Introduction to Blockchain and Airport Operations in a COVID-19 Environment (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

28 SESSION 5  Privacy Concerns  Erich Dylus, Vedder Price, Moderator Presenters  Shannon Wu, Identity Review Jesse Leimgruber, Bloom Solomon Wong, InterVISTAS Consulting Thomas Plofchan, Pangiam This session included discussions on blockchain-related opportunities and concerns for airport and traveler data privacy. Erich Dylus stated that airports have unique privacy considerations that are further complicated by the recent focus on health data. In this context, privacy and minimal disclosure of data are paramount concerns. Dylus noted that blockchain technology permits personal and organizational control over data access and use, providing transparency where desired and private control elsewhere. Dylus added that public blockchain does not mean public data or information. There are still constructs through which privacy is preserved, such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), attestations, and self-sovereign identity (SSID), a paradigm under which the identity holder creates and controls his or her own identifiers. Blockchain could mitigate privacy risks in data storage and access. Decentralizing data avoids honeypot issues. Shannon Wu noted that the digital identification landscape has changed tremendously and is only being accelerated by COVID-19 considerations. Wu noted that it is paramount for systems to live securely online. Blockchain enables solutions for addressing privacy while also focusing on trends in the digital transformation space. Wu stated that much of the world is migrating online. Blockchain and SSID are emerging trends in the digital world, with the potential promise of mitigating liabilities around data hacks and allowing individuals to own their identities. Wu noted that healthcare, finance, and other industries are looking at digital identification solutions. She added that for the transportation industry to adapt to a post-pandemic world, there is a need for health passports and identification. Wu stated that the landscape is very fragmented and siloed. Traditionally, multiple organizations provide and are attesters of health information, and there are also identity infrastructure providers.

29 Wu stated that Identity Review is a consortium that is bringing together key stakeholders, including policy makers and public and private organizations. Identity Review’s media arm is a neutral body looking at global concerns around privacy, including emerging standards regarding consumer data. Wu noted that there have been significant changes in the regulatory landscape in recent years, including GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act. These are frameworks that are just starting to set the baseline for how to think about consumer data from a regional and global perspective. Wu noted that the topic of consumer data is a sensitive one. Honeypots of information are being stored, and the more sensitive the data are, the more at risk they are. Wu noted the importance of a robust technology, which is where blockchain comes in. Blockchain is a unique framework with the potential to protect privacy. Jesse Leimgruber stated that there is a massive domestic and international effort surrounding digital identification and privacy that involves standards bodies, testers, adopters of technology, data pools, governments, and login providers. He noted that everyone wants to work toward digital identity but that there is a great deal of fragmentation in the market. Verifiable immunity credentials is one of the biggest topics, but it is unclear whether it will ever become a reality. Leimgruber stated that digital immunity credentials would be electronically verifiable and could not be forged or transferred. Credential holders could maintain full ownership and control of their test results while being able to provide cryptographic proof of authenticity. Leimgruber noted identity verification is currently a major challenge in the transportation sector: Who would the verifier be, and what database would they look at for verification? With decentralized identification, there is no need for a verifier, as the verification proof rests in the individual’s device. Therefore, it is possible to prove the authenticity of a certificate without having to check a central database. Leimgruber noted that verifiable credentials also maintain privacy and can be shared remotely. Leimgruber noted the importance of portability. That is, an open-source verifiable credential should be interoperable between decentralized identity wallets. Leimgruber stated that several members of the Decentralized Identity Foundation are working on a standard and framework and that he is optimistic that a standard will emerge. Leimgruber stated that he is also working with the U.S. government on standards and that in 2020, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a taxonomic approach to understanding blockchain identity management systems.

30 Solomon Wong stated that his presentation would address the end customer and noted that nowhere is privacy more challenging than with the end user. There is a need to think about human behavior and anticipate it. Wong noted that the average consumer does not want to click through 20 screens of legal privacy policy before clicking “Accept.” There are multiple blockchain-based seamless travel initiatives under way, including from the United Nations, IATA, and other organizations. Wong noted that there are at least one billion individuals who do not have a basic identification document. Wong stated that the Known Traveller Digital Identity idea began in 2018 at the World Economic Forum and promises the ability for individuals to centralize their information (e.g., hotel loyalty program, information for border control). Wong noted that the vision is admirable but that execution is challenging, because it requires coordination across local, national, and foreign health authorities, airports, airport security, airlines, and other entities. He stated that when blockchain is affiliated with non-blockchain-related vulnerabilities, it creates noise in the system. Wong noted that there are 75 or more initiatives under way to gather information on air passengers, and that a health passport is far more complicated than HIPAA. At the core of the development effort, and beyond the scope of COVID-19 concerns alone, is the ability to use blockchain as a health verification tool for organizational (e.g., airport) employees. Complexities related to COVID-19 include who conducted the testing the individual claims to have had done, which vaccine the individual received, and more. Wong noted that the confidence level of using private information in the travel experience and understanding the level of track and trace needed are key aspects to this effort. Wong stated that there are three key directions on privacy: privacy by design, digital transparency, and products to limit attacks. Privacy by design has seven foundational principles that were adopted by global privacy commissioners in 2010 and was fundamental to the California Consumer Privacy Act, GDPR, and other implemented methodologies related to privacy. Wong stated that integrating privacy considerations from the outset is critical for government entities, solution developers, or an entity such as an airport or airline. Wong stated that with regard to the ability to learn from civil attacks related to issues of identity and vulnerability, the use of passports as a standard has only existed since the 1980s. Wong noted that ICAO’s DTC effort provides an opportunity for identity management but that it is also important to consider the mechanisms of how e-passports currently work in terms of being able to ascertain who is the issuer and what the protections are. Wong stated that it is important to be able to learn from 51% attacks (i.e., attacks on a blockchain network in which a single actor or group of actors gains control of

