Two Years On
Two Years On: Have I Changed My Mind? In conversation with Nirmal Singh on Perth Dialogues.
It's been roughly two years since I published Citizen One: The Case Against Digital Identity.
When I began writing it, I wanted to examine something I believed was being dangerously overlooked: the relationship between identity, technology and institutional power.
Since then, digital identity has continued to evolve, new regulations have emerged, and the public debate has become increasingly relevant to everyday life.
But have my own views changed?
Nirmal Singh put that question to me during a wide-ranging conversation on Perth Dialogues, alongside some thoughtful challenges to the arguments I made in the book.
We discussed the case for digital identity, its potential benefits, the difference between convenience and freedom, and whether technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs could offer better alternatives.
We also explored the history behind Citizen One, including my family's experiences in wartime Europe and why those stories influenced my decision to write it.
Perhaps the most important question remains the simplest:
Are we building systems that serve individuals, or systems that increasingly determine what individuals are permitted to do?
Watch the conversation.
Two years after Citizen One.
When Nirmal asked whether, two years on, I'd been overly concerned about developments that hadn't materialised, it was a fair question.
My approach to discussing these issues has become more measured, but the underlying concerns haven't gone away. If anything, the continued expansion of digital identification into everyday transactions has made the questions raised in Citizen One more relevant.
As I told Nirmal, I deliberately wrote the book to challenge a debate that I felt was missing something fundamental:
“I've certainly tried [...] to grab people by the emotional strings and shake them a little bit because I think that was almost entirely absent from the debate on this topic.”
Two years on, I remain convinced that the warning was worth making.
Writing the book was never intended to be the end of the conversation. It was my contribution to a much larger discussion about the kinds of systems we choose to build and the society we leave behind.
This interview is an opportunity to revisit those ideas, challenge some assumptions, and consider how the landscape has developed since publication.
If you're new to my work, Citizen One provides the fuller argument, including the history, technology and human consequences behind the debate.
You can also listen to the opening audiobook chapters free.