Hello.
Thank you very much for joining me today.
Welcome to Four Remembrance 2024 on this 81st anniversary of the attempt by the World War II Dutch Resistance to destroy identity records held by the Nazis.
We commemorate their sacrifice, but we must also remember forward a full remembrance to prevent this tragedy from happening again.
The story of full remembrance begins solemnly in the Netherlands where 104,000 Jews, which was 75% of the Jewish population, fell victim to the Holocaust, this in a country known for its tolerance.
Meanwhile in France, it offers a very different story.
Only 23% of its Jewish population succumbed to Nazi atrocities.
Paradoxically, as compared to the Netherlands, France was well known for anti-Semitism.
What made for this huge difference?
Sadly, it was how each country dealt with the topic of identity.
That is part of what we are remembering today.
Our identity created a tragedy in World War II.
Our identity is used and misused, and how to avoid future tragedies in our identity systems today, even those emerging from self-sovereign identity.
So in the Netherlands, a civil functionary named Jacobus Lentz was developing early personal identity systems.
He wanted to create a paper man, so eagerly expanded identification in the country.
Previously considered an "undutch idea" when the Nazis asked him to produce unalterable and unforgeable national identity cards, he acted with zeal.
The Netherlands census of 1941 then required identity cards of Jewish citizens to be marked with a big J.
The resistance in Amsterdam, led by counterfeiter and openly gay activist William Arandius, recognized the existential danger of Lentz's records.
After a sunset on March 27, 1943, they launched an attack on the civil registry in Amsterdam in order to try to destroy the records.
This four-remembrance day commemorates the bravery of their attempt to turn identity back from the edge.
But unfortunately, their efforts only had limited success.
Eighty-five percent of the identity records were recovered.
Thus, by the end of World War II, 75% of the Jews in the Netherlands died in the Holocaust.
So just how much difference can a single person make?
That answer lies with René Carmille, who was in a similar leadership position to Lentz, but in Vichy, France.
His work started with data to be used for army conscription, but he eventually was asked by the Nazis to produce a full census of France, including questions on religion that had been previously avoided for the past 70 years.
On top of that, Carmille was one of the pioneers in the use of early tabulating machines, which could record data on punch cards and then read them.
This was more than just recording identity on paper, it was identity that was accessible, duplicatable, and reusable.
When Carmille arranged to record religion on column 11 of the census cards, the Jewish population of France was endangered.
Except Lentz actually recognized the dangers of identity.
He saw the threat.
He hid over 100,000 census cards about French Jews and even programmed his machines to never punch column 11.
Many Jews still died in France, but Lentz's understanding of how data could be weaponized saved many more.
Lentz and Carmille demonstrated very different attitudes toward identity and took different paths.
Lentz saw it as a useful tool for the civil service of the Netherlands and collected everything he could.
Carmille recognized its dangers and practiced data minimization.
This was one of the major reasons that so many more Jews died under Lentz in the Netherlands as compared to lesser numbers under Carmille in France.
Beyond the Nazi death tolls, there were consequences for these two identity architects.
Carmille's protection of identity was discovered by the Nazis, leading to his arrest and torture in 1944 and then his death in Dachau in 1945.
Meanwhile, Lentz faced the consequences of his actions in May of 1945 when the Netherlands government arrested him and eventually sentenced him to three years in prison.
Identity is literally life and death.
The actions and fate of Lentz and Carmille underline that fact.
So how do we today keep digital identity from repeating this tragedy?
Even given the presumably safer self-sovereign identity systems that I advocate for, how can we be Carmille and not Lentz?
To start off with, we should be aware that there are two major methodologies for the creation of self-sovereign identity.
There's legally enabled self-sovereign identity, aka less identity, which is still focused on the needs of the state.
Unlike more centralized identity systems, less identity systems offer more individual control and support some minimum disclosure.
But still, less identity is tied closely to real-world verification, for instance for KYC.
But less identity is not the only path.
Trustless identity, or more properly, trust minimized identity is instead focused on defending human rights against powerful actors, and thus supports full anonymity and peer-to-peer verification.
We must use the right tools for the right tasks to minimize situations where identity can turn deadly.
But in any identity system, self-sovereign or not, we need to have mindful design.
Identity systems need to support data minimization, where information is only recorded or transported when it is absolutely required.
It needs to support encryption when more sensitive data needs to be retained.
It needs to allow holders of sensitive information to remove any part of the data and still allow for proofs of that data to be done later.
Thus, a knowledgeable recipient on the other side who has the rights to the information can put things back together, but no one else.
Any digital identity system needs to be created with privacy and human rights in mind from the start.
A few final lessons from Lance and Carmille.
First, we never know who might have access to the data tomorrow.
It's irrelevant if you trust the holders now, because today's trusted government, say, in Holland, might become tomorrow's totalitarians.
Secondly, data and its usage will grow and expand.
It will continue to be collected, correlated, and maximized.
And thus, it will be used for purposes other than its original intent.
Lance had the best intentions originally.
He was helping to manage the distribution of resources during the Great Depression.
But ultimately, due to his choices, over 100,000 Jews in the Netherlands died, in part due to his data collection.
So now the sun is setting in Amsterdam.
Let's take a moment of silence to remember those who were lost.
Thank you.
[ Silence ] [ Pause ] >> Thank you for joining me today in this forward remembrance commemoration.
For the future of digital identity lies in our hands.
It is our responsibility to ensure we don't repeat the tragedies of the past and to ensure the future is a safe one.
If you would like to know more about Wents and Carmiel, I have an introduction to the topic and my post on Echoes of History.
I hope to write a book on this topic someday.
My name is Christopher Allen and here is my contact information.
This event was hosted by Blockchain Commons, which advocates for the creation of open, interoperable, secure and compassionate digital infrastructure to enable people to control their own digital destiny and to maintain their human dignity online.
I would love to have your thoughts.
What do you think about modern identity in the view of these past mistakes?
Please post these questions as replies to my post on x.com or use the hashtag #ForRemembrance and I will answer them over the course of the day.
Meanwhile, you are welcome to join me in Zoom for the next hour if you would like to discuss further the future of digital identity privacy and human rights.
Thank you and good night.
Again, thank you for joining me tonight for this For Remembrance.
[ Silence ]