Contact
The Fiduciary Commons welcomes substantive engagement from legal scholars, technical practitioners, legislative staff, civil liberties advocates, and anyone whose work intersects with the questions this framework addresses.
If you work in Fourth Amendment law, information privacy, fiduciary theory, administrative law, or any adjacent field and you have a view on where the constitutional argument succeeds or fails, I want to hear it. The essays are available by request. Substantive critique at any stage is welcome.
If you build identity systems, verifiable credential infrastructure, or government data platforms, I am asking you to read VIDA and GAAFA and tell me where the statutory requirements are technically incoherent or unimplementable. That critique is essential before the legislation advances.
If you work in a state legislature and your state's conditions resemble Utah's — strong individual liberty traditions, demonstrated bipartisan interest in limiting surveillance power — I am asking you to consider whether this framework could be introduced in your next session. Utah's experience shows it can be done.
If you have a perspective on these questions that does not fit the categories above, write anyway. Civil liberties advocates, journalists, policy researchers, and concerned citizens are all part of the conversation this work is trying to start.
I am not asking for agreement or endorsement. I am asking for the kind of engagement that makes the work better. The constitutional theory needs scholars who can identify its doctrinal vulnerabilities before a court does. The legislative language needs practitioners who can identify requirements that are technically incoherent before a legislature votes on them. The political strategy needs people who understand what is achievable in specific contexts.
If you find the questions serious enough to engage with — even to disagree — that is enough. Write.