Podcast Update

• Esther Tyson led a discussion on accountability on the Internet. She spent a significant time talking about the importance of the rules that govern the creation of things on the net. This is seen in light of things like flickr and other sites that permit users to create things to which others have access and frequently participate in some form of exchange about. Much of the discussion was focused on those that are clearly involved in this topic and as such I did not have enough context to follow all of the exchanges. For example, there was a good discussion on the whether or not root domain servers (think DNS) should be commercial entities and wouldn't that improve root domain servers' services?
  
  There was a significant discussion around the accountable and non-accountable web. Non-accountable web really refers to the ability for anonymity and as such protecting the identity of the user. Esther supports the idea of having a non-accountable web, but believes that in general it leads to bad, harmful activities. She believes transparency is better. Her policy was expressed as "do ask, don't lie". You can say, I won't say. This led to some heated exchange around this. Quite interesting.
• John Clippinger talked about Social Physics. The domain of the topic is all about social networks and most particularly self-organizing on the web. He compares our traditional notions of authority, the influences of thoughts by those like Adam Smith, and neural science to draw conclusions about social physics as it applies to group formation and regulation (frequently self-forming and regulating). Very interesting presentation. He built the case that you can not separate emotion from reason. He claimed that as one reviews or formulates an argument, the evaluation is not some dry truth value calculation, but that in fact their are connections in the brain between this cortex related activity and the limbic system maintain an significant connect between reason and emotion. Thus, as we participate in groups from a variety identities (roles), we react emotionally and this emotion is driven partially by our desire to trust and such. He concludes (like Esther above), that transparency in this context is extremely important for the establishment of trust. Good presentation.
• Dick Hardt talked about identity 2.0. He did a good brief review of the past trail (like Microsoft's Passport) and paper based documents we have had historically. He clearly shows that ultimately what we want from identity infrastructure that identifies the person. That person will, of course, has different relationships, reflections of self on from different contexts, but is ultimately the same person. Reputation becomes significant in this context. He does a quick review of the various technologies coming into this space now and offers caution given RSA's expectations for SAML for registering for use given their claim of patent. His best line is "simple and open" wins. It is true and as he implied the domains to which this truism applies is extremely broad. It is clear that we don't know where identity is going, but Dick definitely has his hand directly on the pulse. He rejects WS-* stuff and SAML as very likely candidates given a variety of reasons not least of which is they are not "open and simple". He would like to see the identity strategy he backs win as thanks to the presentation, I will be checking out. He suggests sxip.
• Dr. Moira Gunn talked with Dr. Paul Hallenback about NeoTropix and his research involving viruses and cancer. This fast paced presentation proved to be very interesting. Paul talked alot about a virus they have identified that prove to be able to go throughout one's system and systematically eat tumor cells and then just get flushed away by the body at the end. Many current therapies and a 10-1 kill ratio (for 10 cancer cells the person loses 1 good cell). This new virus may have a kill ration of 1 million-1. WOW. Very interesting stuff.