Hi Jan and team,
I see some merit in the general thrust of your approach, but also some fundamental issues.
For me, any system must be based upon a clear hierarchy of values.
For me, that hierarchy is simple.
1/ Individual sapient life, (human and non-human, biological and non-biological); followed by
2/ Individual liberty, responsibly exercised, where it does not pose unreasonable risk to the life or liberty of anyone else, which also by implication imposes social and ecological responsibilities.
The reality is, that with accurate sensors (even of the sort we currently have), anything and everything can be tracked with reasonably high probability.
Cheating on any system becomes almost impossible to get away with for any length of time.
That exposes fundamental issues with many of our current legal and financial systems – that they are fundamentally designed to assist cheating on the human cooperative at some level. Exposing that fact will be hard on many within our current reality.
Having individual life and liberty as highest values will give everyone confidence that they will be able to survive, even if they do need to change some of their behaviours.
We need to all accept, that in public spaces, there is no such thing as privacy.
Privacy will only exist, and only to some degree, within private spaces.
Some of us will only go places where we can maintain real time connection (with use of full sensor suites) to our network(s) of trusted individuals.
We need to accept the games theoretic reality, that the maintenance of individual security demands a lack of privacy.
We need to acknowledge that centralised systems are the greatest threat to individual security, as they are vulnerable to both single point of capture and single point of failure. Security demands decentralisation and coordination.
We need to accept that exponential technology makes universal abundance of most goods and services possible; and that such universal abundance causes failure of markets and money as useful valuation tools.
So we are in a time of profound change, profound possibility, and profound danger.
I am cautiously optimistic for a shared future of security and prosperity for all of humanity, and it is not a naive optimism. I am very aware of multiple levels of existential level threat present right now.
The design of this technology must be conscious of those existential level threats, and must implement risk mitigation strategies for each of them-or it becomes more problem than solution.
This is one of the most deeply complex problem spaces facing humanity in our evolution to entities capable of indefinite life extension and exponentially expanding creativity. The number of dimensions in the space is exponentially expanding, as are the number of classes of systems with fundamental uncertainty and unpredictability.