Technical Advisor Resigns From ID2020 Alliance Expressing Concerns Over Thier Mission

ID2020

Technical Advisory Committee Member Elizabeth Renieris has resigned from the ID2020 Alliance.

Renieris, a Harvard lawyer, resigned from the organization due to a difference of opinion over the organization’s direction. She claims the organization is not transparent and is concerned that they would get involved in COVID-19 immunity passports.

Renieris believes that immunity passports are premature and could potentially infringe privacy rights for tests that are unproven and that the identity and blockchain standards are still a work in progress.

The ID2020 Alliance was founded by Accenture, Microsoft, Gavi, the Rockefeller Foundation and IDEO and has also been the subject of one of the many Coronavirus conspiracy theories related to Bill Gates

Biometric Update reports: Renieris is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and Board Member with IDPro, and CoinDesk writes that her resignation email alleges the organization is not transparent, is at risk of undue corporate influence, and prone to “techno-solutionism.” She expressed uncertainty at ID2020’s mission, and suggests that it is focused on promoting “decentralized identity solutions at all costs.”

A white paper co-authored by Renieris earlier in May takes aim at the effectiveness and legality of proposed “immunity passports,” and expresses concern about the risks to civil liberties they pose, as well as to private health information from the use of blockchain under the present circumstances. The Covid Credentials Initiative (CCI), which combines the W3C Verifiable Credentials standard with decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and blockchain technology, and was at one point considered for support by ID2020, is criticized.

“The technical architecture is arguably a product of premature standardization, speculative requirements, and highly experimental technologies, rather than the harmonization of existing, widely deployed, and battle-tested solutions,” the authors state.

Renieris also mentions corporate influence. A former Microsoft employee was recently elected Chair of ID2020’s Board of Directors, which also includes a current Microsoft executive.

“This is 100% a hammer looking for a nail,” according to Renieris’ email, as reported by CoinDesk.

A white paper written by ID2020 Executive Director Dakota Gruener and published in April acknowledges privacy and other risks associated with immunity certificates, but argues there is a way to implement them consistent with the organization’s principles for digital ID. The paper, and the way it was announced, appear to be included in the conflict.

“We are grateful to Elizabeth Renieris for her service over the past year as a member of the ID2020 Technical Advisory Committee. We applaud and share her commitment to human rights in the context of digital identity. Her feedback has always been thoughtful and was particularly formative to the development of my recent white paper on ‘immunity certificates,’” Gruener wrote in a statement.

“We have been consistent in our assertion that technology must not be viewed as a panacea when it comes to addressing this pandemic. Technology solutions must be accompanied by robust, fit-for-purpose trust frameworks and legislative and regulatory actions to ensure their ethical implementation and transparency. These should be developed through an open and inclusive public process that includes elected officials, public health officials, technologists, employers, and social justice and digital privacy advocates.

“At every step, we have sought feedback from civil liberties and digital privacy groups to ensure that these considerations are not an afterthought, but rather are built into the technical architecture of any digital health certificate system.

“The stakes are high and we have one chance to get this right. Even with these safeguards in place, digital health certificates may still be insufficient to meet the current challenge. However, absent such safeguards, we can be assured that they will do more harm than good,” Gruener writes.