Hacker News Reader

Comment by motohagiography | Hacker News Reader

Have worked in the identity space for a long time. Authentication isn't a hard problem, but identity is. It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression. Trusting authentication is not trusting identity, and the origin of identity is the Ur-problem because it comes down to questions of recourse, collateral, risk, authority, and legitimacy - which are all political economy questions and not technical ones.

The technology can change the economics of identity, but identity itself reduces to how you organize to provide recourse to people within your scope. Sure, we can use escrow systems and smart contracts, but these still require a means to organize and provide adjudication.

All the use cases for digital identity are about enforcement and liability, and there are almost none that anyone would volunteer for. In this sense, identity is necessarily imposed, so all products in the space are necessarily aimed at a customer who is imposing identity on a group. It's why I tell identity companies who ask to find some other problem to solve because holding out for some government to adopt your product as their source of sovereignty is a waste of time. There is one other use case for identity, and yes, it is decentralized and bottom-up, because it is about dividing into secure, self-sovereign affinity groups, and the reasons for doing that are on a very short list of uses. Super fun, but basically a weapon.

View on HN

>It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression.

The conclusion ("It will be decentralized") doesn't follow from the argument though ("because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression").

It could very well be "just oppression" and keep being that...

Yeah, that's one of my top worries. It's already that way in much of the world. And the "liberal democracy" sector is teetering on the edge. Once we get seriously into the chaos of global climate change, pandemics, mass migrations, war and so on (aka Gibson's "Jackpot"), who knows?

Who is Gibson, what is the jackpot (because looking like our world falling part).

It's from The Peripheral (and Agency) by William Gibson. I gather that "jackpot" alludes to the fact that some will/did profit from global culture collapse.

>All the use cases for digital identity are about enforcement and liability, and there are almost none that anyone would volunteer for.

Everything from a LinkedIn or Facebook account to your personal artist homepage with your CV on it establishes identity. People obviously disclose identity voluntarily, because identity is the primary means by which strangers establish trust.

If your identity is not transparent to me, I won't enter a relationship with you that requries me to know who you are, which in practice is almost every one. I don't see how non-fragmented identity is oppression. It can be for sure, but the primary reason why identity is important in our interactions is because it establishes trust and reputation. I've always considered "non-imposed" identity a sort of oxymoron for that reason, because if full control of identity is left to the individual, identity essentially loses its primary purpose.

Linkedin/Facebook/Email login establish that it is the same "person" coming back. They don't guarantee the identity of the person as in official name or address or date of birth.

is this a distinction without a difference? Networks like LinkedIn exist for the purpose of building real social capital and that's how they're used by 99% of their users. I don't see the incentive for someone to use a fake persona (other than scamming).

All those private firms are in many ways identity providers just as real and official as governmental ones.

It's a massive difference. Consider linkedin vs national UK login.

The later one guarantees the identity: full name, date of birth, address, verified phone number, last taxable income, etc...

It allows to request government benefits or open a bank account online, because the identity is guaranteed. There is a real verified person behind the account. (corollary: you will be in troubles if somebody gets credit cards under your UK identity).

On the other hand, it's not great if that identity is required to apply to a job. The company can see your passport after they hire you. There is no need for every job board and recruiter and company to systematically get all your personal information in advance.

> Networks like LinkedIn exist for the purpose of building real social capital

???

No they don't. They exist for the purpose of selling advertising. Any other purpose is either marketing copy to get you to use it or an emergent property based on people believing the marketing. Consider that LinkedIn would continue to exist if it provided no social capital whatsoever as long as it could still get ads in front of eyeballs.

Another observation: whether any specific social network "builds social capital" depends on the demographics of the audience and general "trendiness". People in high school don't care about LinkedIn, professionals in their 30s don't care about TikTok. Does this mean that TikTok should be an "identity provider" to people under 20?

It's weird to mount a mild defense of LinkedIn, which I don't really like much, but I think you're making a slight category error by tacitly lumping it in with other social networks. LinkedIn's value proposition has always been "getting jobs is mostly about professional contacts and we're going to help you build professional contacts," and it makes the bulk of its revenue by selling its recruiting tools and, to a lesser degree, its premium services for job hunters. The most recent figures I've found suggest it makes less than 20% of its revenue from ads. I actually susect LinkedIn would not continue to exist if it provided no "social capital" whatsoever, because their business model really isn't "get ads in front of eyeballs." It's "get job prospects in front of eyeballs."

Having said all that, I wouldn't want to use it as an identity provider. :)

It's not that simple. My meatspace identity is entirely transparent. But online, I'm mostly Mirimir and other pseudonyms. Even so, I've been Mirimir for long enough, and have written enough about freedom, privacy and anonymity that I have a substantial reputation.

That is, one can have a range of identities, from entirely transparent to stably pseudonymous to fleetingly anonymous.

This is the key point -- identity is plural, not singular. It means different things in different context, so requirements change as do the types of identity, data and disclosures used.

The important nuance though is that the 'range of identities' can be tied together on the user's side if done properly. I can have all my auth methods, accounts, personas, data, etc. tied together with a properly designed decentralized identity system, and choose which to use when depending on the context. This is the real promise of decentralized identity -- a connective tissue around the users rather than platforms.

> If your identity is not transparent to me, I won't enter a relationship with you that requries me to know who you are, which in practice is almost every one.

There are two things about this that don't require centralized identity.

The first is that it's very commonly not true at all. If you want to sign up for an account for an online service (e.g. email, YouTube, gaming), they don't need the name on your driver's license for anything. They don't need to know anything about you. You create an account, set up authentication to prove you're the account holder in the future, and that's it. The identity you use can be created along with the account; it doesn't have to exist beforehand or be associated with anything else.

Second, even where reputation is important, you still don't need a single identity, it's just that an identity without any history would be untrusted.

Suppose you go to the bank to take out a loan. If you tell them your name is Barrin92 and you have no financial history, they're not going to give you one unless you get some more trusted party to cosign it or you post enough collateral that they can be assured to recover their principal if you default.

But then you start off with a small loan with a large amount of collateral, or a cosigner, and build a credit history as "Barrin92" with financial institutions. Now you can get a bigger loan, or one without a cosigner or as much collateral. Until you default. Then "Barrin92" would no longer be creditworthy and you'd be back to square one.

This works fine even if you have a thousand separate identities, because identities with no credit or bad credit aren't trusted and good credit is valuable so that you lose something significant (the creditworthiness of that identity) if you default.

People having multiple identities is effectively just equivalent to the ability to declare bankruptcy. It doesn't really break any good important thing and it does break some important mechanisms of oppression that we should want to break.

But again, in practice banks will loan more money more easily to those with a verified identity that has recourse beyond simple "loss of creditworthiness", so those loans will always be more appealing to those who can get them, and so nonrecourse loans never become a thing for normal citizens who can avoid them.

And those who can't get shunted down into the "Payday Loan" tier of finance and they have to dig themselves back out with the equivalent of deposit-backed credit cards.

But few people will choose a deposit-backed card when they have the option of trading identity for better pricing / convenience. If the online ad industry has taught us anything it is that mainstream consumers will trade their data for even the smallest of considerations.

Even if decentralized financial identity would be an improvement (and it is not clear that it would be), a vision with no practical incentive to get there from here is just the basis for another startup destined for whatever is the spiritual successor to f*ckedcompany.com.

> But again, in practice banks will loan more money more easily to those with a verified identity that has recourse beyond simple "loss of creditworthiness"

The normal recourse is foreclosure of the asset (e.g. house) that the loan was made to purchase, which they don't need your name to do at all, only a way to identify the property they're taking as collateral.

> And those who can't get shunted down into the "Payday Loan" tier of finance and they have to dig themselves back out with the equivalent of deposit-backed credit cards.

