More EU action to enable citizens co-creating public services?
EU e-government policy has a strong focus on cross-border 'internal market' aspects eg interoperable eID, enabling e-procurement across borders, etc. And of course best practice exchange eg http://epractice.eu.
Which EU level actions would make sense to enable citizens becoming co-creators of digital public services? EU R&D to share the cost of experimenting? Best practice exchange? Requirements for cloud services? And why at EU level?
Group audience:
Comments
Whereas interoperability is
Whereas interoperability is good, this approach is going to be a disaster as the is NOT demand-driven, but central Command & Control like we already saw failling in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
The difference between citizens being "co-creator" and "free choice" is growth.
Growth emerge from the choice favouring the better value chains over the worse - when you like in the public sector allow the interest to dictate solutions on citizens, you DO NO GET EFFECTIVENESS, but suboptimization.
Not all public service can be exposed to competition and especially investment choices are hard, but you can ensure CITIZENS control data and this force value chains to orient themselves to citizens instead of the opposite - with force adapting citizens to the actual instests controlling the public sector value chains (democracy is people, not a guarantee of good representation).
The best example of predictable failure to imprive is eHealth where al focus is on central profiling and contorl of citizens instead of empowering citizens to manage their own health and data in collaboration with the their advisors (such as doctors).
Citizens should not only be "co-creators", they should be empowered or have the power to say NO to the bad value chain and control reuse of personal data to ensure value chains adabt to needs.
Present approaches is about dis-empowerment - about reducing citizens to resources with good, but nontheless, intent to control in the flawed illusion that you can create enough supply-driven improvements in an economic sytstem based on central Command & Control. This is bound to fail - ever bigger, ever worse.
"Co-creation" will NOT do the trick.
Same applies to all things.
Same applies to all things. Citizens and grassroots people should be empowered to have a say in how things work, quite often they know better and can say where value chains are failing. The problem so far is that nobody listens to them, they prefer to listen to the old boys network. If you step over to the high speed broadband debate on this forum you will see that another failure with inside interests driving the agenda and not delivering a solution. Agree, eHealth is a prime example of this too.
I don't think we should
I don't think we should reduce co-creation to a government-controlled innovation in public service delivery. Co-creation is also about citizens/NGOs/private companies taking the initiative and proposing an effective solution and this way saying 'no' to the existing one (and best case scenario government taking interest in the endeavor - see Google Transit which was embraced by many transport agencies worldwide). Have a look at Chris Taggart improvements in local government service delivery (http://openlylocal.com/) and his new project aimed at unlocking the business registry data (http://opencorporates.com).
Co-created services are often not aiming at replacing an existing public service, in most cases they're building a new functionality to it making the existing service more effective. For examples collaborative public complaint systems (FixMyStreet or SeeClickFix) are the way to prioritize the needs of citizens who alert their local government of 'things that should be fixed'.
Innovators often start from 'additional services' as co-creation of already established services is much more difficult a process.
Citizens should not only vote or dismiss the options proposed by the government. They have experience as users and a unique perspective to offer. On more how citizens can contribute to public e-services delivery see @osimod post http://egov20.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/6-things-only-citizens-can-offer-...
Co-creation should be encouraged from the inside (change of mindset is necessary) but also from the outside. EU Open Data Strategy is an important part of this change but it is more to be done. Other solutions include inducement prizes for innovative solutions but also 'hacking' training for young people (e.g. European version of NY Hacker School - https://www.hackerschool.com/).
This discussion seems to put
This discussion seems to put many aspects into one pot and indeed creates some confusion. Interoperable eID is not about sharing a single identifier, it is about returning data and assets from administration to citizen so that they can make maximum benefit out of it.
Services and new technologies is about finding the borderline between what administration offers (and there it is about quality and liability) and what is added by citizens and others in their domain. Interoperable eID in this context is about empowering citizens to decide where eID and data can be used. Several models show that this can be done without centralization or a single identifier and is indeed returning privacy to citizen.
Most of the threatening situation we are faced with the present security situation in the internet is borne in weak identification both of services and users.
With STORK, the situation is truly to empower the citizen by enabling him or her to use high quality eID vis a vis other services/ countries etc. It is not about handing over from one authority to the other without consent or knowledge. To the contrary it is the citizen to trigger action in order to benefit from liability and responsibility of his identity provider and use it vis a vis others.
I beg to differ, Stork is our
I beg to differ, Stork is our biggest problem as identification (not weak or good but identification as such) is the source of most security problems.
True that we need better security - a lot better.
But you are associating vlues to Stock that they cnanot deliver with existing approach - you cannot control identified data.
The problem with Storck is that it ONLY identify - and that is the only thing we do not want serverside. THis is a bad and non-interoperable "standard" which prevent security.
If we want to re-empower citizens we need to tenable a much richer identity understanding enabling citizens to do fullservice-transactions without ever identifying serverside, i.e. never to loose control. One element is to eliminate the need for consent (principle ok, but it is unenforcable).
I can see that and honestly
I can see that and honestly am not surprise that some people take offense in the objection to make identification determistic.
I would politey suggest that those that see this as "Freedom vs. security" discussion realise that we are way past such simple understanding.
Standards do not create interoperability if they exclude solutions to problems. And Always-Identification is only a miniscule subset of the wider group of Identity security models.
Three aspects are characteristic of this subset
a) Control over data ALWAYS transfer, i.e. it inherently create risks and dis-empowerment.
b) It create legacy as in preventing innovation and preventing security asynchroneus upgrades
c) It unnecesarily creates points of attack as the group is inherently based on reuse of keys and identifiers.
What we are witnissing is a massive mindset problem which will take time to correct. You still see security lectures claiming "Identification create trust" even though identificaiton always crete risks - it is overkill and unbalanced by design.
Interestint that you stress
Interesting that you stress the citizens being in control of data and that this would enhance choice. Recent report of eHealth taskforce makes a strong point about patient data ownership, see http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/policy/ehtask_.... At the same time, on the paradox of choice see this TED lecture by Barry Schwartz: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html.
No they DONT - they claim to
No they DONT - they claim to be because it is "good language", but in reality you are best case allowed to co-view on their digital surveilance cameras deep into your private spaces without ANY security.
Look to UK as an example - you have NO control and are made 100% transparant to systemic abuse of data.
http://www.informationstrategy.dh.gov.uk/
Why? Because it is in the interest of those making the systems - THEY want bureacuratic and commercial control and you just get BS. Everybody loose ecxept the abusers.
