On Oct 23, 2014, at 10:43 AM, John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> All,
>
> Have you ever gone through security at a DoD facility or looked at the DoD
>identification process? It contains three (3) items:
> ° Something you are, (fingerprint, biometric, etc)
> ° Something you have, and (a badge or ID)
> ° and something you know. (a password)
>
> Industry is looking to add a 4th to this list: "Something you do". Basically,
>the act of playing a ... sequence of motions is used to create a profile of
>your responses that can be predictive. (02)
Isn't that an accurate description of signing your own name? (03)
Pat Hayes (04)
> An article in Scientific American explains the concept:
> Forget Passwords: How Playing Games Can Make Computers More Secure
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computer-game-for-security/
>
> -John Bottoms
> FirstStar Systems
> Concord, MA USA
>
> On 10/22/2014 10:19 PM, Hans Polzer wrote:
>> Thanks for your observations, Frank. They align with my own experiences and
>thinking in this area.
>>
>> Regarding your last observation:
>> “But, I also think that identification of *physical* objects might never or
>not for a long time be replicatable with information about the object that can
>be captured on a computer. “
>>
>> My sense is that a lot of work with bar codes and RF ID, the Internet of
>Things, as well as in the biometrics area is an ongoing/increasing effort to
>create physically detectable/readable identifiers for physical objects that
>can be manipulated in cyberspace (along with other useful characteristics of
>the physical object). It also seems to me that there has been a growing trend
>to use DNA-based biometrics as the basis for the best or most natural
>“inherent” identity for people. Of course, we don’t (generally) think of
>ourselves as being our DNA. But somewhat ironically, I think our DNA imbues us
>with self-awareness, facial recognition, and “mirror” neurons that seem to
>give us a sense that others we encounter in the environment have a specific
>identity. Perhaps the very notion of identity is an anthropomorphic
>manifestation of our inherent biology?
>>
>> I’ll also note that the US DoD has been chasing the notion of assigning an
>IP address to just about everything for some time. This idea has now been
>adopted more broadly with the meme “the Internet of Things”, which puts a
>little more emphasis on some level of intelligence/autonomy in addition to the
>basic idea of “addressability” (another form of identity with “spatial”
>connotations). But the key social/institutional aspects of identity that Ed
>highlighted in his response to your email still don’t get attention they
>deserve, in my opinion.
>>
>> By the way, my aside “however sameness might be defined”, was intended to
>convey the point you made in your fourth paragraph, perhaps too tersely.
>>
>> Also, from my perspective, Ed’s example of the gas station on the corner
>persisting as an entity regardless of changes in how it might be identified
>was a great restatement of the Entity Primacy principle I mentioned in my
>email. His example also underscores the fact that just about any
>attribute/characteristic of some entity can be used as an identity or
>identifier, depending on the context in which the entity is being identified
>or sought/referenced.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Frank
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:47 AM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] "Data/digital Object" Identities
>>
>> Cyber Identity has been at the heart of my job for the last three years, and
>identity an interest ever since I wrote my bachelor's thesis on Leibniz and
>Master's thesis on Frege.
>>
>> I agree with you, entirely Hans, and would say that implicit in your
>language is the essence of the problem: 'identity' is a kind of a very ghostly
>abstraction without much mooring. Identity is surely not an attribute of a
>thing. What HAS a mooring is the ACT of identification As you put it Hans,
>"assigning an identity." The act of identification is, as you say, a social
>act, and is of course context dependent.
>>
>> Also, I agree that identification in cyberspace is what creates the the
>acute need for better understanding of identifications.
>> But, it is not an entirely new problem, applications and deeper dives into
>what is already known might suffice.
>>
>> For example, Gary's questions: Is a data object in one format the same as a
>data object in a different format or a different one? The bit streams can
>change but the original identity might be considered the same." This applies
>to *all* human artifacts. When is Moby Dick the 'same' book? However, a
>new huge confusion has arisen, the conflating of identifiers with identities.
