[DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday August 25 2016

M AV av_m at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 26 11:50:02 CDT 2016


Critiques coming in are great, thx – super advantage of cartoon-simple illustrations is that is spoofs out places where there’s fundamental lack of clarity or consensus on the basics of the proposed flow – deep details are eventually necessary, but at the brain-storming use case level a beehive of details can be more obfuscating than illuminative (excuse my mixed metaphors – obviously I’m a “visual” thinker …  so I always kind of push back for a “draw it” explanation and trimming the proffered flow idea down to it’s bare essentials .. ☺

All that said – I think the concept of Alice co-owning the consent with the researcher(s) is one of the radical ideas here that could be facilitated in a new way by the new BC technology – i.e., the idea that Alice’s consent is an “asset” that she shares with the co-parties to the consent contract and which she therefore thereafter participates actively in vis-à-vis the addition of new co-parties, i.e., researchers using the asset – e.g. Alice’s data –

My knowledge of research consents is not current enough (former JHMI administrator and then health care biz lawyer, but semi-retired now) to know whether a downstream researcher could piggy-back on to an existing consent asset (contract agreement), but I guess as long as we blue-sky use-case-ing we can assume anything arguendo ☺

Best to all, ann v.

From: James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:11 PM
To: John Moehrke <johnmoehrke at gmail.com>
Cc: M AV <av_m at hotmail.com>; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday August 25 2016

Hi,

John and I discussed this a bit off channel (some issue re the mailing list), and I suggested that all use cases need to be accommodated.  The one that Ann posed makes sense in many contexts (for instance, I think it is like the use case for the GA4GH's ADAM consents - but giving Alice a direct role).

So I did a start on John's use case - of Alice offering the same materials - and present a base for negotiation of the conditions of the use, which can then take place as an exchange of records between Alice and Researcher B.
http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=GH/KantaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use2/01-Data.md

Maybe John can correct or round this out.

Jim


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, John Moehrke <johnmoehrke at gmail.com<mailto:johnmoehrke at gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't think this flow is realistic. he second  researcher (B) would not likely be added to the existing consent, but rather build a new consent.

An alternative flow :

  1.  Alice publishing her 'preferences' first, likely advertising specific health attributes to help researchers select. (blockchain publication, likely using Pseudonym)
  2.  The researcher discovering Alice, and determines preferences meet the research terms. (possibly using smart-contracts)
  3.  The researcher approaches Alice with the offer. (blockchain messaging)
  4.  Note at this point, as JohnW diagram shows, there is usually some form of 'negotiation'. This might be simply Alice making selections (web form), or might be an interactive session using technology (Oauth/UMA), human interaction, or smart-contracts. This negotiation phase is to optimize the terms of the consent  (possibly through smart-contract).
  5.  The terms of the interaction are fixed (likely published on blockchain) - possibly in smart-contract)
  6.  The researcher accesses the data (with authorization from blockchain evidence, or other such as UMA)

In this flow, what you have diagrammed as a new researcher (B) is really a new opportunity -- starting at step 2. This would certainly be a new consent.

I realize I might be bias, as this is the scenario that I diagrammed on my blog in May. But I still think it holds up, and would love to see it developed under kantara
  https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/05/healthcare-blockchain-big-data.html

John

John Moehrke
Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security
CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
M +1 920-564-2067<tel:%2B1%20920-564-2067>
JohnMoehrke at gmail.com<mailto:JohnMoehrke at gmail.com>
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:27 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com<mailto:james.g.hazard at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Here is a first, rough sketch.  There are five steps in the transaction.  It is structured to anticipate additional requests and grants.  05-AliceGrants, is the last link in the chain and gives an overview of the steps.  You could click on it, then on "Document".  Note that a few nuances have been captured, such as the request being more limited in scope than the full data.

The general principle is that each step in a transaction that needs to be persisted is documented as a record.  The record states particulars and references its context, including the prior step.

In a production system, each record can be stored under a friendly name, like this, or under a hash.  Records can be stored in a file system versioned with git, like this, or in a database such as IPFS or a blockchain, as needed.

http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GH/KantaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:14 PM, M AV <av_m at hotmail.com<mailto:av_m at hotmail.com>> wrote:
It’s one .jpeg you should be able to cut and paste from the email …

From: James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard at gmail.com<mailto:james.g.hazard at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:13 PM
To: M AV <av_m at hotmail.com<mailto:av_m at hotmail.com>>
Cc: Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com<mailto:eve.maler at forgerock.com>>; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday August 25 2016

Excellent!  I'll do a minimal sketch of this flow.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, M AV <av_m at hotmail.com<mailto:av_m at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Hi – in reference to this afternoon’s conf call, here’s my super-simplified version of the flow I described:

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D1FF98.5669C820]

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc



--
@commonaccord



--
@commonaccord

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc




--
@commonaccord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/attachments/20160826/1f888862/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26119 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/attachments/20160826/1f888862/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the DG-BSC mailing list