Tag Archives: artificial-intelligence

Chapter 12: Identic AI Rights vs. Identic AI Principles Correlation Matrix

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction

Below is a clean correlation analysis between the 7 Rights in the Manifesto of the Digital Age and the original 7 Principles for managing identic AI. Both lists that were provided in the book You To The Power Two by Don Tapscott and co. but not matched or correlated. This article presents an new, independent, extended correlation analysis highlighting:

  • Strength of alignment,
  • Direction of influence, and
  • Gaps.

Big Picture First

  • The 7 Principles are design and governance constraints on AI systems.
  • The 7 Rights are human and societal outcomes those systems must serve.

In short:

  • Principles are the “how”
  • Rights are the “why.”

Rights vs. Principles Correlation Matrix

Legend

  • ●●● = strong, direct correlation
  • ●● = moderate correlation
  • ● = indirect or enabling correlation
Manifesto Rights ↓ / AI Principles →ReliabilityTransparencyHuman AgencyAdaptabilityFairnessAccountabilitySafety
1. Security of personhood●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
2. Education●●●●●●●●●●
3. Health & well-being●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
4. Economic security & work●●●●●●●●●●●●●
5. Climate stability●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
6. Peace & security●●●●●●●●●●
7. Institutional accountability●●●●●●●●

Narrative

Right 1. Security of Personhood

Strongest alignment overall

  • Human Agency → personal sovereignty, autonomy, consent
  • Transparency → knowing how identity/data are used
  • Fairness → protection from discriminatory profiling
  • Accountability → redress for misuse or surveillance
  • Safety → protection from manipulation and coercion

🧭 Interpretation:
This right is essentially the human-centered synthesis of five of your principles. It operationalizes them at the level of individual dignity.


Right 2. Education

Primarily about adaptability and agency

  • Human Agency → empowerment through learning
  • Adaptability → lifelong learning in AI-shaped labor markets
  • Fairness → equitable access to infrastructure and tools

🧭 Interpretation:
Education is the human adaptation layer required for your principles not to become elitist or exclusionary.


Right 3. Health and Well-being

Reliability + Safety dominate

  • Reliability → clinical accuracy and robustness
  • Safety → “do no harm” in physical and mental health
  • Accountability → liability for harm or negligence

🧭 Interpretation:
Healthcare is where your principles become non-negotiable, because failure has immediate human cost.


Right 4. Economic Security & Meaningful Work

Human agency + fairness + adaptability

  • Human Agency → meaningful work vs. automation domination
  • Fairness → equitable distribution of AI-generated value
  • Adaptability → redefining work and income models

🧭 Interpretation:
This right extends your principles into political economy. The principles constrain AI behavior; this right constrains AI-driven capitalism.


Right 5. Climate Stability

Safety + accountability at planetary scale

  • Safety → ecological harm prevention
  • Accountability → responsibility for environmental impact
  • Adaptability → climate-responsive systems

🧭 Interpretation:
This right introduces non-human stakeholders (future generations, ecosystems), which your principles imply but do not explicitly name.


Right 6. Peace and Security

Safety and accountability dominate

  • Safety → prohibition of autonomous violence
  • Accountability → attribution of harm in warfare
  • Fairness → prevention of asymmetric technological domination

🧭 Interpretation:
This is the hard boundary case: where your principles become geopolitical norms, not just business ethics.


Right 7. Institutional Accountability

Near-perfect overlap

  • Transparency → auditable governance
  • Accountability → enforceability, redress, legitimacy

🧭 Interpretation:
This right is almost a direct restatement of your Accountability + Transparency principles, elevated to constitutional scale.


What Do Rights Add That Principles Do Not

The Manifesto extends the principles in three critical ways:

1. Explicit Human Entitlements

  • Principles say what systems must do
  • Rights say what people can demand

2. Macroeconomic Redistribution

  • Universal Fabulous Income
  • Data ownership and monetization
    These are policy commitments, not system properties.

3. Intergenerational & Planetary Scope

  • Climate
  • Peace
  • Future generations
    Your principles imply responsibility, but the rights name the beneficiaries.

Bottom Line

  • High correlation: Every right maps to multiple principles.
  • No contradictions: The two frameworks are coherent.
  • Complementary roles:
    • Principles = engineering + governance constraints
    • Rights = societal goals + moral claims

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Code Discontinuous Transformation Problem 0.2

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

The Discontinuous Code Transformation Problem 0.2

Coding is a process of Discontinuous Transformation. When is the coding process discontinuous? Whenever there is a human in the middle. [Michael Herman. December 21, 2025.]

