[HN Gopher] Kaitiakitanga Maori Data Sovereignty Licences
___________________________________________________________________
Kaitiakitanga Maori Data Sovereignty Licences
Author : edent
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-08-24 08:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.taiuru.maori.nz)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.taiuru.maori.nz)
| anothernewdude wrote:
| Reminds me of time cube
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| ok I am now resolved to try and never look at HN comments
| again. Been really trying, but at this point I think the
| general chauvinism is pretty invariable. nothing to save here
| anymore
| h2odragon wrote:
| > 6.1 Maori Data is ever only loan. Non Maori can not own Maori
| data.
|
| Tomorrow: "80% of the world's publishers discover Maori heritage,
| re-incorporate in NZ"
| msla wrote:
| How Maori is Maori? Where's the line drawn? Is it a one-drop
| rule or does there have to be some blood quantum? Otherwise,
| well, humans disperse and intermingle and at some point it's
| like asking who qualifies as a Visigoth, or an Etruscan.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| This is addressed in the license.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > This comment is property of brown-eyes. Blue-eyes can never
| own this data.
|
| That's an absolutely bananas concept. It's fine to tie
| something like a person's personal identifying data to
| themselves, isn't it absurd to have some racial/tribal
| restriction on a piece of information?
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Under a western concept of ownership, yes. There are systems
| of ownership, particularly among tribal societies, where
| things are owned by a collective. The interface can get
| weird, but if you think of the tribe as a corporation that is
| its own legal entity distinct from the members it's not
| actually that foreign.
| Y_Y wrote:
| What I don't like about that concept is that it imposes
| restrictions on people in the tribe that I feel are unfair.
| If you want to share some of your Maori knowledge with a
| non-Maori how can you go about it? Do you need approval
| from 51% of all official members, or the board of directors
| or what?
|
| I think that cultural heritage belongs to humanity as a
| whole, and even if it didn't then there would be plenty of
| people who would just take what they "inherit" from their
| ancestors and share it with the rest of the world.
| spoonjim wrote:
| There is a corporate analog here in the form of a non-
| disclosure agreement. If you don't want to be part of the
| Maori community anymore, you can leave, like you can quit
| your job at Apple, but you're still not allowed to share
| Apple's knowledge with anyone else.
| Y_Y wrote:
| But you don't opt-in to being Maori, nor can you opt-out.
|
| If you say that you could just stop hanging out with
| other Maori then fine, but does that disinherit you from
| the cultural heritage?
| spoonjim wrote:
| I guess I'm just saying that your access to the cultural
| heritage can be contingent upon you following the rules
| (ie Don't tell outsiders). If you break those rules, the
| community should be allowed to ostracize you within the
| bounds set by law (ie no burning your house down or
| anything).
| blacktriangle wrote:
| Not only unfair, they're downright restrictive to growth.
| There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts
| of tribal ownership has developed into anything
| worthwhile, they're basically living the tragedy of the
| commons at its maximal level.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts
| of tribal ownership has developed into anything
| worthwhile
|
| Which civilizations are "worthwhile" and which are not?
| KittenInABox wrote:
| Ascribing _one person 's position_ (the person suggesting
| sovereignity licenses) to be an examplar of how _entire
| cultures_ haven 't "developed into anything worthwhile"
| is racist.
|
| Relevant XKCD comic, of course: https://xkcd.com/385/
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the Maori in particular, but most
| traditional cultures prior to the Gutenberg revolution
| had special knowledge that they tried to keep to
| themselves. Typically there were a class of people who
| were responsible for both ensuring that the knowledge
| didn't get lost or become available to the wrong people.
| Typically learning this knowledge required first
| committing to guarding its secrecy, so I wouldn't agree
| it's an unfair restriction on the people who have it. It
| might not be useful for the culture in the long term, but
| then again it might. These cultures have seen some ages
| pass.
|
| If the argument is just that everyone benefits when
| licenses are more free I wouldn't disagree, but having
| the option to impose different licenses doesn't seem like
| a bad thing. And whatever the details, that's what this
| boils down to, a particular set of restrictions on the
| use of a particular set of data.
