diff options
Diffstat (limited to '_drafts/rethinking-identity.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | _drafts/rethinking-identity.md | 282 |
1 files changed, 282 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/_drafts/rethinking-identity.md b/_drafts/rethinking-identity.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..80bd973 --- /dev/null +++ b/_drafts/rethinking-identity.md @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ +--- +title: Rethinking Identity +description: >- + A more useful way of thinking about identity on the internet, and using that + to build a service which makes our online life better. +--- + +In my view, the major social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, +etc...) are broken. They worked well at small scales, but billions of people are +now exposed to them and [Murphy's Law][murphy] has come into effect. The weak +points in the platforms have been found and exploited, to the point where +they're barely usable for interacting with anyone you don't already know in +person. + +[murphy]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law + +But social media is a powerful tool that humans have developed, and it's not one +to be thrown away lightly (if it can be thrown away at all). It's worthwhile to +try and fix it. So that's what this post is about. + +A lot of moaning and groaning has already been done on how social media is toxic +for the average person. But the average person isn't doing anything more than +receiving and reacting to their environment. If that environment is toxic, the +person in it becomes so as well. It's certainly possible to filter the toxicity +out, and use a platform to your own benefit, but it takes work on the user's +part. It would be nice to think that people will do more than follow the path of +least resistance, but at scale that's simply not how reality is, and people +shouldn't be expected to do that work. + +To identify what has become toxic about the platforms, first we need to identify +what a non-toxic platform would look like. + +The ideal definition for social media is to give people a place to socialize +with friends, family, and the rest of the world. Defining "socialize" is tricky, +and probably an exercise only a socially awkward computer nerd who doesn't do +enough socializing would undertake, but "expressing one's feelings, knowledge, +and experiences to other people, and receiving theirs in turn" feels like a good +approximation. A platform where true socializing was the only activity would be +ideal. + +Here are some trends on our social media which have nothing to do with +socializing: artificially boosted follower numbers on instagram to obtain +product sponsors, shills in reddit comments boosting a product or company, +russian trolls on twitter spreading propaganda, trolls everywhere being dicks +and switching IPs when they get banned, and [that basketball president whose +wife used burner twitter accounts to trash talk players][president]. + +[president]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/sports/bryan-colangelo-sixers-wife.html + +These are all examples of how anonymity can be abused on social media. I want +to say up front that I'm _not_ against anonymity on the internet, and that I +think we can have our cake and eat it too. But we _should_ acknowledge the +direct and indirect problems anonymity causes. We can't trust that anyone on +social media is being honest about who they are and what their motivation is. +This problem extends outside of social media too, to Amazon product reviews (and +basically any other review system), online polls and raffles, multiplayer games, +and surely many other other cases. + +## Identity + +To fix social media, and other large swaths of the internet, we need to rethink +identity. This process started for me a long time ago, when I watched [this TED +talk][identity], which discusses ways in which we misunderstand identity. +Crucially, David Birch points out that identity is not a name, it's more +fundamental than that. + +[identity]: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_birch_identity_without_a_name + +In the context of online platforms, where a user creates an account which +identifies them in some way, identity breaks down into 3 distinct problems +which are often conflated. + +* Authentication: Is this identity owned by this person? +* Differentiation: Is this identity unique to this person? +* Authorization: Is this identity allowed to do X? + +For internet platform developers, authentication has been given the full focus. +Blog posts, articles, guides, and services abound which deal with properly +hashing and checking passwords, two factor authentication, proper account +recovery procedure, etc... While authentication is not 100% a solved problem, +it's had the most work done on it, and the problems which this post deals with +are not affected by it. + +The problem which should instead be focused on is differentiation. + +## Differentiation + +I want to make very clear, once more, that I am _not_ in favor of de-anonymizing +the web, and doing so is not what