Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — GDPR
Establishes purpose limitation and data minimization principles for covered personal-data processing.
European Union — official/source page ↗A permission ladder separating technical access from legitimate authority to observe, infer, retain, combine, share, use as evidence, decide or act.
Machine jurisdiction asks not merely what a system can technically know, but what an institution is legitimately authorized to do with what it knows. Access, inference, retention, sharing, evidence use, decision and action are separate permissions.
CAN ACCESS is a technical property. MAY ACCESS, MAY OBSERVE, MAY INFER, MAY RETAIN, MAY COMBINE, MAY SHARE, MAY USE AS EVIDENCE, MAY RECOMMEND, MAY DECIDE and MAY ACT require distinct authority.
A doctor, bank, school, employer, court and AI confidant have different legitimate purposes. A datum relevant to one institution does not automatically become relevant to another simply because interoperable systems can exchange it.
The hardest cases arise when an institution discovers a genuine threat using data it had no legitimate jurisdiction to use. v0.14 treats those cases as constitutional conflicts requiring narrow, reviewable exceptions rather than silent expansion of authority.
Source links establish traceability and support. They do not imply that the source endorses Concresca’s constitutional proposals.
Establishes purpose limitation and data minimization principles for covered personal-data processing.
European Union — official/source page ↗Includes separation-of-duties and least-privilege controls relevant by analogy to separation of machine powers.
NIST — official/source page ↗NO JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER. Concresca coordinates without assigning moral worth, character, guilt, danger, trustworthiness, loyalty, purity, normality, or social standing. Questions, thoughts, identities, messages, content, and conduct are not objects of Concresca judgment.