That's where everybody starts anyway. You make a hundred bucks mowing lawns in high school or whatever and get a credit card like that. By the time you have the down payment for a house you have a credit history to go with it. Or you start out getting cosigned with your parents' credit history.

> But few people will choose a deposit-backed card when they have the option of trading identity for better pricing / convenience.

You're ignoring the benefit -- it's the equivalent of corporate limited liability. If you get a car loan and then some idiot totals your new car, that's the bank's problem now and they're the ones who have to deal with the insurance company instead of you. If you lose your job and your life gets messed up temporarily then you don't have to wait 7 years to start over.

And that's not even counting the privacy benefit.

Also, the best version is for centralized identity to cease to exist whatsoever (e.g. stop issuing people social security numbers or prohibit their use for anything but social security) and then people can't give up their centralized identity in exchange for magic beans because they haven't got one.

I wish getting bank credit was that easy (made bad choices in my twenties, paid well into my thirties for that)...

I could easily just buy up some account that has good credit since it's all anonymous, no way to know if the original 'good credit' actor is the same person now applying for the loan.

Having "good credit" would imply doing something like having paid off six figures in student loans or the mortgage on a house, which requires paying many thousands of dollars in interest, so that credit history would have a high market value and defaulting on a loan taken against it would destroy that value. So that system would work fine -- it might cost the bank money to go through the inconvenience of foreclosing on a house, but it would cost you just as much for the good credit you destroyed in doing it, so it's symmetric and people would have an adequate disincentive to do that.

It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression.

I've never understood that way of viewing things. For me identity is a right. The government must provide me with the means to prove who I am and my associated data like birth certificates, academic titles, health (vaccination), real estate and indirectly verifying identity for private contracts that use my national id card number.

In an oppressive state identity surely could be oppression, just like everything else, but in a democratic country? Come on. In the USA goverment and even private entities are collecting massive databases of everybody's data. But there's this panic about a centralized service providing identity. It makes no sense.

I can reasonably change my hardware, software, and habits to avoid being matched with some corporate aglomerated profile of "me".

However, I cannot change my government provided identity.

Right now I can have multiple identities: one for work, one for my WoW guild, one for security research.

With a single centralized identity provider I couldn't do that. They wouldn't just be able, they would by default associate my personal and professional associations.

I feel that the risk of a single central (and especially government run) identity provider is that it can chill freedom of association by disallowing you to anonymously, or if not anonymously then disconnectedly associate with people or groups.

"In an oppressive state identity surely could be oppression, just like everything else, but in a democratic country?"

What makes you think a democracy can't be oppressive?

Even in perfect democracies there is something called the tyranny of the majority, where the majority can oppress the minority.

If we're talking about the US in particular, we have to recognize first that it's not even a perfect democracy, and there are many anti-democratic things about it such as the electoral college, and plenty more things that hinder democracy even where it exists (such as poor civic education, money's outsize influence in elections, extremely biased media, branches of government which shirk their balancing and oversight roles, etc).

Then, to get specifically to the oppressive aspects of the US, they range from slavery and lack of women's rights from its foundation, to segregation that existed in law up to the middle of the 20th Century (and arguably still exists in fact to some extent and in some places in the US even now), to the imprisonment in concentration camps of Americans of Japanese descent, to discrimination against people who weren't heterosexual, to the War on Drugs and police brutality which primarily impact minorities, to abuse, killing, and imprisonment of people who come to the US from other countries.

All this oppression and more has happened in what is ostensibly a democracy, and often likes to style itself as the world's greatest democracy.

And all of this oppression has had to do with identity, which required identifying people's race, gender, sexual preferences, or country of origin.

Such identification is amplified and made all that much easier in the age of computers, the internet, and gigantic databases on everyone. It's a data trove just begging for abuse.

It's not meant to be purely democratic. The founders were students of history and recognized the inherent instability of pure democracies. There were no human rights recognized anywhere in the world in 1776. The imperial era was still a thing and Kings and queens still had vast influence over European politics, with various other centralized power structures in virtually all parts of the world. I get that it's easy to point out the hypocrisy of the phrase "all men are created equal" when slavery was still a thing in half the states, but it was a very tenuous situation to go against the crown of England in 1776. It was far from guaranteed. A lot of people see the human rights we have today as some sort of inevitable outcome of progress, but China is case in point that progress and time do not necessarily yield more rights for more people. China is 4000 years old and they still don't even have basic freedom of speech there.

All of human history is filled with bloodshed, tyranny, endless wars, conquering, slavery, piracy, vandalism, raiding parties, human sacrifice, religious battles and authoritarianism, with just a few punctuating moments of anything resembling democracy and recognition of human rights. That goes for every race, country, tribe, continent and creed. No heritage is innocent of that. That's the truth. 1776 didn't have to succeed. It very much could of ended with being squelched by the Crown and then where would we be today? Perhaps the Nazis would of won. Perhaps the Soviets would have developed imperial ambition in the absence of a strong US to keep them in check. Maybe the world would be a darker place. I suspect that without the U.S. that it would be, since that's the rule of history and not the exception.

Interning the Japanese Americans was of course wrong, but when you're fighting a world war and tens of millions are dying at the hands of Japanese (they slaughtered Chinese by the tens of millions)...it's very touchy isn't it? The lesser of two evils in that particular war was certainly the U.S.

Again, prior to world war 2 the world was still filled with imperial forces itching to conquer and enslave other people by the tens of millions. This is just 80 years ago...not that long ago. There was no where else in the world living up to the high ideals we seek to achieve today back then. The U.S. was that place for so many people to escape to. The Jews being one group. The Cubans being another. The Vietnamese being another. The Koreans being another. If you're going to paint the picture, paint it in the context of the world at the time and the subsequent actions in the wake of those problems. I think individuals deserve forgiveness after some time, and the same goes with nations, given that their behavior is corrected. There's nothing wrong with the movement towards more civil rights. But expecting things to go from millenia of imperialism to utopian democracy overnight, especially one saddled with so much legacy from that era, is naive. Again, it didn't have to go so well. It could have very gone south and ended up worse off for everyone.

"It's not meant to be purely democratic. The founders were students of history and recognized the inherent instability of pure democracies."

Many of the founders were also elitists who didn't want anyone but landowning white men to run the country. They were wary of "mob rule" (ie. direct democracy), and preferred to have the elites rule. The jury's still out on whether they were right or whether direct democracy is actually better. Considering how much power and wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority in the US, I'm siding with having more direct democracy, not less.

"I get that it's easy to point out the hypocrisy of the phrase "all men are created equal" when slavery was still a thing in half the states, but it was a very tenuous situation to go against the crown of England in 1776."

The existence of slavery in the US wasn't just about 1776.. it lasted until 1865. The US was one of the last countries to end slavery.

"All of human history is filled with bloodshed, tyranny, endless wars, conquering, slavery, piracy, vandalism, raiding parties, human sacrifice, religious battles and authoritarianism..."

"Interning the Japanese Americans was of course wrong, but when you're fighting a world war and tens of millions are dying at the hands of Japanese (they slaughtered Chinese by the tens of millions)...it's very touchy isn't it? The lesser of two evils in that particular war was certainly the U.S."

The point of my post wasn't to say there weren't reasons (some might say excuses) for the US to behave the way it did (extreme, widespread racism against minorities is one such reason and excuse), nor to deny that some countries were just as bad or even worse, but to recognize that massive, serious oppression did in fact happen in the US, despite it being some sort of a democracy.

Oppression in the US is still happening, is likely to continue, and will probably be greatly enabled by the easy availability of identifying information on the people within and without its borders.

I want to express a frustration with this type of response I have.

Inevitably, when this topic of discussion comes up, I almost always see a response of this type, calling into question the entire foundation of the USA on the basis of the founding brothers being white slave owners, and it really bugs me, but I'm having a hard time trying to articulate it well...

I think it mostly centers around a very superficial understanding of the evolution of the enlightenment and the renaissance into the culmination of those that was the US. I would probably respond better if, when these arguments get thrown about, I heard discussion of the philosophical underpinnings the founders, in particular Madison, based their proposals on. Discussion or reference to individual liberty, natural law and natural rights, and such, as learned from study of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes and Spinoza, Montesquieu, etc.

I almost never see these referenced in this responses though, and to me it seems very dangerously close to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", and I fear that the sentiment is growing so rapidly, as shallow as it may be, that the lack of understanding why America truly is a revolutionary country and is exceptional in history will potent some very turbulent times in the future.

Yes, the system was imperfect from the start, and has been even more imperfect in implementation, but to say then that the whole system (not saying you said this, but it seems thinly veiled to that affect often) must be thrown out is foolhardy at best. The shining light of America is that it has, in it's founding documents, a system designed to self-improve over time. I see our main problem as being the lack of memory of why each piece of that system is so important, and have allowed it to become corrupted. The path forward then is in seeking to enforce the core foundational principles the founders thought very hard about (such as Montesquieu's checks and balances system), and not to discard them just because they came from people that were imperfect.

My main point was that there's been plenty of oppression in the US despite it being to some degree a democracy.

It doesn't sound like you're actually disputing my main point at all, but wanting to shift the discussion on to whether the American system of government needs to be replaced and why, which is really off-topic.

Still, in response to your tangential point, I want to make clear that I'm not advocating discarding the entire American system of government, and my dissatisfaction with parts of it as they stand now does not stem from who the founders were.

I do think the system has proven itself to fail at meeting the high ideals that some of the founders professed to have. The system has proven itself to be highly corruptable, the checks and balances built in to the system have failed, and much of the Constitution is widely ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever the people in power want it to mean.

These failures are not due to the founders owning slaves, but due to them being unable to foresee or adequately prepare the nation for things such as mass media, the internet, modern advertising and propaganda, and a slew of consequences of modern warfare, mutually assured destruction, the military-industrial complex, corporate dominance of the economy, enormous amounts of money being thrown at elections, the shutting out of third party alternatives, the poor civic education, widespread apathy and easy manipulability of the electorate, and on and on.

Despite the founders' short-sightedness and all the fialures and weaknesses in the American system of government, I am not an advocate of eliminating it wholesale. I believe reform is possible, and that it could be made more democratic, more accountable, more fair and just, and we don't have to scrap it all to do it.

However, I very much doubt the political will or consensus is there to make significant positive changes. If anything, I expect it to get much worse before it gets better.. if it ever will.

> I do think the system has proven itself to fail at meeting the high ideals that some of the founders professed to have. The system has proven itself to be highly corruptable, the checks and balances built in to the system have failed, and much of the Constitution is widely ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever the people in power want it to mean.

It arguably failed so long ago that virtually nobody notices. For the first ~century, corporations were allowed only in the public interest. To some extent, that reflected outrage at the excesses of corporations chartered by the English Crown. But there were also concerns about the concentration of money and power.

But that began to fail in the mid 1800s, with the rise of the railroad corporations, and their growing political power. And it ended with the 14th amendment and some Supreme Court opinions, which granted many citizenship rights and legal protections to corporations.

Overwhelmingly, I believe the issue we're facing is somewhat to do with identity and property being tied together, and not something specific to the US. And this is a factor that precedes 1776 in the rise of national identities: monarchs had a strongly individualized identity, but identity across a people via a national boundary was a more limited consideration until trade growth had sufficiently developed a reason to use such: language, religion and local allegiance did most of the work. The locals could often evade legibility by obscuring their identity.

