Help: This page shows how the referencing vocabulary definitions are maintained and interlinked for controlled consistency of documentation. Click on the hyperlinks to see how the terms are defined within the Askemos architecture. more… Tip: Remember the back-button!

This page has three main sections. (Note that the listings could be empty.)

  1. The first item displays a term, URL, text or picture.
  2. Followed by a (still unordered) listing of statements about this subject. (for details follow ">"-link)
  3. Separated by a horizontal rule a "reverse" listing of statements referring to this item in object position.
Principle of inalienable privilege
1024 ↑ ... is defined by > Askemos
1029 comment >

The principle of inalienable privilege is derived from and extends the principle of least authority.

It subsumes to: privilege transfer must be non-transitive. At most a strict subset of the privileges an actor has might be transferred, never the whole set.

Least authority refers to the lower bound of privileges as required to actually invoke a privilege. The principle says only those should be granted. It looks from the receiver side with the intention to allow some operation.

The principle of inalienable privilege in contrast refers to the maximum privilege, which may be given away without loosing control.

An evidential system is said comply with the principle when it establishes a rule rejecting violations. No exceptions.

Why is this a requirement?

The culture-historical the idea of inalienable privileges can be traced back at least to Jean Jacques Rousseau The Social Contract Or Principles Of Political Right (1762). It has been deeply build into the notion of constitutional state ever since. If there where no way to assert inalienable privileges the system would be inadequate as a model. In Rousseau's text we further found found the connection of individual rights balanced with the a social contract.

2388 comment > There can be the case that these sets of privilege have no intersection. Those systems are inherently corruptible. It takes just a single unintentional privilege transfer.
1025 is a > Principle
1401 description >

In Plain English

Besides Askemos codifying the "scientific record"… which would be a subclass of "archival record", the art of coding an extensibe, universal ontology for those goes by the names RDF, Dublin Core and derivatives.

That is standard best practise.

Having the majority based integrated audit wrt. updates only enables those "common sense" based safety claims wrt. falsification.

But really proud I am about the modelling of the cultural achievement of self-ownership. This is about 350 years old only in our European tradition. By the ruling that only a strict subset/subprivilege of a privilege can be granted from one entity to another, there is this initial set a user has to start with. It contains the unique permission for this users. Given the subset rule, this cannot be tranfered anywhere by the network.

Now the whole system's security hinges on this fact. And we are pretty well using this unique permission to model the users self-ownership (which in turn is the foundation to derive both the idea of human rights and responsibilty).

My dad once wrote a culture-history essay tracing this back to J.J.Rousseau The Social Contract Or Principles Of Political Right (1762).

This is what Askemos is really about. Requirements and constraints how things should work for the sake of ethics. The software is just for illustration.

1027 derived from > Principle of least privilege
1232 derived from > The Initial Contract