Hacker News Reader

1. People don’t trust the government and are wary of giving it more power

2. You’re missing that your face is different than a piece of paper. You can choose to refuse to show ID in some cases. You could keep your face covered, but that has ramifications you might not desire

3. The Feds are worse because they are already much more powerful than any state government.

It’s really not hard to see where the fear is. This might be one of the most obtuse comments I have seen on here

identity “verification” by ssn is stupid; almost every other democracy has national id systems and residential verification and it works better and is easier to get benefits or prove yourself than real id and any other absurd american invention.

The first part is correct, the rest is technocratic handwaving over real concerns based on real experiences that lead to dire consequences that cannot be undone and often aren't fully known until it's too late to undo them.

1. Sure, folks don't trust the government. I'm gonna guess that same sort wants to see ID in some situations. In this case, the government already has the power. State ID's already exist, and the federal government can get access. You already have a ss# - if someone wanted to mess with you, they'd just code you as dead. "accidentally".

2. Sure, your face isn't a piece of paper. It is still a major identifier, hence the reason you have it on your ID. The DMV already has your picture on file (hence, you don't always have to have a new picture). I'm not sure there are many situations where you could refuse to show ID to the government.

3. That's not a given, depending on the situation.

The advantage of a traditional ID card is that that you usually know when "the readout" of your ID happens. I don't know about you, but my idea of a good society does not involve states reading out the identity of their citizens without them noticing. If they have to do that they are not that good at the whole state-thing.

A good ID system has to solve two problems:

- Allow verification that the holder of the ID is the owner of the ID (identity verification)

- Allow to read out certain facts. Bonus points if this can be done granular, e.g. verify to the other side that you are older than X years without telling them when you were born, where you live and what number a state assigned to you. Extra bonus points if you can see which information is read out and can deny (or even flag) over-eagerly information requests.

Note that for the identity verification you just need to know if the biometric identifier of the person holding the ID matches the picture on the ID. You do not know when they were born, what their name is, where they live etc.

In a safe digital future this need-to-know-principle is IMO necessary to keep the power symmetry between inividuals and governments/corporations/criminals.

1. “Just because they have power let’s give them more power.” This is a bad argument

2. There certainly are situations where you can refuse. And some one needs to ask you explicitly for it right now. Won’t be true when your face is a government id

3. This is simply not true. When push comes to shove, the feds will win every time

I’m not commenting on the facial recognition tech. They do that without a national ID.

State and the Federal government also work together in security, especially “National Security.” That’s how police departments end up with former military vehicles.

Some state governments already perform facial recognition when issuing drivers licenses. There have been stories of twins being unable to obtain an ID because it was flagged as fraud due to matching facial features.

Project 2025 is a good example of why we are very afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

> Second, we have a national ID already called a passport. That’s valid ID in the US and issued by the Federal government. I have one and so far the Feds haven’t come for me while I’ve slept or thrown me into whatever lies at the bottom of this slippery slope argument. Am I missing something?

"I did X and bad thing didn't happen, therefore bad things never happen as a consequence of X."

> Third, what makes the Feds worse than my State government?

Scale: 330M persons versus 1M - 40M persons. Also: budget, legal authority, known illegal abuses (Florida never tried to render a citizen to Gitmo).

> What stops Florida or New Mexico from turning State ID databases into a surveillance tool?

Not sure about NM, but FL has, as have many other states.

(In NM, I think the ABQ police just shoot first and identify later.)

> Is it possible we really have 50 slippery slopes to deal with?

50 states + 1 federal, yes.

> Again, I don’t understand where the fear is.

Mass surveillance of citizens, invasion of privacy, you know, things like that.

It doesn't have to turn into a Chinese social credit score for things to get bad.

> Scale: 330M persons versus 1M - 40M persons. Also: budget, legal authority, known illegal abuses (Florida never tried to render a citizen to Gitmo).

The jurisdiction of your ID doesn't change your legal jurisdiction. I.e. having a Florida ID instead of a federal ID won't prevent the feds sending you to Gitmo.

> Mass surveillance of citizens, invasion of privacy, you know, things like that.

The feds already have access to DMV data from all the states.

I think there was a time where having to get data from state DMV's would have been a nominal hurdle, but not anymore. I'm on team federal ID these days because I don't think the feds get access to any additional data, and most state DMV's suck. It's easier to get a passport than a driver's license these days, I'm more confident in the feds ability to make a functional ID system.

My uncle got a passport and then a week later he vanished.