Introduction.
The advent of emerging technologies and social media has led to the development of the phenomenon of the splitting of an individual’s identity, a concept previously theorized by Nobel Prize winner Pirandello, one of the greatest Italian literary figures, in the early 1900s.
In his novel “One, No One and One Hundred Thousand,” published in 1926, the author attempted to demonstrate what the true reality of the situation was, theorizing that a person lives their life in a context of obvious subjectivity in which the individual can never be considered one, but rather one hundred thousand, as they often mask their identity and shape and moderate their behavior depending on the different circumstances in which they find themselves, as if they were wearing a different mask each time.
Today, Pirandello’s concept of multiple identities can be connected and adapted to digital media that allow for the splitting of identities, giving us the opportunity to create an “additional” (digital) personal profile on various social networks where we are free to choose who to be, ourselves or another person.
The creation of multiple profiles allows us to control ourselves, that is, to decide what others perceive of our way of being, to search for other users and to see what they share, creating a vast network of contacts and a virtual community in which we can feel free to expose our lives and our identity, whether it is true or fictitious.
Beyond what has been said, it is important to remember that the virtual world and the real world in which an individual lives must be considered as part of a single personal reality, within which it is not always easy to separate the two components. It should be emphasized, in fact, that there has never been a real barrier between the online and offline worlds, which are interdependent realities.
The network has indeed expanded the self in different forms, providing the user with the opportunity to connect and link their self with a number of individuals that was unthinkable until a few years ago. On the other hand, however, it is evident that its structure is not built to ensure the subject’s full control over their identity.
In fact, while the launch of social platforms (Facebook, Linkedin, etc.) has facilitated the creation of multi-profile users, on the other hand, the centralization of data relating to digital identities has opened up two major issues: security and user control over such personal data.
The need to solve the problem related to the centralization of personal data and the delicate issues connected to it is the beating heart of self-sovereign identity.
The concepts and technologies of SSI.
On a conceptual and “genetic” level, SSI can be considered both an ideology and a technological architecture.
From an ideological point of view, SSI means claiming the “authority of the individual user” in the digital world, that is, the ability to control one’s identity in the multiple contexts created by our relationships and interactions with people, organizations, and things.
Regarding the architecture, SSI is a technology composed of various elements that allow for the aforementioned characteristics of digital sovereignty at the core of the ideology to be respected.
The technological substrate on which self-sovereign identity is based involves the use of multiple tools, including a blockchain platform and asymmetric cryptography. As we will see, these elements allow for the development of a new model of digital identity.
Traditional models of digital identity.
The existing models of digital identity are mainly two:
- Centralized model
- Federated model
The spread of the web has raised, among other things, the central and difficult issue of identifying online users. It is precisely in this context that the definition of identity provider was coined. These entities have been responsible, since the beginning, for creating and managing users’ digital identities, identified through specific attributes (such as email and password).
The centralized model of digital identity is also called the “Silos Model.” Within this model, the organization that creates the user’s identity in order to provide its own online service remains the central point of the model. The identity and all related information are held and represented within the user-created account. Within this model, users can create their own digital identity, an “account” which is a complex of user identifying data.
Identity is therefore held centrally by organizations acting as identity providers. All user personal data is stored within the organization’s internal databases.
The centralized model makes users completely dependent on the organizations that hold their data, bringing with it some potential risks such as:
- Information security, a primary concern as it is closely related to the fact that, for example, a “breach” in the organization’s database could result in the online exposure of users’ data, as well as their theft or deletion.
- The complexity of the online experience for the user, a question related to the aforementioned “phenomenon of multiple identities,” which means owning a different digital identity for each service used: Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, etc.
The centralized model is a simple model for organizations to use and implement, and it completely lacks an approach that facilitates simple control and management of digital identity by the user.
Over time, a transition has been observed towards a second model of digital identity which is called federated. The center of this identity model is still the identity provider, which acts as a “bridge” between the user and the service the user is accessing.
However, the user can use a single digital identity to access various services, always “passing” through the IDP, which remains, as mentioned, at the center of the federated model.
An example of a federated model can be found in SPID: through a single identity, held through one of the providers that is part of the “Federation,” the user is able to access various services. Another example of federated management of digital identity is represented by both Google and Facebook: a user today can federatedly access various services through their account.
This digital identity management model allows users to avoid the problem of multiple identities, as they can enjoy a simplified access experience to various services called Single-Sign-On through a single identity. However, as in the centralized model, users do not own their own “digital” data, which is always held by a third party, namely the identity provider, with evident privacy risks for the user, as the identity provider could effectively “monitor” the services used with the single digital identity.
Self Sovereign Identity.
Self Sovereign Identity is a new model (the third) of digital identity management, focused on the individual and their power of control over their own data. The concept of SSI is “user-centric”, where the user is the only independent owner of their own digital identity and all associated data.
Compared to the two approaches described above, SSI is based on the idea of a peer-to-peer connection (an architecture where all connected computers perform the function of both client and server) and not an account-based one.
As we have seen, the previous identity models generate a fragmented interaction, making it necessary to repeat those activities aimed at defining and verifying the identity attributes of a subject in each domain, with evident problems in terms of trust and security.
The goal of SSI is to develop a collaborative and integrated ecosystem. The creation of the ecosystem should provide a flow of information capable of giving a complete digital representation of a subject’s identity.
The first two identity models described use a “centralized name system” for resolving IP addresses of network nodes. The service is provided through a database typically composed of DNS servers – Domain Name System – as a database for storing various identity-related information. The existing Domain Name System is vulnerable to attacks by malicious actors due to its only partially decentralized nature.
SSI replaces the centralized DNS with the blockchain, creating a new “decentralized name system” model where “identification information” is truly decentralized and replicated throughout the connected network in a peer-to-peer mode, with evident advantages as we will see both in terms of cybersecurity and in terms of user reappropriation of control of their own identity.
Self-Sovereign Identity provides, as we will see, a double benefit: the individual, the first owner of their own data, regains full control over their identity, deciding whether and which certified attributes to make available to external subjects, all within a framework where trust and respect for privacy become the guiding elements.
[1] Identity Provider IDP – Digital Identity Manager: provides access credentials to a system (digital identities) and manages user authentication processes.
[2] SPID – the unique system for accessing online services of the Italian public administration and private entities participating in their respective web portals (e.g. INPS, INAIL, etc.): citizens and businesses can access these services with a single digital identity (the SPID identity) that allows access and use from any device (desktop computer, tablet, smartphone).
Market and Data
_old_Become an author
Wallet
