Design Pattern: Common to any Internet Identity Ecosystem

Design Pattern Metadata

DRAFT: February 2016

Title

This pattern is the progenitor of all IDESG UX design patterns for internet connected devices. It will be updated where needed to fit the needs of the dependent patterns.

Status

Design Pattern Lifecycle Status

Contributed	Working Draft	Committee Review	Compilation	Approval	Publication
This Design Pattern is available for review by the User Experice Committee (UXC) with the goal of refining and completing the Design Pattern, see Identity Design Patterns for the current list of design patterns and their status.

Design Pattern Review Status

Contributed.

Expect changes before this pattern is final.

Design Pattern Category

Privacy, Trust/Assurance, Interoperability

Contributor

Tom Jones
Edits:
Ellen Nadeau
Mary Hodder

Design Pattern Content

The terms used in creating design patterns follows the taxonomy described in the UXC_Use_Case_Mapping#Categories_used_in_User_Experience_Evaluations

Problem Description (meme)

Users need to be able to understand when an IDESG set of criteria are involved and what that means to them. Dependent patterns can include all of the user experience conditions in the common pattern by reference. They do not then need to repeat any of these condition in those dependent patterns.

When to use this Pattern (Context)

• Any time a user is asked to provide identification or personal information.
• The relying party (RP) can voluntarily determine which policies will provide it with the information it needs to allow access to its site. If the IDESG Trustmark is on the web site the user can be assured that the web site has agreed to the broad IDESG requirements. {confirm with TFTM}
• The RP can voluntarily chose to support one or more IDESG trust frameworks known to follow IDESG principles for the user to choose from. Whenever more than one Trustmark is displayed on a web site, the user will have the opportunity to select which Trustmark will apply to the balance of the interaction until the user decides to switch to a different Trustmark.
• It is not anticipated at this time that more than one Trustmark would ever apply at any one time in an interaction.

The following illustration shows the primary actors and the data that they maintain. For the general case considered here, the actual service provider is not specified as it could be an identity or attribute provider, a relying party or any of a variety of other service providers that interact with the user. Connections that the service providers have beyond the user connection are not indicated as all data sent to or received from the user by way of a user agent (or browser) will pass to one provider at a time. That does not imply that multiple providers are not part of a single user interchange, but only that the interchanges deals with a single provider at a time.

Relationships with other Design Patterns

This pattern is the progenitor of all IDESG UX design patters for internet connected devices. It will be updated where needed to fit the needs of the dependent patterns.

Actors

The following roles are present in any IDESG compliant ecosystem. Note that some of the roles may be collocated in a single Entity on the Internet.

1. Anonymous: An interaction designed such that the data collected is not sufficient to infer the identity of the USER involved nor is such data sufficient to permit an entity to associate multiple interactions with a USER or to determine patterns of behavior with a USER.
2. Entity: Any organization providing identity services.
3. User: In USABILITY statements, refers to an individual human being This does not include machines, algorithms, or other non-human agents or actors. Equivalents and related terms may include: user-centric, user-centered, human-centered, end user, individual user, user-friendly.
4. User Agent: in this case any piece of code that displays a user experience and obtains responses from the user in order to satisfy the privacy concerns of the user and the need for identity and attribute claims by the relying party.
5. Service Providers The collection of all internet based services with which a user will interact with to create and supply identity and attribute claims as required to complete the task that they are working to complete.

• • Relying Party (RP): A service provider that needs a collection of claims to provide that service; the RP might rely on a collection of claims from different identity providers. Re: this design pattern, the user experience for RP web sites might improve if RPs automate some requests for user's attributes. It is beyond the scope of this Design Pattern to determine whether the RP actually has any justification in requesting any user attribute at all.
  • Identity or Attribute Provider (IAP): Contains identities and of users that will be provided on demand in claims that the user can forward to a RP.
  • Identity Ecosystem: An online environment where individuals and organizations will be able to trust each other because they follow agreed upon standards to obtain and authenticate their digital identities—and the digital identities of devices. The Identity Ecosystem is designed to securely support transactions that range from anonymous to fully-authenticated and from low- to high-value.

Solution

Description of the Solution

1. The user establishes an account with one or more IAPs that are accredited with one or more IDESG Trustmarks. In this case there is no need to distinguish between identity providers and other attribute providers.
2. The user accesses a web site which at some point requires identity and attributes claims of some sort to continue to process the user request. That web site then transitions from a purely anonymous information site into a relying party.
3. The RP gives the user a choice of which IDESG framework (with its Trustmark) or legacy provider to provide identity.
   1. In general the identity provider will be a distinct role from the RP where a persistent identity across multiple interactions is desirable.
   2. The option of ephemeral connection ID may be provided at the RP's options where anonymous interactions are permitted.
4. This request for information is intercepted by the user agent, or any privacy-enhancing technology intermediary (a step where user drop-out may occur).
   1. Determine if the information is available based on the specific requested attributes from the RP.
   2. Determine if the user has already authorized release to this RP.
   3. Display any remaining choices to the user to acquire more attributes or release those already available.
   4. Format the set of requested claims into a response in a way the RP can evaluate the claims.
   5. Send the response to the RP who has sole responsibility to determine if sufficient identity has been proved to provide the request access.
   6. Repeat these steps till the RP is satisfied or one side gives up.