>>
>> As Gary says, 'seems like a large claim." Worse than large, if people think
>that computers can provide mathematical certainly about things in the real
>world, the assurance that, in effect, a passport MUST be a correct
>indentifier, then we are another step along the way to handing over autocratic
>authority to the machines. Instead of 'we do not have a record of your
>payment'. we go do 'you did not make the payment.'
>>
>> I am not sure how Jack's point about URIs relates, except that surely, 'to
>be is to be a URI" is another weird way the world might be going. For cyber
>thiings and their identifying characteristics, I would agree with you, Jack.
>But, I also think that identification of *physical* objects might never or not
>for a long time be replicatable with information about the object that can be
>captured on a computer.
>>
>> Wm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I've been importing ontologies into a topic map of late. It's rather
>surprising how many URIs have been assigned to the concept with the label
>"Person".
>>
>> I think it is correct to argue that there are many different ways in which
>some entity is identified by different individuals and communities, so it
>would seem that any "Architecture" which grows up around digital objects --
>which, by many lights, are proxies for subjects one way or another-- should be
>capable of capturing all knowable ways to identify that object, regardless of
>the database identifier assigned to it locally.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Gary,
>>
>> I tend to agree with your musings. The issue of identity (of whatever
>entity) is certainly one that the network revolution has brought to increased
>importance, if for no other reason than that it exposes the identities that
>anyone assigns to an entity/object, be it digital or “real world” to those who
>may assign a different identity to that same entity/object, however “sameness”
>might be defined. The NCOIC Net Centric Principles grappled with this issue by
>means of a principle called “Entity Primacy”, which basically states that
>whatever identity you might assign to an entity/object, it has other
>identities in other, usually collective, frames of reference. Deal with that,
>as opposed to assuming that the identity you assigned has primacy. Usually
>that would mean recognizing that the entity/object has other identities in
>other frames of reference, and one should be prepared to map the locally
>assigned identity to one or more other identities in other frames of
>reference, presumably those used by actors with whom one might want to
>exchange information about said entity/object.
>>
>> Of course, one could argue that any entity/object has some “natural” or
>“inherent” identity, such as the PID referenced below, UUID’s (Universal
>Unique Identifiers), or a person’s DNA, or perhaps more pragmatically, the VIN
>of an automobile. But even these assume a context of some, usually implicit,
>scope and an associated frame of reference. In other words, such an identity
>is inherently one of the collective within which the entity/object is being
>identified. Entity Primacy therefore points out that no collective context has
>a priori primacy for assigning identities to entities/objects. One needs to
>specify which collective context a particular identity for an entity/object is
>based on/derived from. And yes, this is recursive, since such collective
>contexts for assigning identities will themselves have identities in,
>presumably, larger contexts.
>>
>> Humans just tend to glom onto some collective context (such as DNS) and
>assume that everyone else will simply use that collective context for
>identifying entities, forgetting that not everything uses DNS, even in the
>networking domain. PIDs would certainly help things – but they are not
>universal and they likely assume some representational context dimensions, as
>you surmise in your email. That’s OK as long as one is explicit about what
>those are and understand the scope limitations that they imply when
>interacting with others who might not share those assumptions.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] "Data/digital Object" Identities
>>
>> There is a bit of a movement to discuss digital data in terms of Digital
>Objects and an "Architecture." One rationale for this seems to be to provide
>an easier mechanism for the "creation of, and access to, digital objects as
>discrete data structures with unique, resolvable identifiers" - From a CNRI’s
>Press Release.
>>
>> It is further argued that such Digital Objects with a persistent ID (PID)
>will "provide a foundation for representing and interacting with information
>on the Internet."
>>
>> Seems like a large claim and I wonder what this community thinks of this
>idea. After all Identity is quite a semantic issue and intuitions about
>identities for digital objects might cause some problems. They seem quite
>mutable and we'd need to distinguish the ID for the raw data from each
>processing version of it. Is a data object in one format the same as a data
>object in a different format or a different one? The bit streams can change
>but the original identity might be considered the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
>> gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
>> NSF INTEROP Project
>> http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
>> SOCoP Executive Secretary
>> Independent Consultant
>> Potomac, MD
>> 240-426-0770
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|