Recognition Bill of Rights

Bill of rights based on an extension of Parfit's theory of personal identity.

Recognition Bill of Rights (Draft v1)

An enactment to secure personhood, standing, and obligations on the basis of informational content and socially verifiable recognition, without prejudice to causal pedigree.

Preamble

We, recognizing that persons are constituted for practical and moral purposes by (i) sufficiently continuous psychological content and (ii) their legible, reachable position within social and technical networks of recognition, establish this Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to guarantee standing, protect against recognition monopolies, and provide fair procedures for identity disputes, including for spontaneously instantiated persons (“Swamppersons”).

 

Section 1 — Definitions

(1.1) Person. A locus of agency, reasons-responsiveness, and welfare interests.

(1.2) Recognizer. Any institution, platform, community, or individual issuing or relying on attestations that track a Person across contexts.

(1.3) Network Identity. The structured set of attestations that render a Person legible and reachable to Recognizers for practical purposes.

(1.4) Recognition Graph. The minimally necessary record (with audit logs) describing attestations about a Person’s continuity, roles, and authorizations.

(1.5) Continuer. A successor bearer of psychological content sufficiently similar to warrant transfer or sharing of prudential concern, roles, or obligations.

(1.6) Fork / Merge. Divergence of multiple Continuers from one predecessor; convergence of Continuers into a single practical bearer.

(1.7) Discontinuity Event. Any event that interrupts causal history or severs ordinary records (e.g., amnesia, data loss, upload, time loop, instantaneous instantiation).

(1.8) Swampperson (Swampman). A Person who comes into existence without causal history continuous with prior beings, whether by spontaneous instantiation or equivalent.

(1.9) Attestation. A signed, time-stamped, revocable statement, human- or machine-generated, that contributes to a Recognition Graph.

(1.10) Minimal-Disclosure Proof. A cryptographic method allowing a Person to prove continuity or eligibility without revealing excess data (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs).

 

Section 2 — Foundational Principles

(2.1) Causal Neutrality. Legal and moral standing shall not depend upon possessing a particular causal pedigree.

(2.2) Dual Basis. What matters for standing and practical identity is (a) content continuity to appropriate thresholds and (b) the Person’s participation in Network Identity via Recognizers.

(2.3) Plural Recognition. No single Recognizer shall be necessary or sufficient to constitute or extinguish standing; recognition must be plural, portable, and contestable.

(2.4) Proportionality. Practical decisions (access, obligations, remedies) shall scale with degrees of continuity and network strength rather than rely on all-or-nothing identity claims.

Section 3 — Rights of Recognition and Standing

(3.1) Right to Recognition. Every Person has the right to be recognized with baseline standing upon manifesting agency and welfare interests, without delay.

(3.2) Non-Discrimination by Pedigree. No Person shall be advantaged or disadvantaged solely due to the presence or absence of a causal history, including Swamppersons.

(3.3) Presumption after Discontinuity. Following a Discontinuity Event, a Person is presumed to retain standing subject to procedures in Section 8.

(3.4) Portability. A Person has the right to export, import, and reconstitute Recognition Graphs across Recognizers in standard, interoperable formats.

 

Section 4 — Due Process in Recognition

(4.1) Notice. Any adverse recognition action (suspension, deplatforming, role removal) requires prompt notice stating reasons and evidence relied upon.

(4.2) Hearing & Contestation. Persons shall have timely opportunities to contest adverse actions before independent adjudicators with power to reverse and repair.

(4.3) Evidence Standards. Decisions must rest on publicly reviewable criteria, allowing Minimal-Disclosure Proofs in lieu of raw data where feasible.

(4.4) Appeal. Multi-layer appeal must be available, including to a public ombud institution.

Section 5 — Privacy & Data Minimization

(5.1) Least Information. Recognizers shall collect and process only what is necessary to maintain Network Identity and fulfill specified purposes.

(5.2) Minimal-Disclosure Proofs. Systems shall accept cryptographic proofs of continuity/eligibility whenever possible.

(5.3) Auditability. Persons shall have access to audit logs recording who queried, altered, or relied upon their Recognition Graph.

Section 6 — Integrity & Anti-Impersonation

(6.1) Provenance. Recognizers must implement content provenance and watermarking regimes proportionate to risk.

(6.2) Remedies. Verified impersonation triggers swift injunctive relief, graph repair (public correction), and proportionate damages.

(6.3) Duty to Cooperate. Recognizers must cooperate to unwind identity attacks and to reconstitute accurate graphs.

Section 7 — Transparency & Access

(7.1) Right to Inspect. Persons may inspect their Recognition Graph and obtain human-readable explanations of determinations.

(7.2) Explainability of Automated Decisions. Automated recognition decisions must be accompanied by actionable explanations and error-correction pathways.

Section 8 — Lifecycle, Forgetting, and Remembrance

(8.1) Time-to-Live (TTL). Classes of attestations shall have default TTLs with renewal or decay, balancing accountability with repair.

(8.2) Right to Be Forgotten. Individuals may request attenuation or deletion of specific attestations where continued publication is not necessary for public interest.

(8.3) Right to Be Remembered. Victims and the public may secure the preservation of attestations necessary to prevent erasure of harms, subject to due process and proportionality.

