Initial create
This commit is contained in:
parent
f000342efc
commit
d5843a3998
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
|
|||
# CAE-2025-SOCIAL-CREDIT-SCORE
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Title & ID
|
||||
|
||||
**Document ID:** CAE-2025-SOCIAL-CREDIT-SCORE
|
||||
**Title:** Social Credit Scoring as a Civic Artifact
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Artifact Description
|
||||
|
||||
* A system (or proposal) by which individuals are rated on “social credit” metrics — behavioral, financial, digital, or civic behavior — and those ratings are used by institutions (public or private) to grant or deny rights, privileges, or services.
|
||||
* Includes both formal government-led initiatives and private sector scoring systems that function similarly to “social credit.”
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Context & Significance
|
||||
|
||||
* **In the United States (emerging):**
|
||||
|
||||
* Proposals for “suitability / fitness” vetting for federal employees and contractors, using subjective “character/conduct” criteria.
|
||||
* Private-sector scoring (insurers, banks, tech platforms) aligned with ESG or behavioral metrics affecting access to loans, services, or platforms.
|
||||
* Public concern over erosion of civil rights, privacy, and due process in the name of trust, safety, or compliance.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Why it matters:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Shifts power to those who define acceptable behavior.
|
||||
* Makes survival conditional on performance metrics instead of legal guarantees.
|
||||
* Anticipates a civic order where rights are replaced by privileges granted only to the compliant.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Corrosive Dynamics Exhibited
|
||||
|
||||
| Dynamics | How Social Credit Score exhibits them |
|
||||
| ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| **Privatization of Protection / Rights** | Rights (loans, employment, access) become conditional on private behavior metrics rather than law. |
|
||||
| **Subscription / Performance Dependency** | Individuals must continuously self-monitor and conform to maintain acceptable ratings. |
|
||||
| **Surveillance & Behavioral Regulation** | Requires constant data collection (financial, digital, social). |
|
||||
| **Opacity & Bias** | Criteria opaque; creates vulnerabilities for discrimination and manipulation. |
|
||||
| **Coercive Compliance** | The threat of exclusion compels individuals to adopt dominant norms, silencing dissent. |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Historical Parallels
|
||||
|
||||
* **Switzerland (contemporary):**
|
||||
|
||||
* Condominium associations and neighborhoods may expel individuals deemed “not fitting in.”
|
||||
* Survival depends on not offending communal sensibilities.
|
||||
* *Parallel:* communal enforcement of conformity operates as an informal social credit system.
|
||||
|
||||
* **China (contemporary):**
|
||||
|
||||
* Nationwide surveillance and penalties in the official Social Credit System.
|
||||
* Restricted travel, finance, education for those with “low scores.”
|
||||
* *Parallel:* full institutionalization of behavior-based access to life.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Islamic Tradition:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Apostasy historically punished; safety requires visible piety and conformity.
|
||||
* *Parallel:* religious social credit system based on virtue-signaling and compliance.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Guild Systems (Europe):**
|
||||
|
||||
* Trade and livelihood restricted by guild membership and reputation.
|
||||
* *Parallel:* occupational “credit score” determining survival.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Puritan New England:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Communal surveillance of morality; dissenters expelled or punished.
|
||||
* *Parallel:* moral credit determining belonging.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Colonial Systems:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Indigenous peoples required permits or certificates of “good conduct” to travel or work.
|
||||
* *Parallel:* conditional recognition tied to compliance with colonial norms.
|
||||
|
||||
**CIVICVS Note:** These parallels demonstrate that *culture and geography provide no relief*: every society manifests systems of conditional belonging. The U.S. is not exceptional.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Legal & Ethical Risks
|
||||
|
||||
* Loss of due process — judged without notice or recourse.
|
||||
* Discrimination and disproportionate impact on minorities.
|
||||
* Anonymity and privacy collapse under constant surveillance.
|
||||
* Free speech chilled by fear of losing score and access.
|
||||
* Civic guarantees eroded as law becomes conditional.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Indicators / Early Warning Signs
|
||||
|
||||
* Government proposals for character-based suitability vetting.
|
||||
* Private scoring models tied to ESG or behavioral compliance.
|
||||
* Legal frameworks enabling blacklists or conditional access.
|
||||
* Partnerships between government and corporations for data-driven “trust metrics.”
|
||||
* Normalization of social reputation scores in public discourse.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Implications for Civic Self-Protection
|
||||
|
||||
* **Awareness:** Understand what data feeds into scoring systems.
|
||||
* **Legal Strategy:** Demand transparency and challenge discriminatory scoring.
