Personhood Credentials: Human-Centered Design Recommendation Balancing Security, Usability, and Trust
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Building on related concepts, like, decentralized identifiers (DIDs), proof of personhood, anonymous credentials, personhood credentials (PHCs) emerged as an alternative approach, enabling individuals to verify to digital service providers that they are a person without disclosing additional information. However, new technologies might introduce some friction due to users misunderstandings and mismatched expectations. Despite their growing importance, limited research has been done on users perceptions and preferences regarding PHCs. To address this gap, we conducted competitive analysis, and semi-structured online user interviews with 23 participants from US and EU to provide concrete design recommendations for PHCs that incorporate user needs, adoption rules, and preferences. Our study -- (a)surfaces how people reason about unknown privacy and security guarantees of PHCs compared to current verification methods -- (b) presents the impact of several factors on how people would like to onboard and manage PHCs, including, trusted issuers (e.g. gov), ground truth data to issue PHC (e.g biometrics, physical id), and issuance system (e.g. centralized vs decentralized). In a think-aloud conceptual design session, participants recommended -- conceptualized design, such as periodic biometrics verification, time-bound credentials, visually interactive human-check, and supervision of government for issuance system. We propose actionable designs reflecting users preferences.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 90 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Feb 2025.
Builds on
16 of 90 references.
References · 16
- 2023Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practicalcited by 276
- 2023Watermarks in the Sand: Impossibility of Strong Watermarking for Generative Modelscited by 77
- 2024Personhood credentials: Artificial intelligence and the value of privacy-preserving tools to distinguish who is real onlinecited by 15
- 2023An Empirical Study & Evaluation of Modern CAPTCHAscited by 11
- 2023Single and Multi-Speaker Cloned Voice Detection: From Perceptual to Learned Featurescited by 10
- 2024A Survey on Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentialscited by 10
- 2018Unpacking the Social Media Bot: A Typology to Guide Research and Policycited by 7
- 2019DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLScited by 7
- 2024Unmasking Illusions: Understanding Human Perception of Audiovisual Deepfakescited by 7
- 2024Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysiscited by 7
- 2018A Survey on Essential Components of a Self-Sovereign Identitycited by 4
- 2023Unpacking How Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) Work in Practicecited by 4
4 more
- 2023False Information, Bots and Malicious Campaigns: Demystifying Elements of Social Media Manipulationscited by 3
- 2020Identity and Personhood in Digital Democracy: Evaluating Inclusion, Equality, Security, and Privacy in Pseudonym Parties and Other Proofs of Personhoodcited by 2
- 2021Humanode Whitepaper: You are [not] a botcited by 1
- 2024Future of Algorithmic Organization: Large-Scale Analysis of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)cited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.