So,

Throughout the world, a leading subject of technology news has been about the recent ITU meetings in Dubai.  Throughout the world, a vast array of concepts have been affiliated with this meeting.  Purposes of national policy, or that of economic benefit.  Perhaps for the first time, the world has convened to discuss how policy may be orchestrated on this global network of communications, as this opportunity certainly was not available upon the inception of the internet; a fact many may suggest awarded the technology the basic capability for use, development and the ubiquity it has enjoyed now for more than 20 years.  It is indeed debatable, that if the leaders of our world were forced to convene to discuss whether or not a concept like internet, should be allowed to exist – the probability it would exist is questionable at best, let alone how and what this revolutionary technology would have been allowed to do, deliver and communicate, within any form of governance structure.

Therein; a reasonable guess, is that these battles hard fought, won, lost and continuing – between the founders of the internet, the geeks, the computer dudes – and the lawyers, military and commercial / banking interests; a mine-field of emerging importance and issues.

On one side, we have America.  A founder of the internet, a patent territory of Intellectual Property Law, a Military Force – with significant investments into Internet and a far-reaching Venture Capital Association, Media and Computer Technology Empire – collectively manufacturing some of the largest Internet portals in the world, collecting data about people, facilitating use and development of internet in no small measure.

On the other, it looks as though we have the United Nations, A United International front of organisations all committed to joint works, collective agreements, Human Rights and international policy, throughout a world of disparate languages, peoples and interests.

The UN is the Collective Force, responsible for revolutionary agreements, such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first adopted on the 10th of December 1948, and others such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1989/90 developing what is now the basis for many legal policy precedent surrounding family law, refugee and war-crimes law and treaty, often also created and adopted via the United Nations.   Although the united nations has provided little contribution in itself, toward the evolution of Internet and Information Communications Technologies, it is certainly a forum of high-esteem internationally, where considerations made are taken seriously overall.

Therein; reality starts to bite upon the very nature, of this highly complex area of subject matter expertise, conflicts of interest, economic development and policy and indeed, factors involved in global stability and what is or is not allowed in terms of vigorous negotiations between states and/or other parties including but not exclusive to, acts of war.

In simple terms, much of the worlds communications infrastructure is in the hands of the American Forces, it’s allies and interests.  This concept goes far beyond the simple aspect of infrastructure itself, but also into commercial models, businesses, business models, consumer brands and all things similar.  In terms of international competition, there is some but not alot;  Russia, for example, developed an alternative to GPS called GLONASS, now integrated into a variety of devices, although not internet based – highlighting the desire to reduce dependance on the US for all forms of Communications Technology, if and as the needs may need in future, not just for russia – but for all.

The scope is enormous.  It is important to remember, that in the territory of Television, America has one version – used in some countries, whilst the world moreover – as different standards, which leads to an opportunity of co-habitation and content licensing overall.

Different Countries have different principles of law and governance.  Whilst some might complain that we’re all not just the same, it is commonly understood that the lessons of one region, can often transpire opportunities for other regions struggling with issues, within a differentiated structure of governance and law.  The spirit of acceptance and collaboration between the many great nations, not only unifies us as a species, but also enhances our opportunities and diminishes threats, that would otherwise exist if we were all depending upon the same set of principles, values, system of law or indeed the many other variables of sociology that exist throughout the globe.  In terms of internet, this is perhaps the greatest challenge the global community has ever faced.  The system of internet relay’s upon a common set of standards and principles, which are in-turn translated into technology. although seeking an ideal, whether realistic or otherwise; the question becomes, who has the best understanding to forge this system of perfection, and should it be left to the people, the state or indeed some form of global representative group.  In todays age, it appears this means of control, a questionable aspect in itself, is managed more broadly by america.  It is simple to see where the benefit lies to america, and any close allies in maintaining the status quo, or so it may seem – to the uninitiated.

One of the many remarkable factors of EU Technology policy, underpinning a great-deal of the belief structure both of the ITU and the UN, is that of its open-source policies.  If developers wish their great idea to be used by government throughout the EU, portions of it must be open-source.  This is a security measure, more than anything else – however it is important to note, the difficulties a number of companies from the US have had with these policies overall.  Indeed it may been considered, that technology development has, at times, been stymied by the policies held to account, by europeans.  Whilst US companies may complain, it is simply not the case that a great deal of their software, web-business infrastructure is made available on open-source terms.  Indeed, to example the difficulties many policing organisations throughout the world have had significant difficulty in tracking down those behaving illegally, due to the very difficult nature of acquiring appropriate information, as required by local law and law-enforcement agencies, on individuals breaching law through the use of online environments, such as facebook, myspace and others.  difficulties have been discussed with me, to be more of a local law-enforcement nature, such as suggestions that youth had a suicide pact, or online bullying – aspects in Australia, that were not of national significance overall.  However Australia,  as a nation has enjoyed a highly communicable and trusted relationship with the US, which although explaining difficulties therein; may also highlight issues for other regions and their people, if the nature of the relationship was not equally or virtuously positive overall.

