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 +1412,119 @@ <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 menthod, or implementing a solution that incorporates DIDs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A reliable guide for making assessments of various technologies and weighing | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ethical considerations is the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/">W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles</a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| document. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Broad Ethical Principles</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As with all things, strong consideration for the appropriate and ethical use | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| of technology should be made 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 certain key goals that should | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| apply to all Web standards and technologies. DIDs explicitly support 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> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </ul> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Energy Usage and Environmental Impacts</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Energy Usage and Environmental Impacts</h3> | |
| <h3>Cost Considerations for Securing Decentralized Identifier Systems</h3> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed - I think the trick is to fully acknowledge some of the concerns from folks looking at DIDs, but show clearly where we think there are tradeoffs that merit a developer picking one approach vs another. e.g. DIDs engaged in use cases related to requirements for strong personal privacy and control vs other cases
Going to be taking a pass on a rewrite of this whole section today
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Showing tradeoffs that you think merit one thing or another is inappropriate for guiding implementations, and is appropriate for the Rubric work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Referring to the Rubric -- including its developing metrics/focuses regarding energy consumption and security features and other features, and the relations between these (which may include notes like "barring special attention, a change in the level of this benefit/cost will typically cause a parallel/inverse/multiple change in the level of that benefit/cost") -- all of which will play a role in deployment choices a/k/a method adoption -- is appropriate for the Implementation Guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Securing Decentralized Identifier Systems" is defined in the spec as https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-verifiable-data-registry and we should avoid inventing new words for the same concept.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I support the guidance that one should give consideration to the environmental impacts of any system you build. However, that example is inappropriate as it does not meet any standard of objective review. Rather, it is a political an ideological attack on PoW systems, an attack which is inappropriate for the W3C and this working group to make.
In the same manner, we could demand that people consider the ethical implications of Proof of Stake algorithms which clearly reinforce existing power dynamics leading to a runaway cascade in which the larger, vested players establish an unassailable and therefore, undemocratic authority.
IMO, neither of these are appropriate positions for the W3C and the DID WG to take, precisely because it is not a technical recommendation but a political one.
If some part of the W3C were to develop standards for evaluating the environment impact of technologies, and were willing to apply that standard across the board to all existing and propose technologies, I would welcome that objective, fair framework for discussion.
This is not that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the same manner, we could demand that people consider the ethical implications of Proof of Stake algorithms which clearly reinforce existing power dynamics leading to a runaway cascade in which the larger, vested players establish an unassailable and therefore, undemocratic authority.
Good call out. Will make some adjustments
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat that would be great. I have adjusted the PR to avoid calling out particular approaches (as obviously these can change over time). Might be optimal if we call out that similar to making assessments on energy usage and comparing those against other benefits of an approach, we should absolutely make assessments related to potential privacy and security over time and that human rights concerns should outweigh others.
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that require unsustainably-sourced | |
| energy as part of their technical implementation or utilization should | |
| be very carefully considered in balance against alternative approaches. | |
| </p> | |
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that degrade security and | |
| protection against the full range of attack vectors, interdiction | |
| points, and centralization forces in trade for perceived gains in | |
| system-external subjective factors should be very carefully | |
| considered in balance against alternative approaches that | |
| provide the highest levels of security and protection. | |
| </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat how about something like this:
<p class="advisement">
Utilizing or authoring DID methods that compromise on
the principles of security and / or control for other principles
of such as environmental concerns should be very carefully
considered in balance against alternative approaches that
provide the highest levels of security and protection
depending on the use case involved. For matters that concern
human rights, selection of approaches that are weighted towards
privacy and control should outweigh other considerations.
</p>
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The above is written in very strong subjective language (degrade, perceived, subjective, highest) which appears to be intended to be read as an objective analysis. I wanted to suggest some language to help improve it, but it's as above -- switch from "try to conserve energy in your efforts to increase 'security'" to "consume all energy to increase 'security'!" -- to which I strongly object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TallTed thoughts on the alternate language I offered? I think it could use some edits
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[@csuwildcat] the more empirical topic of security, specifically protecting against "the full range of attack vectors, interdiction points, and centralization forces".
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 --
ultimately security and protection of critical systems, like identifier networks that may become the foundation for critical activities in human life, are the most important factors to account for.
-- 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.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is really outside the bounds of what a protocol implementer should be asked to do by a developer guide. Additionally, every DID method imaginable (besides self-resolving ones like did:key) will change in consumption and behavior over time, so to ask people to do running third-party energy assessments is particularly strange.
To illustrate how strange this is, imagine you asked everyone using BitTorrent as the basis for file transfer to do an environmental report on all BitTorrent servers, traffic, and resource usage on machines across the world. We should not be injecting ourselves into the use of systems like this, imo.
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| It is strongly recommended that authors of DID methods provide an assessment | |
| of energy usage and impact of their DID method, preferably performed by | |
| an independent third party. | |
| </p> |
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat @selfissued does Microsoft have any similar initiatives for ION?
Outdated
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consumed energy is not an appropriate call out here.
I tried to replace that language with "environmental impact" but then the entire sentence didn't make sense.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.