Is the lack of individual knowledge of citizens a good rule ?

Context

Computer technologies allow for processing information while minimizing knowledge storage. On the other hand, knowledge is a source of power, and governance, even when distributed, is a source of power. However, knowledge about individuals is a source of power over these individuals.

Question

Is minimizing the governance’s individual knowledge about citizens a good thing ?

Preliminary Note

This study does not claim to be comprehensive or to present the best solutions; it is merely a quick preliminary study.

Study

Advantages

Resilience

The individual knowledge of citizens is data that needs to be protected, so if it doesn’t exist, it is one less vulnerability.

Individual Freedom

Citizens no longer face a powerful system (and currently often unjust) that has all the means (including information) to coerce individuals. Only judgments can impose constraints, and since these are decentralized and focused on the long-term common good, everyone is encouraged to improve the system and reduce the injustices they observe.

Collective Freedom

The preliminary study on organizational resilience shows that the less data governance has, the easier it is to create alternative governance. In some cases, a single governance system is a great advantage (for example, in a given territory), but in other cases, having multiple systems is a wealth, as it allows for diversity and experimentation. It would be enough for blockchains to recognize different governance systems, making this fairly simple to achieve.

Disadvantage

Computational Complexity

The complexity is much greater than in a centralized system. However, computing is increasingly decentralized (e.g., serverless) for a good reason: resilience and adaptability.

Dependence on Technology

Although we are already completely dependent (road and rail traffic, money, supermarket checkouts, etc.), the system adds even more dependence. However, governance based on the long-term common good is far more foresighted than the current system, and it is possible to add safeguards, such as scriptural money in a different currency that can be used only in case of a technical crash. It is also possible to plan an emergency organization without computers. Thus, we would ultimately have much greater security.

Technical Feasibility

Note: We are now delving into quite advanced technical details that users would not need to understand.

Linking Data to Individuals

A common aspect of technology is the dependence on passwords. For example, people have lost large sums of money due to a lost password. Therefore, one might think that using technology would leave individuals completely helpless if their passwords were lost or stolen.

However, there are techniques or technologies to free oneself from this Damocles sword. For instance, one could use a large set of biometric data (iris, fingerprint, etc.) with a system of error tolerance (for example, if one has lost their hands) in order to reliably associate an electronic keychain with an individual. Additionally, this knowledge (keychain and biometric data) can be stored so that it is not exploitable elsewhere.

Example of Property Title

One might think that an administration is forced to know who owns private land because it manages these rights.

Transfer of Property

This is somewhat similar to zero-knowledge proof blockchains like Zcash.

Judicial Conflict

Proof of Non-Existence

Suppose someone wants to prove that they do not own any land. For this, it is necessary to aggregate the multitude of avatars into a single individual. For example, there could be a blockchain of individuals’ avatar keychains so that people are obliged to use this blockchain in order to use an avatar. The data is encrypted so that only the holder has access to their keychain. However, they have the ability to prove truths about their avatars without providing all the information about them. Proving that one does not own land would consist of proving that all their avatars are not the owners of any existing land. Of course, this is tedious, but proofs of non-existence are often the most difficult.

Proof of Desired Existence

The individual simply needs to present a form of digital certificate proving this existence (such as a property certificate).

Proof of Feared Existence

See proof of non-existence; the technique is similar except that the individual does not want to do it. One could then either compel the individual to authorize this proof or grant judges the right in certain circumstances (for example, if the person is involved in the case) to trigger the proof.

Constraint on the Individual

Suppose the judgment is to compel a guilty party to pay a sum. The avatar blockchain described above would contain the list of the individual’s accounts since an account is a form of avatar. A list of judgments could be consulted so that even if the monetary blockchain does not provide public accounts, it would be possible to block/withhold a percentage of transactions until the person pays. This implies that blockchains cooperate with governance. This is totally in line with the spirit of blockchains, which is decentralization for the common good, but it is difficult to see currently given our strong habit of injustice and protection against the arbitrariness of centralized power. Of course, as with any decent judicial system, there would be protections against judicial errors.

Police Investigation

Every society sometimes needs to know who did what (rape, etc.). However, an investigation requires knowledge (such as linking a person’s photo to an identity, an identity to a usual place of residence, or having a history of previous offenses to link a crime profile to individuals).

Need for Interaction

An administration may need to contact the owner, for example, to exercise a right of preemption. However, it is quite possible to have a system where the administration sends an encrypted message with the owner’s public key, so everyone can read the message, but only the owner can decrypt it. They could be informed that a message is intended for them by following a sort of blockchain of messages to owners.

Response

The quick preliminary study shows that a zero-knowledge governance of individual citizens seems like a very good principle.