While digital participatory projects hold immense potential for democratic engagement, they also face several challenges, not least of which lies in verifying the identities of those who participate. With the authenticity of participants playing a crucial role in maintaining trust, credibility, and the overall success of these initiatives, identity verification is key.
The crux of the issue is this – without some form of identity verification, anyone can participate (potentially more than once) and the legitimacy of results suffer. Conversely, if the verification process is too onerous, then too few people participate and the result is much the same.
Striking the right balance is critical. And with the popularity of participatory projects on the rise, there has perhaps never been a more critical moment to get it right. Any lost credibility now risks sacrificing momentum at the point of take-off.
There are no shortage of options, from the shallow (email or phone verification) to the deep (peer network or government registered ID), yet none are perfect – each having their own advantages and disadvantages.
And there are overlapping factors to consider. How difficult is it for participants to use? How difficult is it for projects to implement? What sort of privacy does it maintain? And what sort of authenticity does it ultimately offer?
That being said, let’s take a look at some of the more serious contenders.
Multi-Factor Authentication
Difficulty for participants – Moderate
Difficulty for projects – Moderate
Authenticity – Moderate
Privacy – Moderate
One of the most reliable (albeit intensive) methods to verify the identity of participants is through the implementation of multi-factor authentication (MFA). MFA requires individuals to provide multiple forms of evidence to prove their identity. This can include a combination of factors such as passwords, email or phone verification, and even biometric data. By employing MFA, project organisers can significantly reduce the risk of unauthorised access and ensure that participants are who they claim to be.
Advantages:
High level of security – MFA provides an additional layer of security by requiring participants to provide multiple forms of evidence to prove their identity.
Widely available – Many online platforms and services already offer multi-factor authentication, making it easily accessible for participants or platforms that want to offload to a 3rd party.
User familiarity – Participants are becoming increasingly accustomed to multi-factor authentication methods, such as two-factor authentication, making the process more user-friendly.
Disadvantages:
Technical barriers – Some participants may struggle with the setup or usage of multi-factor authentication methods, especially those with limited technological proficiency.
Additional steps – MFA can add extra steps and time to the login or verification process, potentially impacting user experience.
Reliance on external systems – MFA may require participants to have access to specific devices or services, which could pose challenges if they are not readily available.
Identity Verification Services
Difficulty for participants – Moderate
Difficulty for projects – Moderate
Authenticity – High
Privacy – Low
Utilising identity verification services can provide an additional layer of confidence in authenticating participants. These services leverage advanced algorithms and data sources to verify the identity of individuals by cross-referencing their information against official records and databases. Participants may be required to submit specific identification documents such as passports or driver’s licences, which are then compared against the provided data to verify their authenticity. Identity verification services are a reliable method to authenticate participants, particularly when dealing with sensitive or high-stakes projects.
Advantages:
Objective verification – By relying on multiple sources such as official records and databases, identity verification services offer an objective and credible assessment of participants’ identities.
Minimised manual effort – Using identity verification services can reduce the administrative burden of manually verifying participants’ identities, saving time and resources.
Disadvantages:
Privacy concerns – Participants may have reservations about sharing personal identification documents and information with third-parties, raising privacy concerns. There might also be legal restrictions on the organisers.
Cost implications – Identity verification services often come at a financial cost, which can be a challenge for projects with limited budgets.
Accessibility limitations – Some participants, particularly those from marginalised communities or regions with limited access to digital resources, may face barriers in accessing or utilising identity verification services.
Social Media Profiling
Difficulty for participants – Low
Difficulty for projects – Moderate
Authenticity – Low
Privacy – Low
Social media profiling can be a valuable method for verifying the identity of participants. Many individuals maintain active social media profiles that can provide insights into their real-life identities. Project organisers can encourage participants to link their social media accounts to their project profiles or require them to provide additional information from these accounts for verification purposes. By cross-referencing information and activity across social media platforms, project organisers can assess the authenticity and credibility of participants, ensuring that they are genuine individuals.
Advantages:
Accessibility – Many participants already have active social media profiles, making it a readily available and accessible method for identity verification.
User-contributed content – Social media profiles can provide additional context and information about participants’ interests, expertise, and motivations.
Disadvantages:
Scope and bias – Relying solely on social media profiling may not provide a comprehensive verification process, as participants’ online personas may not fully reflect their real-life identities or qualifications.
Privacy concerns – Participants may have concerns about sharing personal information from their social media accounts, as it may involve a higher level of personal exposure.
Potential biases – Social media profiling may introduce biases if project organisers rely on certain social media platforms that are not equally accessible or used by all participants.
Collaborative Network Validation
Difficulty for participants – Moderate
Difficulty for projects – Moderate
Authenticity – Moderate
Privacy – High
In participatory projects, participants often collaborate and interact with each other. Project organisers can leverage this collaborative network to verify the identity of participants. By utilising a validation system that incorporates peer recommendations or endorsements, organisers can ensure that participants are vouched for by trusted individuals within the network. This method adds an element of social proof, allowing project organisers to rely on the collective wisdom and trust of the community to verify participant identities.
Advantages:
Peer recommendation – Collaborative network validation leverages the collective wisdom and trust within a community, providing a strong endorsement of participants’ identities.
Inclusive verification – Participants who may lack official identification documents or face barriers in traditional identity verification methods can benefit from the validation of their peers.
Strengthened community ties – Collaborative network validation reinforces the sense of community and belonging among participants, fostering a supportive and inclusive environment.
Disadvantages:
Limited reach – Collaborative network validation relies on participants having connections within the project’s community, potentially excluding individuals who are new to the network.
Subjectivity – The validation process can be subjective, as it relies on personal judgments and relationships within the network, which may introduce biases.
Reliance on trust – The effectiveness of collaborative network validation heavily depends on participants’ trust in each other, which may be challenging to establish in diverse or large-scale projects.
Blockchain Technology
Difficulty for participants – High
Difficulty for projects – High
Authenticity – Varied
Privacy – High
Blockchain technology offers a decentralised and immutable ledger that can be leveraged to verify participant identities in digital participatory projects. By utilising blockchain-based identity systems, project organisers can create unique digital identities for participants that are secure, transparent, and tamper-proof. Blockchain-based identity verification provides participants with control over their personal data while offering project organisers a reliable and auditable record of participant identities. This method enhances security, reduces the risk of identity fraud, and strengthens trust in digital participatory initiatives.
Advantages:
Tamper-proof records – Blockchain technology provides an immutable and transparent ledger, ensuring the integrity of participant identities and preventing unauthorised modifications.
Decentralisation – Blockchain-based identity verification eliminates the need for a centralised authority, reducing the risk of single points of failure and enhancing security.
User control – Participants have control over their own digital identities, allowing them to manage and share their information as they see fit.
Disadvantages:
Technical complexity – Implementing blockchain technology for identity verification requires technical expertise and infrastructure, which may pose challenges for projects without the necessary resources or knowledge.
Adoption barriers – Participants may be unfamiliar with blockchain technology, leading to hesitancy or resistance in adopting this verification method.
Scalability limitations – Current blockchain technologies face scalability issues, particularly when dealing with a large number of participants or high transaction volumes. This can impact the speed and efficiency of the verification process.
Question of citizenship – While blockchain technology offers the capacity to verify users, it doesn’t necessarily verify that those users are indeed citizens or residents of a given country or municipality, meaning it likely has to be paired with another methodology.
Government-Issued Digital ID
Difficulty for participants – Varied
Difficulty for projects – Moderate
Authenticity – High
Privacy – Moderate
By incorporating government-issued digital IDs as a verification method, participatory projects can benefit from the established credibility and trust associated with official identification systems. This method can contribute to the overall integrity and legitimacy of the projects, instilling confidence in participants and stakeholders. Digital government identity is also increasingly gaining traction as more governments are adopting digital identification systems that provide citizens with a means of verifying their identity online.
Advantages:
Official validation – Government-issued digital identification provides a reliable and authoritative verification method, as it is backed by a trusted government entity.
Wide acceptance – Government-issued digital IDs are generally recognized and accepted across various sectors, making them familiar and easily accessible for participants.
Enhanced security – These IDs often incorporate advanced security measures, such as encryption and biometric data, to protect against fraud and unauthorised access.
Disadvantages:
Privacy concerns – Participants may have reservations about sharing their ‘official’ ID information, as it can involve a higher level of personal data exposure.
Accessibility limitations – Not all participants may possess a government-issued digital ID, especially in regions where digital infrastructure or identification systems are less developed. The difficulty in acquiring them even if they are available can also vary heavily.
Legal and jurisdictional considerations – Implementing government-issued digital IDs may require compliance with specific legal frameworks and regulations, which can vary across jurisdictions and pose challenges for international projects.
Getting identity verification right
Verifying the identity of participants in digital participatory projects is crucial for maintaining trust, credibility, and the integrity of the initiatives. But it is also important (for those same reasons) to the wider push for digital democracy as a whole.
This is not a problem unique to any one project or platform. It affects the entire democracy technology landscape. And as yet, there is no ‘perfect solution’.
Each of the methods mentioned above offers unique advantages and disadvantages. Platform developers and project implementers alike must carefully consider the specific context, resources, and goals of their project to choose the most appropriate verification methods.
Perhaps it’s as simple as an email address. More likely it’s something a little more substantial. In any case, if we want to keep this whole thing going, it’s important for everyone that we get it right.