Sorry for the language here.
Sorry for the language here.
But it is rather absurd to read yet another report that talk about total central profiling in our most sensitve area and then trying to claim that "citizen has control".
Not much different from Facebook and Google claiming that users have control through "Privacy Settings".
What these models do is to prioritize those that WANT access to data, but not ensure rights of those that should control data nor the interest of society in effective and secure processes upgrading over time.
We do NOT make effective health processes by putting everything in one central pot. If so - centralised monopolies would be more efficient in the private sector also - what we learn is that these structures become lazy and accumulate inefficiencies relative to progress in general.
We need to turn the data
We need to turn the data flows - in the report, they talk about centralisering all data and then publishing them in some "de-identified" form. Thats not good - the public sector part is expensive, unflexibile, risk accumualting, power concentrating and nly leed to increasingly more of the same problem.
Instead - give ctizens control to reuse data - se slide 7 and 9 here
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/daa2012/document.cfm?d...
"At the same time, on the
"At the same time, on the paradox of choice see this TED lecture by Barry Schwartz: "
Too much chouice make people misrable and fall in to pralysis because they have higher expetations and fear their choice is not perfect.
Sure - I accept that and knew of his points.
But politely this is not what we are talking about here. Barry Schwartz himself say that it is much worse with too little choice. Ask a prisoner who do not have the key to the door or <make your own example>.
My point is that Mandatory server-side identification is too little choice as it is in reality almost a one-size-fits-nothing. Control is always somewhere else.
Security and identity needs to fit purpose, but it does not mean that it need to fit purpose perfectly - and likely wont. it does however need to take into account the core and big issues.
Fact is - all national id card today take control AWAY from citizens - why? Who said that suddenly technology was supposed to work AGAINST democracy instead of supporting it?
In the physcial world I can buy a product paying with cash - retaining full control. In the digital world, I COULD also pay with Digital Cash - expect I do not have the choice. Why?
My point is not that we dont want better security than physical cash can provide - but why should improving payments mean dis-empowering citizens?
The ideas that underpin co
The ideas that underpin co-production such as empowerment and access to data are fundemental and ignored at your peril. Once again I find I am drawn towards Engberg's view; co-creation should not assume that citizens will simply replace a service that is; they may well come up with a completely different service that is predicated on their understanding of the situation and not a reflection of the centralist view.
Therefore what we should be doing is seeking ways to facilitate those actiions which means not just access to data but enabling an awareness of and an understanding of localised data, personal sensing and the environment in which this can be brought together with a strategic view which high level data provides.
As an example the desire of a group of people in a deprived neighbourhood to improve their environment may centre around tackling domestiv violence and low esteem because they can record data of local events and local views on this whereas a centralised view may be that they need to improve their skills and look for work because they see unemployment data at a higher level.
Comments that give food for
Comments that give food for thought. Let me challenge to come up with more concrete ideas of what EU policy and programmes can do. Open data was mentioned, awareness raising (how?), prizes (for what?), hacking training. What about benchmarking? Supporting deployment of open digital infrastructures ? Can technology research help?
IDABC is dis-empowering and
IDABC is dis-empowering and non-interoperable by approach. Why?
a) Because it is about making dictates about THE solutions instead of opening up for many solutions determined by the demand-side.
b) Because is has a narrow centralist view of citizens as someone to be managed. The entire eSignature / Storck approach is wrong because it focus on identification and then servier-side management and control of processes.
If we instead moved beyond Idnetification to a more flexible identity assuming each transaction serverside is linked to a pseudonym but NOT linkable serverside to e.g. national id or any reused identifier, then services are FORCED to REQUEST information FROM the citizens who
1) Is IN CONTROL of personal data both before, during
and after the transcation
2) Is able to create NEW mashup services on top of services combining these or adding new functionality WITHOUT releasing control to any intermediary.
The challenge is the proper deconstruction of identity and key management devices that are trustworthy also for service providers as there explicitly are and should NOT be any backdoors or implied "trusted parties".
If any of the fine words are meant seriously, this is the EU Grandest Challange of them all.
Asia focus on lowcost production, US on commercial ownership of People. If EU is to make any sence, we believe in people being able to manage their own lives BETTER than bureaucrats or corporate profilers - actually we has built our entire set of values on this single notion of free empowered choice.
Problem is that the technology implementation sofar has been contradicting all the fine words.
Linking Security with
Linking Security with Economics - Re-Empower Citizens & Companies to Secure Economic Growth
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/daa2012/document.cfm?d...
We have a big problem in
We have a big problem in Europe as the Public Sector is lagging ever further behind the privacte sector. Also, our wellfare systems have created public sectors much larger compared to competitors, i.e. the negative impact of an ineffective public sector on overall society is relatively much bigger adding a growing cost disadvantage on jobs. At the same time the attempt to "manage the economy" is adding significant barriers to growth and better utilization of ressources.
In a simplistic ideological debate, you might consider this a discussion of privatization over free public services (liberalisation vs. wellfare).
This is NOT my agenda or argument (such discussions are more political than scientific as it concentrates on redistribution of wealth and consumption posibility).
On the contrary, I think it is vital to isolate this political discussion from that of making a more effective public sector and economic growth as such GIVEN the political discussion.
I think what is needed is to reinvent public sector innovation process to - over time - DRASTICALLY IMPROVE value output per cost input.
This is exactly the point of real Empowerment of Citizens
Problem is that this is NOT what we see hapening today and the approach to "co-creation" will likely worsen instead of helping to solve the problems.
I will give an example of a welldocumented case of a predictable failure due to a "managing citizens" approach instead of an "empowering citizens" approach.
Look to UK Healthcare which is a pretty well-documented example of the same failure seen everywhere.
http://www.informationstrategy.dh.gov.uk/
Healthcare is a very complex case, but also by far the one with the biggest potantial impact on overall economics.
The words are all the right ones, but look below.
a) The cost/benefit analysis is outright primitive merely focussing on cost savings, but without any linkage to output value. The cost/benefit analysis is blind and an assumed "positive investement" can easily cover a negative cost/benefit in terms of value output per ressource applied.
The main reason is that public sector financial control is blind - there is NO MECHANISM for real valuation of services. In the private sector price are the result of competition, sending signals to a complex environment on ressource allocation and real demand. This process does NOT work in the public sector.
