In search of Utopia

Or: Just who are you anyway and does it really matter?

Warning: this is certainly very long and could easily be very boring!

My true identity is quite easily discovered, yet to the casual reader of this blog I remain, respectively, "Blog Gently". However I believe my identity is more than my name, date of birth, phone number, social security number or any other random selection of vital credentials an inquistor requests from me. Indeed I believe my identity transcends beyond what I look like, my finger prints, retinal scan or DNA sample. Most people, when pressed would probably agree. The "I" of the minds eye is inside us. Our unique experiences, our behaviour, and reactions are the very stuff that makes us different from anyone else who happens to look like us and have a collection of fake IDs proclaiming they are us. That is probably why some of the most difficult human conditions to deal with are mental disorders that leave a person responding in a markedly different manner from before, or suffering some significant memory loss. If I were to suffer such a condition I might not even realize it myself, and from the outside my physical identity would be unchanged. All DNA, fingerprint or other tests would still identify me as me, yet for people who knew me, there would no longer be any me there at all. Would I still be "me"? To be honest I don't even know how to answer that question - for many legal purposes (my citizenship of a country) I would, for some (power of attorney) I might not.

So I perceive identity as constant puzzle of the human condition. In the absence of, or degradation of, a persons mental responses, one is left to rely on the physical condition, and yet in so many instances a mere mental response - that of reciting four digits of ones social security number, or a date of birth - is taken to suffice for ones identity. Any interloper searching through trash, on the Internet, or any person with $25 can now impersonate that mental response. Hence the puzzle - why are people so afraid of any attempts to identity systems? I genuinely believe that had the framers of the US Constitution (bless them, those venerable ancestors of todays stupid white men) lived in modern times they would probably seek to tack onto the Bill of Rights, the right to identity and the right to anonymity. Yes we already have the right to privacy in our own homes, and the right to free speech, but no actual constitutionally blessed right to anonymity nor to have a mechanism to prove our identity. The problem is that ultimately both of these are enshrined in technological solutions which are as yet imperfect, and may ultimately be unatainable

I am reminded of this because of Dave's comments on the US Mail's plan to require bulk mailers to attach a valid from address on all their mail. Is this, we ask ourselves, the first dangerous millimeter down that slippery slope towards complete loss of our right to privacy and free speech? I do not blame such fears, I have them myself. But I also do not believe that the US Mail, nor its employees have any obligation to carry any anthrax laden package, death threat or kindly gift from another Unabomber wannabe to its inevitable destination. It is true that a letter, suitably transcribed and dispatched casually in a remote mail box, is the classic medium of free speech combined with right to privacy i.e. an anonymous sharing of information. To require the identity of the sender of all postal items to be verified would deprive the public of such a medium.

Perhaps some limitation - only letters could be sent with unverified identity - would aleviate the problem? But what about that tainted envelope containing just a dash of anthrax or some new neural agent that will kill its recipient on handling? Does one just write that off as a price to pay for anonymity and free speech by mail? Or do we just abandon all hope of anonymity by mail and let the information find its way by other means. After all when it comes down to it, verifying the identity of a sender is just a flawed as the schemes used to identity people in the first place. Anyone who truely wanted to send information anonymously would just find a fake ID of some happless John Doe and use that. This is of course a common ruse in use today by many email spammers.

Which brings me on to my original point - my identity. As I pointed out, all current commonly used systems of identity have their flaws. DNA doesn't work for identical twins but works for the remaining 99.6% of us. However anyone who has seen the movie "Gattaca" can imagine that most non-rigorously applied DNA tests could be defeated and provide a fake DNA identification for anyone. The same applies to fingerprints because current scanners can easily be defeated by fake prints, or genuine fingerprints could be destroyed or lost via amputation. Ditto for retinal scans. I myself have suffered changes to my retinal pattern from a viral infection and later on from contact lens abuse. If a damaged or lost eye (I've known blind people with no eyes at all) were to invalidate your identity it would not be a very good system at all. Once again, if you watched the movie "Demolition Man" would could easily imagine some retinal scan identities could be faked in some rather unpleasent ways. So whats it to be? Will we be expected to submit to barage of physical identificaiton systems everytime we want to mail a letter and then wait to have experts on hand to study results and pass judgement if anything should not match up? What if something goes wrong and they say we are no longer who we say we are?

