IRS Will Require Facial Recognition Scans to Access Your Taxes | Hacker News Reader

IRS Will Require Facial Recognition Scans to Access Your Taxes

gizmodo.com

24 pointsjbegley20 comments

Requiring facial recognition in the first place is uncomfortable, though the status quo of treating SSNs as adequate for auth is problematic. That said, requiring citizens to submit incredibly sensitive information to some arbitrary private company is abhorrent.

Especially concerning is that ID.me's site has a link at the bottom marked "Do Not Sell My Personal Information (CA Residents Only)". Sounds those of us outside of CA will have to consent to some private company profiting off our private data in order to interact with the IRS online in any meaningful way.

Why can't we have an actual insurrection but just against the damn IRS and the big banks? Instead we get the dude with Buffalo horns larping in the Capitol! /s

You say /s but this is pretty on point IMO.

America in 2022:

>Need ID and face scan to pay banker extortion fees

>Do not need ID to vote

It's pretty well-established (or - at worst - there's a pretty strong first-American-principles argument) why requiring an ID to vote is unconstitutional. Governments have been constantly trying to figure out ways around it, but the fact that they have to figure out ways around it has good reason.

On the flip-side, IRS information is private & potentially security-threatening information. I don't know how I feel about facial recognition to access it in principle. But to compare to to voter ID laws belies either a lack of knowledge in general of American Constitutional law..or it's intentionally-disingenuous propaganda.

When you say "well-established," do you mean within your own mind? It seems like the public overwhelmingly (80%) thinks otherwise. https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthp...

How are public opinions on a topic related to ongoing well-established legal rulings on the topic?

Strangely, the well-established legal rulings are the opposite of what you think they are, so they wouldn't help your cause: https://www.judicialwatch.org/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id...

This being a democracy, public opinions do matter even about issues that may be settled by a court.

We don't use majority rule to settle issues of fundamental rights in the United States, so I don't see how your comment is relevant.

If these rights would be so fundamental that the Constitutional questions would be pretty much settled, you wouldn't have some states require ID while others not require ID to vote. There's clearly no legal consensus.

Given that citizens themselves don't have a right to vote under the US constitution I'm curious how it's "pretty well-established" that requiring an ID to vote is unconstitutional.

Given that your first statement is an easily dismissible falsehood, how would we rate your level of understanding to even begin explaining that Payment for Rights isn't legal in the US?

Please cite the specific article or amendment in the US Federal Constitution that explicitly gives citizens the right to vote.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This, the 14th amendment, doesn't give you the right to vote, this says you can't be denied voting based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th amendment says it cannot be denied due to sex, the 24th says there can't be a poll tax, the 26th say you can't be denied because of your age as long as you're over 18. There is no right to vote in the U.S. constitution or Bill of Rights, because the "Founding Fathers" were a bunch or racist elitists who thought that common people were too stupid to look out for their own best interest. EDIT: fixed typos

You should read up on "negative rights"

"Citizens shall not be denied X" is as strong as rights are expressed in the Constitution.

This is like saying the Constitution doesn't give people the right of free speech because it's expressed in a negative rights way (govt shall not impede)

All this was high school civics stuff - did you get to take such a class? I know high school in America is all over the place.

Somehow you managed to read 4 different Amendments to the Constitution, all of which use the wording "The right of (citizen clause X) to vote shall not (restriction clause y)", and somehow you come away with "there is no right to vote, it's never been in there and it's not now".

I dont understand why requesting ID to check off a voter on an electoral roll is a bad thing.

1. Anyone should be able to register to vote, as long as they are eligible.

2. Eligibility should be straight forward (this seems to be where the issue is).

3. On election day you turn up, show a proof of ID so the roll gets checked off, go vote for President Kang.

How else do you stop people from double voting / voting as a dead relative / registering their pet to vote?

In those places that have mail in voting: request your papers ahead of time, they get mailed to your registered address. If tour address is wrong, then your registration should be treated as invalid because you could be living anywhere, and you don't get the papers until it has been updated.

ID cards should be free if they are a requirement to vote. Many people cant afford the 50-100$ required to get an ID, sounds crazy but it's true.

previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29996614

Reply on news.ycombinator.com