Communities managed to verify uniqueness of humans for a long time. Maybe the problem is not applying verification to large scales, but bringing the scope down to human scale, where the problem doesn’t exist. I’m talking about governance, which is your use case. For most other cases, there is no need for stringent verification, because nobody gives a shit who @norimi on safenetforum.org really is.
1 Like
And so could the authorities.
If they can have that digital ID then they can do a search for the person who matches the ID. So a person in a oppressed country cannot use that digital ID since they could be found out by random checks where the authorities fingerprint and scan, then search the digital database for a match of all the discussions this person did with their ID. Or even see what items they purchased/sold etc etc.
No we need to have multiple IDs for a start and let each get a rep according to where the ID is used. AND the ID cannot be generated from the person’s Bio. The real problem is the fact that the ID can be generated from the bio and used against the person by the authorities.
2 Likes
If such an idea would turn into reality, mothers would have to give birth at home, far away from scanning devices.
We human beings are free living creatures.
Ironically, the dream of a bijection between a unique person and a numeric ID , that technology giants eagerly pursue since decades, and are close to realize with mobile phones, is precisely one of the main reasons why I am putting great hope in the Safe Network.
3 Likes
This is actually a great discussion topic Excellent ideas.
@norimi, let’s evaluate this statement. I know this statement comes from an account labeled “norimi” that was created in December 2017 - recently - for which the validation amounted to checking that the email address provided existed (at the time). Safenetforum relied on an a third-party email provider to have done it’s work of verification on our behalf and ascertain that there is a real person behind the name. Furthermore @norimi has been welcomed by a Greeting Bot that has been checking that the person behind the account is a human and can use the internet. I also know that this person has a basic account and has been fairly active on the forum.
What I don’t know is you level of commitment to this community/project (you have not been around long enough, same goes for me 
), if you are operating under different accounts with different personalities and, if we transacted, whether I could have a recourse against you if you failed to deliver your part of the deal.
Let’s imagine that these things mattered to me. I would need to know you are you but I would not need to know who you really are (where you live, what your name is, etc.). Does this make sense?
In addition, I don’t know whether there is one person posting via this account, 2 or 10 or more. All I know is that soneone(s) have access to the account that goes by the name @norimi. It is not, in and of itself, a unique identifier. It is merely an identifier.
That being said, I think much more harm can come from amassing uniquely identifying data in such a manner that it strips away the ability to choose anonymity. Government and business have been trying to push for this world where they can know and track everything about you. We’ve seen the repercussions—from censorship and imprisonment without just cause to people buying a whole bunch of stuff they never would have thought to search for let alone purchase. Such a world precipitates and perpetuates the innocuous illusion of free choice when in truth we’d simply forfeit control to those that mine the data and therefore pull the puppet strings.
1 Like
I agree with you @norimi that in a local community, people know each other and there is no need for sophisticated and privacy invasive ID systems. I see this as a symbiotic relationship between trust and identification. The more trust, the more precise the identification becomes and, in turn, this builds more trust. In a community, trust is possible to an extent that cannot be replicated in a larger society.
So where does this leave blockchains: I see them as creating baseline trust among people who have no evidence to trust one another, and only for specific purposes. But blockchains do not extend to the physical world without the assistance of oracles, right? And how can we trust the oracles?
Exactly. Utopias don’t exist because they start with an incomplete understanding, generalize the wrong way, form irrational expectations, then forget to validate them: “The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.” In the end, people suffer, and it’s still not the Great Leader’s fault, but the people failed to embrace the Great Vision.
I got carried away 
This is a forum. This level of verification is acceptable. I may be a number of different people, a Martian, a rain god: It doesn’t matter.
I use Tor everywhere. I used a throwaway email address to register. All you know: The poster is somebody who knows the password to the @norimi account on safenetforum.org. You have no right to ask for more from me/us/them. (Okay. This is getting creepy.)
They shouldn’t, and I wouldn’t comply. Not in this context.
If we decided to move our interaction to a different context, for example a work relationship, you would need to seek further verification and I would need to provide proof, or else the move wouldn’t happen. Does this make sense?
If I am proven to be a “unique human” you still don’t know. Maybe I’m representing a group that you don’t know about. Maybe I am coerced. Birth-time biometric registration doesn’t help.
Another: “Unique Human ID” conveys there is a human behind the ID. What if the human was made up? Were you there when they were registered? You need to trust the “system” and the people within the system to trust the ID. Can you?
