   agender and intersexual to help define better and enable more nuanced conversations about  sexuality and gender identity, as society has words without the specific context...