There is little disputing the fact that USA, through its own heritage and the continuation of that heritage, has a range of interests, beliefs, of great importance on a national and international stage.  However reasonably, the question could be asked – does that mean we, as a global community, should be made dependant upon the interests of this region, it’s policies and its procedures.   In western countries this question is less complicated, than those in other regions, with differentiated languages and beliefs.  The mistakes of the crusades and/or the development of the british commonwealth may well be consequential in the coming debate, overtime.

Underlying all of this, there are some fundamental developments to the internet, which spawns the opportunity for discussion.  The Internet works using a numbering system, called “IP” or “Internet Protocol”, which has proliferated throughout the globe under an auspice entitled “V4”.  IPv4 provides the numbers, which in digital terms relate to whether or not the participant or device, is connected to the network.  Founders of the internet, have discussed openly, that it was in-fact a lab-experiment, gone global.  That the design of this fundamental pillar for internet, was not ready for global uptake.  Vint Cerf, also goes on-to discuss how he gained an opportunity to work with an American Military organisation to develop a more appropriate platform for their use, and through that work a new model emerged, IPv6.

There are a number of critical differences between the two standards.  The first, is the number of numbers available.  The total number, of numbers (called the “ip address pool”) for IPv4 is limited, and running out.  The number of available, IPv4 numbers when no-longer available – will result in an inability to issue new numbers for purposes such as secure communications, or indeed access.  IPv6, has by a significant multiple – more numbers. There are theoretically so many numbers, that every unique object throughout the world could be provided a unique number – an identifier, and there would still be more left-over, for several generations.

The second, and perhaps more important aspect – is the inclusion of security, into the numbering system and the information transport system it provides.

Traditionally, certificates were required from an authorised 3rd party, who held “the master key”.  For obvious reasons, most of the companies holding those “master keys” were US Based.   Although methods are available to use and/or generate alternative keys, consumer browsers would alert users, that the website was not secure, creating upset and difficulty for wide-spread commercial use.  In IPv6, a system called “DNSSEC” is included.  DNS SEC, in-turn, reduces the dependancy upon these certificate providers – and in-turn, provides an opportunity for broader commercial engagement over what is being labelled, a “digital economy”.

And this; i believe, is where the problem is greatest – this concept, of a digital economy.  Technology is never a problem, it is the utility of technology where problems emerge.

As more and more people, use digital technology as a key constituant to trade, and economic participation – security becomes a necessary aspect overall.  The alternative, would be like an open-door policy to your local banking institution, and the vaults in which they hold their customers assets.

Whereas one constituant of the consideration, relates to how the licensing and terms of use apply to fundamental aspects of internet technology; the other, is pursuant to the laws in which its users are most responsible.  Is it more important that users do not breach US law, or are not capable of representing their disputes to a US law Court; or, is it whether such a would-be defendant, is able to be held accountable to local law.  Then what about travellers?

Todays internet provides little protection for the rights of individuals throughout the world.  Equally, most people are able to exploit otherwise enforced law, such as copyright law, without regard.  Institutional business models and profits have even emerged through the commercial exploitation of these factors, for which few if any are held accountable overall.   In many of the submissions and discussions relating to this, and related matters the factor of whether or not the internet is “free” emerges.  upon examination, it would be fair to consider what in america, if anything is actually “Free”, and as such – how do we pay for these things, and what rights do we have as consumers, whether locally or abroad.

Arguably, after the dot-com crash, the fight began – in the information age, knowledge is power and control of communications transfer and storage, is of immense power.  We wait to see how this journey continues.

It is our belief, that an emergence of “information banking” will occur; but only through the discussion, of how the knowledge capital of sovereign states and its people, can at times be of value to GDP.  It seems most likely, however, that a company like google will be capable of knowing about these types of changes, prior to agreement – enabling it to vend products, that in-themselves, may void the opportunity of united, democratic inter-governmental process; prior to the lifecycle process needed to forge the most opportune path, not otherwise defined within America.