|
||||
* **Civic Resistance:** Oppose normalization of conditional rights.
|
||||
* **Collective Defense:** Push for law that preserves unconditional civic guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Sources & References
|
||||
|
||||
* OPM proposals for “fitness and suitability” criteria.
|
||||
* ESG and behavioral scoring trends in U.S. finance and insurance.
|
||||
* Public surveys on U.S. acceptance of social credit systems.
|
||||
* Historical parallels documented in religious, communal, and colonial systems.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Legal Cases & Exhibits
|
||||
|
||||
* **Ongoing / Recent Cases:**
|
||||
|
||||
* *SafeRent Tenant Screening Lawsuit (MA)* — Applicants including Mary Louis, a security guard, were denied rental housing due to a low AI-generated score (324), despite having good rental history and voucher. Plaintiffs alleged discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Case settled with a \$2.3 million payment and a halt on use of the particular scoring system for 5 years. ([The Guardian][1])
|
||||
* *American Airlines 401(k) Plans / ESG Litigation* — Pilots sued claiming plan fiduciaries misused ESG-driven behaviors or metrics in selecting investment managers (such as BlackRock), arguing this breached loyalty and fiduciary duty under ERISA. ([Maynard Nexsen][2])
|
||||
|
||||
* **Past U.S. Cases (Comparable Patterns):**
|
||||
|
||||
* Cases involving use of behavior or character/fraud allegations for denying employment or public housing based on reputational or pseudo-morality standards.
|
||||
* Blacklisting during McCarthyism under loyalty or character criteria.
|
||||
* Cases of being placed on no-fly lists or travel watchlists without transparent criteria and recourse.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Personal / Analyst Cases:** (To be collected)
|
||||
|
||||
* Any documented personal denials of services, housing, employment, or civic rights where decisions were based on opaque “fitness,” character, or behavior metrics instead of law.
|
||||
* Preserve documents: application denials, correspondence, institutional policies, scoring rubrics if available.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
|
|||
# CIVICVS Context Dossier
|
||||
|
||||
**ID:** CFD-CTX-2025-LEGAL-SELF-PROTECTION
|
||||
**Title:** Legal Self-Protection in the Post-Humane Society
|
||||
**Layer:** Context Dossier
|
||||
**Version:** Draft 0.1
|
||||
**Date:** 24 September 2025
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Summary
|
||||
|
||||
This dossier examines the **emergence of legal self-protection markets** in the United States as the individual’s survival becomes increasingly dependent on purchased or improvised protections. Civic institutions once assumed to safeguard property, identity, and bodily rights are corroding into extractive systems. Individuals now buy back security through private markets: deed protection services, identity-theft insurance, and self-defense legal coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
The inevitability of this development is reinforced by history: across cultures, from Rome to China, from feudal Europe to colonization, no society has sustained unconditional protections. The USA will not prove exceptional.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Definition
|
||||
|
||||
**Legal self-protection**: the set of measures by which individuals attempt to secure property, identity, and bodily integrity in environments where civic protections have decayed, failed, or become commodified.
|
||||
|
||||
* *Civic guarantee → Commodity*: what was once guaranteed by law is now sold back as a service.
|
||||
* *Survival market*: individuals must continuously purchase “subscriptions to life” in order to remain safe, solvent, and free.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Early Manifestations (21st-Century USA)
|
||||
|
||||
* **Property (Home Deeds):** Title-fraud monitoring services marketed as essential protections, despite property rights being foundational to law.
|
||||
* **Identity (Digital & Financial):** Identity theft insurance and credit monitoring services sold to cover institutional inability to secure personal data.
|
||||
* **Body & Action (Self-Defense):** Subscription legal plans for gun owners or self-defense cases, acknowledging that even lawful action may lead to financial ruin.
|
||||
* **Emerging Sectors:** Reputation-defense subscriptions, “cancel insurance,” AI-driven digital legacy protections.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Historical Precedents (Global Parallels, U.S. Application)
|
||||
|
||||
History shows that **no culture has ever avoided the corrosion of civic protections**. The U.S. trajectory follows this universal law.
|
||||
|
||||
* **Rome:** Citizens turned to patrons for legal and property protection as the state faltered.
|
||||
* **Feudal Europe:** Survival required allegiance and dues to lords in exchange for security.
|
||||
* **Inquisition & Theocracy:** Protection from persecution could be purchased through indulgences or bribes.
|
||||
* **Revolutions & Totalitarian States:** Citizens forged papers, bribed officials, or sought factional patronage to survive.
