The creation of a Personal Digital Identity (PDI) needs to be accompanied by a robust framework to safeguard individual autonomy and privacy in the digital landscape. To mitigate the risks associated with a centralised digital identity system, it is proposed that the control over these identities should not be monopolised by any single entity or institution. Instead, the management of PDI requires a framework that divides power between administrative governance and non-administrative business that affects a personal life. This division is crucial to prevent any form of authoritarian dominance over individuals through their digital identities.
A needed framework emphasises several vital principles that are based on two pillars: firstly, no individual or institution should hold authoritarian control over a person’s digital identification. Secondly, the sharing of digital identities should be strictly confined to business and administrative contexts only, barring any use in non-business sectors unless explicit consent is obtained from the individual. This ensures that personal data remains private and protected, empowering individuals over institutions.
The separation of powers is fundamental. Administrative authority should be limited, with its power not extending to dictate control over digital identities beyond their intended scope. Non-administrative entities, which encompass all aspects of life except essential government functions, should utilise digital identities strictly for their operational requirements. This design asserts personal sovereignty by mandating that a person’s information should only be accessed through their explicit consent, thereby safeguarding privacy rights and preventing potential digital oppression.
The framework stresses minimal interference from administrative powers into the private lives of citizens, reinforcing the idea that individuals maintain ownership rights over property and non-property goods. Administrative actions such as the confiscation of assets can only occur through a rigorous judicial process, ensuring that no individual’s rights are infringed upon without due legal procedures. Legislation regarding private property rights should not meddle in individual ownership without judicial intervention, suggesting a strong protection of personal rights in the face of governmental overreach.
Real-world applications of this management framework can be seen in countries like the United States, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, where ownership and administrative regulations respect individual rights. Such parallels help outline a practical guide for implementing a PDI concept that prioritises the individual. This stands against the encroachment of centralised digital control since it promotes the dystopian universal digital identity (UDI) pared with centralised managerial authority over individual identities.
The author further mentions a past proposal for a self-sovereign PDI based upon verifiable facts that are derived solely from a person’s existence, extending its scope to individuals irrespective of their socioeconomic or educational background, as well as being independent from any online activity of the person. This substance outlines the real humanistic nature of the personal identity that encompasses a secure and participatory identity model and identity controls that empower people while circumventing any opportunity for administrative abuses of power. The proposed model capitalises on emerging AI technologies that can administer PDI using a humanitarian approach.
The framework defines the sociopolitical environment, in which individuals are transformed from mere data sources to active participants in society. The focus thus shifts from how personal identity data is controlled to how individuals can manage their own identities in digital or other material forms. This paradigm not only offers increased security of personal activities but also promotes individual autonomy in a rapidly evolving digital space.
So, the environment where the PDI is the most efficient realises a model called DMM4PDI—Distributed Management Matrix for Personal Digital Identity. The model advocates that identification should be based on personal volition, asserting that individuals retain the right to maintain their identity free from undue external pressures, except when legally mandated by suspicion or jurisdictional authority. This perspective underscores a commitment to personal freedom within the realm of identity management.
The DMM4PDI introduces two orders for managing PDI: the Administrative Order (AO) and the Industrial Order (IO). The AO governs administrative matters, while the IO pertains to industrial and commercial interactions. These orders operate at distinct “matrix nodes” in society, where both orders must respect each other without overlap in authority. Generally, individuals should not be traceable through their PDI across these nodes, with police investigations being the only exception permitted under judicial oversight. The design seeks to prevent misuse of identity information while upholding privacy and personal sovereignty, thus creating a system that discourages totalitarian governance.
In the DMM4PDI, the potential for conflicts of interest between the AO and IO is transformed into the benefits for people. The interests rival for the personal well-being aspects and resolved via the people preferences that might vary across matrix nodes. Resulting inherent competition between regions for people living underscores the importance of aligning governance structures with personal preferences.
The model champions personal safety and privacy as fundamental principles, opposing totalitarian tendencies that might arise from administrative control over societal functions. It critiques leftists’ narratives about climate change and resource management, arguing against policies that heighten economic controls under the speculations on protecting unknown well-being needs of future generations. Such renditions are seen as political mechanisms attempting to exercise control and limit individual freedoms.
The DMM4PDI resonates with the premise that an efficient political system should accommodate diverse viewpoints through coalition-building rather than fostering conflict through a rigid party structure. The article posits that a multi-party landscape, capped at five to seven parties, is ideal for maintaining democratic stability while ensuring effective governance.
