New section on environmental impacts #27
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1412,6 +1412,104 @@ <h3>Biometrics</h3> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h2>Environmental and Ethical Considerations</h2> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following section details certain key areas of focus when implementing a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| new DID method, or implementing a solution that incorporates DIDs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The <a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/">W3C TAG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ethical Web Principles</a> document is a reliable guide for making assessments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| and weighing ethical considerations of various technologies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Broad Ethical Principles</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decentralized Identifiers may come to underpin much of our digital life. This | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| may include public social and career personas, as well as more private personas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| shared among friends and family. Identifiers representing these personas and | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| relationships may be some of the most important in our lives, so great care | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| will be taken when choosing an identifier system to support these critical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| activities. As with all things, the appropriate and ethical use of technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| will be strongly considered when implementing items related to DIDs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As noted in the <a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#principles"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Principles</a> section of the Ethical Web Principles, there are key goals that | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| apply to all Web standards and technologies. DIDs are explicitly intended to | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| help users get closer to several of these goals, especially the following: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <ul> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#privacy"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Privacy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#control"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Individual Control | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#multi"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Device Independence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </ul> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Environmental Considerations</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p class="advisement"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following section reflects the views of some members of the working group. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Additional PRs are welcome from the working group with additional points of view. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comment on lines
1472
to
1473
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. @csuwildcat how about something like this: Thought being, that for areas where personal ID is involved I am highly skeptical of methods that do not opt for a proof of work approach at the current time, simply because of the privacy, security, and end user control compromises that are made with other approaches. However, there are a lot of use cases for DIDs that may have lesser requirements in those areas. A specific case I am thinking of is an area where our system issues a DID for discrete sources of data that have been identified. We often utilize did:key for this, which then gives us options depending on the scenario and environment as to how to approach anchoring, etc. if required, but also gives us the option to lighten compute and network load where appropriate, while still being able to benefit from a DID based approach.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. The above is written in very strong subjective language (
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. @TallTed thoughts on the alternate language I offered? I think it could use some edits
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. @TallTed this is actually shifting the conversation to the more empirical topic of security, specifically protecting against "the full range of attack vectors, interdiction points, and centralization forces". These are critical aspects of system design that can be addressed with specific technical mitigations within implementations, thus it's probably a better basis for framing the considerations at bar. I must push back strongly against the hyperbolic framing that this is switching to a premise that implementers should "consume all energy to increase 'security'!". There are many things wrong here, not least of which is that electricity != emissions (all electricity generation worldwide = just 25% of emissions), but the whole point of these changes is to avoid opening this up to inherently subjective value perceptions that the other premise will draw into the discussion. If we assume a basis for articulation that invites subjective value perceptions, you may see PRs adding text that challenge people to justify why what may become some of the most important infra in human life is not valuable enough to protect with implementations that provide the highest levels of security. The most notable exemplar of a highly secure substrate commonly used today is equivalent to ~1/100th of the emissions impact from cow farts or 1/24th the emissions impact of clothes dryers. I personally believe what may become some of the most important infra for humans is worth ~1/100th of the emissions impact from cow farts or 1/24th the emissions impact of clothes dryers, but I don't want to have to ask others why they don't, which is why we should avoid that previous premise for articulating the considerations.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At minimum, for this phrasing to do what you apparently meant, "full range" should be "full known range", as new vulnerability specimens surface regularly. Next, please note that I referred nowhere to (presumably CO2 and other greenhouse gas) emissions in my words. I was reacting to what you said earlier --
-- which I read as it was written -- i.e., security over all other considerations, amongst which I'm pretty sure you'll agree we find energy consumption. Now, as to cow emissions... "Over 95 percent, actually, is from the mouth, from the front end of the cow." and In a year, a single cow can belch around 220 pounds of methane. Those articles show a cute new mask for the cows that can reduce their belch emissions by ~98%, and they've also separately found that adding a bit of seaweed (~1% or less, because of flavor issues -- not in the milk or beef, but the cows don't like >1%) to the cows' diet reduces overall emissions by ~80%, so your examples and/or figures will need some reworking. Regarding clothes dryers, are you talking about gas or electric? Or is this some magic aggregate? Not that this is actually relevant to the discussion at hand, which, to my mind boils down to -- Balance the concerns associated with the DID methods you're considering using or implementing, including their relative energy consumption at scale, their relative security, etc. Sometimes higher security [note: there is no "highest" nor unbreakable security] is worth more energy consumption. Sometimes lowering energy consumption is worth lower security. It's horses for courses. The right tool for the right job. Don't use a hammer to drive a screw. Don't use a saw to drive a nail. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Environmental Principles as Applied to DID method development</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The guiding principle that | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable">the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a> should be followed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <br /> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When implementing or utilizing a DID method, consideration should be given | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| to the environmental impacts of any underlying technologies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that compromise on | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| the principles of security and / or control for other principles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| such as environmental concerns should be very carefully | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| considered in balance against alternative approaches that may | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| provide higher levels of security and protection. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The specific use case for a DID method will help determine the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| optimal approach. For matters that concern human rights, selection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| of approaches that are weighted towards privacy and control should | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| outweigh other considerations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that compromise on | |
| the principles of security and / or control for other principles | |
| such as environmental concerns should be very carefully | |
| considered in balance against alternative approaches that may | |
| provide higher levels of security and protection. | |
| The specific use case for a DID method will help determine the | |
| optimal approach. For matters that concern human rights, selection | |
| of approaches that are weighted towards privacy and control should | |
| outweigh other considerations. | |
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that trade principles such as security | |
| or control for other principles such as environmental concerns should be | |
| very carefully considered against alternative approaches that balance | |
| these principles differently. The specific use case for a DID method will | |
| help determine the optimal approach. In matters that concern human | |
| rights, approaches that are weighted towards privacy and control will | |
| typically outweigh other considerations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this really softens the security, privacy, human rights vs environment stance, basically making all of them seem like equivalent concerns. I do not believe these are equivalent concerns, as the former are matters of immediate personal safety and individual harms, which may even include protecting people from physical / life-destroying harms. For these reason I would like to see the original text maintained.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are equivalent concerns, in the abstract! The user of the rubric is the only person who can judge which axis of concern (if any) takes a primary, seconday, etc., position, which judgement they must make based on the context of their deployment/implementation/usage-scenario — which may be, but is probably not, exactly the same as yours.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are equivalent concerns, in the abstract!
This is a good argument for folding the "Environmental Considerations" section into a simpler EWP section that mentions none of them in particular, but forwards the entire section on to the rubric.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly - if the argument is they are equivalent concerns (I still personally put human rights first), then it doesn't make sense to have a whole one-off section about it. We should remove this one-off callout section and push all considerations to the rubric.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. This entire section should go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd get rid of this first part. The Ethical Web Principles is not a guide for making assessments, much less a "reliable guide". I'd just stick with the balance of the sentence "The ... Principles are a guide for weighing ethical considerations..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
adjustment to language from @TallTed committed