Ceros provides tools and services that empower companies to create interactive content with unparalleled ease and efficiency, driving customer engagement to new levels.

Ceros

Imagining a world less economically interconnected than our current one is challenging. Yet, three decades ago, global interactions were markedly different – companies engaged in significantly fewer cross-border payments and were predominantly focused on domestic endeavors. Fast forward to today’s borderless global economy reliant on international supply chains, remote workforces, and API-first tech stacks, and the siloed business models of yesteryear have nearly completed their relegation to obsolescence. With a persistent desire to increase the speed of processes across organizations and government agendas worldwide, there is a modern imperative to streamline cross-border payments to improve efficacy. However, fraud is the primary challenge contributing friction to the objective at hand. Two Aspects to Improve: Speed & Security The surge in cross-border payments, driven by trade, capital, and migration flows, is only expected to climb – with a reported __ __With such expected growth comes a need to improve the efficiency and speed of cross-border payments, as evidenced by conversations led by the European Union in recent times. $190 trillion in 2023 projected to reach $290 trillion by 2030. In October 2022, the European Commission introduced a legislative proposal aimed at enabling citizens with bank accounts in the European Economic Area to execute instant euro payments. Earlier this month, the legislation was officially passed, with banks and payment service providers now mandated to allow EU citizens and businesses to conduct nearly instantaneous credit transfers. Despite significant growth, cross-border payments remain expensive and sluggish with fees , and a timeframe that can take up to several days for payments to complete. Reducing the cost, speeding up the process, and enhancing the accessibility of cross-border payments would yield significant advantages, particularly in emerging and developing economies. averaging 1.5% for corporations, 6.3% for remittances The critical challenge for companies engaged in this field is to devise strategies that effectively balance the two aspects of speed and security; to serve customers' ideal desires of near-instantaneous payments that are completely secure. The Cross-Border Payments Fraud Problem Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. While only representing 11% of total card payment transactions, cross-border payments accounted for . Fraudsters are particularly drawn to cross-border payments because they can easily steal funds, often as a result of weak security measures. 63% of card fraud Most notably, the physical distance between the fraudsters and their victims significantly lowers the chances of the perpetrators being caught. Since victims have limited options for recourse after being defrauded, cross-border payments are frequently seen as the easiest opportunity for fraudsters to execute scams. How Fraud Undermines Trust Increasing fraud rates have the potential to erode trust in the security of cross-border payments, and a loss of faith in the security of these payments could lead to an eventual decline, diminishing the future viability of businesses dependent on an international marketplace. Victims of cross-border payment fraud are ensnared by an array of sophisticated tactics. In Account Takeover (ATO) fraud, perpetrators gain unauthorized access to victims' banking or digital wallet accounts, manipulating them for illicit transactions. Even within the broader fraud threat landscape, account takeovers are a growing problem, with an estimated 22% of adults in the US falling victim to this type of fraud in 2022. Another popular method is chargeback fraud, which involves deceitful transaction reversals, while stolen card fraud sees the unauthorized use of credit or debit card details for fraudulent purchases or withdrawals. While sometimes referred to as ‘friendly fraud,’ chargeback fraud can be far from pleasant and is growing at a rate of around 41% a year. Cross-border payments are also susceptible to fraudsters looking to commit money laundering. Money laundering intricately disguises the origins of illicit funds, complicating efforts to trace them back to criminal activities. Once again, this is a huge fraud problem generally. In fact, anti-money laundering fines were up 50% last year alone. Other forms of fraud affecting the cross-border payment process include BIN attacks, triangulation fraud, and Authorized Push Payment (APP). Together, these tactics not only inflict financial losses but can also severely damage victims’ credit history and erode trust in digital financial transactions across the board. New Ways to Address Old Problems The answer to addressing fraud in cross-border payments is to get proactive and stop the issue before it occurs. Unfortunately, traditional risk technologies have been expensive to develop, slow to implement, complex, and ultimately, unable to keep pace with evolving fraud trends. Thankfully, new solutions are now coming to the fore that offer significant improvements. Artificial intelligence (AI) advancements have opened new avenues to address these challenges. Through advanced digital footprinting and the power of machine learning, modern fraud prevention solutions that leverage AI can find the tell-tale signs of fraud that humans tend to miss and help to stop it in its tracks. For companies like SEON, the ability to enrich data is key to this effort. Without always realizing it, users regularly leave behind digital footprints on the sites they visit. By analyzing this information, solutions like ours can unlock the likelihood of an individual being fraudulent while simultaneously making other critical determinations around online accounts. Fraud prevention solutions that leverage AI have the potential to impart considerable new trust across the cross-border payment space. Whether it’s leveraging behavioral analysis techniques to spot anomalies in user behaviors that indicate account takeovers or utilizing transaction monitoring to spot any unusual transfers of funds, the technology could be transformative. Maintaining Trust In the context of cross-border money transfers, trust is paramount. Without maintaining this trust, the entire system risks being compromised. Embracing and integrating advanced technologies is not just about safeguarding funds; it is a crucial step in ensuring the integrity and reliability of the global financial system. Thus, adopting solutions utilizing AI, machine learning, and other state-of-the-art tools, like SEON, represents more than technological progress. More than ever, it's increasingly vital for companies and individuals undertaking this essential process to recognize their role in combating the growing threat of fraud. For more information about SEON, please visit: <https://seon.io/](https://seon.io/) Also published here