|
||||
* **Islamic Caliphates:** Non-Muslims secured conditional legal rights by paying the *jizya* tax.
|
||||
* **Hindu & Buddhist Temples:** Provided sanctuary and protection, but only for those who could participate in their hierarchies.
|
||||
* **Colonization:** Natives had to buy permits, licenses, or recognition from colonial powers to retain minimal rights.
|
||||
|
||||
**CIVICVS Implication:** The U.S. is not insulated by “exceptionalism.” These parallels demonstrate that *location and culture provide no historical relief, and predict no future distinction.*
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Corrosive Dynamics
|
||||
|
||||
* **Rights → Commodities:** Fundamental protections are privatized.
|
||||
* **Commodities → Subscriptions:** Survival becomes a recurring purchase.
|
||||
* **Subscriptions → Compliance:** Protections are contingent on political, financial, or behavioral conformity.
|
||||
* **Cycle of Dependency:** Once protections are commodified, individuals cannot reassert unconditional civic guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Implications for CIVICVS Framework
|
||||
|
||||
* **For Analysts:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Track which protections are still civic, which are commodified, and which require coerced compliance.
|
||||
* Evaluate each protection market: does it reinforce autonomy, or deepen dependency?
|
||||
* **For Citizens:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Understand that survival now requires explicit legal strategies and often, recurring payments.
|
||||
* Recognize the inevitability of expansion: today’s deed and ID protections foreshadow broader survival subscriptions.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Inevitability of Expansion
|
||||
|
||||
* **Historic Law:** Every society corrodes into survival markets.
|
||||
* **Post-Humane Acceleration:** In the U.S., digital infrastructure and market logic ensure these markets will proliferate faster and more visibly than in history.
|
||||
* **Forecast:** Americans will soon face full-spectrum protection markets—property, identity, body, reputation, civic standing—each sold as a life-or-death subscription.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Sources (Preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
* Contemporary U.S. legal-protection services (deed monitoring, identity insurance, self-defense plans).
|
||||
* Illich, *Medical Nemesis* (for marketization of protection).
|
||||
* Case histories: Rome, Feudal Europe, Inquisition, Revolutions, Caliphates, Temples, Colonization.
|
||||
* Civic analyst field notes on survival subscriptions.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
⚖️ This draft dossier is **ready for your review**.
|
||||
Do you want me to keep this **as a Context Dossier only**, or also propose the first **linked Artifact Entry** (e.g., *CAE-2025-HOME-DEED-PROTECTION* as an exhibit of early commodified survival)?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
>> HUMAN: Hold on, lets make some bookmarks as my tasks are piling up. I consider this done. Next, we are going to create the Artifact Entry based on "Social Credit Score", "COVID Passport", the attempt to erase Citizenship, Voter ID. The creation of ANTIFA, replacing trained and qualified police officers with "Community Guards or Social Workers". After this, we are going to move the Context Dossier out of the CIVICVS Foundation Layer Naming document. Can you follow this?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Yes — I follow you clearly. Let me restate your **bookmarks / roadmap** so we don’t lose track:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Completed
|
||||
|
||||
* **CFD-CTX-2025-POST-HUMANE-SOCIETY** (Context Dossier)
|
||||
* **CFD-CTX-2025-LEGAL-SELF-PROTECTION** (Context Dossier, draft complete)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 🔖 Bookmarked Next Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Artifact Entry Creation** (CAE series) — focusing on:
|
||||
|
||||
* Social Credit Score
|
||||
* COVID Passport
|
||||
* Erasure of Citizenship
|
||||
* Voter ID restrictions/removals
|
||||
* ANTIFA as extralegal enforcement
|
||||
* Replacement of police officers with “Community Guards” or “Social Workers”
|
||||
|
||||
*(These will be drafted as Civic Artifact Entries linked to the Context Dossiers, showing corrosion via substitution or coercion.)*
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Structural Reorganization**
|
||||
|
||||
* Move Context Dossiers **out of the CIVICVS Foundation Layer Naming document**.
|
||||
* Keep CFD-INDEX-2025 strictly for categories + exemplars.
|
||||
* Maintain Context Dossiers as their own independent files, cross-referenced from the index.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 📌 Clarifying Question for you
|
||||
|
||||
Do you want me to **start with a single Artifact Entry draft** (e.g., CAE-2025-SOCIAL-CREDIT-SCORE), or prepare a **bullet-skeleton set for all six** so you can see the structure before we dive into writing?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
>> HUMAN: start with a single Artifact Entry draft CAE-2025-SOCIAL-CREDIT-SCORE.md
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue