What is Self-Sovereign Identity?

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) is a concept that aims to give individuals full control over their digital identities, without relying on intermediaries or centralized authorities. SSI advocates argue that this approach can enhance privacy, security, and autonomy for users, as well as foster innovation and interoperability in the digital identity ecosystem.

However, SSI is not a silver bullet that can solve all the challenges and risks associated with digital identity. In fact, SSI may introduce new problems or exacerbate existing ones, if not implemented carefully and responsibly. I will discuss some of the limitations and pitfalls of SSI, and why it is not enough to ensure a fair and inclusive digital identity for all.

SSI does not guarantee verifiability or trustworthiness.

One of the main benefits of SSI is that it allows users to create and manage their own identity credentials, without depending on third-party issuers or validators. This can reduce the costs and friction of obtaining and using identity proofs, as well as protect users from identity theft or fraud.

However, this also means that SSI does not guarantee the verifiability or trustworthiness of the credentials. Users may create fake or misleading credentials or use them in inappropriate contexts. For example, a user may create a credential that claims to be a doctor but has no valid certification or license. Or a user may use a credential that proves their age, but not their nationality, to access a service that requires both.

Therefore, SSI requires a mechanism to ensure that the credentials are authentic, accurate, and relevant for the purpose they are used for. This may involve verifying the source and quality of the data, checking the validity and revocation status of the credentials, and establishing the trustworthiness of the issuers and holders. These tasks may require additional infrastructure, standards, and governance models, which may undermine the decentralization and self-sovereignty of SSI.

SSI does not ensure consent or data minimization.

Another benefit of SSI is that it enables users to control what data they share with whom, and for what purpose. SSI advocates claim that this can enhance the consent and data minimization principles of data protection, by allowing users to share only the necessary and relevant data for each transaction.

However, SSI does not ensure that users actually understand and exercise their consent and data minimization rights. Users may face challenges in managing their credentials, such as storing them securely, updating them regularly, and revoking them when needed.

Users may also lack the knowledge or skills to evaluate the risks and benefits of sharing their data, or to negotiate the terms and conditions of data sharing. Moreover, users may face pressure or coercion from service providers or other parties to share more data than necessary, or to accept unfavorable terms of service.

Therefore, SSI requires a mechanism to support users in making informed and autonomous decisions about their data sharing. This may involve providing clear and accessible information about the data requests and the consequences of accepting or rejecting them, offering meaningful choices and alternatives for data sharing, and ensuring accountability and redress for data misuse or abuse. These tasks may require additional education, guidance, and regulation, which may increase the complexity and burden of SSI.

SSI does not address social or ethical implications.

A final benefit of SSI is that it empowers users to express their identity in diverse and flexible ways, without being constrained by predefined categories or labels. SSI advocates suggest that this can promote social inclusion and diversity, by allowing users to self-identify with multiple and dynamic attributes that reflect their personal and contextual identities.

However, SSI does not address the social or ethical implications of self-identifying with certain attributes or groups. Users may face discrimination or exclusion based on their identity claims or be denied access to essential services or rights that depend on certain identity attributes.

For example, a user may self-identify as a refugee, but be rejected by a host country that requires official documentation. Or a user may self-identify as a woman but be excluded from a women-only space that requires biological verification.

Therefore, SSI requires a mechanism to balance the individual’s right to self-identify with the collective’s right to define membership and access criteria. This may involve respecting the diversity and fluidity of identity expressions, while also recognizing the legitimacy and authority of certain identity proofs. These tasks may require additional dialogue, collaboration, and compromise among different stakeholders,
which may challenge the self-sovereignty of SSI.