The increasing trend among governmental and corporate entities to conceptualize and manage human identity as a product, a tradable and manageable asset, is fundamentally flawed. This paper argues that such an approach is not only morally problematic, undermining human dignity and autonomy, but also technically unsound, failing to capture the inherent complexity and dynamism of identity. We will explore these deficiencies and suggest a shift towards more ethical and robust frameworks.
Introduction: The Allure of Identity-as-a-Product
In our data-driven economy, the temptation to package human identity into a neat, manageable "product" is understandable. For corporations, it promises streamlined customer relationship management, targeted marketing, and new revenue streams. For governments, it offers simplified citizen services, enhanced security, and efficient administration (Agre, 1994). The language is telling: identity "solutions," identity "marketplaces," and "monetizing" identity data. However, this paradigm, while pragmatically appealing, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of identity itself.
The Moral Minefield: Identity is Not a Widget
To treat identity as a product is to reduce a fundamental aspect of human personhood to a mere commodity. This raises profound ethical concerns:
- Inherent Dignity and Autonomy: Identity is intrinsically linked to our sense of self, our dignity, and our autonomy. It is not something external to be bought, sold, or controlled by third parties. As Shoshana Zuboff (2019) argues in "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," the claiming of human experience as raw material for data extraction and productization is an affront to human freedom. To productize identity is to cede control over a core component of self-determination.
- Right to Exist, Not a Privilege to be Purchased: Access to societal functions – healthcare, finance, civic participation – often hinges on recognized identity. If identity is a product, it implies that those who cannot "afford" it, or who do not fit the prescribed "product specifications," risk exclusion. This creates a two-tiered system where personhood itself becomes conditional (Lyon, 2009).
- The Peril of Performativity: When identity is framed as a product to be managed and presented, individuals may be coerced into performing their identities in ways that conform to the system's expectations, rather than expressing their authentic selves. This has implications for freedom of expression and the richness of human diversity.
The Technical Tightrope: Why Identity Defies Product Specs
Beyond the moral arguments, the technical practicalities of "productizing" identity are fraught with complexity and inherent limitations:
- Dynamic and Contextual, Not Static: Human identity is not a fixed dataset. It is fluid, evolving, and highly contextual. The "me" at work is different from the "me" with family, which is different again from the "me" engaging in a hobby. A product, by definition, has relatively stable attributes. Trying to force the multifaceted nature of identity into a rigid product schema inevitably leads to an incomplete and often inaccurate representation (Cameron, 2005, "The Laws of Identity").
- The Problem of "Ground Truth": Who defines the "authoritative" version of an identity product? Relying on single-source issuers (governments, corporations) creates central points of failure and control. What happens when these "products" contain errors, are outdated, or are maliciously altered? The consequences can be devastating for the individual.
- Security and Fragmentation: While proponents argue that identity products can enhance security, they often create new vulnerabilities. Centralized identity databases become attractive targets for hackers. Furthermore, a proliferation of proprietary identity "products" from different vendors can lead to a fragmented digital landscape, poor interoperability, and increased complexity for users who must manage multiple, incompatible identity "tokens."
- Verification vs. Identity: Often, what is being "productized" is not identity itself, but rather a set of verifiable credentials or attributes (e.g., "over 18," "licensed driver"). While these are useful, they are merely facets, not the entirety, of one's identity. Conflating the two is a dangerous oversimplification.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Identity
Identity is foundational to human existence and societal interaction. Attempting to shoehorn it into the mould of a commercial product does violence to its moral significance and misunderstands its technical complexities. We must resist this reductionist trend and instead champion frameworks that respect individual autonomy, embrace the multifaceted nature of selfhood, and place control over personal identity where it rightfully belongs: with the individual. The future of digital interaction depends on recognizing that identity is an experience to be lived, not a product to be traded.
