Identity Reform

So if it sounds "bizarre" to some important readers, I guess I need to do a better job of explaining why I think it is helpful to describe the technical advances in the identity space as part of a "reform" effort. 

In an earlier post I referenced the work of Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and wordsmith who has, regrettably since I often find myself at odds with his positions, been very successful at promoting legislative initiatives by correctly determining the most compelling words to use to promote them. Luntz has done loads of research showing the dramatic effect using different words can have on how the same idea is received. A few notable examples from politics in last few years include:

• Eliminating the "Estate Tax" is much less popular than eliminating the "Death Tax" - same legislation, broader appeal since everyone dies, but not everyone has an estate worth worrying about.
• "Welfare Cuts" raised fears and were not popular, "Welfare Reform" (including cuts) passed with broad support under Clinton.
• Social Security "Phase out" is a non starter, "Private Accounts" are less unpopular but still better than "Privatization".

The connotations triggered by word choice can ultimately determine whether an idea flies in the mainstream or not - this is why Luntz makes a good living helping Republican politicians craft the language they use to market less than popular initiatives. Given the high degree of suspicion of new identity technology (see ACLU Pizza, attitudes toward Microsoft, etc.) in the general public, I think it is important for those of us developing new technology in this space to be very conscious of  the language we use to frame our work.

My view is that the technical innovation surrounding identity is, in fact, part of an ad hoc reform effort. The technical systems, business practices, and regulatory regimes that currently touch identity are primitive and badly broken - these systems and practices need to be upgraded to better serve the interests of important stakeholders.

So what is the most compelling way to communicate the need for technical innovation in the current climate of mistrust and borderline paranoia about identity? Emphasizing the sorry state of the status quo and calling for "Identity Reform" is my current best guess.

Comments

[Jack Krupansky]

My best guess is that if there is such intense anxiety and mistrust about something, then there is an excellent chance that the problem statement simply hasn't been done "right". In this case, maybe the discord isn't really about identity per se, but it just happens that identity is the "button" that triggers all the emotions.

Let me ask a simpler question... Why is "digital identity" so important? The superficial answer is that we wish to deliver services that are personalized for the individual. More technically, I would say that the service "depends" of the individual. Is this really "your" data? Have you paid for the service? Are you old enough for the service? Does the service "group" recognize you as being a member? Do law enforcement authorities wish to track access or preclude your access to the service? Where should the service be delivered to? How is billing and payment handled? What service customization options do you want the service to record to facilitate future interactions? etc.

In terms of anxiety, the big question is always "Why do you need to know?" Until we can establish a track record of a few millenia (or at least a few generations) of non-abuse (by government, by business, by criminals, by busybodies, etc.), this abuse-related question will be the keystone of identity-related discourse. Of course the answer is almost always one of a handful of possibilities: 1) to deliver the service you've requested, 2) to deliver better service, 3) because the government requires the information. "Better service" can be a euphemism for exploiting data for purposes not directly related to delivering the contracted service (e.g., selling the data or bartering it for cross-marketing purposes).

If you want to talk about reform in a way that resonates with consumers, how about focusing on virtually eliminating the data that vendors can possess about their customers. Call it "privacy abuse [by businesses] reform".

I've sketched out one idea for trying to balance privacy with legitimate business needs in a concept I call a "Data Union" where businesses can get access to information they need to deliver service without needing their own privacy-violating databases. I'm sure there are other approaches, but if we can't address even "merely pragmatic" issues related to businesses, how are we going to tackle the thornier issues related to government intrusion abuse and national security issues?

See: http://basetechnology.com/data_union.htm

-- Jack Krupansky