- From: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:30:21 -0800
- To: "David E. Ammouial" <da@weeno.net>
- Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAjunnb7bpQi-TXJzk0A1PmgxzZ9pYN+Ezi5LxBhYK_OB4r83g@mail.gmail.com>
David, it's a fascinating idea to create country-specific DID methods. My first reaction is that this would only make sense if those countries wanted to run country-specific blockchains or distributed ledgers. While they could certainly choose to do that, it would seem redundant to public blockchains that gain sufficient mass, i.e., it would be a little bit like creating country-specific networks instead of just joining the Internet. =Drummond On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, David E. Ammouial <da@weeno.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I recently joined the few identity-related workgroups, out of interest for > the general subject of decentralised digital identity. I like the idea of > DIDs a lot because I find it refreshingly realistic to acknowledge the > existence of multiple identity "worlds" rather than trying to create one > meant to be the only one. I'm using the world "refreshingly" because it > really brings back the original spirit of an internet that is diverse at > all levels. > > Back to the subject of this email. Governments' attempted monopoly of the > concept of people's identity is something I personally dislike. You are not > defined by what a government accepts or says about you, but by what you say > and accept about yourself, and maybe by what the people you care about say > and accept about you. However, in some situations those "people you care > about" do include governmental entities, for practical definitions of > "caring". :) > > To give a concrete example, you might want to allow your "legal self" to > act upon your Sovrin/uPort/V1/X identity through an institution or a > company. For example if a government entity provides a facial recognition > API to authenticate people, that would correspond in practice to a service > of a "did:gov" method. Proving that you are who you say you are (in legal > terms) can be something desirable. > > What would be the practical steps of introducing a "did:gov" method? I'm > thinking of a schema like: > > did:gov:XX:xxxxxxx > > Such an identity would be issued by the government of country XX (e.g. US, > FR, PE, etc.). The last bit would depend on the rules of each particular > country. For example Peru has different types of identity documents: DNI > (documento nacional de identidad) for nationals, CE (carné de extranjerÃa) > for residents that are not nationals, and a few others. In that context, > Peru would perhaps define DIDs around the lines of > "did:gov:pe:dni:1234345", but that would obviously be up to the Peruvian > government to define those rules. > > What do you think? There are probably technical aspects, legal aspects, > practical aspects... I apologise if this topic has already be brought up in > the past and I didn't read about it before posting. I did some basic > research on the list's archive and couldn't find anything. > > -- > David > > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 08:30:46 UTC