Reclaiming Control Over Your Digital Identity and Privacy

Photo by Ben Sweet on Unsplash

\ About seven years ago, I worked with digital identity on blockchain. It was an interesting challenge—using smart contracts with federated Ethereum to create a self-sovereign digital identity for citizens. Later, I moved on to another field, focusing on privacy and data protection. Today, as I reflect on those experiences, I felt inspired to write about the concept of self-sovereignty from a privacy perspective.

\ Self-sovereignty in the digital context refers to an individual’s autonomous authority over their personal data and identity. In practice, this concept is exemplified by Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) systems, wherein users generate and manage their own digital identifiers and credentials without reliance on a central identity provider. Under an SSI model, individuals have complete control, ownership, and autonomy over their identity data​.

\ This means a person can create and possess verifiable digital credentials (such as proofs of age, citizenship, or qualifications) and present them to others for validation, all without needing a government registry or corporate database to intermediate each transaction. By eliminating the dependence on a single authority or Identity Provider (IdP), self-sovereign systems ensure that identity is not conferred by an outside entity but established and controlled by the individual themselves.

\ Self-sovereign identity represents an evolutionary step in identity management. Traditional models (siloed or federated identity systems) required users to trust third-party identity providers to manage credentials and mediate authentication. In contrast, self-sovereignty is decentralized and user-centric. Key elements of self-sovereign identity include:

\

• User Control and Ownership: Individuals hold the keys to their identity data (such as cryptographic keys and credentials) and decide how this data is used or shared. No central authority can arbitrarily alter or revoke their digital identity.

  \

• Decentralization of Trust: Trust is distributed across a network rather than vested in a single provider. Technologies like decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and blockchain or distributed ledgers are often leveraged so that no single organization monopolizes identity information. This decentralization helps prevent any external entity from asserting control over personal data, aligning with the principle that no private infrastructure controlled by a single party can fully satisfy user sovereignty.

  \

• Portability and Interoperability: A self-sovereign identity is not tied to one platform. Individuals can use their credentials across different services and domains, much as one would use a government-issued ID in various contexts. This ensures that control remains with the user across the digital ecosystem.

  \

• Privacy by Design: Self-sovereign systems are built with privacy preservation as a core tenet. They minimize the data shared in any interaction, reducing exposure of personal information. This aspect is closely linked to the concept of selective disclosure, discussed below.

\ Together, these aspects define self-sovereignty as a model where the individual, and not an external institution, is the principal authority over personal digital identity. By empowering users in this way, self-sovereignty promises greater autonomy and security in managing one's digital life.

Importance of Self-Sovereignty for Privacy and Data Control

Placing individuals in charge of their own data has profound implications for privacy and personal data protection. In a self-sovereign model, because users control when and with whom their information is shared, there is inherently stronger protection against unwarranted data exposure. This stands in contrast to centralized identity systems where a breach or misuse by the provider can compromise the private data of millions. Self-sovereignty ensures that personal data is released only on the user's terms, aligning with the principle of data minimization (only the necessary data should be exchanged for a given purpose).

\ One of the driving motivations for self-sovereign identity is to prevent the emergence of pervasive digital surveillance and data monopolies. As societies transition legal identities and credentials into digital forms, there is a risk that, without proper safeguards, these systems could enable a new era of enhanced surveillance and erosion of privacy​. Self-sovereign identity offers a privacy-preserving alternative: since there is no central honeypot of identity data, it becomes much harder for malicious actors or even authorities to track individuals across all their activities. The autonomy granted by self-sovereignty also means users can opt out of sharing certain details, reducing the amount of personal information circulating in cyberspace. In effect, self-sovereignty operationalizes the individual's right to privacy by giving them the technical means to guard their personal data.

\ Furthermore, self-sovereignty aligns with legal and ethical standards for data protection. Regulations such as the European GDPR emphasize individuals’ rights to access, correct, and delete their personal data. These rights reflect the notion that people own their personal information and should have agency over it. Self-sovereign systems inherently support such rights by design: the user, as the data owner, can decide to revoke a credential, refuse a data request, or selectively share attributes as needed. This design minimizes the chances of data being harvested or repurposed without consent. Overall, the importance of self-sovereignty lies in restoring control to the individual and building trust into digital interactions. When people know they have command over their data, they can engage online with greater confidence that their privacy and autonomy will be respected.

