W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2018

Re: Ideas about DID explanation

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 06:58:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CANYRo8jzfAF_WL3usB0dcnKWz-qKEpH9__pyyz5sFzWN_fLPiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>

In [1], the identifier could be a DID. The Tax Department might decide that
only some of the DID methods meet its security requirements. These
requirements could be different from those of the Social Security.

The citizen would have a choice of identifiers to use as long as there are
multiple DID methods acceptable to the authorities.


On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 3:04 AM Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,

For me working in the other end of the identity conundrum [1] it would
still be interesting knowing if there is (or could be) a "union" between
these opposing universes.

Although I'm personally heavy into innovation [2], I find that schemes that
requires "total rewrite of everything" tend to go nowhere.

Basic question: How could an existing government system using centrally
issues tax numbers gradually adopt DIDs?


1] https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmhUDQ0Od0cGTgWnVtlfN9jTPx1LR
2] https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/two-visions-4-mobile-payments.pdf


Adrian Gropper MD

HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:58:59 UTC