[blog]On the Subject of Citizens

Digital ID is getting a lot of heat right now in the UK. The painful backlash is yet another reminder of how important humanities (and social sciences) is when trying to launch big e-government initiatives.

The idea is simple: get a digital ID, become a digital citizen. There, of course, is a blatant problem here. The fine people of Great Britain are not, in fact, citizens. They are subjects.

Since our foundation is called the Digital Round Table and very liberally throws around mythical concepts from the beautiful isles, the topic is near to my heart. Just like in King Arthur times, to this day the relationship to power in Britain is complex and a bit mythical.

My own case is pretty clear. I am the citizen of my republic, and in that, I hold the highest power. The government is formed in my name — in the name of the people. The ministers are mere administrators, solidifying the will of the masses. Well, at least in theory.

Since, by design, I hold all of this power over the leadership, theoretical or not, the form of documentation is in large parts irrelevant. My passport is a declaration of my will to be a part of this society, to follow its constitution and, as an Estonian, sit in silence and stare at the fire. If there are digital tools available that help me practice my civic rights without leaving said fire, even better.

This is the diametric opposite of a Brit. Already back in 1215, wise men noted that deity-provided omnipotence is not healthy for a society, creating the Magna Carta, which tries to keep the peace between the monarch and its subjects. The government is formed in the monarch•s name, to deal with the mundane; to administrate the masses.

There is no digital sovereignty with a sovereign in place. There cannot be any digital citizens if there are no true citizens to begin with. The government should, in the eye of the egregore, stay in Westminster and not bother people. Historically, the land-owning aristocrats were to do precisely this: to protect the locals’ interests from the claws of the government.

This is a deeply-instilled social structure, crystallised by centuries of time. Ignoring this leads to what we have now: fear, confusion, apprehension, strife.

There are better messages, and better structures for digital identification (distributed systems!). One could, for example, be presented with a key to the digital ecosystem (or, ahem, kingdom). Or, the entire roll-out could be indeed built on digital sovereignty — on becoming sovereign on your own. Or, here•s a thought: ask the people what they want. How they identify, what they need. It•s probably not “more government”.

Best results come from applying social context and structures, understanding the needs of the users and reverbating the culture. Without culture, technology will always fail.

Mandatory rollouts of intrusive technologies without the appropriate social context — even if only perceived as invasive — wield technology as a weapon. Unless the weapon in question is Excalibur, the results speak for themselves.

Looking forward to seeing the digital keys to the kingdom in action.