The author argues that the primary danger does not lie in the number of political factions but rather in sustained periods when a single party dominates, eliminating opportunities for meaningful resistance to wrongful governance. The erosion of constitutional rights and democratic integrity, suppression of dissent through cultural indoctrination in the education system, and potential nationalisation of assets are presented as risks associated with unchecked political power.
Ultimately, the DMM4PDI serves as a theoretical benchmark for achieving a balance between personal autonomy in identity management and the necessary governance structures that should respect individual rights. It insists on that administrative bodies should facilitate rather than control the well-being of society. The periodic democratic elections by qualified electorate guards against authoritarianism. A transparent competition of temporary cooperating individual interests withstands an option reflecting collective interests over the individual ones. In this vision, the essence of democracy—a participation valuing individual choices —is preserved, fostering an environment where people can thrive free from unwarranted surveillance or bureaucratic interference.
The DMM4PDI social system integrates aspects of economic capitalism, neo-economic capitalism, and stakeholder capitalism. It emphasises a framework combining individual liberty, minimal government intervention, and a utilitarian ethical approach with Kantian values. This model contends that while judicial power can impose necessary punitive measures for protecting personal freedoms, individual rights may be revoked upon a legal conviction. At the same time, the modus operandi of people is driven by the “Reciprocal Liberty” principle. This ensures that personal liberty does not infringe on the rights of others, striking a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Reciprocal liberty establishes conditions under which personal rights, particularly for convicted individuals, are fundamentally tied to the right to individual contributions and societal engagement. The proposal goes as far as returning rights only after individuals serve their punishments, which may include enforced labour. In terms of governance, the notion of democratic elections is redefined to necessitate tangible contributions to society as a prerequisite for voting, thus aiming to eliminate what is viewed as a culture of dependency.
The DMM4PDI outlines a specific labor model that encompasses various forms of employment strategies, supporting self-employment and wage opportunities, while also advocating for public investments subsidised by administration under the people control. The system allows freedom of labor choices but predicates continuous contributions towards communal welfare, with non-contributory individuals limited in their welfare access unless they demonstrate a genuine incapacity for work. The proposed model aims to create a marketplace where both individual freedoms and market dynamics interrelate, enhancing overall economic stability.
A philosophy of incentivised contributions serves to promote communal welfare, where individuals or corporations can bolster improvements in infrastructure and public service deliverance to minimise poverty. Thus, redundancies are minimised while overall societal enjoyment sees potential improvements through coactive participation in economical and social functions.
In addressing administrative roles, the DMM4PDI posits that governments should only handle functions essential for a well-being of individuals and should obtain explicit consent from people for investment in a group or society benefits. These functions include management of military and police forces, foreign affairs, infrastructure, as well as advisory regulations of essential services such as healthcare and educational systems, which remain subject to public scrutiny and challenge.
A significant concern is the misuse of AI technologies, which can create deceptively human-like but fabricated documents and media. To combat this, the DMM4PDI retains two techniques:
- setting legal obligations for AI creators to tag their outputs clearly, similar to copyright indicators. This marking is deemed essential to prevent forgery and allow for legal recourse against unmarked AI-generated materials.
- promoting a warning that trust in AI should be approached with skepticism, fostering a culture of verification among users as a principle of Zero Trust.
The importance of maintaining individual well-being stands firm against technological abuse, addressing potential disparities in resource allocation and societal detriment.
A critical question arises regarding the DMM4PDI’s divergence from Stakeholder Capitalism (SC), which often seems benevolent yet aims toward centralised control, universal digital identity, with all consequential risks for the person. The challenge here is determining who holds judicial authority – administration or people, as the DMM4PDI asserts that government control typically benefits those in power more than the general populace. The discussion critiques the implications of concepts like “cancel culture,” which exploits societal power dynamics to mute dissenting voices and limit information flow, further asserting that such practices endanger free expression rather than protect it. The DMM4PDI model contrasts sharply with the Net Zero initiative, which claims to address human-induced environmental impacts but is criticised as scientifically unfounded and harmful to economic stability. The model argues that regulations based on carbon footprints can lead to severe economic consequences for both people and businesses, suggesting that these measures serve the interests of administration and enable a dictatorship. This context fosters a culture of personal guilt and irrational environmental sacrifice among citizens.
In summary, the DMM4PDI proposes a multi-faceted approach integrating personal liberty with collective responsibility, promoting ethical governance structures, and advancing personal well-being through an economic model that supports competitive freedoms and legal responses to social challenges. Centralised UDI systems are viewed as potential gateways to authoritarianism. The DMM4PDI model seeks to reshape modern governance and economic practices, emphasising a duty toward both individual and collective prosperity.
HOW to ARCHITECT for DEVELOPERS 