I'm proposing. + +Differentiation is without a doubt the most difficult identity problem to solve. +It's not even clear that it's solvable offline. Take this situation: You are in +a room, and you are told that one person is going to walk in with you, leave, +then another person will do the same. These two persons may or may not be the +same person. You're allowed to do anything you like to each person (with their +consent) in order to determine if they are the same person or not. + +For the vast, vast majority of cases you can simply look with your eyeballs and +see if they are different people. But this will not work 100% of the time. +Identical twins are an obvious example of two persons looking like one, but a +malicious actor with a disguise might be one person posing as two. Biometrics +like fingerprints, iris scanning, and DNA testing fail for many reasons (the +identical twin case being one). You could attempt to give the first a unique +marking on their skin, but who's to say they don't have a solvent which can +clean that marking waiting right outside the door? + +The solutions and refutations can continue on pedantically for some time, but +the point is there is not likely a 100% solution, and even the 90% solutions +require significant investment. Differentiation is a hard problem, which most +developers don't want to solve. Most are fine with surrogates like checking that +an email or phone number is unique to the platform, but these aren't enough to +stop a dedicated individual or organization. + +### Roll Your Own Differentiation + +If a platform wants to roll their own solution to the differentiation problem, a +proper solution, it might look something like this: + +* Submit an image of your passport, or other government issued ID. This would + have to be checked against the appropriate government agency to ensure the + ID is legitimate. + +* Submit an image of your face, alongside a written note containing a code given + by the platform. Software to detect manipulated images would need to be + employed, as well as reverse image searching to ensure the image isn't being + reused. + +* Once completed, all data needs to be hashed/fingerprinted and then destroyed, + so sensitive data isn't sitting around on servers, but can still be checked + against future users signing up for the platform. + +* A dedicated support team would be needed to handle edge-cases and mistakes. + +None of these is trivial to implement correctly, and not one I'd trust to an +up-and-coming platform which is being bootstrapped out of a basement. +Additionally, going through with this process would be a _giant_ point of +friction for a user creating a new account; they likely would go use a different +platform which didn't have all this nonsense required instead. + +### Differentiation as a Service + +This is the crux of this post. + +Instead each platform rolling their own differentiation, what if there was a +service for it. Users would still have to go through the hassle described above, +but only once forever. Then platforms, no matter what stage of development +they're at, could use that service to ensure their community of users is free +from the problems of fake accounts and trolls. + +This is what the service would look like: + +* A user would have to, at some point, have gone through the steps above to + create an account on the differentiation-as-a-service (DaaS) platform. This + account would have the normal authentication mechanisms that most platforms + do. + +* When creating an account on a new platform, the user would login to their DaaS + account (similar to the common "login with Google/Facebook/Twitter" buttons). + +* The DaaS then returns an opaque token, an effectively random string, to the + platform, which uniquely identifies that user. The platform can then check in + its own user database for any other users using that token, and know if the + user already has an account. All of this happens without any identifying + information being passed to the platform. + +Similar to how many sites outsource to Cloudflare to handle DDoS protection, +which is better handled en masse by people familiar with the problem, the DaaS +allows for outsourcing the problem of differentiation. And actually, since the +DaaS also handles authentication, a platform could outsource almost all of +identity management. + +### Traits of a Successful DaaS + +It's possible for me to imagine a world where use of DaaS' is common, but +bridging the gap between that world and this one is not as obvious. Still, I +think it's necessary if interaction on the net is to ever evolve passed being a +home for trolls. There are a number of traits of a DaaS trying to make it which +would aid it in being accepted by the internet. + +* **Patience**: there is a critical mass of users and platforms using DaaS's + where it becomes more advantageous for platforms to use the DaaS than not. + Until then, the DaaS and platforms using it need to take deliberate but small + steps. Making DaaS usage optional for platform users, and giving their + accounts special marks to indicate they're "authentic" (like