AI agents don’t understand consent. They inherit it. Old permissions look the same as valid ones. No context. No expiry. No boundary. So they act. And the system calls it authorised. The problem isn’t the agent. It’s the missing structure. https://paragraph.com/@garethfarry/consent-is-not-a-signature
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions
Systems don’t fail because they can’t execute. They fail because they can’t justify execution. An action can: pass every policy, be signed by the right key, be fully valid in-system …and still be illegitimate. new writing > https://paragraph.com/@garethfarry/you-can-pass-every-check-and-still-be-acting-illegitimately?referrer=0x86df6c44C599E58042475fa64760c4F13cA186C5
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions
There’s a missing layer in the trust stack: identity → credentials → ??? → policy execution The gap is capacity + authority at the point of action Not permissions. Not roles. Actual mandate, scope, and revocation. v0.1 SILT Core → https://github.com/Sugarlicks/silt-identity-core/releases/tag/v0.1
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions