The addition of Ukraine in the EU Digital Identity Wallet prototype is looking more and more like a defining moment in history. What that definition might be, however, remains unclear.
It is a known fact that the intersection of digital finance, identity management, and government oversight has sparked discussions about power, privacy, and security on both domestic and international levels. But as governments and corporations vie for control over the digital realm, what they seem to either miss or willingly ignore is that the implications of these developments extend far beyond mere convenience or financial transactions.
Notably, the inclusion of Ukraine in the EUDI initiative has added a geopolitical dimension to the controversy. Against the backdrop of escalating tensions between Russia and the West, Ukraine's participation in the program is bound to raise concerns about the politicization of digital identity and the potential for abuse by hostile actors.
Moreover, and even when taking potential geopolitical tensions aside, a fundamental question remains: Historically, when was it ever a good idea to concentrate vast amounts of personal data within a centralized government-controlled system?
The EUDI in Short
Procured under the Digital Europe Programme, the prototype wallet serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it acts as a trial platform to inform the specifications developed by Member States in collaboration with the Commission. In turn, it will ultimately contribute to the creation of a common EU Toolbox for implementing the EU Digital Identity Wallet. Secondly, the prototype will undergo testing in several Large Scale Pilots across various sectors including healthcare, financial services, education, and transport. Lastly, it will be made available for reuse by Member States, Pilot Projects, and other contributors as open-source software.
Eleven specific use cases are being explored within these pilot projects, each addressing different aspects of identity verification and authentication. These include accessing government services, opening bank accounts, SIM registration, mobile driving licenses, digital contract signing, prescription claiming, travel documentation, organizational identity verification, online payments, education certification, and accessing social security benefits.
So, was Centralization in Tech Ever a Good Idea?
From the 90s browser wars to the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal, history has shown us time and time again how unchecked consolidation of power can undermine competition, innovation, and ultimately, the interests of individual users.
In fact, history might just repeat itself as the dominance of centralized platforms can certainly lead to a lack of viable alternatives, further reinforcing individuals' reliance on them. In tandem, smaller competitors are bound to struggle to gain traction or reach a critical mass of users necessary to compete effectively, ultimately limiting consumer choice and innovation in the digital marketplace.
As such, while EUDI promises convenience, streamlined payments and digital interactions, its centralized approach, if left unchecked, could create a dominant system that stifles competition and innovation in the digital identity space.
In that sense, the convenience and ubiquity of centralized platforms can thus overshadow concerns about the potential risks associated with entrusting one's personal data to a single entity.
The “Full Control of Your Data” Fairy Tale
While ostensibly offering individuals control over their data, centralized platforms like EUDI often wield immense power and influence in the digital landscape. And as they become increasingly indispensable for tasks ranging from communication and commerce to accessing government services, individuals may find themselves in a position where they feel compelled to use them, even if they harbor reservations about privacy and data control.
In this environment, the promise of individual control over data within centralized platforms may ring hollow because while users may technically have the ability to manage their data within these systems, the broader structural dynamics of the digital ecosystem can exert significant pressure on individuals to conform to the norms and practices dictated by the dominant platforms.
Moreover, historical examples such as the erosion of right-to-repair laws perfectly illustrate how entrenched interests can undermine initiatives aimed at preserving individual freedoms. Even if individuals theoretically retain control over their data within EUDI, the influence of powerful corporations and government agencies could lead to policies and practices that effectively limit that control in practice.
Ultimately, the concentration of power in the hands of a few centralized entities raises important questions about the balance between convenience and individual autonomy in the digital age.
Designing Our Future
Instead of consolidation of information, data, and power, governments and regulatory agencies should eschew the notion of picking out and enforcing a “winning” system, opting instead to equip government agencies with a comprehensive understanding of technological and economic trends in what should be a signal of recognition of the fluid nature of the future.
EUDI's centralized approach may limit the ability to adapt to diverse technological and economic trends much as centralization could stifle innovation by favoring established players and hindering the entry of smaller competitors who might bring fresh perspectives and ideas.
Balancing security, convenience, and individual autonomy in the digital age is no easy feat. So, can a centralized system like EUDI be designed to effectively address these challenges, or will a truly user-centric approach necessitate a more decentralized future? The conversation around digital identity is just beginning, and it's one we should all be a part of.