There are just so many problems associated with identity. One could suggest that perhaps varying degrees of identificaiton works. The rigour with which our identity is probed could depend on the situation. But wouldn't a very common occurance, like getting on an airplane, warrant very strict identity checks? When people risk their lives based on the positive identificaiton on others shouldn't they expect the very highest of standards to apply? Thus I find it amazing that systems for "expidited transit" through airline security checks are gaining popularity as a valid solution to "long delays" at airport security checks. Personally I'd rather be on a plane with only the people who stood in the long line than on the plane that also had people with the "known good guy" ID. I'm reminded of how many non-concealment schemes to carry illegal items through security checks usually revolve around exploitation of a happless stooge who wont be subject to normal security measures, or is less likely to get "profiled". Or have your evil-doer just pretend to be such a person - dress them in a flight attendant uniform, give them an easily faked "good doer" ID and whatch them whisked through security. This is simlar to "evil doers" exploting, perhaps under duress, a identifiable "good doer" to do their bidding. For example the scenario of bank manager with wife and kids kidnapped and told he has to unlock a safe to secure their release. You see, even provable identity does not buy us freedom from security risks.

Well then, maybe mental identification schemes would work, how about a rigorous challenge response scheme for instance? These are commonly used by banks when they ask you questions about your financial activity. My experience is they are as fallible as we. I once was unable to access my account because I couldn't accurately answer several questions about my bank balances, and recent deposits and withdrawals - this was inspite of all the physical identity proofs they had requested. Also who is to be the guardian of such information, these shared secrets, and who is to say that someone who had gained such information illegally or by other legal means could not more easily pass such a test than myself? After all if you really dug into my public records you could easily find many trivia that I have long since forgotten but might be used to give a compelling impersonation of me. Indeed this is the basis of many a confidence trick where the trickster pretends to be someone by going back to distant school day memories and relying on the victims unwillingness to admit to a poor memory for faces or names.

Eventually I'm lead to wonder if identity and anonymity are really the holy grails some people perceive them to be. In a modern society that has become fixated over perceived security issues related to proof of identity I believe what is really of prime importance is proof of truthfulness. In the end requests to prove identity are usually hand in hand with some transaction that has certain constraints. Does it really matter who is buying our house if they will fullfil the contract to pay us? Does it matter who is living next door to us if they pay their taxes and never do us any harm? Or consider the converse - perhaps there is person previously convicted of a terrorist act on our plane, but if we know he has no intent to blow it up or crash it into a building do we care? If the person we are considering employing has done five years in federal penitentiary should we discriminate against them if they are now entirely trustworthy, more so than the applicant without a record who is fully intending to rip us off? What assurance do we have that any proof of identity carries with it any assurance we can trust the bearer? For the most part, none at all! Trust is always derived by other means quite separate from regular proofs of identity and should be treated in via a quite different mechanism. For example: if the person dropping an anonymous piece of mail into the mailbox can certify they are doing no harm to the mail carrier or the recipient then why should we care to identity them in the first place?

Ultimately I believe, in my utopia, the perfect mechanism to assert truthfulness is more important than any for proof of identity. For those interested in an exploration of life with such a mechanism you might read the novel The Truth Machine. Many of the significant consequences on society are played out in this book, and for a while it does seem like utopia indeed. Of course there is a catch (it being a novel rather than a straight intellectual exploration of the future) so as ever the finale reminds us that the search for utopia (of which I am often accused) is the same as the search for perfection: without the latter one just hasn't reached the former. But can one ever trust a proof of perfection and will everyone ultimately just have to trust and believe in something they can never prove?