ID-Legal Conf Plan Outline

From IdCommons

Outline as of Jan 08

Kaliya Hamlin and Lucy Lynch are meeting in Eugene Oregon - January 8, 2009

Outline so far

Initial meeting of 20-40 people in DC area.

Identifying specific people in the legal/governance/policy side to reach out to (will be writing e-mails to some of them today)

Identity Community members from various communities of activity that we know will be interested, InfoCards, VRM, DP

Overall Thematic - Rights and Responsibilities: A Gap Analysis around Frameworks for Identity in the Digital Age

  • of individuals (personhood and persona)
  • of 3rd party provider (including the legal ramifications of filling this role)
  • technology to be supportive of different policies (US-EU legal framework differences)
  • tech over to be neutral around policy and have it work with it

Event Length: 2 days + social event in evening before. Ending 2nd day by 3pm to get home to west coast.

Timing: Before IIW

Location: DC

Size:20-40 people

Long Term Goal:Build a community that can successful address the challenges as identity technologies evolve and policy and regulation and case law begin to interact with it.

Beyond this Event:Looking to a larger meeting after IIW - potentially coinciding with Fall 2009 (IIW9)

For discussion this afternoon.

  • Format - some open space with a longer time to look into the future re: collaboration - addressing issues.
  • Barriers to Entry - "position paper perhaps"
  • Invitation to conference.
  • What should the pre-reading be?
  • How to frame invite legal centers (berkman, stanford - work on at least an outline).
  • Legal background for technologists
  • Technology background for the legal folks

Draft Event Description

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

  • Laws are not in sync with technology; this is creating friction
  • Technology when first released is not in synch with law; this puts pressure both on the technology and on the law, and both evolve
  • New Laws are coming out which create uncertainty in the technology markets; this can delay important advances in identity and privacy technology.

We need to create a space for collaboration in order to understand the answers to questions like these:

  • What does the law really think 'an identity' is (this may differ depending on context: e.g. Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal)
  • What do technologists mean when they use language describing identity; what technology are they building to support this understanding.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve; Daniel Solove's thesis is that the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI this can be written into a better paragraph Technologists take things at face value

  • previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
  • never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.

Potential Recommended Pre-Reading

Article (link), where published, who wrote it - who recommended it. sentence about why.


  • Governmental entitles (fed, state, local, courts) & politicians
    • DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
    • Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
    • Commerce Committee
    • NSA (Stewart Baker)
    • Law Enforcement
    • NCCUSL (Nat'l Conf Commission on Unified State Laws)
    • NCSL (Nat'l Conf State Legislators)
    • ALEC (Amer Legis Exchange Council)
  • Business and Corporate interests
    • MySpace, Facebook
    • Google, Yahoo, etc.
    • Intel
  • Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics
    • Solove
    • Susan Crawford
    • Michael Froomkin - U Florida
    • Beth Novak
    • Holly Tolle and Ray (?)
  • Consumer interest groups
    • Consumer's Union
    • National Consumer Law Center
    • Privacy Coalition people
    • EPIC
  • Health/Medical Sector
    • Healthcare (e.g. payers, providers, patients)
    • Bio-Pharma Research (e.g. institutions, enterprise, gov funding/regulatory)
    • Pharma Products (e.g. enterprise, consumers, gov regulatory)
  • Professional associations
    • State and National Bar Assocs
      • CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
    • ACM
    • IEEE
    • Private Investigator Lobbying groups
  • Related interests
    • 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
    • Direct Marketing Assn.
    • US Chamber of Commerce
  • International Interests
    • Prime Project? (part of 7th framework, ITU)
    • Cisco & Joe Aledef (also International)
    • International Chamber of Commerce
  • RELEVANT Conferences
    • IIW
    • CFP
    • (others from call?)

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

  • Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

Institutional Co-Conveners?

  • MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
  • Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
  • Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
    • Different Languages coming together
    • Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
  • Berkman
  • UN?
  • OECD - many initiatives going on

--- Logistical Details Login - ID-Legal PW:privacyonline