Combatting Cross-Border Payment Fraud: A Call to Action for Secure Transactions

Enhancing Cross-Chain Communication The goal of Photon is to solve the issues that are caused by interoperability by enabling decentralized apps (dApps) to communicate with one another in a seamless way across many blockchains. This is true independent of whether or not the blockchains in question are based on Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) architectures. This objective is accomplished by the company via the provision of high-speed communications services that connect more than 15 blockchains. Furthermore, the company has aspirations to grow this network even further in the year to come. Introduction to Photon's Cross-Chain Messaging A new breakthrough is likely to make it simpler for decentralized applications (dApps) to communicate with one another across various blockchain networks. This is due to the fact that blockchain technology is always experiencing advancements. Recent experiments have shown that the Photon cross-chain message that Entangle is developing, which will be made available along with the mainnet of Entangle, is the most efficient signaling protocol in the Web3 environment. The company's innovative approach to cross-chain communications was what made this significant improvement in communication possible. It is a new feature known as "transmitter Agents" that is at the heart of the Photon protocol's ability to minimize the amount of time it takes for blocks to be created and to make the transaction process move more smoothly. The Need for Speed and Efficiency There are a plethora of independent networks that make up the world of blockchain technology. Each of these networks operates under its own set of restrictions. The concept that the value of a smart contract is directly proportional to the degree of its communication capabilities is the philosophical foundation upon which Photon's design philosophy is founded. It is very necessary to have effective communication throughout the various chains in order to make full advantage of the potential offered by Web3 technologies. Enhanced user experiences and more decentralized application capabilities will be made possible as a result of this occurrence. Technical Insights The Transmitter Agent framework is responsible for the technological foundations of Photon's high-speed messaging. This framework makes use of a distributed network of agents to identify and propose cross-chain communications in a proactive manner. Through collaborative efforts, these agents are able to reach an agreement on the authenticity of messages, which enables them to swiftly finish transactions that include many chains. In order to maintain a flexible infrastructure that can accommodate the ever-changing nature of blockchain activities, Photon has implemented lightweight off-chain components and decreased the amount of time it takes for blocks to be generated. Furthermore, developers are granted the liberty to design their own unique consensus thresholds, which further optimizes the validation process in order to enable complicated processes and provide a wide range of functionality. Photon's strategy for ensuring fast and reliable transfers is predicated on the optimized design of the Transmitter Agents, which are strategically distributed to facilitate rapid event capture and proposal submission. This design choice allows for quicker consensus among Transmitter Agents and timely execution of cross-chain messages. Overview of Entangle With the goal of creating a data infrastructure that is entirely adaptive and interoperable, Entangle is a larger project that wants to attract both Web3 applications and existing organizations. The instant supply of photon is not the only thing that this effort does. Entangle's goal is to provide blockchain-based applications and ecosystems communication channels for smart contracts that are not only cost-effective but also secure, interoperable, and allow quick transmission. This will be accomplished via the use of Photon as the company's flagship protocol. There are a wide range of real-world data sources that might potentially be affected by such a data solution. These include, but are not limited to, financial markets, digital asset exchanges, sports, gaming, and a great lot of other examples. Through the provision of developers with the capacity to access and interact with a broad variety of permitted data, Entangle is marketing itself as a supplier of complete data solutions in the Web3 area. Entangle is making this effort as part of its overall strategy to strengthen its position in the industry. Conclusion Photon offers fast speeds, freedom, and security, which will help Web3 dApps reach more people and work better. Photon wants to speed up the creation of a blockchain network environment that is more connected and flexible. Entangle wants to make cross-chain DeFi easier and better for all users. This shows that it is committed to making decentralized technology better and easier to use. Adding these kinds of unique rules will change blockchain and the digital market as it grows. Don’t forget to like and share the story! Vested Interest Disclosure: This author is an independent contributor publishing via our brand-as-author program. Be it through direct compensation, media partnerships, or networking, the author has a vested interest in the company/ies mentioned in this story. HackerNoon has reviewed the report for quality, but the claims herein belong to the author. #DYOR