31 the majority of the network’s mining hash rate) and attempts to prevent network disruption. Wong noted that standardization (e.g., for signage, identity management, and communication) will be important. Thomas Plofchan stated that his organization has been working to bring blockchain to international trade and border states to make trade and travel more seamless and enable a better customer/passenger experience. The conversation around the trade-off between privacy and security without compromising civil liberties has been going on in different contexts for hundreds of years. Plofchan noted that travel needs to be both seamless and secure, and biometrics is integral to the idea of seamlessness. The use of biometrics allows for significant increased capabilities in terms of understanding who travelers are and where they are going. Plofchan stated that in a pandemic world, biometrics can help make travel more contactless. Data integration also enhances security and facilitation if biometrics can be used as the common denominator for verification and identification across multiple authorities. Plofchan stated that the future of data is self-sovereign, allowing the individual or entity to control who accesses and sees the data and provide informed consent to share or possibly even sell the data. Plofchan noted that this type of verification does not require maintenance or storage of personal information, just a verification based on, for example, facial capture. Plofchan noted that a central authority is a requisite in this application. Governments do not have the rights to pattern-of-life data, but they do have the responsibility to protect and verify identity, especially when crossing borders. The goal is to move away from a central database. Plofchan stated that use of some of these emerging technologies, especially biometrics, is challenging and creates concerns for law enforcement. He noted that there is a difference between verifying identification through emerging technology versus abusing technology to surveil and track. The application would be a one-to-one verification, matching identity to a face, not collecting data from millions of people across the country and trying to verify that someone was in a certain place at a certain time. A participant asked whether having a physical identification on a device was too close to having a microchip implanted on one’s body. Wu responded that, in reality, device

32 fingerprinting and digital identification have already happened. She noted that the most appealing part of public and private key cryptography is that no one can be forced to give up the key, unlike what happens now where individuals give up significant amounts of personal information without consent. Wu noted that the blockchain-backed technologies being discussed would not be a mechanism through which people had to give up data unwillingly. Wu stated that these efforts are being led by organizations that recognize the importance of protecting user data and that SSID allows for control over identity. Leimgruber stated that with privacy by design, the owner controls his or her private keys, and there is nothing a government or individual can do to force owners to give up their data. Wong stated that identity verification should not be confused with mass surveillance. A participant asked whether fraudulent identities could be created or if there were still opportunities for bad data. Leimgruber stated that stacking verifiable pieces of information, such as a government-issued identification or ownership of a phone number or e-mail address, helps to reduce the possibility of fraud. He noted that there is no way to prevent a single piece of fraudulent information from getting stacked into someone’s identity, but the stacking of credentials creates a better foundation. Plofchan stated that a version of biometrics increasingly is being used to validate state identification and that there are cutting-edge capabilities in verification, particularly for government documents. Wong stated that it is in the interest of multinational corporations to be part of the solution to ensure their employees are who they say they are. A participant asked for an example of a real-world application or potential application of blockchain that the presenters find exciting, related to privacy preservation or risk mitigation. Wu responded that while the pandemic has been a global tragedy, it is one of the most relevant use cases for this kind of technology to be implemented and underscores the need for it. The pandemic could drive more intense acceleration toward a more secure digital transformation process across public and private institutions. Leimgruber stated that the top use cases are coming out of banks and governments rolling out DID at the national scale. He noted that consumers are likely 5 years away from seeing those developments. On the user side, many use cases are happening in Bitcoin, which relies on identities and local storage. Wong stated that he is excited about the concept of touchless environments, which promises to propel new ideas, such as integrating identity management with interviews for border controls. There is potential for significant time saving and efficiencies.

33 Plofchan stated that one of the most powerful use cases that could be seen as operational in the trade and travel industry is movement of data in a ZKP manner (i.e., with no additional verification or information required). ZKP allows seamless movement between authorities, which guarantees security while improving the passenger experience.