The problem is that there is NO LINKAGE between "costs savings" and impact on value creation. Even worse - there are NO DRIVERS that focus on value creation.
Show me a public sector in Europe that have understood and acted politically on this.
Show me a public sector in Europe that have as ambition to create e.g. 40% more INDIVIDUAL value PER ressource used in a 10 year time frame and begin doing what it takes - this is the survival game in the private sector. In most public sectors this value factor deteriorates over time creating ever bigger problems and ever bigger crises.
b) Citizens are NOT empowered to control value chains. Citizen control of data COULD be used to direct processes, but that is NOT the case.
Data control is going to be fully centralized and managed by bureacurats and commercial service providers. Citizens best case get co-access to the "surveillance cameras", but have NO control over fundamental processes and as such NO power over allocation and how change occur.
What we see is pure Command & Control structure and even a feudalistic one where commercial interests get deeply involved in a process that is NOT affected by citizens real needs and choices.
c) The outcome is NOT an empowered Citizen, but a "managed" citizen. The outcome is NOT a system that adabts ever better to invidual needs and requirements, but a system than adabts people to interests (both commercial and bureaucrat).
As such this is much more of what caused the problems in the first place INSTEAD of using digital Empowerment to rebalance the processes and compensate for the lack of valuation.
Europe and especially the pbulic sector needs to get its act together or fail yet again in a time of crises moving us into an even bigger crises.
Europe will NOT benefit from blind cost cutting (not creating a more effective but just a smaller public sector) or illusions of "web 2.0" "co-creation" without any real economic or value impact.
Europe needs to create MORE VALUE for each ressource input or create the same value with LESS ressource imput which is the essence of growth. You do not do this through Command & Control Economics - it is blind and driven by the wrong motivators.
>> Europe needs to create
>> Europe needs to create MORE VALUE for each ressource input or create the same value with LESS ressource imput which is the essence of growth. You do not do this through Command & Control Economics - it is blind and driven by the wrong motivators.
I guess that many now agree about the importance of value creation. I believe we are seeing something similar with the policy in Europe that should also incorporate growth besides trying to be more efficient (i.e. cut cost).
Stephen, you mention the empowerment of the citizen, and have them more in control (and move away this command an control view) as part of the solution that you propose, but I have some difficulty to understand what is means concretely.
Would you mind clarifying How you propose to empower the citizen, and how it will contribute to value creation?
The political "growth"
The political "growth" discussions are primitive and counter-productive because they are limited by the understanding of equilibrium economic models - that DO NOT UNDERSTAND the importance of change in all value creation.
Instead you get keynesian "kicks" that do not work. They focus on either scaling the demand-side (debt-financed demand leading to ever-bigger financial crises to create growth) or Invention (e.g. research incentives) - instead of removing barriers to innovation, promoting change and empowering citizens.
Empowerment has several layers and often all the emphasis is on citizen "ability" (of e.g understanding or funding) forgetting the fundamental Citizen POWER over money and - more importingly - personal Data that is really essential when we focus on economic impact.
What does it mean ?
It means that no operational reuse oif personal data CAN occur unless the citizens actually wants it and if so the citizen still retain control over data both pre-, during and post-transaction..
How - instead of eIdentification, you incorporate security through using different empowered Identities for different transactions and ensure ONLY the citizen herself can transfer data between different Contexts simply because they do not share any common identifier.
You need it
- for economic reasons (emPOWER free choice)
- security reasons (hackers are dis-empowered)
- privacy reasons (create contextual isolation)
- to counter behavoural profilling (cannot link across purpose)
- as a pre-requisite for cloud (no security in cloud)
- for basic rigths reason (Privacy by Design)
Citizens wants it
http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/cloud-require-empowerment-pre-requisite
Notice - there is ZERO value loss, only value creation and drastic improvements in security and competetiveess - citizens get enforced access to data and can generate any combination & reuse herself - if the value is sufficient.
The ONLY problem - bureaucrats & Commercial infrastructure dont like to loose control over citizens, but that is EXACTLY what is needed to break the Command & Control failure.
I am not sure I answered this
I am not sure I answered this properly?
It is as simple as identity support structures should enable citizens top create and exclusively maintain control over subsets of data related to different purposes (transactions, relationships) only linkable to a purpose-specfic pseudonym. That is what I call a Contextual Identity
There are lots of technical issues which goes beyond a forum like this.
But the essense is to eliminate the trade-offs and empower citizens in relationships - both to access data and to control reuse (moving data verifiaible from one pseudonym to another).
An example is a University Degree, this is issued by the university in one Context (A) and can through cryptographic means be proven in another Context (B) relating to the same citizen without linking the two Contextual Ids.
If B wants additional data, there is only one way to get them - Ask the Citizen to provide them through a Request for Data. The Citizen id devices can then search its history and get the data.
If B does ANYTHING that displeases the Citizen (spam, bad products, bad service etc.), the Contextual Id can merely be revoked thus the Citizen can exercise real Power over serviceproviders.
Of course Citizens cannot Reoke th Contextual Id if they have entered into a binding contract with obligations as that would incorporate security credentials that the citizen can not just revoke.
This is what we can call true Empowerment even through the terms has been used on many layers from the low-level security over tools and knowledge/understanding to transfer funding.
Citizens can share data freely, but never loose control. Service Providers can do the same as no third party is able to steal their customers when the Contexctual Id is locked to the Service Provider and 3rd party services cannot identify the citizen.
RIP Behavrioral Profiling
RIP "Privacy" discussions.
But first and foremost this will enable economic growth as value chain recover from the present distoretions in infrastrcutre intermediators such as Google, payments, telcos that all try to own citizens etc.
It's a shame that such a lack
It's a shame that such a lack of understanding leads Mr. engberg to express lies and undeserved disqualifications. I would request him less fanatism and more respect and understanding.
I've quoted some of his expressions with comment, but evidently I don't have as much time as he, trying to relate STORK with camera-surveillance and other unrelated things.
“this approach is going to be a disaster as the is NOT demand-driven” denies the existence of marketing. E.g. before the CD, people were happy with their vinyl long play records. But Philips and Sony decided to create a new product, which was and still is a success, thanks to their marketing activities.
“Citizens should [ .. ] have the power to say NO to the bad value chain” suggests that using STORK is an obligation, whereas it's only a eID standardisation service, which you are allowed to use. It allows e.g Austian citizens to use their national citizen card to authenticate in several Slovenian portals. As data are guaranteed to be true, this also goes for the first visit: no presence is required. It doesn't oblige anything.
