The extension of
a pure identification system to provide the more general transaction basis of a
widespread social ecosystem requires implementation of the concept of reputation
derived from experiential identity and that of authority granted to
differential identity. Authentication of differential identity gives some level
of assurance that this is Jane Doe. Reputation born of experiential identity
then tells us that this would then be THE Jane Doe that owns the checking
account #4179456. Authority granted to differential identity in deference to
experiential identity tells us that Jane Doe can write a check for $37.44
against this account because she has previously deposited at least that amount
of currency into the account. Thus, we see the connection between two episodes
of experiential identity; depositing currency into an account and withdrawing
currency from that account.
While the trust establishment
components of the human mind are yet merely qualitatively understood, in the
digital world, there are more quantitative models of evaluation of uncertain
situations. One expects the transcendent personal device to embody such
probabilistic networks to assign a level of trust to both the uniqueness of an
identity and the strength of the authentication process that established it.
These evaluation networks can be based on quantifiable data, for example the
number of biometric measures being applied, and the discriminatory nature of
the identity features being established. Additionally, much like a safe or an
armored vehicle, a secure core is designed to prevent entry by an attacker.
Entry, in this case, is the ability of an external agent to gain access to the
computer that forms the heart of the secure core. The trust in the secure core
itself should be well established through the causality of design and the
trusted process of manufacture.
We can build the
desired differential identification system using the transcendent personal
device. As a basis for conceptual illustration, consider its hypothetical
incarnation to be a device much like a standard GSM cellular telephone. Such
phones already encompass the two sub-systems architecture described in Chapter
9, namely a device body and a secure core agent. We will assume that the device
includes a high-resolution digital camera, as many cellular phones do, and
we’ll assume a sensory extension through the addition of a fingerprint pad.
Thus, the device can be used to establish differential identity of an
individual person through the detection of an iris pattern and one or more
fingerprints. This is virtually congruent with the current biometry
requirements for many state driver licenses. For example, the State of Texas requires a facial photograph and two
thumbprints.
For
identification systems on which we base historical grouping mechanisms, within
the mind of the individual person the differential identity enrollment process
essentially begins at birth, as we discussed in Chapter 8. Physiologically
based information and subsequent authentication mechanisms that make use of
this information comprise the early bonding between infant and parent, most
typically the mother, or with some other primary caregiver in the absence of
one or more parents. At the earliest age, the markers for differential identity
are biometric characteristics of a person; facial features, characteristics of
a voice, odors, tactile presentation and combinations of all of these. For a
time as infants, we only make the association of marker with person as an
internal cognitive function. We can identity a person and perhaps make known
our act of authentication through externally visible emotional responses, but
we don’t yet have a way to reference our internally derived marker with some
symbolic reference that we can convey externally. In our earliest stage of
infancy, we might recognize our mother, and smile accordingly, but we don’t yet
have a symbolic reference through which we can convey our association to
another person. It is always a noteworthy event when a baby first learns to say
“Mama!”
|