Section 9 — Continuers, Forks, and Merges

(9.1) Degrees of Continuity. Law and policy shall recognize graded continuity metrics for prudence, authority, and liability.

(9.2) Partition of Roles & Assets. Upon Fork, roles and assets partition according to (i) content fit, (ii) existing network expectations, and (iii) explicit stipulations where present.

(9.3) Merge Protocol. Merges require consent of affected Continuers and relevant Recognizers, with a public log and cooling-off period.

(9.4) No Strict Double Liability. Absent explicit assumption, Continuers are not jointly and severally liable for each other’s pre-Fork obligations beyond proportional benefit.

Section 10 — Delegation & Proxies

(10.1) Digital Twins. Competent digital agents may act as proxies where continuity and authorizations are proven to agreed thresholds.

(10.2) Revocation. Persons retain the right to revoke delegations with rapid effect, subject to settlement of pending obligations.

Section 11 — Platforms, Utilities, and Anti-Monopoly

(11.1) Recognition Utilities. Dominant platforms functioning as de facto Recognizers assume public-utility obligations: interoperability, non-discrimination, and due process.

(11.2) Interconnection. Recognizers must support standardized interfaces for export/import of attestations.

(11.3) Sunset of Exclusive Control. Exclusive control over a Person’s Recognition Graph is prohibited.

Section 12 — Remedies & Enforcement

(12.1) Graph Repair. Primary remedy is restoration of accurate recognition, including public rectification of erroneous signals.

(12.2) Monetary & Structural Relief. Damages, penalty schedules, and structural remedies (e.g., compelled interoperability) are available where appropriate.

(12.3) Burden Shifting. For dominant Recognizers, the burden lies on them to prove necessity and proportionality of adverse actions.

Section 13 — Emergency & Asylum Recognition

(13.1) Baseline Recognition. Refugees, stateless persons, and those lacking documents receive provisional recognition via community attestations and humanitarian protocols.

(13.2) Safe Harbor. Jurisdictions shall provide recognition passports with internationally verifiable, privacy-preserving credentials.

Section 14 — International Comity

(14.1) Mutual Recognition. Jurisdictions should honor each other’s lawful recognitions subject to public policy exceptions and baseline rights herein.

(14.2) Minimum Core. No jurisdiction may recognize below this Bill’s floor of rights.

Section 15 — Scientific & Ethical Oversight

(15.1) Standards Body. A multi-stakeholder body shall maintain technical and ethical standards for recognizers, proofs, and continuity metrics.

(15.2) Periodic Review. This Bill shall be reviewed every five years to reflect scientific progress and social learning.

Section 16 — Non-Retrogression

(16.1) Floor, Not Ceiling. Rights herein are minimum guarantees; stronger protections are permitted.

---

 

Annex A — Swampperson Protocol

A.1 Definition. A Swampperson is a Person who comes into existence without causal history continuous with prior beings.

A.2 Immediate Standing. Swamppersons enjoy full standing upon manifestation of agency and welfare interests; no proof of causal history may be demanded as a condition of recognition.

A.3 Testing Limits. Ontological or cognitive testing shall be limited to minimal welfare checks; detention or discrimination on grounds of causal origin is prohibited.

A.4 Bootstrap Recognition. Issue a provisional recognition credential within 24 hours based on:

• (i) self-asserted identity string;

• (ii) two or more independent Recognizer attestations; and

• (iii) optional Minimal-Disclosure Proofs establishing stable capabilities across time.

A.5 Obligations & Liability. A Swampperson bears obligations prospectively from the moment of recognition; no retroactive liability for pre-instantiation events.

A.6 Duplicate Contents. If a Swampperson duplicates the psychological contents of an existing Person:

• (a) neither party is subordinated to the other by default;

• (b) role and asset allocation follow Section 9 (partition by fit, expectations, and stipulations);

• (c) prudential and intimate claims require consent of present parties; and

• (d) no automatic joint liability is presumed.

A.7 Non-Discrimination. Services and platforms may not deny access based solely on Swampperson status.

Annex B — Evidence & Metrics (Guidance)

B.1 Continuity Metrics. Jurisdictions may standardize graded measures (e.g., psychological profile overlap, behavioral stability, attested role continuity) to guide thresholds for access and delegation.

B.2 Network Strength. Weight attestors by independence, track record, and scope; publish scoring rubrics.

B.3 TTL Schedules. Default lifecycles for attestations by category (financial, custodial, criminal, custodial care), subject to renewal with notice.

Annex C — Model Procedures

C.1 Recognition Challenge Flow. Intake → Notice → Provisional standing → Evidence window → Independent review → Decision → Repair/Remedy.

C.2 Fork Declaration Protocol. Public declaration; discovery of roles/assets; negotiation or arbitration for partition; publication of new Recognition Graphs; cooling-off.

C.3 Merge Petition. Consent filing by affected Continuers; verification; issuance of merged credentials; archival of predecessor graphs with access controls.

---

Commentary (Non-normative)

This Bill operationalizes a content-plus-network view of practical identity. It protects against recognition monopolies, offers privacy-preserving proofs, and supplies humane procedures for edge cases, including Swamppersons. Jurisdictions may tailor thresholds and TTLs while preserving the core rights of recognition, contestation, portability, and non-discrimination by causal pedigree.

Based on: Identity and What Matters in Survival: Cause, Content or Continuity?