My Digital FootPrint

The linkage between principles and rules is not clear because we have created so many words and variances in language that there is significant confusion. We are often confused about what we mean as we are very inconsistent in how we apply words and language, often to provide a benefit to ourselves or justify our belief. To unpack the relationships we need to look at definitions, but we have to accept that even definitions are inconsistent. Our conformational bias is going to fight us, as we want to believe what we already know, rather than expand our thinking. (building on orignal article with Kaliyia) Are we imagining principles or values?   Worth noting our principles are defined by our values. Much like ethics (group beliefs) and morals (personal beliefs) and how in a complex adaptive system my morals affect the group’s ethics and a group’s ethics changes my morals. Situational awareness and experience play a significant part in what you believe right now, and what the group or so

In my post on Principles and Rules , I explored the connection between our human desire for principles, our commercial need for risk and our love of rules.  It explored the fact that we create rules, to manage risks, that end up not aligned with our principles and made some suggestion about how we can close the loop.  In the article, I skipped over the word “rules” without unpacking it.  This post is to unpack the word “rule”  The history and origin of the word “Rule” is here .  Irrespective of the correct use of the word “rule,” we use words in both correct and incorrect situations. Incorrect being there is a more precise or accurate word in the context or situation but we chose the word we do so as to create ambiguity, to avoid controversy, to soften the message and because of naivety.  We know that words and our language itself are filled with convenient generalisations that help us to explain ourselves whilst at the same time avoid the controversy created by unique circumstances. 

So the technical term for that delay or lag from then you finish speaking to you hearing when the next person speaks is wrapped up in an idea of “Latency”.   Latency is measured in milliseconds (ms), which is thousandths of seconds . Latency for a face to face conversation is like zero. For say a landline call, it is defined by an ITU standard and is judged by the ability to offer a quality of service.  Ideally, about 10ms will achieve the highest level of quality and feels familiar.  A latency of 20 ms is tremendous and is typical for a VoIP call as it is perfectly acceptable.  A latency of even 150 ms is, whilst noticeable, permitted, however, any higher delay or lag times and the quality diminishes very fast. At 300 ms or higher, latency becomes utterly unacceptable as a conversation becomes laboured, driven by interruptions and lack flow.  We all know the phrases of “no-one left behind” or “you are only as strong as your weakest team member.” Well, the same applies for latency, on

Who is the “we”, this piece is co-authored by Kaliya Young and me, who together have worked for over 45 years on identity and personal data. For this article, we are looking at the role of values, principles and rules within the industry and sectors seeking to re-define, re-imagine and create ways for people to manage the digital representations of themselves with dignity. As we write this there is an ongoing conversation about the regulation of Facebook and the regulation of big tech in general. We see a problem with the frame of the conversation because we believe ON PRINCIPLE they shouldn’t exist as in no-one entity should have that much power and control over the global population’s identities, “their” data and the conversion we have. So any frame that accepts BIG TECH as acceptable won’t create rules that actually move towards the principle of ending the current hegemony but rather just seek to regulate it as is. W ith this piece, we are seeking to look at how principles change