But property-based identity held a lot of currency by the time 1776 rolled around: it established credibility as an actor with some real agency and independence within trade relations, and therefore our modern nations have built their legibility around property. And what we've done since is to either try to position everyone somewhere within the property system, or to turn towards an authoritarian model to create identity without ownership(as in the various communist experiments, or the flat, hidden authority in "Tyranny of Structurelessness").

So when we have the idea of something like identity theft, or corporate personhood, that's a thing generated of having an identity to own, cascading down into human relationships as property, personal branding, etc. And the largest, most developed function of the legal system in the US is to make judgments about property. But we also have systems of identification that are imposed in an authoritative fashion(the SSN, DL, passport, etc.) - every nation is a mixed identity market in this way.

And in this respect I think the philosophy is truly starting to fail in a world which has so greatly automated ownership, and we will need to consider both identity and property at the same time to reach useful alternatives.

I guess you are right I wasn't really disagreeing with you too much, but rather pointing out that I see this type of response very often, but without the more in-depth discussion as you and the other commentator go into.

So to use your example of more democracy. One of my pet peeves is when people say we are a democracy. We are a constitutional democratic republic to be precise. There are elements of democracy, but we elect representatives. The problem to me is that the representatives no longer represent us. If you consider moving them towards representing the people democracy than I am all for that. What I am not for is a move towards rights of groups as opposed to individuals, because history has shown that ends up being abused.

All in all, I hope that reform is possible, but it is hard to see the pragmatic path there with how bad the system is currently, so we agree there. I just hope it doesn't devolve too much, because if it does, in this age of technology it will be extremely bloody for all involved.

>>Then, to get specifically to the oppressive aspects of the US, they range from slavery and lack of women's rights from its foundation, to segregation that existed in law up to the middle of the 20th Century (and arguably still exists in fact to some extent and in some places in the US even now), to the imprisonment in concentration camps of Americans of Japanese descent, to discrimination against people who weren't heterosexual, to the War on Drugs and police brutality which primarily impact minorities, to abuse, killing, and imprisonment of people who come to the US from other countries.

To the imprisonment of those who refuse to surrender their privacy and submit an income tax return, and pay the income tax, to the prohibition of mutually voluntary economic interactions, like getting a haircut from an unlicensed barber, where barbers are licensed.

The important thing to remember is that oppression in a democracy is not perceived as oppression to the majority, so democracy will generally be perceived as non-oppressive, due to the subjectivity of what constitutes it.

The problem is not that the data is centralized; the problem is that centralization engenders a position of advantage, which incentivizes perversion. This is why the problem becomes political. The amount of privacy one should have is relative to the ethics of humanity, society, to material necessity and fact, etc. This is an unsolved problem. One would need a series of blind oracles to solve it, unfettered by the influence of living things.

The problem with making government-issued ID easy to verify online is that every website will start requiring it and pseudonymity or anonymity would become a thing of the past, even though it's necessary in some cases.

>I've never understood that way of viewing things. For me identity is a right.

Historically "identity" wasn't a right, but something imposed on people, for better tracking and controlling them by authorities...

>In an oppressive state identity surely could be oppression, just like everything else, but in a democratic country?

Oppression is not about democratic vs totalitarian state. McCarthy and Hoover, to mention just two examples, reigned over others in the good ole democratic US of A.

Not to mention very few (if any) countries have actual direct democracy, or give the people say in how they want to be governed, from the constitution and downwards.

Identity can’t be “imposed,” come on. Personhood is continuous across time and space. All a system can influence is your ability to lie about this. Ability to deceive the state can protect your freedom but inability to trust others also has a cost, there has to be a balance.

(Knowing nothing about the author of this reply at all, upon reading the comment as a reference) - as spoken by someone who has yet to have been down the rabbit hole of what "personhood" might mean.

