Alternative Futures: Framework for Identity Scenarios

Submitted for the Web of Trust Design Workshop

By Alessandro Voto, Co-Lead, Blockchain Futures Lab at the Institute for the Future

10/19/16

There is no single future to be forecasted when it comes to identity. Instead, there are many different futures, each of which carries its own weight and relies upon a different set of assumptions.

The assumptions that shift which world we actually come to inhabit are many. They include the progression of various combinatorial technologies. They include political and institutional decisions. Perhaps most consequentially, they include human intention as individuals strive to achieve their own preferred futures.

To this end, when considering the future of identity that may come of the projects we undertake in the present, it’s useful to think about how these projects will evolve across a number of potential future environments.

Jim Dator, a professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, developed a framework that is well suited to this task. Known as the Alternative Futures framework, it was constructed by observing archetypal commonalities across future visions he had collected from art, culture, academic thought, business planning, etc. The framework boils down to four such archetypes, which the Institute for the Future has revised to its own needs as part of our ongoing practice, and which I will illustrate within the context of identity and blockchain-based applications specifically.

The first archetype is growth, or continuation of the current paradigm. As with all archetypes, this isn’t “growth” of something like identity. Rather, it means a growth of the systems and practices we’ve relied upon for structuring identity. A growth scenario for blockchain-based identity might mean large institutions and corporations that have traditionally managed identity continue to do so, but armed with immutable identity data and cross-organizational shared records. It would be a continuation of data mining (with or without consent), but from advanced sensors like implants and gaze trackers, plus the sense-making capacity of AI, and with international reach to those who have been yet unserved by these institutions. It would mean faster and more trustworthy services, but a growing disadvantage to those who wish to hide or nuance their own representations of identity. Growth isn’t always a “preferred future”, as it carries with it the strains of unchecked resource collection, and data is no exception. That said, there is tremendous potential in standardized, interoperable records with (perhaps begrudgingly) trusted institutions.

The second archetype is constraint. This is a situation in which the normal paradigm for operating is held down in some way, usually by political actors, environmental/resource limitations, or user pushback. In the identiy space, this might be kicked off through regulations like the “Right to be Forgotten” or through intentional obfuscation of identity by users. Traditional players would need to bargain for scarce information resources, perhaps even purchasing data directly from users on a per-trait basis. This could encourage a suite of applications that let people selectively discolose information in exchange for information. Constraint archetypes lend themselves to creativity and experimentation as people work around gradually dwindling resources and uncertainty.

Collapse is the third archetype. It is a situation in which the very foundations of our systems and norms fall apart from under us, necessitating adaptation and decentralized structures. Within the context of identity, this could be brought about by relentless identity breaches, shaking confidence in centrally-manged systems. Or, this may be brought about by a grassroots movement against indentity data exploitation. Collapse is not always negative; it can be the societal catalyst for a Cambrian explosion of new approaches, in this case for local identity services. In this world, identity might be highly relationship based, bringing interpersonal information onto a slew of small community-run blockchain systems. The challenge in this world, though, is organizing through the chaos to create interoperable systems with network effects sufficient to maximize security and collective value. We may see agents that act as oracles, pulling fragments of information from multiple disjointed architectures to construct a solid view of a person. We may also see exciting new personal identity portfolios from which a person can share information on their own terms from a variety of local interactions.

The final archetype, and perhaps the most difficult to construct, is transformation. This is a re-writing of rules and practices due to some unforeseen shift in the operating environment. In a transformation world, many of our past assumptions or metrics become invalid or insufficient. In the case of identity, we may see the shift toward identity-less platforms that enable meaningful interaction without personal data or persistant accounts, as Bitcoin has done for payments with pseudonymous addresses and HD wallets. This will be a world in which we are not judged based on reputation or credentials, but upon our ability to abide by protocols and generate value within the immediate context of interaction. It is a world of proofs without underlying data. It is a world in which the work and information presented by an artificial intelligence is indistinguishable from that of a human, and in which this difference is largely inconsequential to the transaction partner.

Of course, the singular future we actually face will likely be some combination of all of these archetypes, and so many more that we can construct and pre-experience as a simulation. The role of scenario planning within futures is to learn from engaging with these theoretical possibilities, and come back to the present to design more robust and human-centered projects that enable our preferred futures.