Twitter's blue + checkmark); giving those users' activity higher weight in algorithms; allowing + others to filter activity of non-"authentic" users; etc... These are all + preliminary steps which can be taken which encourage but don't require + platform users to use a DaaS. + +* **User-friendly**: most likely the platforms using a DaaS are what are going + to be paying the bills. A successful DaaS will need to remember that, no + matter where the money comes from; if the users aren't happy they'll stop + using the DaaS, and platforms will be forced to switch to a different one or + stop using them altogether. In that same vein, competition is important, and + so... + +* **No country/government affiliation**: If the DaaS was to be run by a + government agency it would have no incentive to provide a good user + experience, since the users aren't paying the bills (they might not even be in + that country). A DaaS shouldn't be exclusive to any one government or country + anyway. Perhaps it starts in that way, to get off the ground, but ultimately + the internet is a global institution, and is healthiest when it's connecting + individuals _around the world_. A successful DaaS will reach beyond borders + and try to connect everyone. + +Obviously actually starting a DaaS would be a huge undertaking, and would +require proper management and good developers and all that, but such things +apply to most services. + +## Authorization + +The final aspect of identity management, which I haven't talked about yet, is +authorization. This aspect deals with what a particular identity is allowed to +do. For example, is an identity allowed to claim they have a particular name, or +are from a particular place, or are of a particular age? Other things like +administration and moderation privileges also fall under authorization, but they +are generally defined and managed within a platform. + +A DaaS has the potential to help with authorization as well, though with a giant +caveat. If a DaaS were to not fingerprint and destroy the user's data, like +their name and birthday and whatnot, but instead store them, then the following +use-case could also be implemented: + +* A platform wants to know if a user is above a certain age, let's say. It asks + the DaaS for that information. + +* The DaaS asks the user, OAuth style, whether the user is ok with giving the + platform that information. + +* If so, the platform is given that information. + +This is a tricky situation. It adds a lot of liablity for the user, since their +raw data will be stored with the DaaS, ripe for hacking. It also places a lot of +trust with the DaaS to be responsible with users' data and not go giving it out +willy-nilly to platforms, and instead to only give out the bare-minimum that +the user allows. Since the user is not the DaaS's direct customer, this might be +too much to ask. Nevertheless, it's a use-case which is worth thinking about. + +## Dapps + +The idea of decentralized applications, or dapps, has begun to gain traction. +While not mainstream yet, I think they have potential, and it's necessary to +discuss how a DaaS would operate in a world where the internet is no longer +hosted in central datacenters. + +Consider an Ethereum-based dapp. If a DaaS user were to register with their +account one ethereum address (which are really public keys), the +following use-case could be implemented: + +* A charity dapp has an ethereum contract, which receives a call from an + ethereum address asking for money. The dapp wants to ensure every person it + sends money to hasn't received any that day. + +* The DaaS has a separate ethereum contract it manages, where it stores all + addresses which have been registered to a user. + +* The charity dapp's contract calls the DaaS' contract, asking it if the address + is one of its addresses. If so, and if the charity contract hasn't given to + that address yet today, it can give that address money. + +There would perhaps need to be some mechanism by which a user could change their +address, which would be complex since that address might be in use by a dapp +already, but it would likely be do-able. + +A charity dapp is a bit of a silly example; ideally with a charity dapp there'd +also be some mechanism to ensure a person actually _needs_ the money. But +there's other dapp ideas which would greatly benefit from some insurance that +they are not being abused. + +## Why Did I Write This? + +Perhaps you've gotten this far and are asking: "Clearly you've thought about +this a lot, why don't you make this yourself and make some phat stacks of cash +with a startup?" The answer is that this project would need to be started and +run by serious people, who can be dedicated and thorough and responsible. I'm +not sure I'm one of those people, I get distracted easily. But I would like to +see this idea tried, and so I've written this up thinking maybe someone else +would take the reins. + +I'm not asking for equity or anything if you want to try, it's a free idea for +the taking. But if it turns out to be a bazillion dollar Good Idea™, I won't say +no to a donation. |