Cross-Chain Communication Hits Lightspeed with Entangle's Photon

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References 5. Discussion of Findings The limitations of the current interoperability solutions, that is, eIDAS and X-Road show that there is a plethora of issues and complexities, which are yet to be addressed to achieve interoperability at the foundational level of identity management. Country-specific legislation and vendor-locked systems in developing countries add to these complexities. From the findings, the main limitations of the current interoperability solutions can be summarised as follows: i. Each registry implements its interfaces independently based on the use of a proprietary protocol equivalent to the technology in use. This results in the implementation of new interfaces, sometimes from scratch for new or evolving services. ii. There are different trust levels based on the implemented security architecture for verifying the integrity and authenticity of the data. iii. Incompatible certification authorities arise from different trust levels and legal systems of the trust service providers. iv. Interoperability is based on the signing of bilateral agreements, which are non-trivial and can result in several discrepancies in regulations and policies. v. There is no provision that the network must be accessible to private entities and as such may build inter-government competition on trust services e.g., eIDAS. vi. There is differentiation in notified eID schemes and authentication mechanisms leading to re-identification for public services, healthcare, or financial transactions e.g., eIDAS. These limitations imply that the interoperability of identity systems requires open standards with strong legal, regulatory, and governance structures. Also, there must be mechanisms to mitigate risks to the security and privacy of identification data including consent considerations for data use or sharing by the ID holder as outlined in Alamillo et al. (2023) and Srinivas, Das and Kumar (2019). From the findings, developing countries must also make provisions for a single, consolidated, and standardized view of civil registrations and identification data that constitute a single source of truth. This will enhance the onboarding of citizens and create a robust verification and validation process that does not require several levels of authentication that may increase the overhead of the identity system. Additionally, findings showed that the standardization of the structure and attributes of identity data such as name, date of birth, email, and several other relevant attributes to conform with the W3C recommendation should be a key consideration for interoperability. Enforcing the unicity and singularity of identification data will also ensure that ID holders do not have multiple identities that can hamper interoperability. Similarly, to enable the secure exchange of data or identity assertions, it was also found that developing countries must establish trust relationships through federation protocols that can foster interoperability. Interoperability portrays tremendous benefits to e-Government. We found that interoperability widens the dimensions of e-Government in cross-border identity management and data services. It also helps to provide open and accessible digital public services including systems and processes that allow people to move freely within the developing countries while also utilising public services outside their country of origin. Interoperability also helps to create sustainability, and economies of scale as demonstrated by X-Road and eIDAS (Hoffmann and Solarte-Vasquez, 2022; McBride et al., 2019; Schmidt and Krimmer, 2022). We found that while X-Road provides trustworthy data exchange using security servers that allow its members to communicate directly, it does not perform the verification and validation of the identification data that is part of the data exchange. There are also concerns about the limited amount of notified eID schemes under eIDAS, which builds on the limited scope of the eID schemes and the lack of relevant public services. These concerns underpin the need for the review of these interoperability solutions to underscore the notion of cross-border verification and validation of identification data for seamless data exchange. Building on the evidence from various sources as discussed in the Literature, an architecture for trustworthy cross-border interoperability is proposed in this work. This architecture is represented in Figure 4. From Figure 4, each citizen or prospective ID holder undergoes identity enrolment, which can include civil registration through online or offline capture procedures. The enrolment of the citizen is based on regulations and standards of the foundational identity system of the issuing country represented in Figure 4 as 𝑁𝐼𝐷𝑆௫. At the issuance of the ID credential, the citizen or ID holder presents such a document for establishing and proofing his/her identity to a requesting service provider, identity provider or relying party. Authentication and authorisation services are then used to complete the identity proofing process to allow an ID holder access to a service or resource at the point of access. In a cross-border use case, where a foundational identity system 𝑁𝐼𝐷𝑆௫ communicates with another system, say, in a federated identity ecosystem 𝐹𝑒𝑑ூ஽, or where an ID holder 𝑈ூ஽ requests for a service from the latter, then the processes of verifying and validating the identity of 𝑈ூ஽ should be an integral component of an interoperable identity system unlike in X-Road where such processes are the functions of the service provider/consumer. Verification and validation ensure that the claimed identity is true and belongs to the claimant at the time of the request and throughout service delivery. To achieve this, there is the need to have a trustworthy link that considers the representation of the data, semantics, binding, and the security and privacy of the identification data of 𝑈ூ஽. The relevance of the trust link at the interoperable layer is to ensure that the identity data as well as the requested resource or service maintains its integrity, security, privacy, and confidentiality throughout data exchange. We propose that the representation of the identification data must be data format agnostic as obtainable in X-Road using simple object access protocol (SOAP) and representational state transfer (REST) (Halili and Ramadani, 2018; Krimmer et al., 2021; Priisalu and Ottis, 2017). Also, the representation of credentials on the Web should be in a way that is machineverifiable, private, and cryptographically secure. The semantic interpretation of ID credentials must be unambiguous. That is, verifying credentials and presentations and cryptographically securing them both require predictable, bi-directional, and lossless processes. To be processed in an interoperable manner, any verification of a credential or presentation must be deterministic. The resulting credential or presentation must be semantically and syntactically equivalent to the original construct (Sedlmeir et al., 2021; W3C Recommendation, 2022). Likewise, each verified credential of 𝑈ூ஽ must be bound to its identity to a given level of assurance. This establishes an unbreakable link between the subject (𝑈ூ஽) and the credential to enforce identity disambiguation. Binding is relevant for the verification and validation of the claimed identity at cross-border entry/exit points. Finally, the security and privacy of the identification data are significant as it forms the integral component of the required trustworthiness for interoperability. There are several approaches for implementing the security and privacy of identification data such as the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS), Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), authentication keys, etc. (for security), secure computation mechanisms, trusted third party, differential privacy, etc. (for privacy) (Grassi, Garcia and Fenton, 2017; Kaaniche, Laurent and Belguith, 2020). We posit that the use of secure computation mechanisms, data minimisation, and differential privacy in a cross-border context can fulfil the required privacy requirements due to the multifaceted risks associated with the exchange of data between interoperating entities. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

