Hacker News Reader

Comment by habnds | Hacker News Reader

why are the states against it?

The status quo is that the states already have IDs that are exactly how they want them. There’s no practical benefit to them, and it’s a politically convenient argument for privacy rights and states rights.

Because it feeds into the "mark of the beast" thing. State legislators want to appeal to the fundamentalist crowd so they occasionally have to make noises to satisfy them. Since enough people in my state believe such a thing about Social Security numbers, there is a form that the DMV (who I used to work for) has for people who are against SSNs due to religious reasons (SSN required for driving & occupational licenses by Uniform Interstate Family Support Act [0]).

> It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. [1]

Sources:

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Interstate_Family_Supp...

1 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013....

> why are the states against it?

Cedes control, which is a political and minor economic issue.

The states are fine with it, as it would make their lives easier and yield more federal dollars.

National ID was a core GOP platform issue post 911. It never happened because both extremes of the political spectrum are against it. Right wingers are into the mark of the beast stuff and see it as a tool of government tyranny. Left wing types see it as a way to disenfranchise voters and deny resources to marginalized people.

Both are right and wrong. So the status quo prevails.

How would a national ID make anything easier for the states?

It would get them out of the ID business, or yield federal dollars to be in that business.

It would also streamline lots of use cases that require ID. Various federal programs administered by states require that you authenticate people in different ways. The states spend millions to do a shitty job (driven by Fed requirements) for unemployment, social services, Medicaid, etc.

First of all, they don't want to be out of the ID business. They like identifying their citizens to their own standards.

Second of all, the most common state ID is a drivers license. A federal ID would not replace the state's need to license drivers.

> First of all, they don't want to be out of the ID business.

How do you know?

State motor vehicle orgs are revenue generators. ID operations are expensive and operationally risky.

A federal ID would put the states in the business of selling endorsements. A drivers license would be like a deer tag or fishing license - higher margin and lower overhead.

It would also enable online services and local/county/state government could significantly reduce workforce and other expenses.

How would a state assign endorsements to an ID they do not maintain or control? How would they use an ID database they don't have?

The answer is that they'd have to rely on the federal government instead, and given the functional relationship between the states and the federal government, states just aren't going to voluntarily give up that power and trust them to do this for them. It is in the existential interest of the states to maintain as much power as they can, despite the associated cost.

Easy. Just validate the Federal id, probably at a higher trust level than they do today.

Because state dmv compacts govern data exchange and DMVs are all about selling stickers, state programs don’t have access to the ID data they own, except for law enforcement purposes. Companies like id.me, experian, etc buy that data from states and the. sell it back. (usually do a shitty job at it to boot)

Validating a federal ID would tell someone that I am who I say I am. A federal ID wouldn’t indicate whether I am qualified to drive a vehicle according to any state law.

It’s just an endorsement. Logging in to a website with a Google ID doesn’t tell me you paid. Authentication != authorization.

>National ID was a core GOP platform issue post 911

which is funny since the GOP were so adamantly against a national ID when the Clintons tried to introduce it.

It’s a funny issue.

For “normal” people, it’s a non-issue. Once you get to the people who fall out of the funnel, it gets more complex. How do you keep ID current for a 95 year old in a nursing home? Or a kid who can’t get vital records documentation?

Compulsory federal ID is a weird issue that the extremes of political discourse agree on, and the moderates mildly support or meh.

Why does a 95 year old in a nursing home make it any different if it is a national ID vs state ID? I'd assume the 95yo no longer has a valid license, but at that point the state ID is issued in its place.

A kid that can't get vital records is also going to have an issue with getting a state ID. So again, doesn't matter if state/national.

> Left wing types see it as a way to disenfranchise voters and deny resources to marginalized people.

If this is provided free of charge wouldn't it actively enfranchise people who don't presently have ID?

if, and if you trust it to be made easily accessible, yes.

In general, people worried about this stuff with respect to voting aren’t trying to get more voters.

It gives more power to the federal government.

Why would they not be against subjecting their citizens to such a mass surveillance system?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com