Digital Signatures for Marketplaces


Join me for IoT Week in Aarhus.

Digital Signatures for services (banking, payment, energy, education, care, mobility, connectivity…) and Digital Signatures for architectures (virtual and analogue enablers of connectivity) are defined by stakeholders that organize themselves, ICANN style, without any commercial intent to take profit elsewhere. They are a tool to complement current actions on procurement and local agency as in this kind of SLA it does not matter that the original data sets and analytical platforms are not under your control. In this manner local stakeholders are a priority part of building the next layer of value, naming the new entities that are formed when AI inspired intelligence starts to see patterns unrecognizable before.

In order to create open service creation platforms (for example take the learnings with you in/of a connected car), free flow of data is not enough. In line with the @NGI4EU work on ‘event identities’ (temporary identities awarded to actors like persons, objects, robots and processes) the next level to address is how to create free flow of ‘meaning’, thus open API’s for algorithms and ethical standards in AI.

This session will then be about co-creating procedures for building Digital Signatures for Marketplaces. Marketplace are instrumental for new data-driven business models. We assume Open Marketplaces will benefit from network effects.


These Digital Signatures - do they allow for anonymity? As I understand it they can be temporary identities?


Yes, the idea is federated and attribute based only. You can have thousands of ‘identities’, only ‘event identities, basically never exposing yourself as your ‘full set of properties’ (sorry for this engineering type of talking about people of flesh and blood and dreams and hope. The key lies in looking at all the competion now on the passport Sovrin, ID2020, Uport/ioT-A, WIN and getting grip on the ’source’. If the ’state’ as it is currently is the ’source’ we drag a lot of dependencies into a new ontology. Accountability is what I prefer over ‘anonymity’. I like to know who I am dealing with. Tokenized trust is what we well build but that can only be real in localities, in potential encounters with people. Christian Nold and I wrote about a kind of local IoT structure a while ago. We were called naive back then, now I think it can be quite mundane. Christian and me are having a informal meeting about that at UCL next Wednesday. I will send notes here.

It is a free book, like all my texts.


Just like edgeryders aim:

emphasizing that people from all walks of life have to be at the table when we talk about alternate possibilities for ubiquitous computing.

As you can see what is called IoT now was called ubicomp, pervasive computing, calm tech, ambient intelligence from the 70s