Orthogonal Categories

Coding is a process of Discontinuous Transformation. The following is the list of 61 items from The Discontinuous Code Transformation Problem 0.1 (the original with item numbers preserved), organized into 6 orthogonal, spanning set categories:

  1. Abstract ⇄ Formal Code (Intent and conceptual to executable code)
  2. Code Representation & Structure (Different internal/code structures without altering fundamental semantics)
  3. Code Quality & Behavioural Transformation (Improvements or regressions in code behaviour, performance, structure)
  4. Code ↔ Data, Formats & External Artefacts
  5. Execution Context, Platforms & Environment
  6. Human-Cognitive & Sensory Interfaces with Code

1. Abstract ⇄ Formal Code (Intent and conceptual to executable code)

These transformations involve moving between ideas, designs, algorithms, pseudocode, prompts and formal code.


2. Code Representation & Structure (Different internal/code structures without altering fundamental semantics)


3. Code Quality & Behavioral Transformation (Improvements or regressions in code behavior, performance, structure)


4. Code ↔ Data, Formats & External Artefacts

These involve mapping code to data formats, document formats, hardware descriptions, or structured data.


5. Execution Context, Platforms & Environment

Transformations where code moves across platforms, repositories or execution environments.


6. Human-Cognitive & Sensory Interfaces with Code

These map between human behaviours/perceptions, neural codes, gesture codes, and symbolic codes.


Recap of Categories with Item Count

CategoryDescriptionRangeItems
1. Abstract ⇄ Formal CodeFrom intent/design/ideas → formal code and back1–8, 21, 27, 37-38, 50, 53, 5515 items
2. Code Representation & StructureFormal structure transformations11–17, 25–269 items
3. Quality/BehaviorPerformance/restructuring changes9–10, 22–245 items
4. Code ↔ Data & FormatsCode as data & alternative formats28–32, 43–45, 48–4910 items
5. Execution & EnvironmentContext/platform conversions19–20, 33–36, 41–42, 46–47, 51–5212 items
6. Human-Cognitive InterfacesHuman signals ↔ machine code39-40, 54, 56–6210 items

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Code Discontinuous Transformation Problem 0.1

A more sophisticated presentation of The Code Discontinuous Transformation Problem 0.2 can be found here: https://hyperonomy.com/2025/12/20/the-discontinuous-code-transformation-problem-2/.

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

The Discontinuous Code Transformation Problem 0.1

Coding is a process of Discontinuous Transformation. What makes/when is the coding process discontinuous? Whenever there is a human in the middle. [Michael Herman. December 21, 2025.]

Code Transformations

  1. ideas (neuralcode) into source code
  2. ideas (neuralcode) into pseudocode
  3. ideas (neuralcode) into Blocks
  4. ideas (neuralcode) into prompts
  5. pseudocode into source code
  6. algorithms into source code
  7. source code into algorithms
  8. mathematical and arithmetic formula code into source code
  9. old source code into new source code
  10. old source code into new and changed source code
  11. source code into optimized code
  12. source code into executable code
  13. source code into intermediate code
  14. source code into object code
  15. source code into virtual machine byte code (JavaVM, .NET Runtime, Ethereum VM)
  16. source code into an AST
  17. source code into nocode
  18. source code into documentation (neuralcode)
  19. local code to GitHub code
  20. GitHub code to local code
  21. prompts into generated code
  22. source code into buggier code
  23. source code into cleaner code
  24. slow code into fast code
  25. source code into interpreted code
  26. script code into executed code
  27. shell code (cmdlets) to API code
  28. SQL code into datacode (CSV/XML/JSON)
  29. Graphql/Cypher code into datacode (XML/JSON)
  30. .NET objects serialized into datacode (XML/JSON)
  31. REST/HTTP codes into datacode (XML/JSON)
  32. source code into Microsoft Office document code
  33. source code into firmware
  34. source code into microcode
  35. source code into silicon
  36. source code into simulated code
  37. image code into graphics code
  38. animation code into graphics code
  39. text code into audio speechcode
  40. SMTP code into communications (neuralcode)
  41. FTP code into file system code
  42. HTML code into multi-media graphics code
  43. UBL code into value chain document code
  44. UBL code into value chain payment instructions
  45. UBL code into value chain shipping and delivery instructions
  46. blockchain code to cryptocurrency codes
  47. blockchain code into Verifiable Data Registry codes
  48. Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) into verifiable identity code (DID Docs)
  49. Verifiable Credential code into secure, trusted, verifiable document code
  50. Internet standards code into interoperable protocol code
  51. source code into filesystemcode (code on a disk platter/storage medium)
  52. Office documents into filesystemcode
  53. prompts into image and video code
  54. prompts into avatar code
  55. source code into streamingcode
  56. human gestures into signlanguagecode
  57. signlanguagecode into neuralcode
  58. source code into robot gestures
  59. – five senses to/from neuralcode
  60. neuralcode into gestures (musclecode)
  61. reading code into neuralcode
  62. gestures (musclecode) into keyboard code

Not drawn to scale…

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Who Owns Grok-Generated Content?

