Digital identity systems exclude 2.7 billion people who don’t have smartphones. Offline attestations and peer-signed credentials must serve the disconnected.
Opinion
Opinion by: Nanak Nihal Singh Khalsa, co-founder of Holonym Foundation
More often than not, in the quest for the advancement of humankind and the betterment of human life, humanity has created more problems than it can solve.
It’s a cycle of unintended consequences that can be traced back to our beginnings. The cave dwellers created weapons to aid hunting and food gathering, only for those weapons to become beacons of conflict and war. The same cycle repeats itself in a much different situation, but with similar repercussions if allowed to grow and fester.
We are now firmly in the digital age. Most of our critical systems and infrastructures are finding their way online. One system is identity, the intersection of human rights and personal freedom. Identity is such a critical aspect of human existence that losing it could spell the end of one’s life, literally and figuratively.
And yet, modern infrastructures are inadvertently condemning some members of humanity to this fate, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The latest digital identity infrastructures, like cryptographic systems and zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, are only accessible to world citizens with specific tools: a smartphone and the internet. This only represents a fraction of the entire world population. Around 2.7 billion people do not own smartphones, while approximately 2.6 billion remain offline. If our identity systems do not cater to this fraction of the human race, we cannot truly call them that.
Stateless, cryptographic identity
It’s become increasingly clear that the path humanity is currently treading regarding digital identity only leads to one place: a dystopian future. To prevent this reality, there is an urgent need for identity architectures that prioritize accessibility and inclusion while limiting features for surveillance, dehumanization and encroachment.
These systems should ideally be designed for resilient, low-infrastructure environments, where connectivity, state recognition or continuous power can’t be assumed. Fortunately, the technology to design these systems already exists.
Offline attestations
Offline attestations via QR codes, NFC cards or local mesh networks allow for offline identity verification in places without internet or a constant power supply, making them more accessible forms of digital identification.
Peer-signed credentials
Peer-signed credentials can effectively replace identity credentials from companies and government bodies, providing a truly decentralized means of identity verification.
These tools offer a path toward a human-centric digital identity system that is not susceptible to surveillance or dehumanization while providing accessibility and reliability.
Where the current systems fail
The biggest issue with the latest digital identity systems is that they inadvertently reinforce some of the problems of legacy systems, such as dehumanization, exploitation and inaccessibility, albeit in a different manner.
Consider legacy systems like national ID or SIM cards. These were introduced to help governments classify and organize their citizens. Still, they’ve also excluded those without the proper documentation, expanded surveillance capabilities and created centralized control points over time. In many places, these systems leave individuals with little recourse against overreach, and they often undermine the right to privacy by enabling governments to monitor their citizens without adequate safeguards.
Related:
The same pattern is currently unfolding with modern digital identity systems. Biometric systems, while personalizing human identity and eliminating issues like impersonation, raise concerns over biometric data security and the commodification of this data. Some biometric ID providers have been scrutinized for exploiting developing regions by providing monetary compensation in exchange for this data.
Blockchain-based systems address some of these accessibility challenges, as they typically require less Know Your Customer (KYC) and can be more open to users without traditional identification. They introduce different trade-offs, however, wherein most public blockchain systems make transaction histories visible to anyone, creating potential privacy risks even as they lower entry barriers. Technical complexities still leave less experienced users vulnerable to mistakes or exploitation.
Ultimately, the core issue is that many systems are not yet balancing accessibility and privacy in a way that serves everyone. Digital identity solutions should aim to protect user privacy, prevent censorship and remain open to all, regardless of whether someone holds the “right” documents or tools.
What the crypto world needs to understand
Blockchain and crypto-related technologies won’t change the world by onboarding more engineers and VC-backed founders. It will change the world when it can serve the stateless, the undocumented and the disconnected without compromising their safety, dignity or control.
The first step to achieving this reality is replacing centralized systems with attestable, peer-anchored systems. Even though crypto champions decentralization, it is still a long way from achieving it.
Humanitarian contexts are the real proving ground for decentralized infrastructure. It’s easy to talk about self-sovereignty and censorship-resistance in a San Francisco coworking space. It’s much harder, and more urgent, to make those ideals work in less perfect locations, such as a refugee camp, a war zone or an off-grid village.
In these contexts, things that identity systems rely on, like trusted issuers, cloud services, smartphones and the internet, are unavailable. If crypto wants to prove its value to the world, it must stop building only for itself. It must invest in infrastructure that works at the edge, where systems break down, not where they run smoothly.
Now is the time for us to take a stance on the kind of digital ID infrastructure we want to build, to avoid making the same mistakes from the past or, worse, to usher in a dystopian reality where identity is weaponized against the less privileged in our society.
Opinion by: Nanak Nihal Singh Khalsa, co-founder of Holonym Foundation.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