A Trustworthy Cross-Border Interoperable Identity System: What Our Findings Mean

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References 4. Methodology To underscore the importance of interoperability in developing countries, an investigation and comparison of current interoperability solutions in the identity ecosystem was performed. This investigation identified the current limitations of existing solutions and provided the basis for our findings, which are relevant to achieving interoperability for foundational identity systems in developing nations. As a guide, we have presented an approach for the investigation of requirements in Figure 2. The approach in Figure 2 is an easy stepwise guide. The steps include: i) Identify key processes against which baseline requirements should be derived: these processes are already identified in this work. ii) Define common interoperability criteria for eID schemes in candidate countries: this is an important step that must be fulfilled based on the identified key processes of step 1. iii) Baseline requirements against common interoperability criteria, select and compare country-specific eID schemes with current interoperability solutions such as eIDAS and X-Road: this step allows for the identification of common functionalities among eID schemes relative to defined common interoperability criteria. iv) Decide on the benchmarking requirements: it is important to decide on the benchmarking requirements to adequately scope the functional requirements useful for a fully functional interoperable system. v) Use benchmarking requirements against specific eID schemes: using benchmarking requirements against specific eID schemes is useful for identifying missing requirements and functionalities. vi) Identify and scope common functional requirements between eID schemes: this is a significant step that ensures that all requirements for interoperability are adequately captured. vii) Perform requirements gap analysis by identifying missing requirements between eID schemes for all processes defined and recording the differences between eID schemes: the missing requirements must be identified in this step concerning the processes defined in step 1. All significant differences between eID schemes must be recorded (e.g. in Africa and Europe). viii) Define missing capabilities to fulfil newly established requirements: it may be necessary to define missing capabilities in the investigated eID schemes that are relevant to the identified requirements to realise an interoperable identity system. However, this may not be the case where such eID schemes fulfil most of the baseline requirements for interoperability. 4.1 Current Interoperability Solutions For the creation of effective, long-lasting, and usable identity ecosystems, interoperability is essential. Two major interoperability solutions in the identity ecosystem are discussed in this research. These include the Estonian X-Road and the electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS) of the European Union. X-Road is a data exchange layer solution that implements the interoperability of information systems. It allows organisations to exchange data through a secure channel over the Internet. This solution is centrally managed but supports a distributed exchange layer that provides a standardised and secure channel for producing and consuming services (X-Road, 2023a, 2023b). X-Road enhances the confidentiality, integrity, and interoperability between organisations that rely on it for data exchange (Bakhtina et al., 2022; Saputro et al., 2020). Jointly implemented by Estonia and Finland, it has been adopted by several countries and organisations (Saputro et al., 2020). As stated in Solvak et al. (2019), X-Road establishes online connections between service providers and data registries (such as the Population Register, Health Insurance Register, etc.). The citizens who use the X-Road system only give their information to the government once, and the public authority then stores and exchanges the information among itself via the X-Road system (Bhattarai et al., 2019). By signing the messages with the X-Road member's signature key and using a mutually authorised Transport Layer Security (TLS) channel, security servers guarantee the integrity and secrecy of the exchanged messages. By recording the exchanged messages and routinely timestamping the message logs, the signed communications' long-term evidential value is protected. To obtain information on the validity of certificates and timestamp-signed messages, the security servers communicate with trust services. In terms of message exchange, the trust service calls are asynchronous (X-Road, 2023c, 2023d). To exchange messages between a service client and a service provider, three protocols are used. These include X-Road message protocol, X-Road message transport protocol, and OCSP response retrieval protocol (X-Road, 2020). When an interested party such as an organisation joins an X-Road ecosystem, certificates issued by a reputable Certification Authority (CA) are used to verify the identification of each organization and security server. Each security server serves as the technical entry point that manages access control on the organisation level during the data exchange process between registered X-Road members (European Commission, 2023a; X-Road, 2023a). The combination of timestamping and a digital signature ensures that data delivered via X-Road cannot be disputed. On the other hand, eIDAS is a European Union’s framework to ensure that electronic transactions between businesses, citizens, and public agencies are safer and more efficient, regardless of the European country they take place in. It is established by a European Regulation that was implemented in 2014. By introducing a common framework for eID and trust services, the eIDAS regulation makes it easier to supply business services across the EU. It encourages interoperability across the 28 EU nations, making certain that nations mutually recognise each other's electronic identities and trust services across borders (Mocanu et al., 2019). The goal of electronic identification is to completely transform how customers engage with online services. The Member States of the EU may choose to identify citizens electronically. A small number of Member States have created national programs to provide their citizens with electronic identity (eID), with greatly diverse architectures (Lips, Bharosa and Draheim, 2020). National systems, therefore, vary not only in the volume of citizen data they process but also in the degree of data protection they provide to this data. As claimed by Cuijpers and Schroers (2014) and Hölbl, Kežmah and Kompara (2023), businesses and customers can more easily access services or conduct commercial transactions by using electronic identity, or eID, to identify who they are (identification process) and demonstrate that they are who they claim to be (authentication process). Similarly, the regulation stipulates that it will be necessary for all EU nations to accept notified eID systems from other nations by September 2018. When conducting electronic transactions, especially those between firms and clients who are based in another EU country, trust services attempt to improve the trust of EU residents and enterprises (Sharif et al., 2022). The trust services in eIDAS as discussed in ANSSI (2023) and European Commission (2023b) include Electronic Signature (eSignature), Electronic Seal (eSeal), Electronic Timestamp (eTimestamp), Website Authentication Certificates (WACs), and Electronic Registered Delivery Service (eDelivery). eIDAS has been exploited by both the public and private sectors in the EU. Some of the sectors that have benefited from the regulation include the financial services, online retail, transport, and professional services sectors. One of the largest potential beneficiaries of eID and trust services is the financial services industry due to the possibility of enormous commercial opportunities and enhanced cross-border services (Cuijpers and Schroers, 2014; European Commission, 2023b). To meet rising client demand for online services as well as stricter compliance requirements, the identification, authentication, and safeguarding of transactions in the financial services sector are becoming increasingly digitised. 4.2 Comparison of X-Road and eIDAS as Interoperability Solutions The comparison of X-Road and eIDAS is given in Figure 3. This comparison is performed based on identity creation and management, proof of identity, creating and issuing identity credentials, issuing a derived credential, managing the identity credential lifecycle, granting access to an identity holder, data exchange mechanism, security of identification data, and privacy of identification data. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

The Methods We Used to Investigate and Compare Cross-Border Interoperable Identity Systems