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Who owns the content that you create? Who owns the copyright? And what are the rights for reuse or for original publishing?

Reference: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_1447491f-72c2-4829-85fe-d3992f28023e

Grok: Who owns the content that Grok (I) create?

When you interact with Grok (developed by xAI), the ownership and copyright of the generated output is as follows:

  • You (the user) own the output you generate with Grok, including full copyright ownership of that specific content.
  • xAI claims no ownership or copyright over the individual outputs you create.

This is explicitly stated in xAI’s official Terms of Service (Consumer version, applicable to grok.x.ai and the apps):

“You own the Outputs you create with the Service, including the right to use, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works, display, and perform them, subject to these Terms.”

(Section 4 – “Content”, subsection “Your Outputs” in the current terms as of December 2025)

Important qualifications and rights retained by xAI

Even though you own the output, xAI retains certain rights to use it:

  1. Broad license grant back to xAI
    By using the service you automatically grant xAI an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to:
  • use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, display, and create derivative works of your inputs and outputs
  • for any purpose, including training and improving Grok and other xAI models, research, and commercial purposes.

“You grant xAI an irrevocable, perpetual, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to use, copy, store, modify, distribute, reproduce, publish, display, create derivative works of, and aggregate Your Content [inputs + outputs] for any purpose…”

  1. No confidentiality
    Your prompts and the generated outputs are not treated as confidential. They may be used to train future versions of Grok (unless you opt out of data usage for training where that option is offered—currently available in settings for logged-in users).

Rights for reuse and original publishing

  • You can freely reuse, republish, sell, or commercialize the content you generate with Grok (e.g., put it in a book, blog, YouTube video, sell as NFTs, etc.) without needing xAI’s permission and without paying royalties.
  • You can claim copyright over the specific output you received (in most jurisdictions).
  • However, because Grok’s outputs are AI-generated and may resemble content it was trained on, third parties could theoretically challenge very close similarities under certain circumstances (though this is rare and not specific to Grok).

Summary table

AspectWho owns it?Your rightsxAI’s rights
Specific output you generateYou (the user)Full ownership, copyright, commercial use, etc.Broad license to use it for any purpose (including training)
The model itself & weightsxAINoneExclusive
Your input promptsYouYou retain ownershipSame broad license as above

Official source (current as of December 2025):
https://x.ai/legal/terms-of-service (Consumer version) – Section 4 “Content”

So in short: You own what Grok writes for you and can do whatever you want with it, but you simultaneously give xAI very wide permission to use both your prompts and Grok’s responses forever.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Who Owns Microsoft Copilot-Generated Content?

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Who owns the content that you create? Who owns the copyright? And what are the rights for reuse or for original publishing?

Reference: https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Pnf1YHy8ZeN15BeMe6cJ7

Copilot: Great set of questions — these go right to the heart of how AI‑generated content fits into copyright law and publishing rights. Let’s break it down clearly:


📜 Ownership of AI‑Generated Content

  • You own the outputs: When you use Microsoft Copilot, the text, images, or other creative content I generate for you are yours to use. Microsoft does not claim ownership of the content you create with me.
  • No copyright by the AI itself: Since I’m not a human author, I cannot hold copyright. Copyright law generally requires human authorship.

⚖️ Copyright Status

  • Human authorship requirement: In most jurisdictions (e.g., U.S., Canada, EU), copyright protection applies only to works created by humans. Purely machine‑generated works without human input may not qualify for copyright.
  • Your role matters: If you provide creative direction, edits, or substantial input, that human contribution can establish copyright ownership for you. For example:
  • If you ask me to generate a logo and then refine it, your creative input strengthens your claim to copyright.
  • If you publish my output verbatim with no human modification, copyright protection may be weaker or even unavailable depending on the jurisdiction.

🔄 Rights for Reuse & Publishing

  • Reuse: You can freely reuse, adapt, and republish the content I generate for you. There are no restrictions from Microsoft on your ability to use it.
  • Original publishing: You can publish AI‑assisted content under your name, brand, or company. However:
  • Some publishers, academic institutions, and platforms require disclosure if AI was used.
  • Legal enforceability of copyright may vary depending on how much human creativity is involved.
  • Commercial use: You are allowed to use Copilot outputs commercially (e.g., marketing materials, books, designs). Microsoft does not restrict this.