“identification [ … ] is the source of most security problems”. No. If you're stopped by the police for exceeding the speed limit, presenting your drivers licence isn't a security problem. Not presenting it for sure is.
“One element is to eliminate the need for consent (principle ok, but it is unenforcable).” Is this really a proposal for less user protection? It doesn't convince me.
“you cannot control identified data” Who do you want to control your data? STORK proposes that the owner of the data – you in this case – do so, but maybe you have other proposals, in line with previous qoutation.
“If we instead moved [..] to a more flexible identity assuming each transaction serverside is linked to a pseudonym but NOT linkable serverside to e.g. national id“ I would also like to have such a pseudonym be usable at the cash machine, which would give me money without subtracting it from my bank account.
“the negative impact of an ineffective public sector” is a disqualification of civil servants.
“The political growth discussions are primitive and counter-productive” is a disqualification of the politicians.
I dont deserve this.
I dont deserve this.
Before you attack someone personally, I would politely suggest, you make sure, you have understood what is said - instead of first putting your own mistaken assumptions into my mouth.
Politely, you are missing the fundamentals - both economic, security and legally - and thereby also both what is causing the problems and how to solve them.
> trying to relate STORK with camera-surveillance
Stork enforce/can only support identification - ergo a surveillance bottleneck. Identity is a much more rich concept, but you clearly havent realised this.
The Austrian Burgerkarte has "sector-specific identifiers" algoritmically derived from centrally known keys and identify in the transaction. I dontsee what it changes?
The essense is that we cannot make a secure Burgerkarte operating through Storcks interface (e.g. no serverside identification as servers and especially are not secure). Stork is NOT interoperable in its present form. And I have on several occations informed them about this.
As I read the specs, eId/Stork create lock-in problems to bottleneck interfaces, that cannot support secure transactions and thus prevent secure cross-border egovernment.
> “this approach is going to be a disaster as the is
> NOT demand-driven” denies the existence of marketing.
I will not begin to give you a lecture in basic economics here. You clearly misunderstand how markets work when they create value.
My point is that when you do not create systems that can adabt processes to people and interfaces that are open to NEW solutions, these systems and interfaces fail to support innovation and growth - or effectiveness over time.
> “Citizens should [ .. ] have the power to say NO to > the bad value chain” suggests that using STORK is > an obligation
eId certainly is not intened as an option !? Stork is just a project.
> No. If you're stopped by the police for exceeding the speed limit, presenting your drivers licence isn't a security problem. Not presenting it for sure is.
You are talking about accountability post-violation without entirely idffernet than transaction establishing when we assume you intend to abide to agreements.
> “One element is to eliminate the need for consent (principle ok, but it is unenforcable).” Is this really a proposal for less user protection? It doesn't convince me.
Here you demonstrate how little you have understood. Consent is only necesary when data are referable. Ensure transaction data are only contextaul and you CAN ONLY use data if the citizens wants it (opt-in), but the citizen retain the control to revoke the relationstip and thereby revoke data (guaranteed opt-out).
“you cannot control identified data” Who do you want to control your data? STORK proposes that the owner of the data – you in this case – do so, but maybe you have other proposals, in line with previous qoutation.
Stork do not support what they claim.
> “If we instead moved [..] to a more flexible identity assuming each transaction serverside is linked to a pseudonym but NOT linkable serverside to e.g. national id“ I would also like to have such a pseudonym be usable at the cash machine, which would give me money without subtracting it from my bank account.
You clearly do not understand digital Cash and blinded cryptography. Similar it is bad security design to identity serverside - the bank only need authentication (recognition in context of the bank account)
“the negative impact of an ineffective public sector” is a disqualification of civil servants.
No - but is tis a disqualification of bureaucrats that vaste taxpayers money which is one of our biggest problems.
> “The political growth discussions are primitive and counter-productive” is a disqualification of the politicians.
Absolutely - and deserved on a genreal level even through there of cause are huge personal differences - but again I will refrain from giving a lecture here.
To avoid offending anyone personally, consider Japan where politicians have vasted enourmous ressouces trying to create "growth". Keynesian equilibreium exonomics is a disaster leading to ever greater crisis.
Digital macro-Economics is highly immature and the models are more confusing than helping - but policitians still allow the models to govern politics.
In the first place I'm sorry,
In the first place I'm sorry, and I apologise to Miguel Alvarez, as my contribution got inserted before his valuable message.
Now getting back to the discussion, I haven't put any assumption into your mouth. All quoted text is literal, including spelling and typing errors. My comments are mine. I don't understand you keep on lying when every reader can verify what has been written and what not.
I'll not enter in other obvious clear lies like “Stork is NOT interoperable”, “As I read the specs”, “Here you demonstrate how little you have understood ”.
You complain that I haven't understood everything you have written. Not being understood is rather a problem of the writer than of the reader.If an author doesn't write for the audience, he'll be just as frustrated as you for not being understood. A phrase like “Stork enforce/can only support identification - ergo a surveillance bottleneck.” is an excellent example to show the use of the business bingo (http://www.businessbuzzwordbingo.com/), but doesn't transmit any clear view on identification or STORK or whatever.
Now the main point is that you just don't want to understand some important things, you keep on missing all key clues:
1. Whereas ID is obliged in the majority of European countries, nobody is obliged to use the electronic part. Inserting a citizen card into a reader is an act the owner of the card may decide to do or not. This is called a facility, no obligation.
2. STORK extends this facility across European borders.
3. Progress NEEDS advances without demand. How much demand existed for flights before airplanes were invented? How much demand was there for browsers before the Internet was invented? And engines before Watt, telephony before Bell, electrtic light before Edison?
If you're coherent with your vision, you'll not use any of these advances: not flying, driving, making phone calls and in not using the Internet, as they're “going to be a disaster as the is NOT demand-driven”.
Please try to understand me. Me and my project colleagues want to improve; ourselves and our results. That's why we request to be criticised with arguments. With arrogance (“I will not begin to give you a lecture in basic economics here”) and business bingo phrases we won't achieve anything.
I do not want to get personal
I do not want to get personal - my apology if anything I have said can be misunderstod asif I did.
If you read your own words, you may have quoted me literally, but your assertion on what it means was your own assumptions - and all wrong.
There is one critical mistake in this - the assertion that Identification is required or should even be desired.