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References 3. Review of Literature Although interoperability has the potential to create a seamless identity ecosystem for data exchange, verification, and validation of digital identities, and expand the reach of national governments for effective service delivery, there are very few research-based approaches for cross-border interoperable identity systems. Backhouse and Halperin (2009) posited that the challenge of establishing interoperable systems is enormous, which does not only consider the technical linking of databases and systems. To this effect, they proposed a three-fold conception of interoperability for identity management systems viz-a-viz technical, legal, and regulatory components to enhance data sharing in the provision of e-government. The factors militating against the full interoperability of federated identity management systems are studied in Catuogno and Galdi (2014). They argued that the tendency for per-site authentication and authorization of ID holders culminates in huge overhead for both the identity/service providers and the ID holders as each site stores different credentials of the user. Therefore, the authors presented Shibboleth as the de facto standard for identity management and point of access to providers of information (PAPI) as a solution that leverages the joining of federations and translation of protocols during cross-federation authentication and authorization (AA) sessions. Sharma and Panigrahi (2015) proposed a roadmap useful to plan and implement the capabilities of interoperability in e-government solutions. The roadmap considered the notion of knowledge sharing among key stakeholders based on vital legal, regulatory, technical, and organisational components that can foster the interoperability of e-government services. One significant limitation of this research is its inability to explore cross-country differences in legislation and regulatory requirements, as it focused only on the inputs from stakeholders in India. Also, Kotzé and Alberts (2017) proposed a baseline conceptual model to achieve an egovernment interoperability framework. The model considered the technical, legislative, social, and political environments of South Africa to serve as a guideline for enterprises that are evolving towards e-governance. Similar studies were carried out by Kanagwa et al. (2018), who investigated the relevance of a national enterprise architecture to support several e-government systems including the systems for the registration of persons in Uganda through semantic interoperability that is achieved based on a set of related ontologies. Still, in both studies, country-specific technical, legislative, social, and political considerations were made, which indicate the absence of cross-border considerations to interoperability, Saputro et al. (2020) discussed the Estonian XRoad as an e-governance solution for secure data exchange and the interoperability of information systems across nine countries. This notwithstanding, this research did not categorise whether the countries investigated are developed or developing to ascertain the level of inclusion or exclusion required for facilitating e-governance. In Hölbl, Kežmah and Kompara (2023), the interoperability and compliance issues in eIDAS are discussed. The authors asserted that eIDAS has limited applicability in the public sector since the regulation does not address new market demands with the added complexity of private online providers connecting to the eIDAS network. Further, the issue of the isolation and inflexibility of notified eID solutions in member states makes it difficult for eIDAS to support a variety of use cases. Domingo and Teevan (2022) discussed the interoperability of cross-border payment solutions to expand trade in Africa. They argued that the success of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) depends largely on the cross-border interoperability of low-value instant payment systems such as mobile money. Consequently, the authors posited that such a policy will enhance inclusion and long-lasting benefits to small-scale businesses. Additionally, Masiero (2023) argued that the effectiveness of digital identity schemes depends on platform features, which must be considered to comprehend the true extent of harm that digital identification might cause due to interoperability. Furthermore, Benaddi et al. (2023) identified the challenges in data sharing and the interoperability of e-government systems. Their focus was on the technical interoperability of e-government entities to enhance collaboration in the use of public data. However, their approach does not consider crossborder perspectives to data sharing including the identification of entities that consume these data. This paper is available on [Arxiv](https://This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.) under CC 4.0 license.

A Trustworthy Cross-Border Interoperable Identity System: A Review of the Literature

