Hi, Adrian! I replied to some of your questions on LinkedIn. I thought I'd put my ideas together more clearly as a post here.
I’m the father in the picture you describe. I vividly remember the analog side of nascent digital systems: re-seating chips my Apple //e to make it boot, or accidentally picking up the phone to hear the modem carrier.
It's important to keep the systems (digital or analog processes) separate from the meaning (ephemeral, identical bits versus permanent, unique atoms. Whether you're using a digital or analog process, you can only guarantee that what you received is what you delivered.
- The chain of custody that police use to prevent evidence tampering is a largely physical process, using tamper-proof envelopes and rigorous tracking; it can't guarantee the evidence wasn't planted.
- Same thing with encryption: SSL guarantees that what you received is what the website sent, but can't guarantee that site isn't a scam.
Digital tools, and our mobile devices, offer an important way to bridge the two worlds. A modern mobile device offers multi-factor authentication (facial, fingerprint, password, location, one-time code, passkey, etc.) which can be compared to known records (biometrics on a passport chip). This means that our confidence about an identity claim ("this person is Adrian Borowski") is much higher than it would be if it were simply, "I believe this is Adrian because they're holding a physical letter we mailed to the address we have on record."
In this regard, I believe modern technology and digital processes are better at *securing* a claim of identity so it can't be tampered with, and at *increasing* our confidence that the claim belongs to someone we've previously verified.
But your concerns about authenticity and uniqueness hit home. In a world of AI slop and instant, perfect copies, the Japanese aesthetic of Wabi-Sabi (simplicity, natural materials, and the beauty of imperfection) feels more valuable than ever. As algorithms come for our cognitive labor, it's the peccadilloes and quirks of weird humans that make us who we are.
There are plenty of times when unique, personal, physical-world connections play a part in digital identity. Think of the bank manager with whom you’ve shared a joke, who recognizes you and approves a large deposit. Or the variance of pen stroke in a signature, showing it wasn't just copied. Or the doctor who delivered your child, signing a birth certificate to witness their arrival. Such physical interactions are often the basis for establishing a trusted foundation. In this case, tech can only ensure that these initial, atomic, physical foundations remain as unbroken as possible each time we use them to identify ourselves.
[Wonk time: It's really important to separate *identification* (a claim about who you are) from *authorization* (a claim about what you're allowed to do.) These two are often commingled, but they're actually very separate. I'm Alistair; my driver's license offers ways to recognize me (photo, name, birthdate) and says that I'm allowed to drive; my medicare card offers similar ways to recognize me and says I get healthcare in Quebec if I wait patiently for a few months.]
Atoms aren’t bits, but we often treat them the same way:
- An atom is unique, and can't be copied, whereas it's trivial to create a copy of a bit that's indistinguishable from the original. This gave us streaming.
- A bit vanishes when we turn off the power or delete the file; we have to quite literally split an atom to make it go away. This gave us the Undo button.
- Bits can travel at the speed of light, because they have no mass. Atoms have friction and are costly to move around. This gave us the Internet.
It's only within our lifetimes that almost every human has had access to a bit-moving machine in their pockets and the network to use it. This means we have to reconsider the world though two parallel lenses—atoms and bits—and to decide when to use one system or the other. To do otherwise, and insist on the friction of atoms while navigating a digital life, forces us to wade through the molasses of bureaucracy.
Humans are guests in this new, digital world. In the analog world I can eat food and turn it into free speech, but my digital speech exists at the pleasure of those who control the systems of communication. True, inalienable human agency is something we only fully control in the physical realm.
That means we will always need a way to tie any digital claims back to physical roots. There are some promising technologies here:
- Distributed ledgers (blockchain, though I’m not by any means a crypto type) mean that no one person controls information about you, which limits their ability to erase you.
- India’s digital ID system is computed from your biometrics—you aren’t assigned your ID, your body generates one.
- Digital credentials might be pure information, but thanks to public key encryption and digital signing, they are provably, mathematically, tamper-evident.