Selective Disclosure and Privacy Preservation

A cornerstone of privacy in self-sovereign identity is the principle of selective disclosure. Selective disclosure allows an individual to reveal only the specific pieces of information required for a transaction, and nothing more. In practical terms, rather than handing over a full identity document (which might contain a wealth of sensitive data), one can disclose just the necessary attribute. For example, a person can prove they are an adult without exposing their full date of birth or address. This concept is enabled by advanced cryptographic techniques. In many SSI implementations, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) or similarly privacy-preserving credentials allow the holder to demonstrate the truth of a statement about their data (such as “I am over 18” or “I have a valid driver's license”) without revealing the underlying personal details​. By using cryptographic proofs, the verifier can be convinced of the claim’s validity, yet remains ignorant of any extraneous information.

\ Selective disclosure embodies the maxim "less is more" in data sharing. By minimizing data exposure, it greatly reduces opportunities for misuse, profiling, or identity theft. It also serves to limit correlation of personal data across different services. If each service only sees the attributes relevant to its need, they cannot easily collude to build a full profile of the individual. This fragmentation of disclosed data enhances privacy. Self-sovereign systems typically incorporate selective disclosure as a fundamental feature, for instance through verifiable credentials that support revealing only partial data or through protocols that generate one-time proofs. As a result, the individual retains fine-grained control over personal information flow.

\ To illustrate, consider an online age-restricted service: under a conventional system, one might upload a scan of a government ID, inadvertently revealing name, birth date, ID number, and more. With self-sovereign identity, the user could instead present a cryptographic proof that they are over the required age threshold, without divulging any other personal details. The verifier gets the answer needed (“age verified”) and nothing else. Such capabilities are not just theoretical; they are increasingly implemented in modern digital identity frameworks. By enabling selective disclosure, self-sovereign identity demonstrates how individual-centric design can uphold privacy while still meeting information requirements of various transactions.

The Necessity of "Self-" in Sovereignty

The prefix "self-" in self-sovereignty is more than a linguistic detail—it signifies a fundamental shift in the locus of authority and rights over personal data. Traditionally, sovereignty in identity has resided with external entities: nation-states issue passports and ID cards, corporations provide login identities and manage user accounts. In those paradigms, individuals are largely subjects of another entity's sovereignty when it comes to identity; one must rely on the state or a provider to assert who they are. By contrast, self-sovereignty posits that individuals themselves are the sovereign entities over their identity. The prefix "self-" underscores that this sovereignty emanates from the individual rather than being granted by an outside authority.

\ Emphasizing "self-" is necessary to distinguish this personal empowerment from other forms of sovereignty. If one were to speak simply of "digital sovereignty" or "identity sovereignty" without qualification, it might be unclear who holds the sovereign power. It could imply state sovereignty in digital matters (as the term "digital sovereignty" is sometimes used for national control over internet infrastructure) or corporate control over a digital platform. The term self-sovereignty explicitly centers the individual, making clear that the person is the one possessing ultimate control. In practical terms, this means that the individual has the right to control their personal data—deciding when to share it, with whom, and under what conditions—just as a nation has the right to govern itself without outside interference.

\ Crucially, the "self-" prefix also reflects principles of personal autonomy and consent. It asserts that identity is something inherently personal, and that each person should have the freedom to manage their identity on their own terms. Under self-sovereign models, others (governments, companies, institutions) can recognize or verify your credentials, but they do not own or control them. This flips the traditional dynamic: for instance, while a government might issue a credential like a driver's license, in a self-sovereign system the citizen could hold a verifiable digital version of that license in their own wallet and decide how it is used. The government’s role shifts to attesting to a fact (e.g. that one is licensed to drive), but the custody and control of that credential rest with the individual. In this way, self-sovereignty emphasizes that rights over personal data are innate to the individual, not derived from the good graces of a governing body or service provider.

\ The necessity of highlighting "self" becomes evident when considering the power imbalances in today’s digital landscape. Without self-sovereignty, tech companies and institutions often end up as de-facto sovereigns over user data, dictating terms through lengthy privacy policies and sometimes sharing or exploiting data without clear consent. By reclaiming the term sovereignty for the individual, the self-sovereign identity movement reinforces the idea that consent and agency must be front and center. It aligns with human rights perspectives that each person has dominion over their personal information as an extension of their dignity and freedom. In summary, the prefix "self-" is indispensable because it marks the difference between a world where identity is administered by external powers and one where identity is an expression of personal freedom and control.

\ These developments indicate that the essence of self-sovereignty—granting individuals greater power over their digital selves—is resonating as a guiding ideal. In conclusion, self-sovereignty in the digital age represents both a response to contemporary privacy challenges and a proactive step toward a more equitable digital future, one in which each person can truly be the ruler of their own digital identity.

\

References

Naghmouchi, M., & Laurent, M. Privacy by Design for Self-Sovereign Identity Systems: An In-Depth Component Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02520 (2025)