Consumer Protections

In order to make a knowledge banking industry work, there are an array of qualities that need to be considered as to ensure the beneficial owner of the ‘inforg’ stored on it, is the person to whom that inforg relates. Some of the considered needs are noted below, whilst this is not in any way shape or form a complex and comprehensive overview of requirements; as illustrated by this document, at this stage.

A Knowledge Banking provider would conceptually store thousands if not millions of accounts.  Part of the benefit of a knowledge banking industry, is the ability to provide pseudo-anonymous data-services in relation to personal data.  This in-turn is assisted by decentralising discovery, through the use of decentralised ledgers, DIDs and similar.  In a manner that’s very similar to DNS the practical method in-turn enables use-cases such as the ability for computer vision to be used with biometric signatures, such as facial recognition systems; where AR Head mounted displays, such as is exampled by Magic Leap or google glass; allow its user to have ‘web of data’ based apps.

In this way, the contextual environment of a person who is identified by software, can be provided the means to privately be asked what information they want to provide back to the agent (the head mounted display glasses, for instance) making a request for information.   As the knowledge banking provider is not making use of a users personal and public address space, the discovery process is able to poll to identify which provider can provide information; and when the provider is identified, they can internally identify what information they want to provide back to the agent making the request.

In the context of a business conference, this might mean providing business card details.  In the context of a social app, such as a dating app, this might simply be a persons first name (that might float above their head, in augmented reality space).

The second thing that’s very important is the ability to ‘churn’ between providers; or the ability to change providers.  This requirement in-turn is indeed quite complex.  Software Standards are instrumental to the means through which this is made possible; but the principle need for knowledge banking – account holders – to migrate their accounts (and not break the semantics, in a privacy-preserving model) requires agreements to be in-place that entitle users to be able to move providers.  Semantics data-structures in a decentralised information management system, is far more complex than simply migrating funds from one financial institution to another.

Additionally; the means to ensure ‘consumers’ have an array of ontological tools that entitle them to make legal declarations by way of data, that knowledge banking providers are obligated to preserve, is also important.

Some of the original considerations around this was formed in the context of RASPS or the ability to make declarations that state the data service provided by the person includes semantic information that declares information such as,

  • Reuse: can the information being provided be reused.
  • Accessibility: How can this data be transformed for use by the recipient.
  • Security: Is it important for the recipient of this data to encrypt it, and keep it secure.
  • Privacy: What, who and how should this data be used by the recipient.
  • Sovereignty:  what ‘choice of law’ is defined in relation to the use of this data.