Some exaggeration for effect on Identityblog today:
"As much as I think Chris understands policy issues, I don't think anyone could be more wrong than he is in eliding the role of technical innovation in achieving the new architecture Solove is looking for. Legal remedies will not be plausible without the right technological infrastructure. We need everyone to understand this. It is what underlies the historical urgency of the present identity discussion. And it explains why identity architecture must make possible specific capabilities, like formal ways to demonstrate the contract under which a user has made information available. We must think about the long term."
After consulting Eric Norlin to find out what it means to elide something - thanks Eric! - I believe Kim has gone hyperbolic here on a couple of fronts. First, it is, in fact, possible to be more wrong. I have been myself on several occasions - notably in my early work with the government e-authentication initiative in 2003 when I vastly underestimated the impact privacy concerns would have on the nature and timing of federated identity deployments.
Second, and more importantly, Kim has overstated the power identity technologists will have to self-determine the role that technology will play in achieving Solove-esque reforms.
While Kim is certainly right that the appropriate architectural approach to developing a future identity metasystem is an open mind - free of prejudice, the practical reality is that there will be a number of technical interim steps between where we stand now and the identity big bang Kim foresees. For better or worse, the nature of these interim steps will likely be shaped (or as CK says, "co-created") in a set of conversations between privacy advocates, technology vendors, the information broker industry lobby, the public, the media, and government legislators/regulators.
So, what is the proper role of technical innovation in reforming identity? Given the broad set of powerful stakeholders involved, it would be surprising if technology architects, even those as influential as Kim, settle that issue unilaterally. It is more likely that the role technology plays will not be designed or planned, but will evolve in response to a set of dynamic forces. The trick for technology vendors will be to influence those forces by adopting a posture of cooperation, curiosity, discovery, openness, respect, trust, and humility. It is precisely this posture that I sought to evoke by blogging the model regime.
Comments