“Unique Human ID” problems:
- Can’t solve the problems it says it can solve.
- Works with sensitive information: Open door for abuse.
2 Likes
The client will always be a potential weak link, no matter how secure the SAFENetwork is. Ofc, that is a separate challenge which may or may not be tackled by the maidsafe team, but it is still a major area.
Getting your device hacked, causing exposure of private keys after SAFENetwork login would be a likely vector. There are lots of threads on this already, along with some good ideas and practices (read only boot modes, etc).
In summary, SAFENetwork will likely do a great job of keeping your data safe when you are offline. When online the scope expands beyond its perimeter and other security problems become a consideration.
2 Likes
Nothing prevents multiple account being created per person. Perhaps some identities would provide key information useful for its purpose. Keeping them separate is good security practice, even if it means losing the ability to have a single login. We have options here.
Actually, I would be more aggrieved if some agency demanded I stored all my biometrics somewhere/anywhere!
3 Likes
So True. My other accounts are neo, stark, beermenow, and whiteoutmashups.
You have no idea how hard it is to keep this all going without anyone noticing. 
There has GOT to be an easier way… maybe cryptographic DNA databases could help?
Joking aside, proof of unique human is an interesting topic.
1 Like
This one hey?
1 Like
I agree. My point is that your identification here is not a unique identifier, and shouldn’t be held up as an alternative to one. That being said (as my previous comment articulates) I am very much opposed to the idea of biometric identifiers because they are easily fudged and too liable to be used for ill purposes. Yesterday I had the opportunity to hear two lawyers speak about the endemic problem of wrongful convictions in the United States. There are just too many ways biometric screening can be exploited and misused to cause suffering for innocent people.
5 Likes
it seems to be counter intuitive to keep fast tracking the development of tech designed to intertwine with something as ancient,and till now un hackable as our neural pathways, before utilising those same pathways properly to tackle ancient issues like ethics and reach some genuine consensus. Global society is a horror story. A tale of exploitation and gaslighting of far beyond epic proportions. If this planet was a family noone would suggest it didnt need some counselling and fast.
I really feel that the present rate of technological advancement has now exceeded our ability to think critically, and to reason objectively about it - because we’ve been systematically hypnotised by an array of devices literally engineered to do exactly that. If I cannot trust corporations and governmental systems to safeguard my liberty in the digital realm, which has been proven, then I wouldn’t and don’t trust increasingly sophisticated technology in their hands either.
There are many brilliant scientists and engineers who have struggled under the burden of responsibilty for how their work has been systematically misappropriated to abuse millions of innocent people.
I’m really not impressed with the way that a teenagers life in 2018 involves a brighter pitch of corporate sponsored lighting ranges, subtler colour combinations straight out of applied neuroscience textbooks and smaller and smaller pixels to demand focus on a frequent and obsessive basis than any generation prior. The drive to confuse the pathways has already begun. Its difficult for the eye to adjust to the perception of range in such detail at such close proximity. In short, its a neural hack. Just because its not a physical implant doesn’t mean its not in beta mode. And now getting people excited about crossing that barrier is also part of the process modification being exacted on our brains, adjusted to actual reality and optic comprehension based on genuine ,real, physical distances so we can judge where we’re at.
Its not suprising that self driving cars are being pushed as it is going to become more difficult to actually drive with those frames of reference altered into abstraction. Its joyful theories of neuroplasticity gone wrong. We could still be trained to unlearn vital components of a physically functioning world in exchange for the bright lights and diminishing physical capacity of a dead but seemingly stimulating virtual reality.
One of the first ways this programme was implemented was to begin the process of priming the human brain to recieve artificially created neuromagnetic data via resonance emitted from a signal post and entering our brains on a daily basis. From early wireless to superfast wireless broadband - it was never just the receiving device picking up the signal. Our brains are bombarded. Its worse if you’re another ancient creature like a bird or a bee trying to communicate in conditions of human generated and enforced tinnitus. I honestly think the signals are utterly disruptive. No bees like 4 G.
There is also now whole generation being indoctrinated into the art of staring at a screen in the palm of their hand - the like of which some of the people able to create only ever saw in the imaginations of writers translated into television, when the screen was further away, the moving dots less refracted and the cathode ray emitting a less pervasive signal.
the 4 arguments for the elimination of television have evolved into a million reasons why the tech we’re excited by is dangerous. Its not about what can be done - clay can be moulded into a thing of beauty or a thing of ugly proportions - Its all so potentially future-altering that reaching some kind of consensus regarding the ethics seems vitally important before we land the future generations with problems we didnt have to suffer.