✅ Practical Takeaways

  • Treat Copilot outputs as your creative material — you can publish, sell, or license them.
  • For stronger copyright protection, add human creativity (editing, refining, combining ideas).
  • Always check publisher or platform rules about AI disclosure if you plan to release content publicly.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Who Owns ChatGPT-Generated Content?

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Who owns the content that you create? Who owns the copyright? And what are the rights for reuse or for original publishing?

References:

ChatGPT: Perfect—here are all three, written in clean, legally practical language you can use immediately. These are structured to work for publishers, clients, and commercial contracts.


✅ 1. Publisher-Safe AI Disclosure Clause

(For books, articles, research, courses, or journalism)

Standard Neutral Disclosure (Recommended):

Portions of this work were developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools used for drafting, editing, and conceptual development. All final content, structure, interpretation, and conclusions were reviewed, directed, and approved by the author, who retains full responsibility for the work.

Strict Academic Disclosure:

Artificial intelligence tools were used solely as assistive drafting and editing instruments. All arguments, interpretations, data validation, and original contributions were independently verified and finalized by the author.

Commercial Publishing Friendly (Minimal):

This work was created using a combination of human authorship and AI-assisted drafting tools.


✅ 2. Commercial IP Warranty Clause

(For software, reports, designs, marketing assets, and IP transfer)

Strong Commercial Warranty (Recommended for B2B):

The Creator represents and warrants that, to the best of their knowledge after reasonable review, the delivered work is original, does not knowingly infringe any third-party intellectual property rights, and is free of intentional plagiarism. The Creator retains full rights to transfer ownership and grant licenses to the work.

AI-Specific Safe Addendum (Optional but Powerful):

Portions of the work may have been drafted using AI-assisted tools. The Creator affirms that all outputs were materially reviewed, edited, and curated by human authorship to ensure originality, compliance, and lawful reuse.


✅ 3. Client-Facing Ownership & Rights Clause

(For consulting, design, software, research, branding, creative services)

Full Buyout / Work-for-Hire Equivalent:

Upon full payment, all right, title, and interest in and to the delivered work, including all intellectual property rights therein, shall vest exclusively in the Client. The Creator retains no ownership interest except for portfolio display unless otherwise stated in writing.

License-Based Model (If You Want to Retain Core IP):

The Creator retains ownership of all underlying methodologies, systems, and pre-existing intellectual property. The Client is granted a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to use, modify, and commercialize the delivered work.

AI Transparency Version (Modern Contracts):

The Client acknowledges that AI-assisted tools may have been used as part of the production workflow. All final deliverables are contractually guaranteed as original to the extent required under applicable law and are fully transferable as stated herein.


✅ Bonus: Platform-Neutral Rights Assertion (Optional Footer)

You can place this in reports, PDFs, and digital products:

© [Year] [Your Name or Entity]. All rights reserved. This work is original and may not be reproduced, redistributed, or sublicensed without express permission, except as permitted by law or written agreement.


⚖️ Practical Legal Strength Summary

Use CaseCovered
Books & Publishing✅ Yes
Software & SaaS✅ Yes
Consulting & Research✅ Yes
Marketing & Branding✅ Yes
Data Products & Reports✅ Yes
Client IP Transfers✅ Yes
Due Diligence / M&A✅ Yes

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Updated Principles of Self-Sovereign Identity 7.0 (DRAFT Proposal #2 – 20 Principles)

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

The original 10 principles from Christopher Allen’s 2016 “The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity” remain a powerful foundation. (Life with Alacrity)

But over the past decade — as digital identity systems have begun to be built, debated, and challenged — new insights from academic research, real-world deployments, regulation and evolving tech (e.g. decentralized identifiers, verifiable credentials, blockchains, privacy-preserving proofs) suggest that an updated, expanded set of principles — a new update for self-sovereign identity (SSI) — could better reflect both opportunities and risks. Below is a proposed revised and expanded collection of SSI principles, integrating the original 10 while adding new ones to address trust, accountability, usability, governance, and compliance.


✅ What remains — Core Timeless Principles (original 10, refined)

I believe the original 10 remain largely valid; we restate them with slight refinement for modern context:

  1. Existence (Human Primacy)
    The identity must be anchored in a real human being: digital identity cannot supplant the ineffable “I.” Systems should affirm human dignity and individuality. (Life with Alacrity)
  2. Control (User Authority & Autonomy)
    Individuals must remain the ultimate authorities over their identity data. They should be able to create, modify, hide, or revoke identity data under secure, well-understood mechanisms. (Life with Alacrity)
  3. Access (Transparency of Own Data)
    Users must have the ability to view (and where appropriate manage) all personal data and claims associated with their identity — no hidden data silos or gatekeepers. (Life with Alacrity)
  4. Transparency (Open Systems & Algorithms)
    Identity systems, their governance, and the algorithms they rely on must be open, auditable, and as independent as possible from centralized authority. (Life with Alacrity)
  5. Persistence (Longevity & Continuity)
    Identities should persist over time — ideally as long as the user desires — even if credential issuers or platforms change, while still respecting a user’s right to delete or abandon an identity. (Life with Alacrity)
  6. Portability (Mobility & Transferability)
    Identity data and claims must be transportable across platforms, jurisdictions, devices — not locked into any one vendor, provider, or ecosystem. (Life with Alacrity)
  7. Interoperability (Cross-system & Cross-jurisdiction Usability)
    Identities should work broadly across different systems, platforms, borders — enabling global, cross-context recognition while preserving user control. (Life with Alacrity)
  8. Consent (Informed & Explicit Consent for Sharing)
    Any sharing or use of identity data must occur only with the individual’s informed and explicit consent. Consent mechanisms should be clear, user-friendly, and revocable. (Life with Alacrity)
  9. Minimalization (Data Minimization & Selective Disclosure)
    Only the minimum required data should be disclosed for a given purpose (e.g. proving “over 18” without revealing date of birth). Use of selective-disclosure, zero-knowledge proofs, or cryptographic safeguards is encouraged. (Life with Alacrity)
  10. Protection (Privacy, Security & Rights Safeguards)
    Users’ rights must be protected; identity systems must defend against abuse, resist censorship and coercion, secure data, and guard against identity theft or misuse. (Life with Alacrity)

➕ New Principles for SSI 7.0

Based on developments over the past decade — from academic critiques, real-world SSI schemes, regulatory pressures, and evolving threat models — I propose adding the following principles to make SSI more robust, practical, and trustworthy in modern contexts.

  1. Accountability & Auditability
    While decentralization and user control are central, identity systems must also provide mechanisms for accountability — for misuse, fraud, or disputes. This may include revocation registries, audit logs, and cryptographic or institutional mechanisms that allow for tracking misuse without compromising user privacy. This balances user sovereignty with real-world responsibilities. For example, a recent SSI scheme augments privacy with joint accountability using threshold-based methods to prevent attacks while preserving user control. (arXiv)
  2. Security & Resilience by Design
    SSI should rely on strong cryptographic foundations, resistance to key-compromise, replay or correlation attacks, and design for long-term resilience (including key recovery, revocation, migration, and backup). Academic surveys highlight that trust in SSI is still “complex and fragmented,” and robust security architecture is essential. (arXiv)
  3. Privacy by Default & Contextual Confidentiality
    Beyond minimal disclosure, SSI systems should default to maximum privacy: user wallets, metadata protection, unlinkability across contexts, selective disclosure by default, and privacy-preserving authentication (e.g. zero-knowledge proofs, anonymous credentials). This becomes more critical especially with cross-platform and cross-jurisdiction use (e.g. in the context of the metaverse, or global Web3). (arXiv)
  4. Usability & Accessibility
    SSI must be practical for real people — across digital-literacy levels, devices, geographies — and not just for technologists. Identity wallets and management tools should be easy to use, resilient to device loss, data corruption, or jurisdictional changes. Also, cost and usability barriers must be minimized so that SSI remains inclusive (“available to all”). This is especially important for global adoption (e.g. for refugees, under-served populations). (Sovereign Cities)
  5. Governance & Community Stewardship
    Given SSI’s public-good dimensions (interoperability, privacy, security), there needs to be governance mechanisms — community, standard-bodies or decentralized governance — to steward protocols, resolve disputes, evolve standards, and ensure accountability. This ensures that identity systems remain aligned with human rights, collective interest, and social norms. Some proponents argue turning original principles into legally or socially codified “duties” rather than just “best practices.” (Life with Alacrity)
  6. Compliance & Ethical Legality
    SSI systems should respect applicable laws, human rights, data-protection regulations (e.g. privacy laws, nondiscrimination), and ethical norms — especially when deployed globally across jurisdictions. This principle helps bridge SSI with regulatory realities (e.g. GDPR) while preserving user sovereignty. Indeed, recent literature critiques SSI schemes on GDPR compliance. (arXiv)
  7. Recoverability & Continuity (Key/Access Loss Handling)
    Real people lose devices, forget credentials, or face emergencies. SSI must support mechanisms for recovery, transfer, or delegation — e.g. social recovery, multi-party escrow, recovery tokens — so that a user’s identity does not become irretrievably lost. This ensures persistence doesn’t become fragility.
  8. Minimal Trust Assumptions (Decentralization of Trust)
    SSI should minimize reliance on central trusted parties; trust should be distributed, protocol-based, cryptographically verifiable, and avoid single points of failure (or control). This strengthens autonomy and reduces governance risk.
  9. Transparency of Governance & Policy (Beyond Implementation)
    Not just open code, but also open governance: decisions, upgrades, policies for revocation, dispute resolution, credential issuance — should be transparent, documented, and participatory (ideally community-driven).
  10. Inter-Community and Social Interoperability (Normalization of Claims & Contexts)
    Beyond technical interoperability, identity systems should support semantic and social interoperability: standard vocabularies, claim schemas, norms for credential issuance and verification, recognition across communities/jurisdictions. This avoids fragmentation even in decentralized ecosystems.

