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

James Hazard james.g.hazard at gmail.com
Sat Aug 27 12:44:25 CDT 2016


Even with regard to the interactions (as opposed to the data), blockchain
can be an inconvenient (sometimes even illegal) way to keep a system
"open."  A couple of references:

Blockchain inconveniently recentralizes "state":
https://medium.com/@justmoon/the-subtle-tyranny-of-blockchain-91d98b8a3a65

Corda is not blockchain, banks can't use blockchain:
http://r3cev.com/blog/2016/8/24/the-corda-non-technical-whitepaper

"Blockchain acts as a focal point; solves a game theory problem for banks,
not a technology problem" Arvind Narayanan.
https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/644879898079682562
In this view, "blockchain" is how financial C-Suites learned about open
source.

This is not to say that blockchains are not needed.  They appear useful,
maybe necessary, in a broad range of IoT applications where connectivity
can't be assumed, and useful, if not necessary, in things like IBM's
billing transcripts with customers.

It seems useful to think of records, prose and code as layers that can be
implemented on any database.



On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:36 PM, John Wunderlich <john at wunderlich.ca> wrote:

> Jeff;
>
> My take is that the difference is not the technology. The purpose of the
> blockchain as part of a system is not to ensure the integrity and validity
> of the data in a technical sense. You’re right that that can be
> accomplished by a variety of technologies. Rather the purpose of the
> blockchain as part of a system is to de-centralize authority and
> responsibility. It might be thought of as UMA - user managed
> accountability. It’s not that the system needs a trustworthy owner of the
> database, it’s rather that the system doesn’t want/need a ‘owner’ of the
> database.
>
> JW
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 13:32, j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
> It's been said that when you are keeping you head and everyone around you
> is losing theirs, maybe you don't understand the situation.
> So I'll allow that, perhaps, I am guilty of missing something important
> here.
>
> I see this consent as an excellent demonstration of an UMA application,
> but I fail to understand the benefits of using blockchain.  Any database
> could track the consents.  And an SQL database could perform queries much
> faster and cheaper.  The only justification I can imagine for using
> blockchain would be if you could not find a trustworthy owner for the
> database.  In this instance, using a public blockchain would remove the
> fear that the database owner might be unscrupulous and try to modify the
> data to some advantage.  Other than that, I don't know why it would be
> beneficial to engage a blockchain network to perform this simple record
> keeping.
>
> So what am I missing?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> +1 202.683.8699
> <stollman.j at gmail.com>
>
> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
> Science advances one funeral at a time.
>                                     Max Planck
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:50 PM, M AV <av_m at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 .. J
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 J
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/Kan
>> taraInitiative/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>
>> 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
>> 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>
>> 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/Ka
>> ntaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:14 PM, M AV <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]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:13 PM
>> *To:* M AV <av_m at hotmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com>; 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> wrote:
>>
>> Hi – in reference to this afternoon’s conf call, here’s my
>> super-simplified version of the flow I described:
>>
>> <image002.jpg>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> @commonaccord
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> @commonaccord
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> @commonaccord
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> DG-BSC mailing list
> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
> you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DG-BSC mailing list
> 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/20160827/d6534072/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the DG-BSC mailing list