Platformland November 2021

Welcome to what I’m half thinking should be rebadged ‘primary key monthly’.* This month is quite identity heavy again, but there’s also libraries, postcodes and digital trade to get stuck into. It’s moved over to Substack because people kept on asking for something more bookmark-able.

Richard


Platform news


Software is politics


The practice of platforms

Occasional links to blog posts where people talk about what’s different about the job of making platforms…


Reading list

Digital ID tech is moving fast. #GoodID will ensure it doesn’t break things

Robert Karanja of the Omidyar Network provides a refreshingly non-hyperbolic overview of the state of digital ID:

Digital IDs can make it easier and safer for individuals to bank, vote, travel, obtain government services and safeguard their social media profiles and interactions.

But here’s the problem: Digital IDs can also be used to restrict freedoms, increase surveillance and actually make it harder to do many of the things they are supposed to facilitate.

And restates the case for standards and norms around digital identity platforms and meeting real user needs:

That’s why the global push to harness sophisticated, cutting-edge technologies to create digital ID systems can benefit from a focus on good policies, transparent processes and accountability. The ethos of the tech community is famously to “move fast and break things.” With the #GoodID movement, we can reconcile that impulse when it comes to digitizing society with the needs, experiences and rights of everyday citizens.

A living platform: platformization processes within the Norwegian library sector

What if you apply platform thinking to Libraries? How do commercial platforms disintermediate civic interactions? Are libraries a prerequisite for government digitisation programmes? (It’s long, so recommend jumping to section 8).

Discrimination in digital immigration status

Joe Tomlinson, Jack Maxwell and Alice Welsh document how the use of digital credentials to prove post-Brexit immigration status in the UK, with no non-digital route, may be unlawful under anti-discrimination law.

It is difficult to imagine a more important document than one which proves the entitlement to reside in a particular state: it is used as the manifestation of the ‘right to have rights’. In practice, this means that those individuals can only access and share proof of their immigration status online, including when they want to rent a property or apply for a job.

They note that the choice for a digital only approach is a policy choice as the agreement between the EU and UK only says that proof ‘may’ be digital, and there is no law requiring it to be digital only. Then go on to illustrate how, statistically, this choice effects disabled people, older people, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. They give examples to illustrate the types of problems people may face, such as:

P has applied for a job. The employer calls P to arrange a time for an interview, and asks him to ‘bring along documents for the right to work check’. P brings his passport and letter of confirmation of status to the interview, but the employer says that he needs a ‘code’ from him. P does not have a smartphone with which to access his status. The employer offers to let him use one of its computers, but this is no assistance. P cannot remember the ID document or email address associated with his EUSS application and he does not know how to find and navigate the website. P misses out on the job.

This paper is interesting from a Platformland point of view in a few ways. Firstly, digital credentials are clearly on the rise and we’ll likely see more situations like this. Digital credentials in the hands of users can empower, but they when are associated with a mandate from government you can’t pretend there is choice for the end user. Secondly, this is a great example of academics unpicking how a digital service works (the paper includes example user journeys, for example). This should prompt the question: how can digital teams be more transparent about how services work so they can enable this kind of scrutiny. Thirdly, the authors make the case that a mixed (digital and paper) approach might alleviate the situation. If the problem of minting and issuing codes was solved once across government could it make that easier and cheaper?


* After all, most of government is mostly service design, and most government service design is about making it easier or harder to join databases together, and that space is the space of platforms. (I’m beginning to think the Artisan Integers movement was onto something after all).

** Is there good user research / HCI studies into if ‘wallets’ are a good paradigm for users? It probably is, but …