What is knowledge capital, who creates it, values it and uses it for economic benefit…

This document attempts to consider a means to communicate on high-level terms; the fundamental pillars of democratic participatory, economically secure works, in virtual environments.  These philosophical or “higher principles”, are applied to a concept of establishing a “knowledge banking” platform, that uses semantic internet technologies for the purpose of providing accounts, with permissions, for a myriad of content and identity services.

The first steps outline the need for digital identity as a cornerstone services offering to digital economy, and any related participatory schemes. How identity and dignity through the application of “permissions systems” controlled via law and the individual; should be established to provide the capacity for “fullest potential”.  The concept, has been applied using an adaptive model of “knowledge banking”, applied as a conduit from our economic climate, to this new “virtual” digital economy and related systems.

The hope of this model, it that ‘economic value’ by participants can be attributed on a basis of contribution (content); which is economically rationalized as “knowledge capital”.  The means described, suggests this is done via the application of digital “knowledge banking” accounts, capable of interfacing with “linked-data”, from a myriad of sources.  The purpose of these accounts, as a business systems model, is to mirrors the utility of financial banking institutions; for storage, transaction and related services for intellectual capital on a permissions basis.

A “knowledge capital” account is controlled by account holders on a transportable basis.  It is envisaged that several “knowledge capital” providers will become established; where consumers of this service, will have choices about how they intend to interact with these services, and service providers.  If the consumer, decides to migrate from one account provider – to another – this is made possible, through the use of appropriate standards.  Over the past decade, these standards have been developed, and established.

The “utility”, “infrastructure” or “institutional” provider of these accounts; will likely provide “lock-in” methods; through the provision of specific proprietary services; placed upon the “top” of the account, in a non-destructive manner..

Such services may not be available to other providers for reasons of tactical intellectual capital – commercialization.   However more broadly, it is envisaged that this will not be the case.  standard types of services, would include hosting, application interfaces, styles, locations, support services, consulting services, etc.  Overall, even with the use of open-standards, a competitive market is envisaged to be capable of development through the application of IPR concepts, and contractual precedent.

Open-source is still seemingly mandatory as a base-level economic protection; that needs to be put-in-place, to protect knowledge capital.  Similarly, an institutional model is also required when applied to the concepts of digital economics.  The basis used in consideration of these concepts; have been that of philosophy, cultural universalities and the social values underpinning democracy.

There is an evolutionary-role that must be played by governance, and the free market – defining how these services are to operate; and the constraints, that must be put-in-place, pursuant to the fundamental interests of our communities.

It seems that there are commonalities throughout;  on a fundamental basis, identity – of any entity – online, providing the people (and organizations) the right of secured communications; which, in internet terms is equal to identity, and the civil right to allow someone to have an identity, to communicate and to participate in commerce; in a lawful manner, and in the best interests of the individual as required to reach their fullest potential; as it is in the interests of the community that we, as people, are offered the opportunity to reach our fullest potential as contributors to the broader community.  Given that the driving force to most environments is finance; then the right to be remunerated for works on a fair basis; or as otherwise agreed by the parties as applicable, on a lawful basis – seems to be a fundamental pillar of  any successful digital economy.

So, how is this different?

The fundamental difference between this proposal; and the current systems used on the internet, is that the application framework being inclusive of this “knowledge banking” platform, would “link” data, rather that duplicate, copy and license data without specific transactional bi-directional agreements.  ,

the proposed systems seek to create a new format of internet – that can work in parallel to the existing infrastructure, rather than replacing it.  The way in which this is suggested to occur, is via the delineation between IPv4 and IPv6.  If someone counted the total number of grains of Sand on the planet; the number would need to be multiplied by a significant factor to equal the total number of available IPv6 addresses, in the name-space. In-line with other related technologies, systems on this new “internet framework” could provide inclusive valuation of contributed materials (“content”) whilst recognizing the concept of “knowledge capital” or data (based representations of) objects.

Another question – that seems necessary for discussion is whether inferred ‘ownership’ of knowledge capital on digital networks is a human right.  Is the knowledge used, on internet; a tool of trade for which an individual or organization should not be subject to unlawful acquisition, or exploitation.

The term “digital economy” underlies a concept of trading intangible assets; as opposed to “economy” which prior to internet, most significantly defined trade of physical assets.  In today’s age; the level of trade on digital platforms is continually increasing at a dramatic rate of knots.  The problem is; a vast majority of content continues to suffer from “duplication”, without license; where the term license, defines the concept of materially trading “intellectual capital”.

