Hi dreamer,
I've thought that was the object for a decade or more! In 2002 I described the use of trust to create a robust form of online identity as like the genesis of a digital Adam. Remember the Bible - the first walking, talking man?
The trust matrix emerges from the ooze of digital identity and straddles the internet (and the combined open digital networks) regardless of the device at the endpoint. If the first era of the internet is like Eden - a world without rules - the era of the trust matrix is like the state of mankind after he has eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It's disappointing in some ways. But reality requires a framework of restrictions.
So to the future. And it will turn out that restrictions aren't simply necessary. They also create opportunity, just as criminal law and the restrictions of property rights were the foundation stone of civilisation. Ten commandments.
But setting aside the Biblical analogy finallY (!) I'm interested in Wave's timeline and for that, you need to absorb the obstacles.
For the moment, opportunities in mobile are a distraction from the open channel which is immediately in front of us. But I agree they are mapped into the future.
Hi Doma,
I think you've gone a bit OT. At any rate, the story of Adam and Eve is actually along the Jahwist track in the Book of Genesis. As I understand it, the author of the Elohim segments was responsible for other portions of the Pentateuch.
Insofar as we are deriving a theory of Wave from your sense of Genesis, I agree that there is a risk in transferring from a free model to a restricted one. Unfortunately, we exist in the realm of the fallen Adam, in which unrestrained freedom leads to unrestricted harms visited upon us all. Property rights and restraints are necessary to protect us from those whose intent it is to cause harm. Even in cyberspace, the poison of negative externalities courses through the network of human relations.
By the way, I thought the divine right of modern English monarchs was more a product of Henry's loins than the offspring of Elohim.
Hi mistral,
Actually it is non-controversial.
There is no freedom absent the restraints of law. The state of rulelessness is known as anarchy.
You cannot own something if you have no rights in property and a right is a kind of restrictive claim against other people.
A claim to freedom of speech is not a right that stands against a defamatory statement or the protection of minors or the ownership interests of a copyright holder.
You are not free to steal or to murder if you wish to. The law declares you are not permitted to do certain things.
In a very broad sense, freedom is usually restrained where one person's actions harm another person's interests.
Thus, freedom is freedom only in an environment of restraint. An interesting paradox if what you wish to believe is that what we call freedom lacks all restraint.
Wave introduces values akin to physical property protections - like fences - into the cybercommons. The existence of harder security means that property rights in information can be maintained and distributed more effectively. Wave helps protect corporate secrets, private information, information access rights, bank accounts etc. The restriction on freedom which Wave administers on one level, increases freedom on another: because content is better protected if it is sent to a secure hard drive, it is more likely that the copyright holder will agree to distribute his/her work; the bank is likely to provide you more services knowing you are who you say you are. These kinds of things.
| 
