Re: The SSI protocols challenge [Was]: W3C DID Core 1.0 enters Candidate Recommendation stage

Drummond,

Please could you explain what you mean by a 'blinded link secret'?

Regards,
Jeremy

On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 19:28, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
wrote:

> Inline.
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:42 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Drummond
>>
>> thankyou for the clarification. We could also state that the converse is
>> also true
>>
>> a. An SSI system shall not require reliance on a blockchain or other DLT
>>
>> but of course it may include them.
>>
>> Note that the W3C VC Data Model already states that VCs do not depend on
>> DIDs and DIDs do not depend on verifiable credentials, so we do not need to
>> include that in your principles.
>>
>> However, can you tell me how principle 11
>>
>> *An SSI ecosystem shall empower identity rights holders to protect the
>> privacy of their digital identity data and to share the minimum digital
>> identity data required for any particular interaction.*
>>
>> can be supported by long lived VCs that have a persistent DID for the
>> subject ID, when this is a correlating handle that does the opposite of
>> protecting the privacy of the data subject
>>
> David, I fully agree with you, which is why privacy-preserving VCs should
> not be issued to persistent DIDs. They should be issued to blinded link
> secrets using zero-knowledge proofs. This way you not only avoid identifier
> correlation, you avoid signature correlation.
>
> Of course neither can prevent correlation in the verifier requires that
> the holder reveal a correlating identifier, such as a government ID number,
> but at least that is *intentional* and *explicit* correlation, not
> unintentional implicit correlation using the underly VC mechanics.
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>
>>
>> On 22/03/2021 01:55, Drummond Reed wrote:
>>
>> David, I believe you're misinterpreting the third principle. It doesn't
>> say that centralized systems can't be involved or can't issue a VC. It says
>> only that an SSI ecosystem cannot make a centralized system the only option
>> for representing, controlling, or verifying identity data (which is the
>> case with centralized or federated identity systems).
>>
>> BTW, just to clarify, it also doesn't mean an SSI ecosystem can't
>> *include* centralized or federated identity systems as a subset of the
>> SSI ecosystem. Again, it just means that the centralized or federation
>> systems can't be the only option.
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 4:36 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Steve
>>>
>>> I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone of the principles of
>>> SSI when Sovrin's third principle states
>>>
>>> 3. An SSI ecosystem shall not require reliance on a centralized system
>>> to represent, control, or verify an entity’s digital identity data.
>>>
>>> This is clearly impossible, since every VC Issuer that I know has a
>>> centralised system in which they store, manage and update the user's PII
>>> from which they issue their VCs.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/03/2021 20:25, Steve Capell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael
>>>
>>> As a contractor to Australian government I deal with policy makers
>>> almost every day and so I understand both the difficulty and the necessity
>>> of conveying these concepts to non technical audiences.
>>>
>>> As a sufficiently technical reader, I liked your article. It’s the first
>>> time I’ve seen that meta-model of the identity domain and, for me, it was
>>> very helpful.
>>>
>>> However, sadly, I don’t think it will help the policy maker that is not
>>> used to reading meta models. I usually have more success with storyboards
>>> that contrast two architectures with real examples. Policy makers don’t
>>> need to “understand the architecture”.  They need to be able to
>>> conceptualise how it works through examples to that they can understand the
>>> policy impacts and opportunities.
>>>
>>> I also need to convey these ideas - both to AU and UN sometime over the
>>> next month or so. I’ll need to test my communication materials on non
>>> technical people to ensure the message has worked - and also on expert SSI
>>> community members to ensure that the message is right. For that latter
>>> concern, please let me know if anyone in this group is willing to be a
>>> sounding board
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Steven Capell
>>> Mob: 0410 437854
>>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2021, at 4:47 am, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)
>>> <mwherman@parallelspace.net> <mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> RE: In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the
>>> “Self-Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent
>>> major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves,
>>> they referred to “Distributed Identity”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m trying to address the same issue wrt what is “Self-Sovereign
>>> Identity” / “SSI” at its very core.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Check out:
>>> https://hyperonomy.com/2021/02/01/ssi-unconscious-contractions/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m looking for additional people who share a similar perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> <agropper@healthurl.com>
>>> *Sent:* March 20, 2021 8:58 AM
>>> *To:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>> *Cc:* W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
>>> <public-credentials@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* The SSI protocols challenge [Was]: W3C DID Core 1.0 enters
>>> Candidate Recommendation stage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is indeed a big deal and cause for celebration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From my perspective the next challenge is to get the protocols right
>>> from a human-centered and community perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For an example of that challenge, on March 30 I’m on a Digital
>>> Credentials panel at the ONC (US Federal healthcare regulator) Annual
>>> Meeting. In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the
>>> “Self Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent
>>> major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves,
>>> they referred to “Distributed Identity” :-?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let us celebrate and consider the Fun times ahead....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:16 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 has reached the Candidate
>>> Recommendation
>>> stage at W3C. The current specification can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/CR-did-core-20210318/
>>>
>>> This is a major milestone in the W3C global standards process. It marks
>>> the
>>> start of a period of 1-4 months where the official W3C Working Group has
>>> communicated that it is done with all features in the specification.
>>>
>>> The W3C DID WG has also communicated that the specification is stable
>>> enough
>>> to collect implementation experience from the global implementer
>>> community.
>>> Once the WG collects enough implementation experience, it may then make
>>> final
>>> adjustments before publishing the v1.0 global standard, which is
>>> expected at
>>> the end of September 2021.
>>>
>>> I have attached an image with an (unofficial) graphical depiction of the
>>> DID
>>> standards history and expected future timeline.
>>>
>>> Congratulations to everyone that contributed to get us to this point;
>>> this is
>>> a big deal and cause for celebration. :)
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>>> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>>>
>>>