Where economy continues to develop; into a digital era, the means for common-law protections, such as from theft, requires new means, a new method.  The “knowledge capital” banking platform proposed, delivers this capability.

BANKING AND KNOWLEDGE CAPITAL 

What is “Knowledge Capital”? The concept surrounds the intrinsic value of information, in trade.

“If a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”

Benjamin Franklin  US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BANKING

The worlds first bank, is known to be the Monte di Pietà – “founded in 1539, after Emperor Charles V issued an edict to expel the Jews devoted to usury. Medieval Christians were prohibited by the church from lending money at a profit, although this injunction was often ignored in the commercial centers of the peninsula. In response to the 1539 edict, some aristocratic Neapolitans (Aurelio Paparo, Gian Domenico di Lega, and Leonardo Palma) created a non-profit organization to lend money.”

The third oldest bank is considered to be Stockholms Banco founded in 1657 by Johan Palmstruch which began printing banknotes in 1661. It was to be the precursor to the Sveriges Riksbank, the central bank of Sweden.

Johan Palmstruch had made two failed proposals for the creation of a banking institution in the 1650s before his third proposal, with the addition of a promise to pay half of the bank’s profits to the crown, was accepted. King Charles X Gustav thus signed two charters on November 30, 1656 to create an exchange bank and a loans bank. The first of these (which opened in July 1657) took deposits for a fee (and accruing no interest) with the account owner later able to withdraw the money as cash or to write cheques. The second (which opened at the beginning of 1659) provided loans, financed by the bank owners and secured against property. These two departments were combined in Stockholms Banko with Palmstruch as general manager.

The Bank of England, formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, is the central bank of theUnited Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world. After England’s crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England’s rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy if it were to regain global power. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III’s government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8 per cent) that the government wanted.

In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government’s balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.  The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.

As a side-effect, the huge industrial effort needed, from establishing iron-works to make more nails to agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the Royal Navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

The Wikipedia entry for “knowledge capital”; states the following,

Knowledge capital is a concept which asserts that ideas have intrinsic value which can be shared and leveraged within and between organizations. Knowledge capital connotes that sharing skills and information is a means of sharing power. Knowledge capital is the know how that results from the experience, information, Knowledge, learning, and skills of the employees or individuals of an organization or group. Of all the factors of production, knowledge capital creates the longest lasting competitive advantage. It may consist entirely of technical information (as in chemical and electronics industries) or may reside in the actual experience or skills acquired by the individuals (as in construction and steel industries). Knowledge capital is an essential component of human capital. Knowledge capital at large can be a strong vision, strategic information on market and business model, networks, talent, supply chain, innovation and creativity. There is also knowledge liability, the unknown concerning future business models, lack of knowledge on product-service, on human potential, on governance and supply chain. The balance between knowledge capital and knowledge liability equals knowledge equity. Knowledge equity plus emotional equity equals immaterial value of the company (goodwill).

In summary; knowledge capital – in a “digital economy”, is similar to a banknote.

A DIGITAL ECONOMY

Governance environments; around the world, have switched their focus to the development, of what has been labelled in political circles, a, or, the “digital economy”.  The Digital Economy,

as defined in Wikipedia states: A Digital Economy refers to an economy that is based on digital technologies.

The digital economy is also sometimes called the Internet Economy, the New Economy, or Web Economy.

The basis to this economy is digital communications; the concept that “information”, has value; and intrinsically, people who contribute information, do so on some form of licensing terms, whether acknowledged in writing or otherwise.  The fundamental principle of economics; is that transactions (or trade) can be attributed to value acknowledgement; the intrinsic value to transactions.

Platforms such as “Facebook” freely license all material provided to their platforms.  In today’s age; people are expected to communicate using internet technology.  Socially, people become alienated in some-part, if they choose not to participate with internet technologies and products.  Perhaps more importantly; more and more businesses are forced to undertake more sophisticated methods to protect their “knowledge capital” interests.  Our civil laws; have not been allowed to develop in-line with this growth of technology; in a way compliant with our sociological concepts of democracy, as a best methods practice for governance.

It is noted that in many corporations, their ability to even open-up “good-faith” discussions about potential opportunities, now requires agreements of non-disclosure which are only enforceable via courts, and legal funding; a method necessary for protection by corporate entities, but makes recourse by individuals most-often financially unfeasible.