| ivanbakel wrote:
| I think your example is discarding too much of the context.
| Rather than considering this through a racial lens, I think
| it would be more accurate to view it as an act of cultural
| stewardship - where the cultural separation, as in many parts
| of the world, largely follows racial and tribal lines.
|
| When thought of as a cultural act, it makes much more sense.
| Cultures implicitly lay claim to information i.e. their
| cultural heritage, all the time. It's also less surprising
| that you can find the concept itself "bananas", because the
| value system of your culture won't necessarily line up with
| that of other cultures and their stewards.
| luckylion wrote:
| > Cultures implicitly lay claim to information i.e. their
| cultural heritage, all the time.
|
| They do? How do you "own" cultural heritage? It sounds like
| the first step before accusing others of cultural robbery
| when they wear their hair a certain way or have a tattoo.
|
| I get the impression that anyone being in favor for that
| kind of thing hasn't thought it through. If your ethnic
| group can lay claim to some hairstyle, the dominant group
| automatically gets to claim all the stuff they introduced
| you to. It's a bad trade to get to decide who can wear
| dread locks, but have to give up all the benefits of modern
| society.
| AlanYx wrote:
| I tend to agree with you, but there are a lot of academics
| currently pushing variations of the concept articulated in
| the linked article.
|
| The has been a decent amount of advocacy for IP rights for
| various forms "indigenous traditional knowledge" bubbling
| around academia and WIPO for years. Article 31 of the United
| Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
| (UNDRIP) basically expanded the scope of that IP debate
| beyond "traditional knowledge" to new stuff created by
| indigenous peoples. New Zealand is currently pushing this
| area the hardest, but eventually most countries that ratify
| UNDRIP will end up with at least proposals in this area. The
| stomach in academia and some policy circles for pushing this
| stuff right now is pretty strong.
| lmilcin wrote:
| It is only bananas if you don't understand Maori culture.
|
| In Maori culture there is no such thing as absolute property
| right. Things are not ever really owned. They are more like
| owned collectively and borrowed based on need.
|
| Then western people came and gave them maori bosses couple
| trinkets which Maori thought is to borrow the property but
| westerners thought they are buying the property.
|
| It is a bit complicated. You can read up on it in Francis's
| Fukuyama "The origins of political order"
| Y_Y wrote:
| I think information and land have salient differences. It's
| not fair to say that I must be wrong because I just don't
| "get it".
| te_chris wrote:
| But you clearly don't get it, as your many posts in here
| show.
|
| Maori ideas of custodianship are wildly different: https:
| //www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2544-understanding...
| ratsforhorses wrote:
| I remember one Maori telling me "it's your house, but it
| (all) our land..." which seems like a perfect antidote to
| the capitalistic cancer of printing free money, giving it
| to (unethical) corporations and letting them gobble up so
| much space that we're homeless...ofc it doesn't quite work
| that way either
| mc32 wrote:
| It's ridiculous but companies have made their bed by abusing
| the collection of people's data and using that data
| unscrupulously and insecurely. So, you know, I have little
| sympathy here for the companies.
| djrogers wrote:
| Why are you bringing companies in to this? This is a
| straight up racial restriction which affects individuals.
| [deleted]
| hn_go_brrrrr wrote:
| Because the most wide-scale abuse of people's data comes
| from corporations, not individuals.
| luckylion wrote:
| A Maori corporation could "own" Maori data, as it would
| be Maori, owned by Maori.
|
| It's obviously a racial thing, not about companies.
| mc32 wrote:
| Of course this is shortsighted and also impractical but
| it highlights the need for people to control their own
| data. Whether it's this society referenced or another.
| It's important that companies respect people's data.
| kzrdude wrote:
| They should reconsider publishing on github, because their ideas
| clash pretty heavily with github's ideas of what they are
| entitled to.
| secondcoming wrote:
| What is this? Is this an official government policy? How is a
| publisher supposed to identify if someone is Maori?
| lugged wrote:
| I don't think it's official going by other commenters but as
| background,
|
| They're probably making the argument that their information is
| mana (spirit~) and therefore tapu (sacred/don't touch).
