Affiliation:
1. Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems , The Alan Turing Institute , London , UK
2. Faculty of Economics and Business 3647 University of Groningen , Groningen , The Netherlands
Abstract
Abstract
All throughout the so-called “Global South”, hundreds of millions of individuals from entire communities in the rural, poorer, or most peripheral areas are not officially recorded by the States they are citizens of or they habitually reside in. This is why several of such States are resorting to extensive and purportedly “universal” digital remote onboarding programs, pioneered by India’s Aadhaar, whereby individuals are centrally recorded onto a public database with their identity (and possibly citizenship) confirmed. Whenever paper documents are obsolete, inaccurate, deteriorated, or inexistent, individuals may have their identity confirmed through an “introducer”, who mediates between marginalised communities and central authorities and is entrusted by both with this delicate task. Introducers, however, cannot by themselves grant someone the status as “citizen”: they may at best confirm his or her existence and identity. These onboarding programs are enabled by wide-covering sets of technical standards, ranging from data protection and cybersecurity to interoperability, safety, disaster recovery, and business continuity. Meanwhile, similar technologies, relying on analogous standards, and fundamentally aimed at a similar purpose (that is, registering all those who fall within the prescriptive jurisdiction of a State), are deployed by border officials in the context of migration management – especially in “developed” countries. The “unofficial” and “outside-the-scope-of-the-law” components of said migratory patterns are growing exponentially due to combined effects of climate, insecurity, and geopolitical factors, increasingly originating “borderline” situations whereby identity and citizenship are challenged and contested: statelessness, refuge, nomadism (both traditional and “digital”), and internal displacement. Strikingly enough, discussions around what technical standards to adopt, and who should select them, as well as on what the role of “introducers” could be, towards the digital onboarding of individuals experiencing “borderline” configurations of citizenship are entirely neglected in socio-legal and security scholarship alike. Complemented with concrete policy proposals, the present work accepts the ambition to start bridging this gap.
Funder
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Reference186 articles.
1. Abdulrahman, Shaymaa Adnan, and Bilal Alhayani. 2023. “A Comprehensive Survey on the Biometric Systems Based on Physiological and Behavioural Characteristics.” Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (3): 2642–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.07.005.
2. Access Now. 2018. “National Digital Identity Programmes: What’s Next?” Final Draft for Comment. https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Digital-Identity-Paper-digital-version-Mar20.pdf.
3. Access Now. 2020. “Inputs to Australian Digital Transformation Agency Consultation on Proposed Digital Identity Legislation.” https://www.digitalidentity.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/consultation01-access-now.pdf.
4. Adelmant, Victoria, Laura Bingham, and Katelyn Cioffi. 2023. “Shaping Digital Identity Standards: An Explainer and Recommendations on Technical Standard-Setting for Digital Identity Systems.” NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. https://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Shaping-Digital-Identity-Standards-final-version-to-upload.pdf.
5. Alharbi, Bayan, and Hanan S. Alshanbari. 2023. “Face-Voice Based Multimodal Biometric Authentication System via FaceNet and GMM.” PeerJ Computer Science 9: e1468. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1468.