On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:59 AM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote: > @Anders, > > 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. > Adrian has a very important point here: the foundational security of any DID-based solution is the security of the DID and DID document on the target system (blockchain, distributed ledger, distributed database, DHT, etc.) for that particular DID method. The security, privacy, availability, anti-censorship, and other properties of those target systems may vary substantially. But at least this means we can have a virtuous cycle of competition for the strongest and safest DID target systems vs. the vicious cycle of declining cybersecurity and privacy protections we have today. > > 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? > > thanx, > Anders > > 1] https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmhUDQ0Od0cGTgWnVtlfN9jTPx1LR > <https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmhUDQ0Od0GTgWnVtlfN9jTPx1LR> > 2] https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/two-visions-4-mobile-payments.pdf > > -- > > Adrian Gropper MD > > PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! > HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. > DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/ >
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2018 12:59:01 UTC