|
| I don't think many follow it but in traditional Maori culture
| you're not even allowed to let someone get ahold of your cut
| hair or nail clippings because they contain your mana and
| someone could curse you if they get ahold of it.
|
| https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-ao-marama-the-natural-world/page...
|
| Edit:
|
| More or less, yes
|
| > 2.1 Context. All data has a whakapapa (genealogy) and a
| mauri.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > They're probably making the argument that their information
| is mana (spirit~) and therefore tapu (sacred/don't touch).
|
| Usually spelled "taboo".
| lugged wrote:
| Tapu is a Maori word, it's a bit more nuanced / not quite
| the same as taboo but close. It's not like nobody can
| touch, just not everyone can touch. And not really about
| touch at all but it's part of it.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| It's close because it's the same word. But in English we
| spell it "taboo". Would you say "colour is a British
| word, it's not quite the same as color but it's close"?
| mdoms wrote:
| You need to stop, man. It's a different word.
| edent wrote:
| Maori is a completely separate language from English.
| Although it uses the English alphabet with some accents.
|
| The word tapu has completely different etymology than
| taboo.
|
| https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=0&phrase=0&pro
| ver...
|
| See also https://media.newzealand.com/en/story-
| ideas/tapu-sacred-maor...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The word tapu has completely different etymology than
| taboo.
|
| No, it doesn't. What do you think the etymology of taboo
| is?
| 1-more wrote:
| They're part of the same language family, but pretty far
| apart. The Lithuanian, Latin, and Saskrit words for fire
| are ugnis, ignis, and agni. Are they the same word? Nah.
| They just share an ancestor. Same thing with tapu and
| taboo. They are for sure related but if we're gonna talk
| about the Maori concept and not the English or Fijian one
| we can signal that so easily by calling it tapu, not
| taboo.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| It is apparently from Tongan or Fijian words, not Maori
| words.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo#Etymology
|
| I think it's weird to try and correct a person using the
| accurate cultural terms with a mis-hearing of some
| european in the 1700s. If anything "tapu" is the
| technically correct term when referring to a concept in
| the context of Maori culture specifically, and taboo is a
| shitty mishearing of a foreigner of a different language.
|
| Similar to say, if I was talking about java's methods. In
| C# they're functions. But since I'm talking about Java,
| and specifically Java's basic behavior, method is the
| correct technical terminology to signify the context of
| what I'm talking about. It'd be weird for a C# person to
| show up, tell me that "actually, these are functions", if
| I'm saying "in Java, X is called a method".
| duskwuff wrote:
| > It is apparently from Tongan or Fijian words, not Maori
| words.
|
| All of the Polynesian languages are closely related, to
| the extent that many of them are mutually intelligible. A
| simple shift in phonology, like /p/ to /b/, isn't enough
| to render /tapu/ and /tabu/ different words. The
| _connotations_ of those words may differ from one culture
| to another, but the basic concept is the same.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| But it is true that the word "taboo" came from a
| foreigner talking about Tongan peoples beliefs, which is
| important when the topic we're trying to talk about is
| Maori beliefs. Even if Maori and Tonga people are closely
| related in culture, they are not the same culture and
| Tonga people do not have the same co-sovereignity
| agreements over New Zealand that Maori do.
| djrobstep wrote:
| OP is not writing an English word.
|
| > Tapu is a Maori word
| spoonjim wrote:
| The English word "guru" is derived from the Sanskrit word
| "guru" but their meanings couldn't be more different. In
| English it's used to mean someone who's really good at
| something, like a "digital marketing guru."
| detaro wrote:
| That the english word taboo is derived from it doesn't
| make them "the same word", since we don't use it the same
| way in English.
| djrobstep wrote:
| No, literally always spelt tapu, a different word with
| completely different meaning and connotations than taboo.
| AlanYx wrote:
| The English word "taboo" actually comes from the
| Polynesian family of languages (tapua/tupua/tapu), of
| which Maori is a part.
| mdoms wrote:
| The 2021 Ford F-150 comes from the same historical family
| as the Ford Pinto therefore they are the same car.
| yorwba wrote:
| The term has been reconstructed even further back to
| Proto-Malayo-Polynesian and cognates exist across a large
| number of related languages.