Identity is a philosophical problem and a relationship, and so far we've managed to kick the can down the road of what an identity might mean outside the nation state, but the internet may prove to be a bit of a forcing function in deciding some of these questions we had the luck to avoid. I've been doubtful of digital identity startups because most of them are just substituting an opaque problem in crytography for the capital-H hard problem in political philosophy, which originates in prehistorical problems in collecting a census.

Maybe OAuth with some OIDC extensions and attributes solves everything, and FIDO has solved it, but if there were a way to bet against that, personally I'd go all in.

This is a really fascinating conversational pattern. It's like I said "when I let go of a ball it falls down to the ground" and you said "the meaning of 'falling' is a question as old as Genesis, and 'down' depends on your frame of reference." There's a sense in which both of those things are true, just like everything you've said here. And yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

I recommend starting there on personhood, as like the role of gravity in your analogy, it's a complex enough topic that it would be worth reading up on, since it's more plausible that the details of it matter than the implication that I am some kind of wizard engaged in mesmerism.

>Identity can’t be “imposed,” come on. Personhood is continuous across time and space.

I'm not talking about "identity" as in "being somebody".

I'm talking about identity as in identification, documents, and so on -- which is what we were discussing (as in "identity provider" in software terms).

> Historically "identity" wasn't a right, but something imposed on people, for better tracking and controlling them by authorities...

I used to own a wonderful book about the history of data science. As I recall, starting in maybe the 1600s, experts in France and Germany were tasked with tracking populations, birth and death rates, economic activity, and so on. And the primary goal was to aid in military planning. Unfortunately, I've lost the book and forgotten the title and author. And the search terms are so topical as to be useless.

Was it "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk"?

Thanks, but I don't think so.

I do recall reading it, however.

> In the USA goverment and even private entities are collecting massive databases of everybody's data. But there's this panic about a centralized service providing identity.

The existence of centralized identity is what enables those databases. They're all indexed by the centralized identity. You give Facebook your "real name" and location and the same thing to your bank and they correlate them in a database. If you were using a different identity for each one they couldn't do that.

On the other hand, creating some kind of national ID authentication system would make it much worse, because then things would require that. You couldn't sign up under a pseudonym, so now even the things that are currently separate or that you can keep separate if you want to would be forced into being correlated with everything else about you in those databases. It's an attack.

It's interesting how different countries treat "names" in different ways. In the UK, for instance, changing your name is super easy. You tell the government your name is now Foo Bar, and you're done. They'll update their pointers and issue new documents.

In Belgium, changing your name is virtually impossible. The king (ostensibly) has to grant permission; you need to provide a "valid reason". This never made sense to me.

Identity federation seemed to promise solutions to some of these problems, but never quite took off. The part I liked most was the ability to verify someone as being over 18 without divulging their age or any other meta data. That was 10 years ago though, and I have no idea what the citizen/consumer identity space looks like now.

Did the industry ever get around the sub-par SAML protocol which had no support for the active requestor profile, and the superior WS-Federation protocol which had to use the technically superior SAML token?

OIDC is just starting to get some traction in instutions, but it's really about federated authentication with trust of the IDP implied. Digital identity itself is still in the context of the given IDP you've federated to, and there isn't much better than whatever their enrolment process is.

There are a couple of companies that are using hyper ledger to federate identity providers like banks, governments, and other institutions, but the scope of that identity is still local to the federation participants who are a walled garden of their own.

What is the Ur-problem? I googled it and the top result was this post.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ur

It means approximately "the original problem", i.e. where the problem ultimately stems from.

The prefix "ur" is derived from old high German "ur", old Nordic "ōr" or Gothic "us": "from, out of".

That there's an ancient city of that name is purely incidental.

> There is one other use case for identity, and yes, it is decentralized and bottom-up, because it is about dividing into secure, self-sovereign affinity groups, and the reasons for doing that are on a very short list of uses. Super fun, but basically a weapon.

A weapon against who? A self sovereign affinity group could just be a community trying to self organize without relying on non-owned infrastructure. Aka prepper stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com