Joel R. McConvey’s recent article in Biometric Update made my head spin.
“Utah’s state legislature has voted unanimously to pass SB 275, the State-Endorsed Digital Identity Program Amendments bill. The law makes Utah unique among states, in that it defines identity as something that is inherent to a person and endorsed by the state rather than bestowed by the state.
“The distinction has implications for discussions about data sovereignty – who gets to control a person’s personal information – as well as for other states pursuing digital identity programs.”
Endorsed? Bestowed? What’s up? An earlier McConvey article quotes from Utah’s Chief Privacy Officer Christopher Bramwell:
“Part of Utah’s history,” Bramwell says – “why we care so much about privacy, and this does translate directly to digital identity – is when pioneers came to Utah, it was literally for autonomy, and it was to be left alone to live their life according to the dictates of their heart. That’s why many people came to America, whether as pilgrims or pioneers or immigrants: because you want something better and you want to do it according to your conscience.”
For those whose history is rusty, Bramwell is referring to the migration of the Mormons out west. As he points out, the Mormons are not the only ones in U.S. history who came to a new land to enjoy freedom from the perceived oppressive state. The original inhabitants of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Pennsylvania also fall within this tradition.
Bramwell continues:
““And that’s a lot of what we’re talking about with digital ID. You need to engage in the free market, but do it according to your choice without being tracked, without being surveilled, without undue influence on how you’re operating. So you can live your life in the digital realm according to the dictates of your heart and how you and your family see fit.”
“Our approach is to separate identity from any privileges or licenses that are given by government. Identity should be separate, so that it is not something that there’s any reason to ever take away.”
But this is not just a religious issue, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out.
“The philosophical underpinning of the state’s SEDI concept is that “identity” is not something bestowed by the state, but that inherently belongs to the individual; the state merely “endorses” a person’s ID.”
Of the six major underpinnings of SEDI, the third is of interest here:
“Individual control,” in which the state throws its weight behind a movement known as “user-centric” or “self-sovereign” identity, that strives to ensure that government identification systems are used to empower individuals, not to control them.
So what does self-sovereign, endorsed identity mean from a legal standpoint? Let’s look at the opening section of the most recent bill, Utah’s SB 275:
63A-20-101. Digital identity bill of rights.
The following rights constitute the digital identity bill of rights in this state:
(1)An individual possesses an individual identity innate to the individual’s existence and independent of the state, which identity is fundamental and inalienable.
(2)An individual has a right to the management and control of the individual’s digital identity to protect individual privacy.
(3)An individual has a right to choose, receive, and use a physical form of identity assertion that is endorsed by the state.
(4)An individual has a right to not be compelled by the state to possess, use, or rely upon a digital form of identity assertion in place of a physical form of identity assertion that is endorsed by the state.
(5)An individual has a right to state endorsement of the individual’s digital identity upon meeting objective, uniform standards for eligibility and verification established by law, and a right to not have such endorsement arbitrarily or discriminatorily withheld or revoked.
(6)An individual has a right to have the state’s operation of digital identity systems governed by clear standards established by the Legislature, including for eligibility, issuance, endorsement, acceptance, revocation, or interoperability of digital identityassertions.
(7)An individual has a right to transparency in the design and operation of a state digital identity, including the right to access, read, and review the standards and technical specifications upon which the state digital identity is built and operates.
(8)An individual has the right to choose what identity attributes are disclosed by the individual’s state digital identity in accordance with standards established by theLegislature.
(9)An individual has the right to any service or benefit to which the individual is otherwise lawfully entitled based on the individual’s choice of a lawful format or means of identity assertion without denial, diminishment, or condition.
(10)An individual has a right to be free from surveillance, profiling, tracking, or persistent monitoring of the individual’s assertions of digital identity by the state, except as authorized by law.
(11)An individual has a right to not be required by the state to surrender the individual’s device in order to present the individual’s digital identity.
Of course, once you leave the state of Utah and reside in another state, that state will BESTOW an identity upon you.
And while this controls what the state of Utah can do, it does not apply to a FEDERAL digital identity, such as a future digital U.S. passport.
Bredemarket 