Re: "Apple launches the first driver’s license and state ID in Wallet with Arizona”

I acknowledge that people in this community are frustrated that orgs like
ISO aren’t adopting VC and related tech. But please understand that the ISO
18013-5 standard that underpins the Apple-TSA thing originated in 2015. And
it specifies data structures plus transport protocols plus selective
release mechanisms. One could ask why VC isn’t based on ISO specs - but
that would be silly, wouldn’t it.

What year did the VC work start in earnest? How close is it to the same
degree of specification as exists in the narrow mDL spec?

So fine, bemoan it. But also try to understand why it exists.

Work towards compatibility and extension. Several of us are. Add your
expertise to the ISO work through your national standards body. There’s a
galaxy of innovation still to come.

Andrew.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:32 PM Liam McCarty <liam@unumid.co> wrote:

> *From Apple Newsroom: "Apple launches the first driver’s license and state
> ID in Wallet with Arizona”
> <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-launches-the-first-drivers-license-and-state-id-in-wallet-with-arizona/>*
> "Additional states to follow, including Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi,
> Ohio, and the territory of Puerto Rico"
>
> It’s sad and frustrating that this isn’t based on verifiable credentials…
> it appears vendor lock in is going to be hard to prevent.
>
> For anyone who missed the November coverage about this, here’s a pretty
> outrageous CNBC article: "Apple is sticking taxpayers with part of the
> bill for rollout of tech giant's digital ID card”
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/14/apple-sticking-taxpayers-with-part-of-the-bill-for-digital-id-rollout.html>.
> Some choice quotes:
>
>    - *Apple has “sole discretion” for key aspects of the program,
>    including what types of devices will be compatible with the digital IDs,
>    how states are required to report on the performance of the effort, and
>    when the program is launched, according to the documents. Apple even gets
>    to review and approve the marketing that states are required to do.*
>    - *The dynamic is similar to the way Apple typically deals with
>    vendors, although instead of getting paid by Apple, the states have to
>    shoulder the financial burden of administering the programs*
>    - *All these efforts are paid for by states. The contract says that
>    “except as otherwise agreed upon between the Parties, neither Party shall
>    owe the other Party any fees under this Agreement.”*
>    - *The agreements are also notable for what is missing, in terms of
>    constraints or guard rails on how Apple can use the powerful capability of
>    identity verification, according to Mikula. That raises questions about
>    whether the company can restrict access to the new capability for
>    competitors’ products.*
>
>
> This strikes me as the exact opposite of what we in this community are
> trying to achieve. Do others agree? What, if anything, can we do about this?
>
> *Liam McCarty*
> CEO, Founder of Unum ID <https://www.unumid.co/>
> Forbes 30 Under 30 ||| Stanford Physics
> www.LiamHaleMcCarty.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
In Turn Information Management Consulting
o  +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474
5043 Del Monte Ave,, Victoria, BC V8Y 1W9
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security