Proposal: I would like to propose changing the ConcordiaBot to use a indirect proof when it verifies that people are verified it could state that “The person is verified” without disclosing their name and telegram id.
Why: It would help to make the use case better by adding in privacy by design considerations.
Objective: Ensuring that personal data is not used in disclosure logics.
Complexity: It is a simple change.
Which of the two sentences do you propose to change:
format!("{mention} is verified with Concordia.");
or
format!("\n- Real name: {full_name}"));
You can already prevent Concordia bot from revealing your full_name by explicitly not selecting the full_name verification.
Hi @Doris
That is the one; {full_name} should be changed to “The Users Name has been Verified” or similar.
Its a simple change; but not disclosing the full name in public ensures that the associated risk is removed.
We have many cases today where it has been found that the requirement for disclosing the full name can not be supported under agreement law nor under consent, as there is no purpose that is defendable in a public demo, and that counts both towards collecting, storing and disclosing the data in reality, but the prime focus in this case would be to change the sentence to indirectly confirm the user is verified without disclosing the full name.
Similar cases can also be found in the use of CC in newsletters and mailing lists that discloses peoples full name; they have signed up for the list themselves; but its is the organization collecting the data that has the responsibility to not disclose the information submitted by the user in public; without due reason.
1 more small note i do not recall if you utilize the Alias or the real ID for Discord or Telegram; but the Alias is the function that protects the user from direct messages and being added directly; if so changing to Alias is also recommended.
It seems like ConcordiaBot was designed to let user voluntarily expose their real name on social media.
The question is: why was it designed that way? Is there any benefit to derive from revealing that data in a public?
Technically its not allowed for the purpose of a demo; so you do not even get to ask that question; you need a real purpose for doing it.
PS. under GDPR, there are many different privacy and data protection laws and many of them now challenges the old ways, but under GDPR there is no doubt; you need a legal purpose to collect, store or disclose the personal data, especially under PI/PII and can not disclose it without due purpose and under the current privacy laws and legislation there is no due purpose in a demo.
Let me clarify: The user is allowed to reveal the data themselves directly i.e. from their wallet, but as a 3rd party you are not allowed to disclose it on their behalf; and especially when it comes to cross-border compliance; disclosing the data in a public telegram channel as an example discloses the full name in many different privacy jurisdictions and for each the degree of potential risk variates.
It is the same problem we see today where companies doing criminal background checks are no longer allowed to collect, store or disclose the personal information to 3rd party outside the border of EU, or in the case of VN were i reside the Data Protection Law from last year imposes the same restriction; the result is that the past 5-6 months criminal background checks between VN and EU has stopped.
So not taking GDPR into account (there might be a point to be made here), the purpose of Concordia is to transfer trust from one platform to another, i.e.:
Some person on telegram claims he is this user from discord (or this person in real life, hence the real name option). Concordia utilises verifiable credentials issued to a users Concordium wallet, which are used to prove ownership over the accounts (or an ID with the real name) in question.
Stating “The users name has been verified” doesn’t provide any value as far as I see it?
If it was for a real use case; and you could argue and defend the disclosure of the full name; it could be legal under the right circumstances, but again remember there is no universal privacy laws, it is different in each market/country that has a different law.
But as its for a demo of Web3 ID you can not argue any due reason for doing it.
Telegram is full of scammers and the example demo is revealing peoples full Telegram ID (you can now call them) and their full name including middle names etc. which is now publicly known, so instead of verifying that people are legit it becomes a disclosure mechanism leading to expanded risk for the community.
There just is no justification for doing that.
If you changed to private confirmation that the user you requested is X on Discord and Y on telegram is the same person; you can state “Yes Alias on Telegram is also Alias on Discord” then we know its the same person; but we do really not need their full telegram id, discord id and full legal name to confirm that, nor do we need to post it in public to 21000+ users in the channel when its only 1 person who is requesting the verification.
We are open to a better demo that has the same capabilities in showcasing the web3id infrastructure and how web3id and real-world identities can work/interact in the wallets via ZK proof generation. Feel free to work on a better demo and present it.
@Doris i wont have any time for a demo at all in the near future, we are working on Web3 ID for AesirX Shield of Privacy.
But i think the call is right to remove the public disclose of the full name as a minimum; taking the demo down is more important then disclosing the full name in public, as a compliance blockchain i do not think its advisable to leave the demo online in its current form.
Also to confirm a user is Alias X on Discord and Alias Y on Telegram you do not need to disclose their full name.
People on Discord and Telegram very really use their real names and even more rarely their full names due to privacy considerations.
In the demo of Web3 ID to use it to store and correlate 2 IDs across different social medias you do not need to include the full name for the demo to make sense, it is still a valid demo that links the Telegram user to the Discord user and verifies this.