It is the consequence of a way to simple concept of identity. You can e.g.
a) prove to be memer of the group for Danish Citizens WITHOUT making yourself identifiable within the group.
b) You can prove to be identification GIVEN certain conditions wihtout identifying unless these conditions arive.
Etc.
When you take the effort to deconstruct identity into the purposes of WHY we tried to identify in the first place, you will find that NONE of these require identification prior to violations.
Storck only support dis-empowerment as in identification with explicit transfer of control AWAY from citizens.
Unless we have a richer interfaces - all transactions will be dis-empowering.
My suggestion is that NOT interfaces should be dis-empowering and those systems that are should wihtin the 202 horiszon be wrapped and gradually replaced by secure and empowering alternatives.
We did so in the HYDRA project regarding Ambient devices when we realised that IPv6 leak information - built a richer device model interface which can leter with integrated in physical devices.
Security in distributed multi-stakeholder transactions with constant requirements of security upgrades are far from simple - but it is certainly not benefitting from server-side identification.
You will realise this eventually - but it is a paradigme shift from a simple to a rich identity understanding.
Identification is a simple verified attribute that should - in order to secure ICT systems - only be exchanged person-to-person.
Come to the Security Workshop on June 21 and I will be happy to clarify any misunderstandings.
[This forum seriously lack
[This forum seriously lack editing functionality]
It is the consequence of a much to simple concept of identity.
You can e.g.
a) prove to be member of the group for Danish Citizens WITHOUT making yourself identifiable within the group.
b) You can prove to be identifiable GIVEN certain conditions arive without identifying unless these conditions arive.
Etc.
- - -
To add
c) You can prove to be membe rof the group of doctors allowed to mnake drug pre-scriptions WITHOUT identifiying which doctor.
When you combine such assertions in an identity as a set of linked credentials, you can make any identity balance including of cource unbalanced such as identities with server-side identification which can never establish any sustainable balance.
No I do not want to "lecture"
No I do not want to "lecture" on economics in a Security discussion as in the finer differences between e.g. the Kenesian School of Equilibrium Economics and the Austrian School of Economics baed on much less simple understanding of Human Action.
My point was merely that you did put some words about government in my mouth which were incorrect.
I was in no way trying to patronise or similar.
Regarding 1) and 2)
Regarding 1) and 2)
We need a Digital Signature and signature interoperability for a lot of purposes, but it is a serious mistake to abuse this where we only want authentication (specific recognition) and even worse to think that Identifikation in an online environment increase security.
Just because some public services have been designed with bad security doesnt mean that all have to be
Just because some public services in some countries have bad security doesnt man that the corssborder gateway should dictate only bad security.
As for 3) Technology progress is not deterministic - it could actually secure and empower instead of the opposite.
Based on my experience as a
Based on my experience as a person who worked in the project during its whole timelife, STORK project has followed very strict principles in its design that were agreed between more than 37 public and private institutions from more than 17 European countries. Those principles have always been transparent and well communicated to all the relevant stakeholders. A good balance between usability, security and transparence was achieved since the main goal of the project was to make people´s life easier by enabling the possibility to access to administrative services and formalities in another MS though secure electronic identification means.
Firstly, it follows a user-centric approach. User is in control of his data at all times. One of the main concerns about electronic identification is the exchange of data between public institutions without the awareness of the citizen. This is not the case in STORK where the user is in fact the one who collects his identification data from reliable sources and carries it to the destination point, which is the service provider he is trying to access to. Since 2010 it is possible to experiment what is the user´s experience by accessing the several pilot examples launched by the project to access in a cross-border way to services in other MS (see www.eid-stork.eu). Everyone is invited to have a try!
Secondly. Data protection regulations and privacy compliance have also been taken into consideration. Any data that is carried by the citizen in order to complete an electronic identification has the explicit consent and control of the former. As a matter of fact, the architecture design and the cross-border infrastructure were supervised by national DPA and the Data Protection Directive Article 29 Data Protection Working Party.
No data is kept or recorded by the intermediaries. Very strict and demanding data protection requirements were followed to preserve the anonymity of the citizen and only relevant identification data is disclosed to the electronic service always under the user´s consent.
Finally, STORK was built with full awareness of efforts and results at different levels achieved since 1995 through the IDA, IDA II IDABC and now ISA Programmes and, in particular, is fully compliant with the European Interoperability Framework and Strategy.
As said before, this project was the result of the joint-effort of many MS administrations working together. The project has been as open and transparent as possible. The achievements and results were duly presented and communicated to MS institutions, businesses and industry. Usability and user´s needs have always been present in the project since the architecture and infrastructure model have been oriented to best serve eGOV application business needs. We could summarize that this project has tried to be service need´s and user centric driven.
Thanks to STORK as a fundamental building block that makes existing national eID systems interoperable, strong and secure cross-border authentication is now available for millions of European users as a key element for trust in the electronic services of Governments and of the Digital Market. The level of user´s satisfaction we have detected in the responses we received was not bad although there is still a long way to go and things will have to evolve and improve over the next years. I wish all the best to the people involved now in STORK 2.0.
I am sure, Stork did and are
I am sure, Stork did and are doing its best.
The problem is in the mission statement more than in the way, it is carried out.
To me, identification is a simple attribute of an identity that should in principle never be exchanged in other than person-to-person interactions.
The concept of "secure identification" in my understanding does not make sense - secure for what? The data related are made vulnurable BY the identification (wouldnt without identification), the person can be targeted and tracked, the service provider Customer DB gets profiled from infrastrcuture, reuse of keys always represent a risk of man-in-the-middle or other kinds of identity theft etc.
But the worst part is that the standard etablish a bottleneck that create one-size-fits-nothing. We cannot credibly secure a transaction after identification has occured - it simply cannot be done.
Dear Mr Engberg,
Dear Mr Engberg,
Yes, I do agree that identification is simply an attribute or collection of attributes of a person. There are however some of your opinions that I do not agree.
1) Secure Identification is required in everyday's life, that's why we have credit cards, with physical and electronical secure measures (and you complain that they are not secure enough), drivers licenses with physical security measures, etc. It is my belief that in the web the need for secure identification is even more relevant; it is more or less easy for a kid to recognize an adult in person, but terrible difficult to do it on the web. So I do believe that secure identification has its role.
