Sovereignty, privacy, and ethics in blockchain-based identity management systems

Abstract

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) solutions implemented on the basis of blockchain technology are seen as alternatives to existing digital identification systems, or even as a foundation of standards for the new global infrastructures for identity management systems. It is argued that ‘self-sovereignty' in this context can be understood as the concept of individual control over identity relevant private data, capacity to choose where such data is stored, and the ability to provide it to those who need to validate it. It is also argued that while it might be appealing to operationalise the concept of ‘self-sovereignty’ in a narrow technical sense, depreciation of moral semantics obscures key challenges and long-term repercussions. Closer attention to the normative substance of the ‘sovereignty’ concept helps to highlight a range of ethical issues pertaining to the changing nature of human identity in the context of ubiquitous private data collection.

Blockchain Ethics

“…In order to build an atmosphere of liability and accountability, subjects of a decision or an action should be identifiable. Although this necessity of identification is criticized [77], in order to make someone responsible or hold someone accountable from a normative standpoint, there seems to be no other option. This accountability is necessary in order to guarantee the same legal and ethical principles, norms and standards offline as well as online, in the digital sphere, and on the blockchain.…”

Developing an IoT Identity Management System Using Blockchain

“…In [28], it has been argued that self-sovereign identity (SSI) solutions based on blockchain technology have a more technical motivation that obscures key challenges and long-term repercussions. With ubiquitous private data collection in the context of IoT, a range of ethical issues surrounding human identity have been identified.…”

The Social Construction of Self-Sovereign Identity: An Extended Model of Interpretive Flexibility

“…Specifically, she argued that because the diverse ways in which individuals use digital identity technologies cannot be determined in advance, SSI could potentially empower disenfranchised individuals, yet it could also extend administrative powers and strengthen the control of bureaucracies. The SSI terminology entails an idiosyncratic conception of sovereignty; and selfsovereignty is in turn linked to other informal notions like data sovereignty, digital identity ownership, and personal data ownership [29,30]. Indeed, proponents of SSI tend to appreciate technical features, yet depreciate "moral semantics"; hence the prevalence of simple narratives that posit SSI as 'good' and Big Tech or governments as 'bad' [30].…”

“…The SSI terminology entails an idiosyncratic conception of sovereignty; and selfsovereignty is in turn linked to other informal notions like data sovereignty, digital identity ownership, and personal data ownership [29,30]. Indeed, proponents of SSI tend to appreciate technical features, yet depreciate "moral semantics"; hence the prevalence of simple narratives that posit SSI as 'good' and Big Tech or governments as 'bad' [30]. Halpin [31] suggests that the "cultish" libertarian proponents of SSI overlook ethical problems.…”