Regarding biometrics, its presented now as a simple message and receiver model, but because it seems passive receptors can also transmit - Electromagnetic broadcast is viable as we do it naturally- all manner of artificial signals have also been developed for broadcast and even without a device in front of us we are bombarded with the signals. Its already omni environmental and its only really just begun.
I’ve seen Harari flouncing around, being treated like a rock star, puffed by the establishment and whipping people into a frenzy about the elite revolution - the power to play creator to a fusion of tech and human. Its like a bad stand up routine but far more dangerous.Celebrating the rise of corporate demigods from below ground and into a cloud whilst declaring his alleigance to the palaces of the process. I consider him a charlatan spouting agenda laden misconceptions about the nature of life itself to audiences who have been primed to eat the product. Im not eating it now, later or ever. Its toxic.
It worries me that sometimes good people give dangerous people brilliant ideas. It doesnt make me feel safer about the future of life for all of us including the other creatures of this earth.
I heard a report about whale song being lower and that was billed as being a sonic signal suggesting an increase in whales. I’m no great whale expert but I dont see evidence of more wales. I hear evidence of depressed communication. There has been alot of passive acoustic monitoring on our dear whales, and I’m not convinced that they havent been targeted with active sonar whilst trying to escape the whalers and the subs.
There has been no mercy shown to any creature by oppressive regimes with genius technology in their hands. the surgeons scalpel is now a signal and the mission is a long range lobotomy. I know they already used microwaves as a weapon of war -To drive people out of buildings. Its sickening nightmarish psychopathic horror that would be given an adult rating if it was fiction. Unfortunately this is one example of an actualised worse case scenario as a destination point for technological advancement.
This is not neo ludditeism or some bogwash from a textbook. The technological advancements are not the problem. Its who gets to control what happens with it with our global affairs as they are. The tech wont safe us from despotism - thats our task. But there are well established organisations like the wellington house cronies at the Tavistock who have been diligently and tirelessly finding more creative ways to exploit and subdue the masses into compliant fudge for at least the past 100 years.
David Yikes did alot of damage to the cause of exposing this fraud by plagiarising Dr John Coleman’s book and making references to the Tavistock institute of human relations synonymous with deluded musings. I hope I am not making the same mistake. The book is available on the archive.org
I would urge every scientist with a good heart to be very cautious with their minds and who profits from their innovations. Because its all about the tech these days, ancient concepts like logic & genuine reasoning are being systematically bypassed. How to spot a logical fallacy is not high up on the educators agenda as they have no clothes on and dont want to help point it out. Ethics are swept away under a tide of new gadgets demanding attention and rendering past legislation obsolete. The few that seek to rule us do not have everyones better welfare in mind. General ethics are not mechanically relevant to their process.
I want to know that we aren’t going to have to pay the price for allowing influential people with a depraved mindset the opportunity to weaponise every innovative advancement and use it against us against our will. No need for will when you;re being blasted in the brain with a unique access code biometrically detetectable only by you but literally tuned into the wrong station.
I saw the title and would have left this post unedited as a tribute to the capacity to make mistakes and be imperfect if it hadnt been such a tangled mess to look at. I’m sure i’ve still done my imperfection justice with this overly inclusive rant but nonetheless i’ve edited it and its ended up nearly twice as long as it was when I started and not really any more linear.
Tijmen Schep sais that privacy is the right to be imperfect. I consider my biometric responses and my brain waves private. And I want to keep them that way. Theres not much I can to about the broadcast except switch devices off from the power sources when they’re not in use.
I’m hopeful that once the discussion has truly begun we will see a shift from simply accepting the state of the world as a result of unavoidable conflicts, to the knowledge that there have been covert actors manipulating events and continuing to do so. I dispute their capacity for governance. They need to grow up and learn basic concepts like sharing and the preciousness of life. There is no ‘entitlement to rule’ on this planet. Its just petty minded to argue the case. The human family are a long way from a picnic in the park but at least there is plenty of room for improvement and information networks are flourishing. 
