Hacker News Reader

Comment by trinix912 | Hacker News Reader

It's an EU thing. Yes, normies do use it, as it is a chip embedded in your personal ID card and your passport. You hand your ID to an officer, they read the chip data and verify the signature. You don't have to know anything about how it works. It also contains biometrical data (your fingerprints, etc).

View on HN

Implementation of eIDAS is still in progress. It's not even mandatory for every citizen to haven an eID until end of 2026. And it's also not used yet everywhere for everything. But it's gradually growing.

The first time I had a chance to use was just some months ago, when I could activate a SIM-card online through and my smartphone reading out my ID-card via NFC. I pay daily via NFC, but it's the first time ever I had to use the chip in my ID-Card, despite it having one for 15 years now. Laws and regulations are good in theory, but reality can be often quite a bit different.

Fingerprints are collected only from criminals or people who visit US. Why did Europeans agree to being treated like criminals or tourists I don't understand.

>Fingerprints are collected only from criminals or people who visit US. Why did Europeans agree to being treated like criminals or tourists I don't understand.

Only if you assume that anyone who works for a SEC regulated company[0], applies for a California driver's license[1], current and former US Military personnel[2] healthcare workers, teachers, real estate agents, child care providers and others[3] are either "criminals" or "tourists."

If so, into which bucket would you place CA driver's license applicants? Criminals? How about US Military personnel? Tourists?

Please do elucidate.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.17f-2

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/occu...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1440f

[3] https://blog.certifixlivescan.com/state-by-state-guide-to-fi...

Yes the government wants to treat everyone as a possible criminal and collects fingerprints for this reason. There is absolutely no logical reason for collection of fingerprints for a driver's license. Collecting fingerprints doesn't make driving safer in any way. Making driving exam more difficult and having to take it more often would make driving safer, limiting the speed would make driving safer, but fingerprints wouldn't.

Driver's licenses serve as the primary form of identification in the US.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Ivan, especially since many (most?) Americans don't have a passport.

Are your papers in order, Ivan? It would be a shame if you ended up in a Siberian gulag, eh?

Nobody, surprisingly, our regime doesn't require us to provide fingerprints yet (although that might change; our government loves to say "we just do the same thing all Western democratic governments do, so don't complain"). The punishment for not having valid "papers" is usually a fine (the fines for not having valid documentation related to military service were significantly increased recently for obvious reasons). Unless they close the border, I think we don't need to worry.

Also I always thought that it is weird, having to take driving exams to get an ID and calling an ID a "driver's license".

Fingerprints are only stored on the chip. Collection/retainment for other purposes is against the law.

That's just the first step to let people get used to giving away their biometric information and then change the laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com