Digital identity; Self-sovereign identity; Distributed ledger technology; Social construction of technology; Interpretive flexibility
Résumé :
[en] User-centric identity management systems are gaining momentum as concerns about Big Tech and Big Government rise. Many of these systems are framed as offering Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI). Yet, competing appropriation and the social embedding of SSI have resulted in diverging interpretations. These vague and value-laden interpretations can damage the public discourse and risk misrepresenting values and affordances that technology offers to users. To unpack the various social and technical understandings of SSI, we adopt an ‘interpretive flexibility’ lens. Based on a qualitative inductive interview study, we find that SSI’s interpretation is strongly mediated by surrounding institutional properties. Our study helps to better navigate these different perceptions and highlights the need for a multidimensional framework that can improve the understanding of complex socio-technical systems for digital government practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers.
Disciplines :
Gestion des systèmes d’information Bibliothéconomie & sciences de l’information Sociologie & sciences sociales
Auteur, co-auteur :
WEIGL, Linda ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
BARBEREAU, Tom Josua ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
RIEGER, Alexander ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
FRIDGEN, Gilbert ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
Co-auteurs externes :
no
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
The Social Construction of Self-Sovereign Identity: An Extended Model of Interpretive Flexibility
Date de publication/diffusion :
janvier 2022
Nom de la manifestation :
Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
Organisateur de la manifestation :
University of Hawaii
Lieu de la manifestation :
Maui, Hawaii, Etats-Unis
Date de la manifestation :
from 03-01-22 to 07-01-22
Manifestation à portée :
International
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed
Focus Area :
Security, Reliability and Trust
Projet FnR :
FNR13342933 - Paypal-fnr Pearl Chair In Digital Financial Services, 2019 (01/01/2020-31/12/2024) - Gilbert Fridgen
Laurent, M., J. Denouël, C. Levallois-Barth, and P. Waelbroeck, “Digital Identity”, In Digital Identity Management. Elsevier, 2015, 1-45.
Bélanger, F., and L. Carter, “Trust and risk in e-government adoption”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17(2), 2008, pp. 165-176.
Ferdous, M.S., F. Chowdhury, and M.O. Alassafi, “In Search of Self-Sovereign Identity Leveraging Blockchain Technology”, IEEE Access 7, 2019, pp. 103059-103079.
Mühle, A., A. Grüner, T. Gayvoronskaya, and C. Meinel, “A survey on essential components of a self-sovereign identity”, Computer Science Review 30, 2018, pp. 80-86.
Allen, C., “The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity”, Life With Alacrity, 2016.
Preukschat, A., and D. Reed, “Self-Sovereign Identity”, Manning Publications, 2021.
Tobin, A., D. Reed, F.P.J. Windley, and S. Foundation, “The Inevitable Rise of Self-Sovereign Identity”, 2017.
Reed, D., M. Sporny, and M. Sabadello, “Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 Core architecture, data model and representations”, W3C Candidate Recommendation Draft, 2021.
Sporny, M., D. Longely, and D. Chadwick, “Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0”, W3C Recommendation, 2019.
Ølnes, S., J. Ubacht, and M. Janssen, “Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing”, Government Information Quarterly 34(3), 2017, pp. 355-364.
Cheesman, M., “Self-Sovereignty for Refugees? The Contested Horizons of Digital Identity”, Geopolitics, 2020, pp. 1-26.
Herian, R., “Blockchain, GDPR, and fantasies of data sovereignty”, Law, Innovation and Technology 12(1), 2020, pp. 156-174.
Keohane, R.O., “Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4), 2002, pp. 743-765.
European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity”, 2021.
Kuperberg, M., “Blockchain-Based Identity Management: A Survey From the Enterprise and Ecosystem Perspective”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 67(4), 2020, pp. 1008-1027.
Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker, “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other”, Social Studies of Science 14(3), 1984, pp. 399-441.
Sahay, S., and D. Robey, “Organizational context, social interpretation, and the implementation and consequences of geographic information systems”, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 6(4), 1996, pp. 255-282.
Doherty, N.F., C.R. Coombs, and J. Loan-Clarke, “A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical”, European Journal of Information Systems 15(6), 2006, pp. 569-582.
Orlikowski, W.J., “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science 3(3), 1992, pp. 398-427.
Thomas, J.C., and G. Streib, “The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2003, pp. 83-102.
Wihlborg, E., “Secure electronic identification (eID) in the intersection of politics and technology”, International Journal of Electronic Governance 6(2), 2013, pp. 143-151.
Layne, K., and J. Lee, “Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model”, Government Information Quarterly 18(2), 2001, pp. 122-136.
Hiller, J., and F. Belanger, “Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government”, E-Government Series, 2001.
Pollitt, C., Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
West, D.M., Digital government: technology and public sector performance, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Oxford, 2007.
Kubach, M., C.H. Schunck, R. Sellung, and H. Roßnagel, “Self-sovereign and Decentralized identity as the future of identity management?”, Open Identity Summit 2020, 2020, pp. 1-13.
Griffith, T.L., “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking”, The Academy of Management Review 24(3), 1999, pp. 472-488.
Kahn, P.W., Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Columbia University Press, New York, 2011.
Zwitter, A.J., O.J. Gstrein, and E. Yap, “Digital Identity and the Blockchain: Universal Identity Management and the Concept of the 'Self-Sovereign' Individual”, Frontiers in Blockchain 3(26), 2020, pp. 1-28.
Ishmaev, G., “Sovereignty, privacy, and ethics in blockchain-based identity management systems”, Ethics and Information Technology, 2020, pp. 1-14.
Halpin, H., “Vision: A Critique of Immunity Passports and W3C Decentralized Identifiers”, In T. van der Merwe, C. Mitchell and M. Mehrnezhad, eds., Security Standardisation Research: 6th International Conference. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, 148-168.
Williams, R., and D. Edge, “The social shaping of technology”, 1996, pp. 865-899.
Law, J., and M. Callon, “The life and death of an aircraft: a network analysis of technological change”, In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Socio-technical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, 1992, 29-52.
Orlikowski, W.J., “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science 11(4), 2000, pp. 404-428.
Henningsson, S., and H.Z. Henriksen, “Inscription of behaviour and flexible interpretation in Information Infrastructures: The case of European e-Customs”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20(4), 2011, pp. 355-372.
Myers, M.D., and M. Newman, “The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft”, Information and Organization 17(1), 2007, pp. 2-26.
SelfKey Foundation, “SelfKey: The SelfKey Foundation”, 2017.
Ontology, “Ontology: A New High Performance Public Multi-Chain Project & A Distributed Trust Collaboration Platform”, 2017.
Procivis AG, “Procivis eID+ Produktpräsentation Juni 2017”, 2017.
Bundeskanzleramt, “Digitale Identität: Wie ein Ökosystem digitaler Identitäten zu einem selbstbestimmten und zugleich nutzerfreundlichen Umgang mit dem digitalen Ich beitragen kann”, 2021.
Microsoft, “Decentralized Identity: Own and control your identity”, 2018.
Alastria, “Alastria Id: Privacy Rational”, 2020.
Corbin, J., and A. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed, Sage, Los Angeles, 2015.
Mayring, P., “Qualitative Content Analysis”, 2014, pp. 1-145.
Bannister, F., and R. Connolly, “ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research”, Government Information Quarterly 31(1), 2014, pp. 119-128.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Erprobung weiterer elektronischer Verfahren zur Erfüllung der besonderen Meldepflicht in Beherbergungsstätten”, 2021.