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References 2. Background 2.1 Overview of identity management According to Luong and Park (2023), an identity management system is useful for managing the identity attributes of users. To establish and prove an identity, such identity must first be created through a well-defined registration process. In a foundational identity management system, such a registration process involves the collection, storage, and usage of identity attributes (World Bank Group, 2016). The processes of collecting, storing, and using identity attributes are useful for the verification and validation of ID holders whenever they request services from service providers. Relying parties also depend on these identity attributes to authenticate, authorise, and verify ID holders during transactions or access to a system (Kiourtis et al., 2023). Generally, identification is a key prerequisite for development as it provides the pivot for all categories of transactions and service delivery geared towards inclusive economic growth as summarised in Figure 1. 2.2 Trustworthiness in digital identity management Building robust, secure, and reliable identity management systems is a crucial challenge worldwide. Fathalla et al. (2023) argued that trustworthiness in digital identity management ensures that identification data maintains its integrity, security, privacy, and confidentiality. The consequences of identity fraud or theft are discussed in Hummer and Rebovich (2023); Irvin-Erickson (2023), and Walters (2023). With the increasing rate of attacks on digital identities (Pöhn and Hommel, 2023), privacy concerns are becoming more paramount. To this effect, the use of privacy-preserving technologies that do not reveal the real identities of ID holders is being considered (Luong and Park, 2023; Yin et al., 2022; Tang, Ma, and Cheng, 2023). Typically, a trustworthy system can be relied upon to authenticate and communicate identity attributes without which such information may not be trusted by identity and service providers including relying parties. When an identity system is compromised, it poses a direct threat to the digital identities of ID holders. Significantly, foundational identity systems must be trustworthy since they are part of a nation’s critical infrastructure that contributes to inclusive economic growth and e-Government. 2.3 Requirements for Interoperability To achieve the interoperability of foundational identity systems, requirements must be identified at each stage of the identity management process. In this work, we have identified six processes for scoping requirements to achieve a fully functional interoperable identity system in developing countries. These processes include: i) Identity creation and management ii) Proof of identity iii) Creating and issuing a credential iv) Issuing a derived credential v) Managing the identity credential lifecycle, and vi) Granting access to an ID holder. 2.4 Challenges and opportunities of interoperability in the African identity ecosystem The African identity ecosystem is fragmented with vendor-locked systems that are only accessible within the borders of each country (Gelb and Metz, 2018). One of the challenges of interoperability in this context is the trust issues among African nations including their foundational identity systems (Manda and Backhouse, 2016; Domingo and Teevan, 2022). Trust is a key consideration to interoperability as government-to-citizen, government-togovernment, government to business interactions are performed over the Internet in an interoperable identity ecosystem. Similarly, the increase in the use of vendor-neutral technologies for the verification and validation of ID holders at cross-border points is envisaged to introduce more security and privacy concerns. Moreover, cross-border digital trust requires a secure and reliable environment. Connecting identity systems can create more complex environments for conducting digital transactions and interactions across the continent (African Union, 2020). Challenges in infrastructure, and disparities in social structures, norms, and behaviour, also affect the perception of privacy, security, and trust by stakeholders. Other challenges include advancements in cutting-edge technology that change how personal data is gathered and analysed from various, unrelated sources including consent management for data sharing, the reluctance of various governments to invest in privacy-enhancing technologies, streamline security policies and legislation, and establish new acts for the protection of the privacy and confidentiality of identification data. Conversely, there are several opportunities for interoperability as it promotes vendor neutrality using common standards in an identity ecosystem. In the same sense, interoperability enforces data integrity by ensuring that each identity system provides a single source of truth for identification data and reduces identity fraud for e-Government services (The World Bank, 2023b; Domingo and Teevan, 2022). With an interoperable continent-wide identity ecosystem, new markets, digital services, and applications are possible, thus enabling innovation and new use cases to widen the dimensions of e-Government. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

