Re: Control & Identity [was Re: Teaching a 7 year old about decentalized identity/self-soverign identity ("SSI")]

ROFLStill a ways to go I'm afraid.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Nathan Aw <nathan.mk.aw@gmail.com> Date: 11/18/18  7:11 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: daniel.hardman@evernym.com Cc: joe@legreq.com, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org> Subject: Re: Control & Identity [was Re: Teaching a 7 year old about decentalized identity/self-soverign identity ("SSI")] Thank you Daniel, Joe and Adrian for your great inputs. Am sure my 7 year old cousin will understand this topic better now. Thank you!Nathan AwOn Fri, 16 Nov 2018, 04:12 Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with Steven, Joe, and Adrian that "control" is problematic in exactly the ways pointed out. This was one of the words that I had in mind when I said that the definition suppresses certain details and is a simplification. Simplfications can be helpful for certain audiences, and very unhelpful for others.I wonder if we need to publish somewhare a "peeling back layers of the onion" discussion of SSI (or one that starts at 10K meters, then 100 meters, then 1 meter, then 10 millimeters)--successively exploring how suppressed detail at the higher level needs to be added back in?On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:01 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:





On Wed, Nov 14, 2018, at 11:09 AM, Steven Rowat wrote:
On 2018-11-14 9:56 AM, Daniel Hardman wrote:
 "SSI: An identity model that allows an individual or organization
to control their identities, or the identity of a thing, expressed
through the use of decentralized identifiers and digital credentials."

A comment is that 'control' might imply more than can be delivered for
'identity'; to the   degree that identity consists in what other
people think of us and we can't control that part. I also find the
'expressed' slightly confusing (about what is expressed -- the model,
the identity, or the thing) and the statement seems to works fine
without it. So perhaps:


Yes. "Control" is an improvement over ownership, but it still misses the mark in a way I haven't yet figured out how to address.

Identity is a social construct. As Kaliya Young so elegantly presented at MyData (and in her Master Thesis), identity is a triad: 
1. How I see myself
2. How I present myself to others
3. How others see me

This is a mutually reinforcing circle. How I see myself influences how I present myself to others. How we present ourselves affects how others see us. How others see us affects how we see ourselves.

 We can mostly control how we affirmatively present to others--which is essentially how selective presentation of Verifiable Credentials tied to our own DIDs helps create a decentralized identity. However, this control is itself limited in extent. Consider anyone who has tried to pass as a different race or class, or transitioned from one gender to another. Our physicality, our economic circumstance, even how we talk, all are areas of our presentation over which we have only modest control.

Most importantly, we can't *control* how others see us. We can't control others' biases and judgments. We can't control what other information they bring to the table. Unfortunately, there's not even a way to control what they do with any information presented to them. We try with regulations like GDPR and user asserted terms of service, but those are policies that establish guidance subject to later enforcement; they don't actually control the spread & use of information as much as enable punishment for unacceptable distribution & use.

On a more subtle note, we even have limited control over how we see ourselves. It's hard to change your own self-perception. It's possible, but also a core subject of the multi-billion self-help industry.

I noticed this limitation on control is a lot like how relationships work.

We don't *control* our relationships with others. For some we have no choice in, e.g., parents / children, others are a mutually negotiated opt-in: girlfriends, employers, teachers.  I can't *make* someone be my boss, but I get to accept or reject a job offer, and I can always terminate the relationship. But I can't force it to continue if I get fired. We influence relationships. We can engender, nurture, or destroy relationships, but we don't control them.

Controlling our identity is similar. We don't control our identity in terms of how other people see us. We influence it. And, given the asymmetry in information systems, I'm happy to argue that it is right and just and meet that people have greater influence over our identity than is currently enabled in our digital world. That is, yes, we need more control, but at the end of the day, we can never control it completely. Advocating for "control" without all the caveats I just described makes it sound like SSI is an unreasonable toddler demanding "Mine! Mine!". Certainly, this notion of individual control is a big stumbling block to people's perceptions of SSI.

I'm not sure the concise way to reframe the basic definition, but I appreciate the distinction Steven Rowat made here. Control is still tricky, even if its a notable improvement over "own".

That said, maybe it's a fine idea for the movement & ideology of SSI to advocate for individual empowerment and greater control, allowing the term decentralized identity to be more broadly used, independent of the political conversation.

-j

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP                                                                              joe@legreq.com
LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS                                                        +1(805)705-8651

Do what matters.                                                                            http://legreq.com