- Passwords and pass-phrases are tied to our analog brains for as long as we remember them, so they're another bridge (but memory evaporates as our cognition diminishes with age, and this presents problems everything from end-of-life consent to password recovery vulnerabilities.)
Without a way to link digital credentials to the person they represent we run the risk of deplatforming people. We must not eliminate the atomic, in-person fall-back systems; as I said to David McRaney a while back: I believe "humans have recourse" should be a constitutional right in the digital age: we must always be able to use physical proof to make digital claims.
It's also important to recognize that while digital systems "aren't real", neither is much of modern society. Government, personal relationships, and the monetary system are all examples of shared consensus that don't exist outside of our willingness to accept them.
I don’t get much individuality or pleasure from my passport or driver’s license or credit card. I just want them to work. So I guess I care about agency and the right to individuality for certain things, and I’m more concerned when tech encroaches there (art, writing, music, connecting with friends) because those might erase me.
I do think about the ease of deplatforming that digital systems present, and the chilling effect that might have on the exercise of my agency.
I love your poetic approach to this. Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm not sure this is a counter-thought to that post (more of a "yes, and...") and I share many of your concerns. I also really appreciate you thinking publicly with me about this; it's the kind of discourse that makes the Internet better for everyone.
Indeed, separating the systems and process from the meaning and concepts they are trying to represent is critical to understanding how to use the systems processes and where they work where they fail.
The representations are never perfect reflections of the actual conceptual meaning. Like words, systems like digital IDs depends on the understanding of those that use them to succeed.
Ultimately, it comes down to trust. These systems will succeed when people trust them enough to use them.
Paper currency took time to build that trust and it is still far from hack proof. Credit cards also took time to gain adoption. Electronic payments like Venmo and PayPal also took time.
Paper certificates and ID badges and drivers licenses also took time to adapt. It will be the same with digital IDs and credentials and authorizations.
Those that implement and execute these systems have inherent power. That is why crypto and decentralized identity hold so much attraction to people that distrust current power structures.
For many people though - as you said - you just want them to work…
Hi, Adrian! I replied to some of your questions on LinkedIn. I thought I'd put my ideas together more clearly as a post here.
I’m the father in the picture you describe. I vividly remember the analog side of nascent digital systems: re-seating chips my Apple //e to make it boot, or accidentally picking up the phone to hear the modem carrier.
It's important to keep the systems (digital or analog processes) separate from the meaning (ephemeral, identical bits versus permanent, unique atoms. Whether you're using a digital or analog process, you can only guarantee that what you received is what you delivered.
- The chain of custody that police use to prevent evidence tampering is a largely physical process, using tamper-proof envelopes and rigorous tracking; it can't guarantee the evidence wasn't planted.
- Same thing with encryption: SSL guarantees that what you received is what the website sent, but can't guarantee that site isn't a scam.
Digital tools, and our mobile devices, offer an important way to bridge the two worlds. A modern mobile device offers multi-factor authentication (facial, fingerprint, password, location, one-time code, passkey, etc.) which can be compared to known records (biometrics on a passport chip). This means that our confidence about an identity claim ("this person is Adrian Borowski") is much higher than it would be if it were simply, "I believe this is Adrian because they're holding a physical letter we mailed to the address we have on record."
In this regard, I believe modern technology and digital processes are better at *securing* a claim of identity so it can't be tampered with, and at *increasing* our confidence that the claim belongs to someone we've previously verified.
But your concerns about authenticity and uniqueness hit home. In a world of AI slop and instant, perfect copies, the Japanese aesthetic of Wabi-Sabi (simplicity, natural materials, and the beauty of imperfection) feels more valuable than ever. As algorithms come for our cognitive labor, it's the peccadilloes and quirks of weird humans that make us who we are.
There are plenty of times when unique, personal, physical-world connections play a part in digital identity. Think of the bank manager with whom you’ve shared a joke, who recognizes you and approves a large deposit. Or the variance of pen stroke in a signature, showing it wasn't just copied. Or the doctor who delivered your child, signing a birth certificate to witness their arrival. Such physical interactions are often the basis for establishing a trusted foundation. In this case, tech can only ensure that these initial, atomic, physical foundations remain as unbroken as possible each time we use them to identify ourselves.