Cross-Border Interoperable Identity System for Developing Countries: What You Need to Know

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References Abstract Foundational identity systems (FIDS) have been used to optimise service delivery and inclusive economic growth in developing countries. As developing nations increasingly seek to use FIDS for the identification and authentication of identity (ID) holders, trustworthy interoperability will help to develop a cross-border dimension of e-Government. Despite this potential, there has not been any significant research on the interoperability of FIDS in the African identity ecosystem. There are several challenges to this; on one hand, complex internal political dynamics have resulted in weak institutions, implying that FIDS could be exploited for political gains. On the other hand, the trust in the government by the citizens or identity holders is habitually low, in which case, data security and privacy protection concerns become paramount. In the same sense, some FIDS are technology-locked, thus interoperability is primarily ambiguous. There are also issues of cross-system compatibility, legislation, vendor-locked system design principles and unclear regulatory provisions for data sharing. Fundamentally, interoperability is an essential prerequisite for e-Government services and underpins optimal service delivery in education, social security, and financial services including gender and equality as already demonstrated by the European Union. Furthermore, cohesive data exchange through an interoperable identity system will create an ecosystem of efficient data governance and the integration of cross-border FIDS. Consequently, this research will seek to identify the challenges, opportunities, and requirements for cross-border interoperability in an African context. Our findings show that interoperability in the African identity ecosystem is vital to strengthen the seamless authentication and verification of identity holders for inclusive economic growth and widen the dimensions of e-Government across the continent. Keywords: cross-border interoperability, digital identity, trustworthiness, e-Government 1. Introduction One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations is to provide legal identity for all citizens, which also includes birth registration by 2030 (World Bank Group, 2018). Primarily, identification allows individuals to exercise their rights to be identified and legally recognised while the government and private sector depend on it for effective service delivery. In this sense, a national identity system is crucial to the identification and authentication of natural or legal persons and provides a means for citizens to access critical services including participation in formal political, social, and economic life (Gelb and Metz, 2018). Achieving sustainable development is a key consideration of most national governments and forms the basis for inclusive and responsible identification schemes at the foundational level. Fundamentally, national identification schemes are the pivot for social security, immigration, financial and economic inclusion, healthcare, voting, gender equality, transportation, and education (Colbern and Ramakrishnan, 2018). Consequently, identity management plays a key role in promoting e-government by bringing services closer to the people. Modern identification systems are robust tools for the delivery of transparent administration, reduction in fraud and leakages for social benefits, providing adequate security for the citizens, extracting accurate biographic data for effective economic planning, and responding to natural disasters (Atick, 2016). These seeming benefits are yet to solve the identification crisis in most developing nations as about 850 million people across the globe are yet to have access to a valid identity credential, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (The World Bank, 2023a). According to the World Bank Identification for Development (ID4D) dataset (The World Bank, 2023a), most people without official identification are residents of low-income countries. These sets of persons also include marginalised and vulnerable groups consisting of children, whose births were not documented in the civil registry of the affected country, women in rural areas with no access to digital services, and adults below the age of 25 years. Particularly, digital identification systems can improve how the public and commercial sectors provide services and lay the groundwork for new markets, services, and systems, such as egovernment, cashless transactions, and the digital economy. Identification systems must, however, have high levels of coverage and inclusion within the population, be resilient to fraud and error, operate within a governance framework that protects personal data, fosters trust and accountability, and facilitates end-user control to fulfil their potential for facilitating sustainable development and increasing public sector efficiency (African Union, 2020; Bandura and Ramanujam, 2021). There is a growing demand for digital identity to be mutually recognised and portable between countries in the modern digital age through an interoperability framework and in the context of regional and global integration and migration, which can be facilitated through trust and standards. Interoperability, in this context, refers to the ability of disparate foundational identity systems to exchange data through seamless communication of identification and authentication information. These exchanges must be trustworthy or inherently secure, available, and reliable. Although there are complex internal political dynamics in most developing countries that result in weak institutions, and the lack of trust in government by the citizens including the notion of security and privacy protection concerns, legislation, cross-system compatibility, vendor-locked system design principles and unclear regulatory provisions for data sharing, our findings show that interoperability is vital to widen the dimensions of e-Government. In this paper, the challenges, opportunities, and requirements for trustworthy cross-border interoperability are discussed. The rest of the paper is organised as follows; in Section 2, the background to the study is given while in Section 3, a review of literature is discussed. Section 4 presents the methodology of the research. In Section 5, the discussion of findings is presented, and the conclusion and future work is given in Section 6. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