2) You say that we don't need consent from the user because the data is contextually linked and can be revoked. Well, I also disagree with this. Data cannot be revoke. If a big enough collection of data is sent (for instance a photo) that can identify the person has that person, that information can never be revoked. So consent is a privacy measure that should never be disregard as unnecessary.
3) I agree that personal attributes released by the user should be kept to a minimal to avoid, as much as possible, tracking. I do state, that tracking is impossible to prevent. If only one user accesses a set of services and all those services require a specific set of attributes, and the user is willing to give them, tracking is possible. Still, we should do our best to avoid it.
4) Here, I'm not sure what you are saying, so apologize me if I misunderstood you. You are saying that this should not be an EU initiative, and should be organized and built by the citizens. And then you mention google initiatives and things like that. To be honest I don't like the idea of having by identity (I think we agree that when we mention identity is a partial/complete collection of personal attributes) spread for many places, unless they are different sets of attributes. Currently, I already have my identity spread by many places (national registry, social security, drives license registry, university, etc.). If I want to use any of these attributes why do I need to replicate them in yet another place (this does not prevent that I create another identify with a complete set of unlikable attributes).
4) I did not understand when you say that having sector wise identities is not enough. One of the interesting facts of electronical IDs is that, although they are cross-border, they are very much governed by National laws, so depending on the National law, it is possible to have global identifies, sector-wise identifiers of service-wise identifiers. That is kind of a National law problem, not a solution problem.
5) You should also be aware that not every people doing these projects are driven by a need of government control. In fact, as you noticeable are, every one is doing is best to find the best privacy solutions, and it is often the case that if a solution is not found to ensure a high privacy levels, the service is not built.
6) Finally, the privacy track of solutions that resulted from profitable organizations (like google) is not completely immaculate. So, although I'm sure if you were building a case around that alternative, you seem to suggest it, by saying that should not the EU to organized these from the top to the citizens.
and finally, please no flames, this things require everyone to think on every angle, and that's what we all should do.
Carlos
I will not escalate the
I will not escalate the discussion.
Merely say that you clearly have not understood the notion that identity does NOT require identification and maintaining isolation REQUIRE no identification occur.
This is not the same as anonymity - far from it.
I might suggest you sturdy this report from the Danish Ministry of Reserach & Technology
http://digitaliser.dk/resource/896495
Now, to pick up on your
Now, to pick up on your points here.
> 1) Secure Identification is required in everyday's life,
That is the security and economic problem - not the solution. Security on the net is bad due to too much identification making everybody a target instead of isolating keys to purpose.
All the mentioned have technological alternatives that gets blocked by non-legitimate interests - and, worse, are not promoted by government. E.g. Digital Cash instead of Credit Cards.
You should remember that most "security" in infrastructure is not about security, but about lock-in and preventing competition e.g. GSM/SIM is not in your or society interest - only in the interest of operators or the device manufacturer.
I am not saying all or nothing, but gradual transistion towards secure and empowered transactions. Only NON-identifed transactions can ever be secure and empowering - especially when you are talking cloud and Internet-of-things.
> Data cannot be revoked.
Exactly, but the identity related to data can. If identifying data has never been transferred this is the same as revoking data.
> I do state, that tracking is impossible to prevent.
In all situation no, but in most digital situations yes - if we want to make a secure society instead of allowing society to degenerate.
> If only one user accesses a set of services ..
Special case. Would be detectable by your identity management and even if you chose to allow the risk, it is in itself a marginal problem.
It is not a problem that it gets registered once that you
are here or buy this sausage - it is the many registrations and ability to profile, target and track that create the problem -
But security is always worsened by identification.
> You are saying that this should not be an EU initiative,
Om the contrary. EU/Government is responsible for making Identity in such a way that it protect citizens - instead of, as with eIdentification and Stork, always dis-empowering citizens.
> and should be organized and built by the citizens.
Citizens must control keys and personal data , but technology, regulation etc. have to be trustworthy - not only for the citizen, but also for counterparties.
> To be honest I don't like the idea of having my identity spread for many places, unless they are different sets of attributes.
> (I think we agree that when we mention identity is a partial/complete collection of personal attributes)
Each set an identity with its own set of keys.
> Currently, I already have my identity spread by
> many places (national registry, social security, drives license registry, university, etc.).
This is not multiple identity, but one unsecure identity.
> If I want to use any of these attributes why do I need to replicate them in yet another place (this does not prevent that I create another identify with a complete set of unlikable attributes).
You dont - you only provide what you want to provide or what is required to make transactions, provided you agree.
> 4) I did not understand when you say that having sector wise identities is not enough.
They are identified and there is a backdoor.
You dont need secort wise identitied, but one per purpsoes - e,g, you can and should be able to have multiple identitied in the same systems if so preferred.
> One of the interesting facts of electronical IDs is that, although they are cross-border, they are very much governed by National laws,
I dont see the relevance?
> 5) You should also be aware that not every people doing these projects are driven by a need of government control.
There is no inherent need for government control - that is an illusions created by bureaucrats. There are real needs, e.g. to validate tax is paid, but this never create a need for serverside identification.
> In fact, as you noticeable are, every one is doing is best to find the best privacy solutions,
No, they are not - most do their best to ignore the problem because they want control. But I am not talking merely about privacy - I am talking about security and economics.
> and it is often the case that if a solution is not found to ensure a high privacy levels, the service is not built.
Mention three recent case where privacy were built-in.
Then try to mention three cases built where security couldnt have been built-in if so desired.
> 6) Finally, the privacy track of solutions that resulted from profitable organizations (like google) is not completely immaculate.
Yes it is. Because the cost to socity is many multiplums of this.
> and finally, please no flames, this things require everyone to think on every angle, and that's what we all should do.
I am not flaming anyone - but being flamed when I point out that they are jumping to conclusions. It is fair enough not to know e.g. about blinded credentials - but it is not ok to make claims with logical basis.
As to Stork, I maintain it is a bottleneck preventing security and damaging the Single Market. Stork is not interopeable - it merely enforce identification where we do not need or want it.
We need structured and interoperable cross-border identity, but there is not legitimate need for server-side identification. It is bad security and Command & Control interests creating problems.
> 5) You should also be aware
> 5) You should also be aware that not every people doing these projects are driven by a need of government control.
This needs a more thorough consideration. Public sector security and government obligations are not simple or a one-size-fits-all.
But there is a difference in ensuring securing and then abusing "Need for Government Control" for damaging overkill like Stork or the disartrous Biometric Passports that gets forced upon society.
