The DNS system is an interesting analogy that I think should be explored further. It, and Google, have become authoritative because they are useful, not because they are controled by a central authority.
These kind of take it or leave it systems allow for a opt-in systems that work because everyone has incentive to opt-in, but abuses are reduced because if everyone felt that the "gate keepers (ICANN and Google, INC) were unfair, they would simply use alternative systems. This helps prevent the abuse of central power and might help diffuse some of the privacy concerns that abound. The problem of course is that once a system like this becomes powerful, there is a natural move for Govt takeover. Just like the UN appears to be doing with ICANN currently. -FT On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 18:27, Harold Mackey wrote: > Folks: > Please refer to > http://www.w3.org/Addressing/Activity > > > DNS seems to work fairly well for the world-wide naming convention of web > sites based on URL's. URI's take this one step further and define things, > people even. > The management of URI's is a distributed one. > Perhaps we might consider taking the URI into the realm of patient > identification. > > Many thanks, > Harold Mackey, IT > Medical University of South Carolina > > > >From: Thomas Beale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Master Patient Index systems and Public Health > >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:07:59 +1000 > > > >David Forslund wrote: > > > >>I think this is exactly right. > > > >I also agree with Tim's proposal- it can be made computationally equivalent > >to a single UPI, but only at the point / time of use; abuses would be much > >easier to identify. I think that the trick is to interpose a trusted third > >party (some small institution or part of government whose scope is limited, > >and which is transparent) between the interfaces of the different Ids; they > >have to investigate any request to use Ids outside their original purpose > >(e.g. request by the Tax Office to use Medicare ids). > > > >> > >>At 01:46 PM 12/17/2003, Tim Churches wrote: > >> > >>>I agree, but we don't need a single, broad-scope Unique Personal > >>>Identification number. It is a recipe for abuse, just as the Social > >>>Security Number has been in the US. Instead we need lots of separate, > >>>narrow-scope UPIs, which are linkable, but only for good reasons and > >>>only through the auspices of an independent body charged with carefully > >>>balancing privacy against the public good, and/or with individual > >>>consent to link. > >> > >> > >>Dave > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >.............................................................. > >CTO Ocean Informatics - http://www.OceanInformatics.biz > > > >openEHR - http://www.openEHR.org > >Archetypes - http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl.html > >Community Informatics - > >http://www.deepthought.com.au/ci/rii/Output/mainTOC.html > >.............................................................. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get dial-up Internet access now with our best offer: 6 months @$9.95/month! > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup -- Fred Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SynSeer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