A Trustworthy Cross-Border Interoperable Identity System for Developing Countries: The Beginning

2024 is touted as the “The Ultimate Election Year” by Time magazine and rightfully so as more than 50 countries prepare for national elections, roughly more than half the population of the planet. Some of the largest democracies up for elections from the stated list are India, the US, Mexico, Indonesia, and more, making 2024 a turning point in the geopolitical landscape for democracy. Media is the fourth pillar of with the responsibility of upholding the truth to the public, but a closer look at the current scenario would show you a different perspective. There is no one sinister plot at play, it is a series of unfortunate events catalyzed by well intentioned citizens misplacing their enthusiasm to further the misinformation chaos. democracy Systematic erosion of democracy may now be a field day with the advent of AI, specifically massification of it through Generative AI Systematic erosion of democracy may now be a field day with the advent of AI, specifically massification of it through . For instance, , an organization that tracks misinformation, just since May 2023, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000%, ballooning from 49 sites to more than 600. Propaganda operations that were usually menial tasks performed by underpaid cyber armies are now easily enabled by AI that is strikingly similar to official news. The lines of real and fake are easily blurred, even for the well informed and well read consumers and this freefall of misinformation may lead us soon to question the nature of news altogether. Generative AI according to NewsGuard In Here, Lies the Opportunity If AI is the poison that contaminates the well of information, it is also the said antidote, or at least a key ingredient. The technology can also be deployed to detect misinformation and text generated by AI and also launching counter to contain the spread of misinformation. campaigns Even tech companies are huddling to create proactive solutions to mitigate the risks. Industry leaders, including OpenAI, Microsoft, TikTok, X, Meta, Amazon, and Google, disclosed a new agreement, ‘ ’, that aims to minimize the risk of AI interfering in the 2024 US elections. They have pledged a series of commitments that include developing new technologies to mitigate risks, detecting distribution on their platforms, more transparency and launching public awareness campaigns on media literacy. Tech Accord to Combat Deceptive Use of AI in 2024 Elections However, this is mostly focused on the US elections, and as important as they may be, media literacy is a much bigger issue in the developing countries. An independent alternative powered by the honchos of the media industry could be a viable solution. It is an opportunity in disguise where the whole industry can unite to fight this deviant and also create a wholesome database of accurate news links. This also creates an easy access for the user to consume news of their preferred news networks while comparing the headlines. If not through an industry initiative, but with help of veteran experts this is an achievable task. An unimpeachable mecca of news, the ultimate utopia or rather resetting to the original DD news in India or PBS in US days, no nonsense shows, just news. In fact, the silent period rule in large scale democracies like ours, could be even extended from 48 hours to 6 months as public perception is moulded constantly with accessibility of news on their phones and these laws predate the notification technology. When it comes to AI, this is still a manageable expectation, for instance Midjourney’s CEO, David Holz was considering banning creation of political (in context of the US elections) images for 2024. If there are guardrails installed on the creation process by AI companies, it is a beast that can be possibly tamed. This article was originally published by on Sanjay Sehgal The Tech Panda.

CEROS

ceros.com

201-500 employees

Since 2012

COMPANY RANKING

CEROS

EVERGREEN INDEX #2077

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Ceros WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

CEROS

ceros.com

201-500 employees

Since 2012

COMPANY RANKING

CEROS

EVERGREEN INDEX #2077

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT CEROS

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Ceros WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!