If you care to do the analysis, you would see that the passports are fully vulnurable and actually enabling bioemtrics-based identity theft, have no revokation/recovery mechanisms and - even worse - interfaces are designed, so it is not possible to introduce secure passports in parallel.
We do need better passports, but this is moving from bad to disastrous - because of "need for government control".
I fully agree with Mr.
I fully agree with Mr. Álvarez and Mr. Posch. If anyone is interested in details about Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party's report on STORK it can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/others/2011_04_...
Summary of conclusions:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/others/2011_04_...
Yes - and your point?
Yes - and your point?
Given the mistaken mission statement, Storck dont do to bad - sure..
Hum, I hope that this
Hum, I hope that this conversation will not degenerate. I assume personally that everybody talks in good fath, but that different styles (and culture) may cause some problems.
Having said that I believe it is healthy for the quality of the output to have different points of view (some level of "dissidence").
Note however that it would be useful that we separate as much as possible factual information (on which we can come to an aggrement), and points that are more open to debate. Indeed I get the impression we are sometime mixing the two.
Also it could be good not to forget that the objective of this debate should not be at trying to convince others (because we start being manipulative very quickly, trying for instance to ***shout*** louder than others as an argument) but because we learn about other perspectives (which does not mean that we agree with them), and make better informed decisions.
To finish, there is relatively interesting research in cross-cultural management, for instance from Fons Trompenaars, and difference between Latin and Nordic countries.
I apologize if I appeared "lecturing" you, this is not my intention.
I just want to give an external perception about what is happening in this conversation.
It’s not the first time
It’s not the first time someone expresses his fear for STORK being some surveillance tool. Frankly this surprises me: I can’t imagine the EC and several European countries collaborating in a tool to spy all use of its citizens of personalised services on the Internet. And worse, proudly present such a spying tool! I guess that nearly all EU citizens would not expect their governments to build such a tool.
The first time someone expressed this fear was during a presentation some 3 years ago, when little was known about STORK. At present all STORK documentation is publicly available at its website http://www.eid-stork.eu. In this documentation you’ll find that over 100.000 European citizens have used its services and the majority was satisfied with this experience. This for sure is a good reason to proudly present one of the outcomes of the Competitiveness and Innovation Program, don’t you think so?
About this "fear" of Stork as
About this "fear" of Stork as a surveillance tool.
Well, I personally do not believe there is any bad intentions in a project like Stork to contribute to a society of surveillance. It may however be useful to explore the unintended consequences, and put the question on the table.
Stephan put this discussion on the table on a not very diplomatic way (I do not personally believe this is the most effective way to increase discussion by creating frustration and tension).
Please do do hesitate to bring here your arguments, and in particular to no be shy in responding to Stephan's arguments (but we have to remain only on at a factual level and avoiding to be personal).
This is exactly the point of this crowdsourcing "exercise" is about.
I hope in the future that we will be able to bring in more science in the way we are crowdsourcing ideas. Very interesting research work being conducted in collective intelligence, and it is a pity we are not taking more benefit of it. The European Commission has even "Sponsored" several research on this with projects such as OCOPOMO (Open Collaboration Modeling) or Bruno Latour MACOSPOL (Mapping Controversies on Science for Politics) project. Alex Pentland from MIT, is doing extremely interesting research in Team collaboration (with the idea of profiling team activities).
As several others already
As several others already commented, STORK1 was managed by 17 European countries and APPROVED by all national data protection authorities and also the EC art 29 WP. I wouldn't classify those who disagree with them as paranoid, but giving classes on protection of personal data to these authorities sounds really ... I'll leave every reader to classify.
Lets focus on the facts
Lets focus on the facts instead of this. We are talking 2020 horizon.
Stork is not the problem - it is the thinking behind it.
In the short term - it is a problem that Stork e.g. is not able to enable secure services in cloud even if a country had a secure identity card. As such it becomes a critical legacy element.
It is relevant that e.g. the Danish NemId - which is forced upon citizens through banks - have already been broken using man-in-the-middle attacks. They were warned.
Stork would
a) Scale this problem to other countries making it possible to commit cross-border fraud scaling security problems.
b) As a security bottleneck prevent solutions as the identity framework is too narrow.
Politely - All unnesary
Politely - All unnesary identification is creating data about people outside their control and thus new risks.
Even though there exist unsecure services (that use identification serverside), this is not the same as saying that all services should do so, nor that the same services should not be redesigned with the 2020 Horizon to be secure.
If we launch an Eu ID "interoperability" gateway that only support identification, then all public services will be designed to be unsecure and we will be creating massive legacy and prevent innovation of empowering solutions.
"The first time someone
"The first time someone expressed this fear was during a presentation some 3 years ago, when little was known about STORK. "
Yes - and clearly, STORK did not listen to constructive criticism.
DebatePedia, the Wikipedia of
DebatePedia, the Wikipedia of debates
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/
Interesting platform that is based on collecting the pro and cons of a topic.
Co-creation always existed in
Co-creation always existed in some way or another, but now with digital and social technologies it can be amplified and accelerated.
There are two ways of co-creation, passive and active route. The passive route, could be seen as conventional, people vote one in four years, express their direction and that's it. With digital techs, these directions, anxieties, needs and what more can be monitored even daily.
It creates a more iterative process than waiting for years before adapting direction.
The active way is involving stakeholders in processes, not (per se) meaning that new things are being created. It could definately mean that the org (public or private) creates a basic product, and that through co-creation, people can customize it.
@Stephan, this is not disempowering, this is simply enriching the existing, but no obligation.
Stephan's "Citizens should not only be "co-creators", they should be empowered or have the power to say NO to the bad value chain and control reuse of personal data to ensure value chains adabt to needs."
This is a complex subject-matter. I do believe that orgs (public and private) are facilitators to let citizens/customers create their products (up to a certain level), but too often I read articles increasing the role of consumers too much over the organisation. It's about both. Combining strengths of org and consumer/citizen. Saying "no" to a bad value chain is going to a different telco, and so forth. Choice makes a no-obligation type of action possible (in most cases).
The Command and Control discussion can be split up in two. There's creating boundaries and letting people do what they want and influence the org so that in the end they benefit.
Empowering people to decide upon things that are concerning "internal" processes is too complicating, too anarchic. Direction and boundaries can be found all around us, just as the cosmos defines boundaries for our earthly nature, so does our earthly nature define boundaries for (human) life.