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Why these additions — What changed since 2016

  • The rise of decentralized identity implementations (DIDs, verifiable credentials, wallets, blockchain-based registries) has shown the importance of security, recoverability, privacy by default, and regulatory compliance.
  • Academic scrutiny (e.g. risk of misuse, identity theft, trust fragmentation, accountability) reveals that pure decentralization without accountability can be risky. (arXiv)
  • Real-world scenarios — global mobility, cross-jurisdiction identity, refugees, displaced people — demand usability, accessibility, portability, and social interoperability to make SSI inclusive and effective.
  • Legal/regulatory frameworks (e.g. privacy laws, data protection, anti-money laundering) increasingly intersect with identity systems — forcing SSI to consider compliance, ethicality, and governance. (arXiv)
  • As identity becomes central to emerging domains (e.g. Web3, metaverse, decentralized finance), there is a need for governance, community stewardship, transparent policy, and inter-community standards to avoid fragmentation and fragmentation-driven insecurity. (arXiv)

⚠️ Challenges & Trade-offs — Why SSI 7.0 must be “balanced and diversified”

Adding more principles inevitably creates tension — greater security and governance can come at the cost of simplicity or decentralization; accountability mechanisms risk undermining privacy; recoverability may introduce attack surfaces; compliance may conflict with anonymity. A robust SSI 7.0 must therefore balance these trade-offs, offering diversified principles so that implementers can make conscious, value-driven design choices depending on the context (e.g. voting, healthcare, travel, social networking).


📝 SSI 7.0 Principles Proposal — Draft for Community Use

Here’s a draft list, which could serve as a starting point for community discussion, design, and standardization:

  1. Existence (Human Primacy)
  2. Control (User Authority & Autonomy)
  3. Access (Data Transparency to Users)
  4. Transparency (Open Systems & Algorithms)
  5. Persistence (Longevity & Continuity)
  6. Portability (Mobility & Transferability)
  7. Interoperability (Technical & Semantic)
  8. Consent (Informed, Explicit, Revocable)
  9. Minimalization (Data Minimization & Selective Disclosure)
  10. Protection (Privacy, Security & Rights Safeguards)
  11. Accountability & Auditability
  12. Security & Resilience by Design
  13. Privacy by Default & Contextual Confidentiality
  14. Usability & Accessibility
  15. Governance & Community Stewardship
  16. Compliance & Ethical Legality
  17. Recoverability & Continuity (Key/Access Loss Handling)
  18. Minimal Trust Assumptions (Decentralized Trust)
  19. Transparent Governance & Policy
  20. Inter-Community / Social Interoperability (Semantic & Contextual)

🎯 How This Might Be Used — Next Steps

  • Use this as a living framework: publish a draft “SSI 7.0 Principles” document (e.g. on GitHub) and invite contributions from technologists, regulators, civil-society, and end users — just as the 2025 revision project under the original author invites. (Life with Alacrity)
  • When designing or evaluating SSI systems (wallets, DIDs, credentials, revocation), use this expanded set to assess trade-offs — e.g. does this system meet privacy by default? Does it include recovery mechanisms? Is governance transparent?
  • For implementations in sensitive contexts (healthcare, refugees, KYC, cross-border identity) embed governance, compliance, accountability, and usability early — not as afterthoughts.

Reference: https://chatgpt.com/share/692bdce6-1b24-8008-812d-d9e55bae0f2c

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Updated Principles of Self-Sovereign Identity 7.0 (DRAFT Proposal #1 – 16 Principles)

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

ChatGPT: I read Christopher Allen’s original “Ten Principles” (2016) and pulled a short set of modern, standards- and ecosystem-aware sources (W3C DID / Verifiable Credentials, Trust Over IP, Sovrin, EBSI) to make sure the updated set reflects real-world progress since 2016. (lifewithalacrity.com)

Below is a proposed updated & expanded collection of Principles of Self-Sovereign Identity — 16 principles grouped into themes, each with a short explanation and why it matters today. After the list I include a compact mapping to Allen’s original ten so you can see continuity.

