The Appropriate Use of Digital
Identity: Why We Invested in a
Three-Region Research Alliance
Omidyar Network Follow
May 8, 2019 · 5 min read
By Subhashish Bhadra, Principal, Omidyar Network
In
the past decade alone, more than 110 countries
have initiated identi5cation schemes. These
programs are often implemented with an initial use case,
such as the delivery of subsidies. Over time, however, the
issued ID is used for many other uses such as paying taxes,
opening bank accounts, entering the education system,
accessing critical medication, or even participating in
sports competitions.
Expansion in use cases depends on a number of factors such as
ease of use, whether the ID is seen as credible, etc. Such
expansion of use cases also creates a risk of mission creep — i.e.
that the ID is used for purposes di=erent from the original
intent, and sometimes in a way that is disempowering for
individuals. In the absence of adequate legislative or judicial
oversight, mission creep can create risks for those very
individuals that an identity is supposed to empower.
By their very nature, digital identity systems collect some data
about individuals in order to provide access to certain services.
This immediately raises two interrelated questions. First, how
much data should the system collect? Second, what services
should it be tied to? While courts have sometimes stepped in
and used the legal principle of proportionality to address these
two issues, the appropriate use of digital identity has yet to be
thought through satisfactorily. This decision is inherently
diHcult to make, and no single approach — be it economic,
legal, or ethical — is likely to provide an adequate answer. For
example, a purely economic approach might end up including
too many use cases, because it ignores the unquantiIable risks
Positive
Returns
to privacy
and state power.
Working to create a
world of positive
returns
In the absence of any widely-accepted thinking on this issue,
we
run the risk of digital identity systems su=ering from
Follow
mission creep, that is being made mandatory or being used for
an ever-expanding set of services. We believe this creates
9
several
risks. First, people may be excluded from services if
they do not have a digital identity or because it malfunctions.
Second, this approach creates a wider digital footprint that can
be used to create a proIle of an individual, sometimes without
consent. This can increase privacy risk. Third, this approach
increases the power of institutions versus individuals and can
be used as rationale to intentionally deny services, especially to
vulnerable or persecuted groups.
Three exceptional research groups have undertaken the e=ort
of answering this complex and important question. Over the
next six months, these think tanks will conduct independent
research, as well as involve experts from across the globe.
Based in South America, Africa, and Asia, these institutions
represent the collective wisdom and experiences of three very
distinct geographies in emerging markets. While drawing on
their local context, this research e=ort is globally oriented. The
think tanks will create a set of recommendations and tools that
can be used by stakeholders to engage with digital identity
systems in any part of the world.
We are grateful that the following organizations will help
develop our collective understanding on the appropriate use of
digital identity and its limits through a multi-faceted approach:
The Institute for Technology & Society (ITS) — a nonproIt organization, based in Brazil, with a mission to ensure
that Brazil and other emerging markets respond creatively
and appropriately to the opportunities provided by
technology in the digital age, and that the potential beneIts
are broadly shared across society. Through its own research
and in partnership with other institutions, ITS Rio analyzes
the legal, social, economic, and cultural dimensions of
technology and advocates for public policies and private
practices that protect privacy, freedom of expression, and
access to knowledge.
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information
Technology Law (CIPIT) — an academic think tank based
at Strathmore Law School in Nairobi, Kenya. Research at
CIPIT addresses emerging issues that have continent-wide
impact. CIPIT provides an African voice for research
networks in emerging markets, ensuring visibility of the
local, region, and continental context that is unique to
Africa. Ultimately, CIPIT strives to prove that Africa can
grow and support a world-class academic research centre in
matters of intellectual property and IT law.
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) — a non-proIt
organization, based in India, that undertakes
interdisciplinary research on internet and digital
technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The
research at CIS seeks to understand the reconIguration of
social processes and structures through the Internet and
digital media technologies, and vice versa. Through its
diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances
contemporary discourse and regulatory practices around
internet, technology, and society in India, and elsewhere.
This research will use a collaborative and iterative process. The
researchers will put out some ideas every few weeks, with the
objective of seeking thoughts, questions, and feedback from
various stakeholders. They will participate in several digital
rights and identity events across the globe over the next several
months. They will also organize webinars to seek input from
and present their interim Indings to interested communities
from across the globe. Each of these provide an opportunity for
you to provide your thoughts and help this research program
provide an independent, rigorous, transparent, and holistic
answer to the question of when it’s appropriate for digital
identity to be used. We need a diversity of viewpoints and
collaborative dissent to help solve the most pressing issues of
our times.
At the conclusion, the research alliance will present its Indings
and point of view online for all to access, accompanied by a set
of tools that can assist with decision making in digital identity
design and implementation.
This work aligns with Omidyar Network’s continued
commitment to help norm Good ID. We believe all ID must be
Good ID — inclusive, o=ers signiIcant personal value, and
empowers individuals with privacy, security, and control. We
invest in research alliances like this one to bring new evidence
about what constitutes Good ID in practice into the decisionmaking process and to address exclusion, discrimination,
surveillance, consent, and other key issues of our time.
Privacy
Digital Identity
Discover Medium
Welcome to a place where
words matter. On Medium,
smart voices and original
ideas take center stage with no ads in sight. Watch
Positive Returns
Good Id
Make Medium
yours
Follow all the topics you
care about, and we’ll
deliver the best stories for
you to your homepage and
inbox. Explore
Investment
Become a member
Get unlimited access to the
best stories on Medium —
and support writers while
you’re at it. Just $5/month.
Upgrade
About
Help
Legal