"The best example of predictable failure to imprive is eHealth where al focus is on central profiling and contorl of citizens instead of empowering citizens to manage their own health and data in collaboration with the their advisors (such as doctors)."
Please elaborate. Healthcare costs are rising and prevention is personal focus and responsibility of the citizen. By eHealth digital techs facilitate accountable care and welness, by stimulating people to take care of their own health. As a parallel action, the Dutch government just increased the personal liability. I believe that exactly in this area, people are forced/stimulated to take
@Paul Timmers:
Open data initiatives are interesting, where, due to resources and ideation, public data is shared to citizens to have a go with it.
This is really a very valid
This is really a very valid contribution, getting back to the topic ot the blog.
Not "STORK is bad" because of <slogan>, <other unfundamented accusations>, and <business-bingo phrases>, which we don't want to explain, and neither do we want to read the docs. BTW I would suggest the moderator to eliminate all STORK related comments, as they don't have anything to do with the real topic.
The real issue of this blog is exactly what Paul Timmers expresses. If all CIP and FP7 projects have their own channel to receive comments from citizens, what could the EC do to improve the contribution of citizens to EC projects, to make sure that these initiatives connect more to them? Is co-creation the best terminology?
I know that EC through their Project Officers and Review teams supervise the projects, and not only the technical (and security) contents: also the value for the EU citizens.
As I'm on the inside, maybe I don't see the world the same as others do, but what do others see as tasks of the EC / EU? THAT's the big QUESTION.
>> If all CIP and FP7
>> If all CIP and FP7 projects have their own channel to receive comments from citizens,
What would be these channels, and how to ensure that the citizens would indeed participate?
Any idea in mind?
if you look at e.g. http:www
if you look at e.g. http:www.eid-stork, you'll see the link "contact the consortium"; this is similar in other projects, e.g. www.peppol.eu you'll find "contacts".
All projects spend a lot of effort on publicity in eGov, IT and security magazines, newspapers, and at conferences, always inviting people to participate. But if you have suggestions for complementary ways, we'd all be very much interested.
In good order, I did contact
In good order, I did contact Stork - several times.
Partly because the work in the HYDRA project where I did a lot of Healthcare analysis clarly contradicted with Stork thinking.
Fact is - if we e.g. want to make end-to-end secure crossborder healthcare as in telemedicine or incorporating a secondary doctors opinion - we cannot do this through Stork and if Stork is "mandatory" (either legally or in bueaucratic reality), we will not be able to.
Here are some examples of ealier work that I cannot see in the light of Stork thinking
http://www.ambafrance-dk.org/IMG/pdf/ICT_Privacy_20090924.pdf
We really need to reconsider. But there are oppourtunities in all the challenges.
Innovative ways to involve
Innovative ways to involve the citizen?
>> Co-creation always existed in some way or another, but now with digital and social technologies it can be amplified and accelerated.
I am wondering practically which kind of approach could be used to involve the citizen.
Should we think about very innovative approaches such as Prediction Markets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market ) to help to identify trends that matter?
Should we try to use (serious) simulation games in which the citizen would be able to get an impression of a consequence of an innovation?
We may also involve the customer via organizations that represent them (that are for instance are relatively strong in the US if I am not wrong).
Any idea on this? (making use of the social process)
Note:
We should also understand what we expect from the citizen, since there is still some limit in the concept of "listening" to the customer that has sometime be exaggerated (for instance radical innovation is often something not fulfilling an existing need, but offering something totally new and not originating from decoding the collective mind of the customers).
We can and must do better.
We can and must do better. New technologies like chemometrics will radically change healthcare, but only if we allow it and facilitate it instead of using technology for bureaucratic centralism who consistently design for Dis-Empowerment.
I hear your words addressing one of the core problems, but consider them a representation of what I call a bureaucratic "First order Syndrome".
I will point to this attempt to get back on track in the discussion
http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/first-order-syndrome-shorterm-vs-effecti...
"Enrichment" is ignoring the facts and consequences, when "Co-creation" is nothing more than outsourcing data-entry while centralizing process and data control even further.
Processes will not become more effective with surfaces outsourced when value chains and processes are even more rigidly fixed instead of controlled and governed by demand-side choice.
And then on top of this - "obligation" - which in the present approaches are nothing more than pushing responsibilities to citizens or points of service while centralizing the controls.
Healthcare could have enormous improvements - but will likely not due to Command & Control thinking and accumulating legacy.
It is a clear sign of Bureaucratism and ideology, when the argument turns towards distrust in citizens instead of enabling. When claiming choice is wrong, impossible, undesired or even impossible, it is nothing more than the will to rule citizens being expressed. Usability matters and we are all so specialized that we need help, but this is a poor excuse for dis-empowerment – to actually take choice & control away from Citizens.
The public sector consist of many very different activities with very different requirements and challenges, but Europe and EU have been failing to use the digital opportunity to Empower citizens - It is about MANAGING CITIZENS instead of Empowering them to pull the system around.
The right to say "No" and to offer and choose the better causing constructive change is the very reason we came out of the Middle-ages of feudal power structures. Choice is the very essence of Single Market and fundamental rights - and once again being slain by interest in power, prestige and profits in yet another self destructive circle.
I am asking the question - why should it even be possible to look up a specific citizens Healthcare file instead of asking - unless you already are involved in specific treatment?
Citizens herself have and should have a lot more data and just needs to have tools and rights to control and reuse them without all sort of 3rd party profiling and interference.
Instead of searching for arguments to benefit the bureaucrat centralist approach ignoring the escalating and accumulating Command & Control inefficiencies, lets ask how we deal with the real issues with Empowerment and economic growth in focus.
There are demographic reasons behind the growing healthcare costs - but the primary reasons are more simple - focus is on managing the disease treatment factory instead of empowering the selfish interests in not getting sick in the first place.
The road to hell is paved with sweat words of intentions to sell action with negative causality. You may even believe the words because of some positive claim picked out of context.
Managed citizens don't make effective society.
I am suggesting an alternative that is not ideological privactization. We should chose and design for citizens instead of chosing between government or corporates.
The prediction market
The prediction market approach could be feasible, to define inputs for a workprogramme. We hae an interest to look into more open ways to define R&D workprogrammes. I guess a condition is to have a wide stakeholder participation in such a market at least if you want to use the 'power of the crowd'(cf this blog ;-).
Pages