Prior to the introduction of internet; our communities or ability to communicate was no-where near that of today.  The social developmental influences of this change, is global.

However, equally – it is difficult to imagine an inventor, or “ideas person”, or owner of a collection of assets; having to be so very fearful of external entities “stealing” their work; or indeed, being accused of stealing someone’s work on an infringing basis.

I don’t think it is reasonable to assume, that if a person typed out a business plan, printed it – and handed it to specified people; in seeking assistance – those recipients, in similar terms today’s recipients – would so readily exploit that information without consideration for the content (or knowledge capital) originator; nor, do i think it is reasonable to suggest that entire business systems – such as those by telecommunications companies – would be so heavily invested in this capacity – as a methodology for growth, return on investment and viability.

This produces a situation that is simply undemocratic and an adversary to common-law principles; including but not exclusive to, the rights of the people to have access to lawful remedy and not be; on an enterprise level, exploited by the evolutionary capacities of enterprise, to practically develop methodologies for “denial of justice”, upon the people.

In terms of the “digital economy”, this aims to change the seemingly has unreasonably accessibility or participatory standards; the need of mountains of “financial capital”, as a prerequisite to securely seeking investment and/or purchase agreements for valued or useful contributions, be it in a service or product orientated way.  This can directly affect the manner in how the common-person, can economically participate, with and into, the information economy.

WHY HASN’T THE PROBLEM BEEN FIXED IN PAST?

It may seem easy to fix; however, the solutions are a double edged sword,

Many successful internet companies base their valuations on the ability to easily acquire “non-exclusive” intellectual property rights.  These assets most often incorporate increasingly substantive personal information; which is more generally translated to marketing value, where a company is able to exploit information provided; to deliver effective marketing and/or advertising services to and from customers. Good examples of these types of agreements are found in Facebook, for content contributed onto internet applications. Perhaps less fortunately, it is the people – who are more-often engaging in such terms, generally with a complete lack of awareness – as companies leverage these terms, to accumulate value without further consideration to terms such as “moral rights”, otherwise exhibited; and no choices of alternative methods.

THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE

There are two facets critically interwoven into the issue of “knowledge capital” that should be core considerations for change.

1. Global understandings of fundamental human rights.
2. The application of human rights – into an environment of capitalism; and virtual goods and services – or, in effect – the ability to integrate the fundamental “pillars” of “democracy” (as an example) , into the “digital economy”.

The United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously backed the notion recently; that, “internet access and online freedom of expression is a basic human right”.

What does this mean?

• How does the internet currently support human rights?
• What types of these rights might be applicable?
• Who is the UN and what does that and this – have to do with sovereignty?

In the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1: Speaks of dignity.

Wikipedia states: Dignity

is a term used in moral, ethical and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment. It is an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights.

– Article 2, speaks of protection from discrimination in all its forms; “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Article 3, speaks of right to life

• , liberty and security of person;  Wikipedia starts to explain that liberty is “the ability of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions)” whilst security of person
•  entry inscribes; “In general, the right to the security of one’s person is associated with liberty and includes the right, if one is imprisoned unlawfully, to the remedy of hebeas corpus.

Article 4 speaks of slavery, servitude,

A poignant factor for consideration is whether, by allowing the means to systemically disenfranchising individuals from capital-worth, in affiliation to their works, discoveries and other “knowledge capital”; without agreement; could be perceived to be allowing a form of slavery; where individuals may contribute and/or focus on works for an unspecified time, only to have these works capitalized upon without consideration to a receiving, often incorporated party.

Article 5 torture, cruel or inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment.

Pursuant to the point, in affiliation to article 4; where no reasonable means for recourse is available, is this not a form of torture, punishment or an otherwise inhumane act of piracy?

Article 8, effective remedy for violation of fundamental rights;

Wikipedia commences the subject of fundamental rights by stating; “Fundamental rights are a generally regarded set of entitlements in the context of a legal system, wherein such system is itself said to be based upon this same set of basic, fundamental, or inalienable entitlements or “rights”

The entry goes on to list some universally recognised rights, as fundamental,

• Right to self-determination
• Right to liberty
• Right to due process of law
• Right to freedom of movement
• Right to freedom of thought
• Right to freedom of religion
• Right to freedom of expression
• Right to peaceable assembly
• Right to freedom of association
• Right to marry

Article 12, arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence nor attacks upon honour or reputation.