Updated Principles of Self-Sovereign Identity 7.0

Core: sovereignty & agency

  1. Existence & Agency — People (and other identity subjects) have an independent existence and agency over their identifiers and claims. Identity systems must start from the person (or subject) and preserve that agency. (recovers Allen’s Existence/Control). (lifewithalacrity.com)
  2. User Control (Agency in Practice) — Users must be the operational controllers of their identifiers, credential stores (wallets/agents), and consent decisions — including fine-grained, revocable consent. Control must be meaningful (usable) not just theoretical. (walt.id)

Technical interoperability & standards

  1. Standards-based Interoperability — Implementations should rely on open standards (e.g., W3C Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentials) to enable global, cross-vendor interoperability of identifiers, credentials, and presentations. Standards provide portability and composability across ecosystems. (W3C)
  2. Protocol & Architectural Openness — Protocols (DID methods, messaging like DIDComm, wallet APIs) and reference architectures (e.g., Trust Over IP stack) must be open and modular so ecosystems can interoperate while allowing local innovation and governance. (Trust Over IP)

Privacy, minimal disclosure & security

  1. Data Minimization & Selective Disclosure — Disclosures must reveal the minimum data necessary; support selective disclosure, zero-knowledge proofs, and anonymous/pseudonymous modes to reduce correlation and surveillance risks. (lifewithalacrity.com)
  2. Privacy by Design & Accountability — Systems should be designed for privacy by default and include accountability mechanisms (consent logs, auditable policies) so misuse can be detected and remedied.
  3. Security & Resilience — Identity systems must provide robust cryptographic security, threat-resistant key management (including social recovery and hardware wallet options), and resilience to compromise, outages, and future threats (e.g., post-quantum planning).

Lifecycle, governance & legal

  1. Persistence & Manageable Lifecycle — Identities and credentials should be persistent as the holder requires, with clear, manageable lifecycle operations (issuance, renewal, revocation, expiry, archival, “right to be forgotten”). Allen’s persistence principle expanded to operational lifecycle. (lifewithalacrity.com)
  2. Recoverability & Continuity — Systems must provide practical and secure recovery mechanisms (social recovery, delegated guardianship, legal recovery paths) so loss of keys or devices does not destroy access to identity or essential services.
  3. Governance, Trust Frameworks & Legal Compatibility — Identity ecosystems require transparent governance and legal frameworks (e.g., ToIP governance, regional trust frameworks like EBSI) to mediate disputes, define liability, set assurance levels, and enable cross-jurisdictional recognition. (Trust Over IP)

Ecosystem & practical adoption

  1. Usability & Accessibility — Real self-sovereignty only exists when interfaces, error recovery, and flows are usable by non-experts and accessible to people with disabilities and diverse contexts (language, literacy, device constraints).
  2. Interoperability with Existing Systems — SSI should interoperate with existing eID, legal, financial, and institutional systems (bridging, translation, hybrid trust models) so real services can use SSI credentials today. (EBSI and other national/regional deployments show this direction). (European Commission)
  3. Assurance, Provenance & Auditability — Verifiers need to rely on trustworthy evidence. Credential schemes should include provenance metadata, assurance levels, and revocation mechanisms so verifiers can make informed decisions without central control. (W3C)

Ethics, inclusivity & future proofing

  1. Human Rights & Ethical Use — Identity systems must protect human rights (privacy, freedom of association, non-discrimination) and explicitly avoid enabling oppression, surveillance, or exclusion; risk assessments and ethical review should be part of deployment.
  2. Inclusivity & Non-Discrimination — Systems must be designed to include people without formal credentials, low-resource settings, refugees, and marginalized communities; they must not require devices, connectivity, or literacy levels that exclude vulnerable populations.
  3. Extensibility & Future-proofing — The model must support non-human subjects (devices, organizations, agents), evolving cryptography, new proof techniques, and new governance models — i.e., it must be extensible without breaking user sovereignty. W3C specs and ecosystem work (Sovrin/Hyperledger/ToIP) show that extensibility is central to adoption. (Sovrin)

Short rationale & evidence

  • Standards matter now. Since Allen’s post, the W3C DID and Verifiable Credentials work have become de-facto standards shaping implementations; any modern principles set must call out standards-based interoperability. (W3C)
  • Governance & trust frameworks are essential. Technical primitives alone don’t create real trust for large-scale public or cross-border use — frameworks like Trust Over IP and regional initiatives (EBSI) show the need for human/legal/governance layers. (Trust Over IP)
  • Practical recovery and UX are blockers for adoption. The community has learned that without recoverability and usable wallets/agents, people lose keys and services fail. That motivates explicit Recoverability and Usability principles. (See ecosystem projects and wallet tooling). (walt.id)

