[WG-InfoSharing] user record of consents granted

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Tue Mar 12 22:28:25 UTC 2019


The proximate cause of my first email was the suggestion that the Consent
Receipt was some thing new in the world. I think you will find that the
intention effort has been active for many years. I personally have a patent
from 2009 on "Unobtrusive Assurance of Authentic User Intent". As to which
approach is broader scope, i just updated my wiki on user stipulations,
which considers information sharing to be only one of several stipulations
of intent that users can make. I worry that by looking at the KI-CR as
something new, you will blind yourselves to the attempts that have been
made in the past to acquiring user intent. Since these prior efforts have
show a great deal of reluctance on the part of user to engage in any such
effort, i think attention to the use case and user journeys would involve
more of your time. I tried before to get user experience inserted into the
work group, but found the effort to be shunted aside. Here is my wiki post:
https://tcwiki.azurewebsites.net/index.php?title=User_Stipulation

I expect to have a use case for emergency health care information sharing
available soon.

Peace ..tom


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:38 AM Info at SS <info at smartspecies.com> wrote:

> Since I posted this a few practical examples from this list.
>
> 1. Consentua as a client
> 2. Consent management Service like Trunomi
>
> (Feel free to add more examples)
>
> > On 12 Mar 2019, at 15:17, Info at SS <info at smartspecies.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > The dashboard is a demo concept at this time. So not really congruent
> with this post. Is this post in response to the demo or more in general,
> best practices for consent management with identity management ?
> >
> > A few approaches for exploring receipt storage at this time,
> >
> > - the client like digi.me
> > - the server - hosted by the receipt provider
> > - the pod
> > - make  consent an event and give its own identity -  COEL - using
> pseudonymous identifiers -
> > - Consent on the Block Chain - Hyperledger
> >
> > Does this get into answering your question?  Not the type of question
> that can be constrained by the topic of VRM.  The VRM reference is
> something I can sympathise with.  But, I think the scope of consent and its
> identity management incarnations is a generally a bigger issue that
> encapsulates VRM.
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> >> On 7 Mar 2019, at 16:52, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> While this is an interesting avenue to peruse, it is not "some thing
> new in the world". This idea was described in Doc Searls book "The
> intention economy" and is the primary work product of the vendor
> relationship management (VRM) group that has been sputtering along for
> years.
> >>
> >> The core challenge behind this idea is whether the db should be on the
> user's device, or in the cloud. There are rabid partisans on both views,
> especially as to the issue of privacy and user control of their own data.
> While most groups try to avoid the problem, by saying it is user choice,
> the solution to the problem is key to a successful adoption.
> >>
> >> I would appreciate hearing about how the existing implementations of
> the "dashboard" handle the location and security of the user data.
> >>
> >> Peace ..tom
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> >> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> >> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> > WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> > https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190312/1134cafb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list