2 Likes
p.s it seems I have proven my falliabilty again in record speed as I have clearly fallen for negative propaganda somewhere along the way and mistakenly assumed that a neo luddite was someone lacking in insight and being a technophobe for retrograde reasons.I just looked it up and whilst I accept that this article appears in a glossy fabian promoting magazine Neil Postman sounds like a very sensible human being so I wont hold where he’s quoted against him in the least. The NS cant decide whether they are with or without the author so my guess is the article was printed to cause confusion about alliances with what turned out to be a a very interesting subject. Best wishes all round the computers made my eyes ache and when I went out earlier i’d been sat in front of a screen for so long the sunlight looked artificial. Its all a hack! We should probably be wearing goggles to protect our brains from the screens in much the same way we’re taught not to stare at the sun.
my best wishes to you all & thank you for the opportunity to look into the true definition of a luddite. I aprreciate the original form the most as it was resistance to the utilising of machinery to corrupt human lives. as a purist I am now off to smash my laptop into a thousand peices quickly before staring further into the glare of the digital abyss,fishtanking everything out or posting anything else
"In 1992, Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly, rehabilitated the Luddites in response to the threat from computers: “The term ‘Luddite’ has come to mean an almost childish and certainly naive opposition to technology. But the historical Luddites were neither childish nor naive. They were people trying desperately to preserve whatever rights, privileges, laws and customs had given them justice in the older world-view.”
2 Likes
My point is that unique identifiers are unnecessary and come with more liabilities than benefits. Combination of multiple non-unique identifiers can be used for sufficient level of authentication.
Proof: This is how the world is currently working.
More Proof: When it breaks down, that’s usually because a hard-to-replace and much trusted identifier was stolen or fabricated.
This proposal is for a 100% trusted, 100% irreplaceable, and 100% irrevocable identifier. Can you see the problem?
An identifier like that would be the number one target for governmental and criminal groups with plenty of resources to steal what they want to steal. Safe Network can be 100% secure, your hardware and operating system are not. If the NSA, Mosad, KGB, or the China Spies Ltd. thinks something is a valuable target, they will steal it.
2 Likes
Yes. The problem with the Perfect Unique Identifier: It doesn’t exist. This is what I meant when I wrote: “It promises things it can’t deliver.” But: People will believe the promise and trust the “evidence”. Like the juries trusted it in the cases you mentioned.
It’s better to expect that the identifier is fallible. Then you can demand a combination of multiple insecure identifiers to reach the level of security you need that time.
You could also leverage my public social network for proof of identity. If you want to know my real identity, I can send you a friend request on Facebook. Then you can verify: I have enough real interactions with real people. Maybe the Safe Network could have an app for this. Better than the “Creepy Mandatory Biometric Identifier Harvesting Scheme” of this proposal.
@Guybrows, I think this idea is interesting. I used to think about such things with great enthusiasm. However. I lived enough to learn: The first thing to look at is always: “How it will be misused?” This idea can be misused in too many ways to be viable.
3 Likes
I’m sure the intentions are as you describe, but I think the tech is at the level of “hmm, this works, we’ll keep it” not “neurosynaptic pathway B15S4 secured! let’s move on to B14Z1”.
1 Like
I am genuinely concerned that ‘this works, we’ll keep it’ is followed by ‘lets call it B15s4.1 and go and tap some independents for their insight and understanding - they like solving problems so lets have them solve ours - we’ll call it B15s4.2 and what they thought would save the bees, will help us destroy them and their pesky liberties. probably’ followed by ‘lets open a bottle to celebrate our ongoing status as the remote controllers, sit back and let the data stream in’
These self acclaimed masters of their own puniverse just love hiding behind walls and listening in as i think it fills their otherwise rather bland, predestined and repetitve lives with a sense of drama and intrigue. the thing is theyre at war with the rest of humanity and this makes it all a bit more sinister than just a silly schoolboy game which is how they seem to treat it all. Its all very strange and not my cup of tea at all - but since there are baffling tech conversations occurring on platforms all over the shop.Its free genius -.recruitmentless harvesting of brilliant minds - i’ve got absolutely no product for them by the way - I doubt theyd be particularly interested in my ability to locate ‘disk clean’ on windows paleo.
But advanced understanding and community brainstorming is literally a priceless commodity for people who have a vested interest in applied psychological warfare and developing technological torture methods. Its really just a small groups niche perversions cubed, cubed and cubed again…
i’m not putting any suggestions in their box except ‘unsubscribe’