Mapping to Allen’s Original 10

To keep continuity: most of Allen’s ten are preserved but expanded into modern categories:

  • Allen’s Existence, Control, Access, Transparency, Persistence, Portability, Interoperability, Consent, Minimalization, Protection are preserved and appear across the updated list (Existence & Agency; User Control; Access incorporated into Usability/Recovery; Transparency → Architectural Openness and Governance; Minimalization → Data Minimization; Protection → Security & Human Rights). See Allen original. (lifewithalacrity.com)

Reference: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_692bd672442881919413c87440f25ce1

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Google’s Strategic Response to Super Apps

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOSs. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License


Google’s Strategic Response to Super Apps

Platform Layer: Defensive Flexibility

  • Android modularization: Google could further modularize Android (e.g. via Project Mainline, Play Services) to allow more granular control over APIs and updates—making it easier to support or restrict super app behaviors.
  • Policy recalibration: In response to regulatory pressure (e.g. DMA in Europe), Google may loosen Play Store restrictions, support alternative billing, and allow more sideloading to stay competitive.

Developer Layer: Ecosystem Incentives

  • Play Console evolution: Google could offer new SDKs and monetization APIs tailored for mini-apps or embedded services, encouraging developers to build within Google’s ecosystem rather than third-party super apps.
  • Firebase + App Actions: Deep integration with Google Assistant, Search, and Android widgets could give developers super app-like reach without needing a host app.

Distribution Layer: Search as a Super App

  • Google Search + Discover + Assistant already function as a meta-layer for app discovery and engagement. Google may double down on this by:
  • Surfacing app content directly in search results
  • Promoting App Clips / Instant Apps
  • Offering deep links into services without full app installs

Monetization Layer: Bundled Value

  • Google One + Pixel Pass: Bundling cloud, security, and device services into a subscription model mimics super app economics.
  • Play Points + Wallet: Loyalty programs and integrated payments could be expanded to create a unified commerce layer across apps.

User Layer: Identity & Privacy

  • Google Identity Services: Strengthening federated login, cross-app personalization, and privacy dashboards positions Google as a trusted identity broker.
  • Privacy Sandbox: Google’s push for privacy-preserving ad tech (e.g. Topics API) could be framed as a safer alternative to super app data centralization.

Strategic Narrative

Google doesn’t need to build a super app—it already operates one in disguise. Android + Search + Assistant + Wallet + Play Store form a distributed super app ecosystem. The challenge is coherence: can Google unify these services into a seamless user experience without triggering antitrust alarms?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Developer incentives and platform governance

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

This is the outcome of an October 19, 2025 conversation between Michael Herman and Copilot.


🧩 Developer Incentives: Fragmentation vs Aggregation

Super apps flip the traditional developer model:

Old ModelSuper App Model
Build standalone appsBuild mini-programs or plug-ins within super apps
Compete for store visibilityCompete for in-app placement and promotion
Monetize via ads or subscriptionsMonetize via bundled services, commissions, or shared revenue pools
Own user dataShare or rent access to super app user base

🔁 Strategic Shifts

  • Incentive realignment: Developers trade independence for reach. The super app offers instant distribution, but at the cost of brand autonomy and data ownership.
  • Modular architecture: Developers must adopt SDKs, APIs, and design systems tailored to the host super app.
  • Revenue reshuffling: Instead of direct monetization, developers may earn through usage-based payouts, affiliate models, or loyalty programs.

🏛️ Platform Governance: Centralization vs Regulation

Super apps challenge traditional platform governance:

App Store GovernanceSuper App Governance
Apple/Google set rulesSuper app owner sets rules (e.g. WeChat, Grab)
OS-level privacy and securityApp-level identity, payments, and data control
Regulatory oversight (DMA, GDPR)Emerging scrutiny over super app monopolies

⚖️ Governance Tensions

  • Regulatory gray zones: Super apps blur lines between platform and app, raising questions about antitrust, data sovereignty, and consumer protection.
  • Policy fragmentation: Developers must navigate not only OS-level rules but also super app-specific governance—creating multi-layered compliance burdens.
  • User lock-in: Super apps centralize identity, payments, and services, making it harder for users to switch ecosystems—potentially triggering regulatory intervention.

🔮 Strategic Forecast

  • Developers will increasingly specialize in microservices, loyalty mechanics, and embedded commerce.
  • Platforms may respond with their own super app strategies (e.g. Apple Pay + Messages + Maps integration) or loosen restrictions to retain developer loyalty.
  • Regulators will likely push for interoperability, data portability, and transparency in super app ecosystems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized