Identities Project - Episode 1

Article 1 – Putting people first in the identity conversation

Who are you?

It’s a question we answer several times a day in order to access services, order goods, or join a community group. It is the gateway to operating in a formal society. For most of us, there is more than one answer: I am a mother and a sister; I am a teacher and a rider of the bus; I am a customer of this bank and that telecom company. And we each carry a collection of documents and artifacts to prove these identities, as needed.

When a low-income wage laborer takes his wife’s Ration Card to the Public Distribution System in India, he’s also presenting more than one identity to the bureaucrat behind the desk.

Some of those identities are not written on his documents, and some are even contextual, relative to the counterpart he faces across the desk; his name, his family role, and his socioeconomic status; whether he’s of the same caste, clan, or political community as the welfare distributor; whether he’s literate, confident, or disabled. These all become salient in different ways, both according to the specific nature of the interaction and the technological artifact being used.

Just as each person comprises a multitude of identities dependent on context, each new identity system involves a complex layering of new technologies over older ones. Today, systems are being designed and implemented across the world by governments and the private sector without the global standards to ensure those systems protect and empower the people that will use them — but these standards are coming. And as they emerge, our research aims to inform them with the real human experience of identity.

The World Bank estimates that more than one and a half billion people in developing countries do not have any form of legal identification. Global development actors are increasingly recognizing the fundamental need for identity in supporting progress out of poverty, but there is currently little research into the experiences of the people who would use those new systems. Of course, those perspectives are vital for avoiding unintended and unanticipated problems in adoption and implementation. This is reflected in the ten Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development jointly developed by fifteen global organizations led by the World Bank.

1.5bn+ People in developing countries do not have any form of legal identification

These ten principles put users at the heart of identity systems, from Inclusion — ensuring universal coverage and removing barriers to access; through Design — creating robust, interoperable and open standard platforms that protect user privacy, to Governance – safeguarding user rights, establishing clear institutional accountability and legal frameworks for user grievances.

Our research aims to help bridge this gap, both in India and across the wider world, by directly involving individuals — through consultation, research, and participation — so that emerging identity systems and technologies will deliver what users want and need to protect their privacy. Here’s one example of the tensions users experience between the demands of identity technologies and their expectations of privacy.

Identities, not identity.

The research will examine user experiences of identity technologies with impartiality, exploring their implications for individual agency over identity management, privacy, and dignity. The perspectives we’ll be hearing — and sharing with you — will be from individuals in India, but they will be relevant to the effective implementation of identity-based technologies for sustainable development across the world.

Here’s one example of the tensions users experience between the demands of identity technologies and their expectations of privacy. While many people have told us they don’t worry about the personal information in identity systems being shared with others, those with higher levels of education were more aware of the dangers.

– As one respondent argued:

– If a poor man’s ID like my ID is lost, it doesn’t matter that someone else, at the most, will get to know my address and where I live and come and find me.

– I have nothing to lose. I have no money

– Here’s another example, from one respondent with two names, on how challenging it is to reflect the fluidity of human identities in a single system or artifact:

– I was born and raised as Devi, [but] because the school refused to admit me, my father changed my name to Durgadas. It was an emergency situation, where my name had to be changed for me to get into a school.

– But he had not foreseen that it will be a problem in the future for a person with two names.

For Devi/Durgadas, control over his legal name has led to conflicts between his professional and personal identities. In a world where digital credentials are increasingly central to coordinating our lives as we move between different services, platforms, and devices, this kind of problem is a critical issue around which improperly considered identity systems can deny users agency and access.

Our research will emphasize the importance of the broader context of individuals’ identity experience, and of a holistic, deep view into how people use identity to engage with the institutions — financial, health, government — that matter most to them. We want to uncover issues of power, as well as the cultural dimensions that most consultative user experience and design efforts miss.

In short, we want to put people first — and to use this work to build practical, real technologies and services that will serve as the cornerstone of ethical and inclusive digital societies and economies.

Article 2 – How communities are solving problems with ID technologies

This was an interview with Ishmat Begum, a 45-year-old mother of three living in a small tenement near the Bengaluru bus station.

• Sarita: How many years back did you get the Aadhaar made?
• Ishmat: About four to five years.
• Sarita: At the time when you went to get the card made all
  those years back, how was it? Was it easy or difficult?
• Ishmat: The post office where we went to get it made was right opposite our home. A neighbor’s daughter used to work at the post office. She came and gave the cards to our place after it was done.
• Sarita: After how many days was that?
• Ishmat: About a month or so. She said, “here aunty, your Aadhaar has come. Here, take it.”

Yet, it could have been an interview with many of those we talked to. Almost everyone mentions getting an Aadhaar card because others are getting it, or because they feel that it is a necessity for the future. In Garudahalli, the rural research site two hours north of Bengaluru (the village name is a pseudonym chosen by the research team), we spoke to Jairam, a 60-year-old widower with no children. Jairam used to be a farmer, but because of the poor rains and failing crops he now owns a small cycle repair shop.

Sarita, our researcher, asks:

Sarita: “Why did you feel the need to get yourself an Aadhaar?”

Jairam: “I felt that the government will be doing something with it. Why would they make it necessary for people to get it? I did think, ‘Why should I go for it?’ But then I saw everyone around me going and getting an Aadhaar. So I said, ‘O.K., let me go and get it as well.’ Then we had gone to the Panchayat [village government] office here and got ourselves enrolled.”

Intermediaries (as Ishmat mentions) and confidence in numbers are critical. Shailaja, a domestic worker in Bengaluru, said of her experience getting an Aadhaar in her village:

Shailaja: “Everyone around us was saying that we should get an Aadhaar made. Even if every other ID goes missing, this is one ID that will be the most important of all. That everyone will ask for it.”

Sarita: “Who did you go with to get it made? Did you go alone?”

Shailaja: “There were lot of us who went together. Around 25 to 30 of us.”

Sarita: “How did you go?”

Shailaja: “We went in a tempo van. And after four months we got our Aadhaar cards.”

Almost everyone mentions getting an Aadhaar card because others are getting it, or because they feel that it is a necessity for the future.

AADHAAR TRANSACTION, BENGALURU

• We went to this depot and they said,
• ‘No. The names are not matching. Get your son here. I want to see.’
• It is so difficult to do that. Now from the past 6 months we have not been availing of the PDS services. I am an ailing person. Where will I go to this place and that to wait for hours and get a name change and a stamp?
• So I have left it.

What we rarely hear in this demographic is anyone enrolling directly on a one-to-one basis in an Aadhaar enrollment center.

When we went to research in the enrollment center in Bengaluru, we found it confusing, with staff that looked busy and harassed. This could be why bystanders ask each other for help — particularly those who are less literate — requesting that others either sign (as a guarantor) or fill in the form on their behalf. Most of those we spoke to had taken a half day or more off from work to spend time in line waiting for the Aadhaar.

While enrolling might be easy (in our initial 60 interviews, we did not hear of any major challenges), what seems to be a lot harder is if one tries to change any of the details, or in some other way encounters problems with bureaucracy. In that case, many of those we spoke to have ended up either going back to a trusted intermediary (e.g., in their own village) or simply giving up. Returning to Ishmat’s experience, she said:

“Now what happened three months ago is that my son’s name is different in the Aadhaar card as compared to the ration shop. Now they are asking us to get the Aadhaar card. If I get it rectified, then it is another one month in Bengaluru One (the state government’s collection center for most citizen-togovernment transactions) and more struggles up and down. So I have left it. We used to have that (subsidized) ration before. Now with this discrepancy of names in the cards, we are not even able to avail of the service. We just go to the shop now and buy one kilogram of whatever we want and consume that.

We went to this depot and they said, ‘No. The names are not matching. Get your son here. I want to see.’ It is so difficult to do that. Now from the past 6 months we have not been availing of the PDS services. I am an ailing person. Where will I go to this place and that to wait for hours and get a name change and a stamp? So I have left it.”

Article 3 – Stakeholders tell us why listening to users in key

This research project is focused on the perceptions and experiences of people who use new identity services and technologies, and we’ll be bringing you those perspectives over the next several months. To complement the perspective of end users, we also spoke to the stakeholders involved in rolling out new identity policies, products, and programs around the world about user focused research and design.

SUMESH, MEMBER OF STAFF AGRO COOPERATIVE OUTLET, GARUDAHALLI 2017

• “Individuals are end-users of identification systems, as they require proof of identity to access rights and services.”
• “It’s much better if [identity services are] participative, mutually respectful, and provide clear means of recourse. If services are driven by the people for people then the involvement is of a different kind.”

Some of these stakeholders are working for government bodies, others for the private sector; they work with technologies from mobile payments systems to social media to blockchains. Some of their projects are state-led and centralized, while others are private sector-led and decentralized. Yet everyone agrees that user perspectives and stories are missing from our ways of building identity technologies.

These missing stories come in a number of different forms, too. Sometimes they’re about technological literacy, sometimes demands for privacy, or sometimes the need to be mindful of including the vulnerable. In short, people are made up of multiple, diverse identities, and what individuals need from identity technologies is a diverse, flexible set of functions.

People are made up of multiple, diverse identities, and what individuals need from identity technologies is a diverse, flexible set of functions.

Here are the six key themes we’ve distilled from our conversations so far:

1. Adoption rates are no guarantee of effective use.

Nearly all of the stakeholders we spoke to — particularly those from the research and private sector communities — were interested in making sure that people both understood why new identity systems were worth signing up for, and how to use them properly. (Microsoft Research India, for example, told us about how useful this can be to improving service and technology design.) Users must not only be able to read and write the language, but also understand how to operate and interact with the technology. That
means there can’t be just one approach to improving user literacy.

2. Privacy expectations are contextual, but important.

Similarly, the majority of people from every sector saw user-focused research as the way to understand exactly what people want in terms of privacy from their new technologies, particularly in identifying the current baseline of most people’s privacy knowledge and how much they trust technologies that are opaque in function. One representative from a privacy NGO made it clear that “informed consent” is necessary, especially in situations where people aren’t going to be well-informed about the implications of handing over their personal information to others. Those from the private sector worried that poor understanding of privacy could spell problems in the future for other services, as one representative of a financial services provider argued with regard to Aadhaar.

3. Understanding users beyond citizens and consumers.

Right now, the traditional identity technologies “user” is an individual person, an end consumer, or beneficiary; but, as one academic suggested, institutions such as local governments and service providers could also be understood as “users.” The people in these institutions, “frontline bureaucrats,” have been key players in developing new identity technologies over the years. They’re the ones who are on the frontline, implementing new technologies. Missing out on their experience is a huge error, which is why we’ll be including their stories in our stakeholder interviews.

4. People rely on intermediaries to use complex systems.

As one interviewee from a technology research institution in Bengaluru described it, intermediaries play an important role in “shaping how users perceive technologies and services, as well as how they use them.” Hiring middlemen to handle bureaucratic paperwork and queueing is common in many countries. Including these intermediaries will give us useful insights into both the roles they play in linking technologies and users, and how best to encourage them to support the adoption of specific new technologies. There are cases, such as middlemen helping users with poor literacy, where more study will be valuable.

5. Empathizing with vulnerability to mitigate marginalization.

Another argument for a user-centered approach our interviewees cited was its assurance that marginalized communities aren’t forgotten. This means acknowledging and designing for the needs of gender, religion, or caste, for example. Journalists and campaigning NGOs often highlight how the rollout of new technologies can lead to inadvertent reinforcement of systemic discrimination and exclusion, especially when diverse user needs are not considered early in the design phase. Our interviewees from every sector stressed how important it is to anticipate who gets to use new systems, who gets left behind, and why, in order to preempt such exclusion from the outset.

6. There is no one system to rule them all.

Finally, and above all, many of the stakeholders we spoke to were clear: You can’t just copy and paste identity systems from one place to another and expect them to work, in whole or in part. One stakeholder from an international development organization pointed out an example from another field: how the wholesale adoption of electoral technologies designed for Western, technocratic societies into developing countries causes systemic failures, because things like literacy or electricity are taken for granted in places where their presence cannot be assumed.

This is the essence of the people-centered approach we’re using for this research project. In research, design, and implementation, it can help ensure that policies and programs are designed to meet the needs and interests of the people who actually stand to use and benefit from them.