[Wonk time: It's really important to separate *identification* (a claim about who you are) from *authorization* (a claim about what you're allowed to do.) These two are often commingled, but they're actually very separate. I'm Alistair; my driver's license offers ways to recognize me (photo, name, birthdate) and says that I'm allowed to drive; my medicare card offers similar ways to recognize me and says I get healthcare in Quebec if I wait patiently for a few months.]
Atoms aren’t bits, but we often treat them the same way:
- An atom is unique, and can't be copied, whereas it's trivial to create a copy of a bit that's indistinguishable from the original. This gave us streaming.
- A bit vanishes when we turn off the power or delete the file; we have to quite literally split an atom to make it go away. This gave us the Undo button.
- Bits can travel at the speed of light, because they have no mass. Atoms have friction and are costly to move around. This gave us the Internet.
It's only within our lifetimes that almost every human has had access to a bit-moving machine in their pockets and the network to use it. This means we have to reconsider the world though two parallel lenses—atoms and bits—and to decide when to use one system or the other. To do otherwise, and insist on the friction of atoms while navigating a digital life, forces us to wade through the molasses of bureaucracy.
Humans are guests in this new, digital world. In the analog world I can eat food and turn it into free speech, but my digital speech exists at the pleasure of those who control the systems of communication. True, inalienable human agency is something we only fully control in the physical realm.
That means we will always need a way to tie any digital claims back to physical roots. There are some promising technologies here:
- Distributed ledgers (blockchain, though I’m not by any means a crypto type) mean that no one person controls information about you, which limits their ability to erase you.
- India’s digital ID system is computed from your biometrics—you aren’t assigned your ID, your body generates one.
- Digital credentials might be pure information, but thanks to public key encryption and digital signing, they are provably, mathematically, tamper-evident.
- Passwords and pass-phrases are tied to our analog brains for as long as we remember them, so they're another bridge (but memory evaporates as our cognition diminishes with age, and this presents problems everything from end-of-life consent to password recovery vulnerabilities.)
Without a way to link digital credentials to the person they represent we run the risk of deplatforming people. We must not eliminate the atomic, in-person fall-back systems; as I said to David McRaney a while back: I believe "humans have recourse" should be a constitutional right in the digital age: we must always be able to use physical proof to make digital claims.
It's also important to recognize that while digital systems "aren't real", neither is much of modern society. Government, personal relationships, and the monetary system are all examples of shared consensus that don't exist outside of our willingness to accept them.
I don’t get much individuality or pleasure from my passport or driver’s license or credit card. I just want them to work. So I guess I care about agency and the right to individuality for certain things, and I’m more concerned when tech encroaches there (art, writing, music, connecting with friends) because those might erase me.
I do think about the ease of deplatforming that digital systems present, and the chilling effect that might have on the exercise of my agency.
I love your poetic approach to this. Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm not sure this is a counter-thought to that post (more of a "yes, and...") and I share many of your concerns. I also really appreciate you thinking publicly with me about this; it's the kind of discourse that makes the Internet better for everyone.
Indeed, separating the systems and process from the meaning and concepts they are trying to represent is critical to understanding how to use the systems processes and where they work where they fail.
The representations are never perfect reflections of the actual conceptual meaning. Like words, systems like digital IDs depends on the understanding of those that use them to succeed.
Ultimately, it comes down to trust. These systems will succeed when people trust them enough to use them.
Paper currency took time to build that trust and it is still far from hack proof. Credit cards also took time to gain adoption. Electronic payments like Venmo and PayPal also took time.
Paper certificates and ID badges and drivers licenses also took time to adapt. It will be the same with digital IDs and credentials and authorizations.
Those that implement and execute these systems have inherent power. That is why crypto and decentralized identity hold so much attraction to people that distrust current power structures.
For many people though - as you said - you just want them to work…