| https://www.trussel2.com/acd/acd-s_t.htm#30099 Of course
| that doesn't mean it's used the same in all of them.
| djrobstep wrote:
| That it has origins in the same language family doesn't
| make it the same word. Once again - it has a very
| different meaning to taboo.
| Guthur wrote:
| The last memo said all identity was fluid and pre defined
| identities were social constructs of the oppressors, so one
| must infer that one should say one identifies as Maori to be
| Maori.
| rgoulter wrote:
| This part is where the author explains his views on current
| government policy: https://www.taiuru.maori.nz/maori-data-
| sovereignty-licences/...
| intellirogue wrote:
| It's just a proposal by an academic. Probably intended to spark
| a conversation, as NZ is reviewing its privacy and data
| sovereignty law.
| totetsu wrote:
| Oh god, this is entirely out of context for 99.999% of users of
| this site. I don't see any productive conversation coming from
| this..
|
| All I can say.. is NZ is based on a partnership, between the
| crown and Maori peoples. (setting asside bi-vs-multi-cultural-ism
| for the moment) The idea that sovereignty was never given up by
| Maori is a very important one. There is a lot of thought on
| decolonialism recently. While whole world is subsumed by
| machinations extreme free-market techno-capitalist and data
| hording algorithm trainers, The Author of this article is
| apparently thinking about this form within a Maori world view.
|
| I can't really talk about it despite years of Highschool Tikanga
| and Reo classes, ect.. I dont think it makes much sense out of
| context..
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Animism is the new mindfulness?
| rory wrote:
| What is the target here? A lot of the points seem to address
| personal data collection by companies or the government, but
| they define Maori data very broadly as:
|
| > _data, information or knowledge in any format or medium,
| which is about, from, is produced by Maori Peoples_
|
| Do they mean to include inventions? Code? Works of art?
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| > The idea that sovereignty was never given up by Maori is a
| very important one. There is a lot of thought on decolonialism
| recently.
|
| These are still pretty fringe views in NZ.
|
| There are some groups that support separate institutions and
| legal systems for Maori but I wouldn't say that's anywhere near
| a majority view.
| te_chris wrote:
| It's not fringe, it's the legal bedrock of NZ's constitution.
|
| It's not about separate, it's about the crown entering into a
| legal treaty then dishonouring it because lol Great Britain.
| mdoms wrote:
| Yes but unfortunately they are fringe ideas that our PM and
| her cabinet appear to subscribe to - although they refuse to
| explicitly say so.
| te_chris wrote:
| Ugh, it's quite literally the founding constitution and
| basis for NZ. Describing mana whenua as 'Fringe' is racist
| and insulting.
| lostlogin wrote:
| It isn't that fringe. Look at healthcare, where the abysmal
| results delivered to Maori (see the below Hauora report) are
| looking likely to result in a radical change in funding and
| the establishment of The Maori Health Authority.
|
| I work in health and am not Maori. Reading a little into
| health disparities was a 'holy shit' moment for me. We do
| very poorly.
|
| https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-
| of...
|
| https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/establishment-new-
| maori-...
| totetsu wrote:
| on a side note I remember Richard stallman speaking at my
| University about intellectual property abolishment, and
| fielding a question about ownership rites of traditional Maori
| knowledge, which he completely didn't get.
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| Maybe he didn't get it.. or maybe you didn't like his answer?
| echelon wrote:
| > This article introduces six new licence to protect Maori Data
| and recognise Maori Data Sovereignty rights today and for the
| next 1000 years.
|
| I'd be willing to bet everything I have and will ever own that
| there won't be humans as the predominant form of intelligence in
| 1,000 years.
|
| We'll either kill ourselves (or destroy civilization irreparably
| such that this doesn't matter), introduce AGI that outperforms
| and outlives us, or evolve our bodies into something better and
| longer lasting (brain uploads, etc.)
| xook wrote:
| The other possibility, though remote, is we find ourselves at
| the mercy of some form of advanced extraterrestrial life. What
| ever should come after is anyone's guess, but it would mean we
| would be of lesser intelligence in the universe by comparison.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-25 23:03 UTC)