Anti-patterns

This section describes some patterns of user experience that should be avoided when building any user display. These particular patterns are incorporated by reference in every other IDESG UXC design pattern. The patterns are ordered from specific to the more general. The first items are those solutions that have been tried, but failed, to deliver on a promise of better security for privacy in the past. The latter items are those that violate accepted user experience principles.

Note that this section does not make any judgement about whether such user elements need to be shown for legal reasons. It only addresses issues of usability and user experience.

1. Too much detail. Identity and personal data management policies today suffer in part from an overload of information where a user doesn't have the time or ability to understand the ramifications of these policies when applied. Trustmark language should not suffer from too much information so that they become useless. citation needed

Error Conditions

USABLE-3 states that “Information presented to USERS in digital identity management functions MUST be in plain language that is clear and easy for a general audience or the transaction's identified target audience to understand.” This applies to error messages, which should be expressed in plain language, clearly indicating the problem and constructively suggesting a solution.

Any error condition that requires user action should create the following user experience elements

1. As much detail about the cause of the error that would help the user understand while not significantly impacting the user flow or security.
2. A way for the user to mitigate the error. The response "Please contact your administrator" does not qualify as a mitigation step.

The following are specific errors that the user might see.

1. User does not have credentials that can generate claims acceptable to the relying party.
   1. Mitigation option: The provider redirects the user to one or more sources of appropriate credentials that do meet the criteria for authorization at the RP.
   2. Mitigation option: The relying party redirects the user to one or more Identity Providers or trust frameworks that are acceptable. If a new framework is chosen, that may involve user acceptance or change the PET to meet those particular authorization requirements.
   3. Mitigation option: The user is allowed to back-out of the current path to one where they can succeed.

Related requirements from IDEF v1:

1. 1. PRIVACY-10, user option to decline, indicates that: “users must have the opportunity to decline registration; decline credential provisioning; decline presentation of their credentials; and decline release of their attributes or claims.”
   2. PRIVACY-BP-C, recommended consequences of declining, states in part: “if information collection or attribute value release is designated as mandatory, that designation should include a short and clear description of the consequences of declining to provide that information or allowing that release.
   3. PRIVACY-11, optional information, states: “Entities must clearly indicate to users what personal information is mandatory and what information is optional prior to the transaction.”

Usability Considerations

This section further refines the user experience defined in the User Experience Overview.

• User Control and Freedom
  • Related requirement from IDEF v1: PRIVACY-10, user option to decline, states: “USERS MUST have the opportunity to decline registration; decline credential provisioning; decline the presentation of their credentials; and decline release of their attributes or claims.”

• Match between system and the real world
  • All IDESG logoed web sites are expected to participate in setting a trustworthy context. This design pattern will be combined with other design patterns to help design and build web sites that align with the IDEF requirements.
  • Related requirement from IDEF v1: USABLE-5, accesibility, indicates that: “All digital identity management functions MUST make reasonable accommodations to be accessible to as many USERS as is feasible, and MUST comply with all applicable laws and regulations on accessibility.”
• Consistency and Standards
  • One important part of any Design Pattern is the intelligibility of the design to the user. Here it is very important that the user understand the meaning of the IDESG mark sufficiently well to understand the benefits from it. Related requirements from IDEF v1:
    • USABLE-3, plain language, states that: “Information presented to USERS in digital identity management functions MUST be in plain language that is clear and easy for a general audience or the transaction's identified target audience to understand.”
    • USABLE-4, navigation, states that: “All choices, pathways, interfaces, and offerings provided to USERS in digital identity management functions MUST be clearly identifiable by the USER.”

Read the report of the IDESG experience committee on use case usability at UXC Use Case Mapping

Value Proposition

One difficult acceptance barrier for new design choices is the web site of the relying party. If any part of the implementation hinders use of the web site, or exploits the user, there may be hesitation around implementing the feature.

References and Citations

TK

NSTIC Guiding Principles Considerations

Privacy Considerations

There are a number of sources of leaks to user private information that are considered by any ID pattern:

1. The user agent provides more information to the RP than the user intended.
2. The user interacts with the RP over an extended period allowing the RP to determine the user ID from their behavior.
3. The RP has privacy policies that are obscure or not followed. A multipage privacy policy is ipso facto obscure. Often leaks of user private data are allowed by insufficient security at the RP or other parties that have access to the data.

Some privacy considerations, such as an expressed user intent, have been separated out to specific design patterns.

Other privacy consideration include identifying and locating persons, and personal information through aggregation, analysis and inference of human attributes are systemic issues applying to any identity ecosystem.

A related requirement from IDEF v1: PRIVACY-7, user data control, states: “Entities MUST provide appropriate mechanisms to enable USERS to access, correct, and delete personal information.”

Another related requirement from IDEF v1: PRIVACY-12, anonymity, states in part that, “Wherever feasible, entities MUST utilize identity systems and processes that enable transactions that are anonymous, anonymous with validated attributes, pseudonymous, or where appropriate, uniquely identified.”

Security Considerations

In general security is not considered in this Design Pattern as security will be provided by the same type of credentials, token and claims as used in any secure implementation. One additional wrinkle that is inserted by a PET provider is that the PET provider must have a sufficient level of trust by the user and the relying party to perform the desired function.

Interoperability Considerations

User choice depends critically on each relying party making their request in a manner that can be consistently rendered by the user agent in a form that the user can comprehend that can then be matched to information available from the identity, attribute or privacy-enhancing technology provider.