Some states are already moving in this direction. However, it is a firmly unconstitutional approach. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.
If I can run multiple person bots in 10 years on my cpu, governments around the world will abuse it to 11 and forcing all actors to such measures.
In the 18th century your word was everything, and your identity was tied to your word. When you came into town, or a tavern, or wherever, you had to identify yourself. And if you lied about who you were your word was tarnished forever.
Now we're doing the same thing in a digital world. It's time to adapt to that.
Online and offline is not the same.
If you got caught you were done.
In a digital world we can combat such fraud in vastly different ways.
Obviously I mean any letter of substance where identification is a crucial factor. Not your anonymous love letters to your childhood sweetheart.
The GP comment was about the right toward anonymously sending telegrams and letters, then the response was about fraud, which makes no sense given the context of anonymity; you can't be fraudulently anonymous.
I must write you this letter to show you my burning eternal love since your 4th grade for legitimate, anonymous and encrypetd communication.
In shivers.
Your uncle.
Publius
Folks seeking to profit from your loss of freedom find it extremely useful.
same thing will happen, a leak will occur and the authorities will be thrilled to offer me a 45 cent class action suit -- meanwhile bad actors will have the data and do who-knows-what with it.
if bad internet data is really the problem here then I would suggest more rigorous filtering of results rather than involuntarily signing up the world for a club that every individual may or may not want to be a part of by way of an eID.
And yet democracies predate the existence of digital anonimity by quite a few centuries (or at the very least decades, depending on how many slaves you accept in your definition of a "healthy democracy").
> The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation.
> Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overv...
since this is HN I better clarify - I'm not sure I agree that should pass or would pass, it seems a stretch to me. But if I wanted to make the argument that is where I would go.
An eID can also just make a call to the eID issuer, identifying the person, and then a callback to the service indicating that the identified person complies with certain requirements like age.
Think of it as a bouncer at the door that does not divulge any details to the club owner. ;)
If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.