“In clinical psychology, arbitrary inference is a type of cognitive bias in which a person quickly draws a conclusion without the requisite evidence.”

Honour

“is an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation. Accordingly, individuals (or corporate bodies) are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a specific code of honour, and the moral code of the society at large.”

Reputation

of a social entity (a person, a group of people, an organisation) is an opinion about that entity, typically a result of social evaluation on a set of criteria. It is important in education, business, and online communities.

Reputation may be considered as a component of identity as defined by others.

Reputation is known to be an ubiquitous, spontaneous and highly efficient mechanism of social control in natural societies. It is a subject of study in social, management and technological sciences. Its influence ranges from competitive settings, like markets, to cooperative ones, like firms, organisations, institutions and communities. Furthermore, reputation acts on different levels of agency, individual and supra-individual. At the supra-individual level, it concerns groups, communities, collectives and abstract social entities (such as firms, corporations, organizations, countries, cultures and even civilizations). It affects phenomena of different scales, from everyday life to relationships between nations. Reputation is a fundamental instrument of social order, based upon distributed, spontaneous social control.

• Article 17, the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, and that no-one should be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Property

is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things.

There are many articles within this document, of which i’ve only provided an extract.  It is hoped that a basic understanding of the concept of knowledge capital as associated property to a contributing individual; is worthwhile cause; to seek to protect, as a formative means to enforce the rights of identity, dignity and other such human rights as prescribed by the united nations, overall.  It is believed that these documents have a direct implications upon the fair-use, of intellectual properties – where a digital economy, is put in-place as a means of communication, economic growth and economic participation by the people.  The problem therein; is that without a means for forming a digital identity and associating works to these digital identities; the rights otherwise available in a non-digital-economy, are unavailable; and therefore, incapable of acceptance by governance parties.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child  goes on to describe similar principles, which are equally relevant – with special consideration to the rights of children – and internet use; but also, in terms of the rights of guardians or parents of that child, as an extension to the rights of the child themselves.

The terms outlined in these documents seem to provide a basic, comprehensive understanding governing principles for which value should be capable of attributing, to digital content; as a means, to enforcing “human rights”.

DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM

Wikipedia defines Capitalism as an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Other elements central to capitalism include competitive markets, wage labor and capital accumulation.  The Wikipedia entry for Capital Accumulation

explains;

The accumulation of capital is the gathering or amassing of objects of value; the increase in wealth through concentration; or the creation of wealth. Capital is money or a financial asset invested for the purpose of making more money (whether in the form of profit, rent, interest, royalties, capital gain or some other kind of return).

This entry does not currently contain information about “Knowledge Capital”

Knowledge Capital is undoubtedly a concept which applies to the use and users of internet – especially where internet is used for some-form of commercial purpose, or attempt thereof.   When considering how this applies to human rights – people have the right to be paid for their work.  but how can this be defined, and what does it have to do with democracy?

In the “AusCivics” project, a project aiming to teach kids about democracy; I worked on methods to effectively understand and communicate the core-values, required to support a democracy.  Already developed within this program, was a principle called “the 5 pillars of Australian democracy

”.  Within this outline, there is the notion of “shared values”.

Shared values, in this model include;

Care, Compassion, Fair Go;

• Doing Your Best;
• Freedom;
• Honesty, Integrity, and Trustworthiness;
• Remembering;
• Respect;
• Responsibility;
• Understanding,
• Tolerance, and Inclusion;
• Informed Judgment;
• Health, Wellbeing, and Safety.

Whether these “shared values” have been best communicated for the specified purpose of any region, is largely irrelevant – overall – it describes portions that value citizens within a democracy – and that we need a form of “shared values”, in-order to enact “the rule of law”, within a land; governed by way of a democracy.

Wikipedia states democracy

to be; Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.

Summary 

The adherence to; and creation of, “the rule of law”, in a digital economy, operated by a state or governance jurisdiction based upon the principles of democracy; or rather, the “rule of the law”, enforced by the state as prescribed by the rules “made by the people”.  If this determination is true – it seems to most simply be in the peoples interests – to deliver tools that assist in the management of compliance, and participation – pursuant to “the rule of law”, in the interests of enabling all individuals the capacity to develop to their “fullest potential”.

In terms of internet; this means, a new form of digitally enabled “bank” is required, to assist people with use of “knowledge capital”, for the interests of the people, the economy, and those charged with the duty of governing democracy on behalf of the people.

I have created this strategy, where my works commenced in 2000 specifically in considering how to create this type of “banking service”.