Within the
agreed upon policy specifications that result from the negotiation phase of a
transaction, one aspect of the transaction that may have significant impact on
future interactions is the maintenance and control of information related to
the transaction itself. It is the development and control of this information
that most affects the privacy of all the parties of any given transaction.
Perhaps the most basic such information is the record of participation in the
transaction itself, followed closely by the positions taken by the various
parties to the transaction.
In many if not
most instances, the occurrence of a transaction is indeed a matter of record
within the particular policy infrastructure and as such a registration of the
transaction is mandated. In particular, if a transaction involves a “consideration
offered for consideration received” exchange then a detailed record of the
transaction may well be required by all parties to the transaction in order to
properly document their tax liability. Within the United States, even pure barter transactions are
subject to income tax liability. Consequently, a trusted record of a
transaction may well be a requirement that conflicts with privacy claims on the
part of the individual participants. Such a record would likely need to include
evidence of the authenticated identities of the participants, trusted time,
date and location indicators as well as the financial details of the
transaction itself. Mechanisms available within public key infrastructures make
such records quite plausible, assuming that a computing entity such as the
transcendent personal device is available to provide the cryptographic
processing and key storage required for these operations.
Part of the
trust infrastructure is the treatment of consequences
of interactions. This covers as broad a range as do the interactions
themselves. The purpose of an effective policy infrastructure is to allow the
parties to an interaction to agree beforehand what the consequences will be
given the different possible outcomes of the interaction proper. The most
generic form of interaction is what we have described as “consideration offered
for consideration received.” In general, within such an interaction if the
consideration due each party is acceptable, as determined during the conduct of
the interaction, then the main purpose of the determination of consequences is
to confirm that the agreed upon consideration is actually delivered. As with
many other aspects of the transaction, this determination may actually require
recursion in its application. For most effective social ecosystems, there is an
overriding policy infrastructure that encompasses the conduct of interactions
in subordinate policy infrastructures. The most general such infrastructure is
that of the law but direr consequences reach into the trust infrastructure.
The boundary of
a social ecosystem is defined by the extent of the trust infrastructure
on which it is based. Different systems may utilize different mechanisms
through which trust is established and through which it is conveyed, perhaps
ranging from physical constraints and boundaries to logical mechanisms such as
those we discussed earlier for computer networks. Consequently, a social ecosystem
can be of piece-wise extent with different origins and levels of trust. It may
consist of non-contiguous enclaves surrounded by untrustworthy areas. Its
protected trust conveyance mechanisms allow the extension of trust through
untrustworthy communication channels. Co-existent within the trust
infrastructure, but governed by it is the policy infrastructure. Just as
the extent of the trust infrastructure may be non-contiguous, so may the policy
infrastructure, as it may leave undefined behavioral areas inside the social
ecosystem.
Within the trust
infrastructure is found the identity registry, an accessible compilation
of the identities of the social ecosystem. A central feature of a policy
infrastructure is an applicable
|