Embedded Blockchain Surveillance System

Appearance

Further Improvements: Token-Based Identity for Criminal Profiles and IoT Devices ​

This document outlines a potential future improvement for managing criminal profiles and IoT surveillance device identities using ERC token standards (EIP-721 and EIP-1155). This approach aims to enhance flexibility, grant individuals more sovereignty over their profiles, and enable reusability across multiple surveillance sessions.

EIP-721 for Criminal Profile Identity (Non-Fungible Tokens - NFTs) ​

Using EIP-721 tokens to represent each criminal profile offers several benefits:

  • Sovereignty & Unique Identity: Each EIP-721 token is unique and non-fungible, meaning it represents a single, distinct criminal profile. The criminal profile (or the law enforcement agency managing it) would own this NFT, granting them direct control and sovereignty over their digital identity within the surveillance system. Their profile becomes an asset they possess.
  • Rich, Decentralized Profiles: EIP-721 tokens can link to rich metadata (e.g., a JSON file stored on IPFS). This metadata can contain the criminal's name, aliases, mugshot, criminal history, and other relevant information. The profile controls this metadata, allowing for a comprehensive and decentralized profile that is not solely dependent on a central registry.
  • Reusability Across Surveillance Sessions: Once a criminal profile has an EIP-721 identity token, they can be consistently tracked across multiple surveillance sessions. A surveillance session contract would simply verify that the profile exists in the system by checking for a valid criminal profile NFT. This eliminates the need to re-create criminal profiles for every new surveillance scenario, streamlining the process.
  • Flexibility: The metadata associated with the NFT can be updated (if the contract allows for it, or by issuing a new token with updated metadata), providing flexibility for law enforcement to update criminal information over time.

EIP-1155 for IoT Device Identity (Multi-Token Standard) ​

Employing EIP-1155 for IoT device identity provides significant flexibility and efficiency:

  • Flexibility & Categorization: EIP-1155 is a multi-token standard, allowing a single contract to manage various types of tokens (fungible, non-fungible, or semi-fungible). For IoT device identity, this is incredibly powerful:
    • Diverse Device Types: Different token_ids could represent different categories of IoT devices (e.g., token_id=1 for "Indoor Camera," token_id=2 for "Outdoor Camera," token_id=3 for "Motion Sensor Only").
    • Proof of Authorization: Instead of a simple boolean flag in a registry, an IoT device holds a specific EIP-1155 token that acts as their proof of authorization. The balanceOf(address, token_id) function can then be used by surveillance contracts to verify their status.
  • Sovereignty: Similar to EIP-721, owning an EIP-1155 token grants the IoT device operator sovereignty over their proof of authorization. They hold the token in their wallet, not a central authority, giving them control over its use.
  • Reusability Across Surveillance Sessions: An IoT device's EIP-1155 token (e.g., their "Authorized Camera" token) can be used to grant surveillance rights in any session that accepts that specific token type as a credential. This means devices do not need to undergo re-authorization for every surveillance session; they simply need to hold the appropriate token.
  • Batch Operations: EIP-1155 supports efficient batch transfers and balance checks, which can be more gas-efficient for operations involving many devices or different token types.
  • Potential for Privacy: While the token itself is on-chain, the specific details of how a device became authorized (e.g., its real-world verification) can remain off-chain, with the token serving as a privacy-preserving proof of authorization.

Architectural Implications ​

Implementing this approach would involve:

  1. Creating new ERC-721 and ERC-1155 compliant smart contracts for managing criminal profiles and IoT device identities, respectively.
  2. Modifying the SurveillanceSession contract to interact with these new token contracts for verifying criminal profile eligibility and IoT device authorization, rather than relying solely on the current CriminalProfileRegistry and IoTDeviceRegistry for direct data storage.

This shift would move the identity management from a simple registry-based system to a more robust, decentralized, and flexible token-based identity solution.