That suddenly means a data leak doesn't matter - nobody can make new signatures.
Verifying someone's ID would be as simple as asking them to sign your company name and today's date.
[1] https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/letter-beware-mark-beast-wa...
If we, collectively, don't want a true national ID, then federal regulations on state-issued IDs should be available (something roughly akin to ReadID, but with the ability to use the ID as a proof of age or other attribute as needed).
We'll get there eventually, but not before we try everything else first.
"They can already send a drone to watch you and track your cell location and, and, and, why does it matter if they also slap up a million AI powered cameras?"
The comprehensiveness of the system matters.
This is Chesterton’s Fence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
What attributes should require proof? Where do you draw the line?
Age?
Gender?
Race?
Religion?
Political party?
Citizenship?
> We'll get there eventually, but not before we try everything else first.
We got here by trying everything else first.
The “good old days” are now. Thousands of years of progress and blood delivered our liberal societies. Don’t give it up so easily.
Really, the broader point is I'm tired of giving away massive chunks of my PII (SSN, DL copies, etc) instead of just having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims."
If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites, then let's enable that properly. I shouldn't have to give NYT a scan of my DL and my SSN to gain access.
We haven’t decided this.
> having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims."
You’re literally trading liberty for convenience.
I understand your position. I just fundamentally disagree that the tradeoff you are so eager to make is worthwhile.
Meaning, I can’t buy food; rent or buy a home; or hold any sort of job and earn and save.
What we have today isn’t better, but until recently I was hard pressed to see how such fears were even warranted.
What would happen today if your government revokes a SSN which is your de facto "personal identification number" today? Can you still rent/buy a home? Can you have a job?
But while cash is printed (physical currency): Not having an SSN becomes a major impediment but not impossible to make transactions and survive.
Our migrant workers—who are basically carrying white collar workers like me—are proof of this.
Point is, the US already basically have a de facto "ID card", they just don't call it as such (yet?), so claiming somehow correctly labeling this thing would make things worse or more difficult, doesn't make much sense.
That can be a military id, passport, NEXUS card, DL, state ID.
Things are already bad enough as it is, but at least it’s still possible to get by even if the system takes a dislike to you.
If you're within the borders of the US, this ability already exists, they have a monopoly on violence in the country, something the government is very eager to demonstrate this year.
And again, as long as backchannels exists in the system to accommodate those without a Government ID, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off.
Don't you see and understand you already have government ID? You're just calling it by another name...
Do you seriously not get it yet? You have IDs now, and you claim those backchannels exists now, and haven't been cut off. Why would calling something something else suddenly make those backchannels be cut off? How come they exists today in the first place then?
I have not seen a definition of this that is simultaneously true and useful
The sole provider of violence in the U.S. is not the government.
Of course many engage in "violence", or "provide it", that is not in doubt.
In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully.
In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.
Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea.
> In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.
Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.
There are clear counter examples to your statement in the U.S.
States are not “allowed” to use violence because the Federal government says it’s okay. States have a right to create and enforce laws.
I don't know if you're in the US, but that's simply not how our Constitution works. "Monopoly on violence" is just something some people made up. It's meaningless, just some empty words on paper.
(Which is also true for the Constitution itself, of course. But if you're talking about the theoretical and philosophical basis for lawmaking in the US, that's what determines both. Theoretically.)
In any case all the old gods are dead or dying, including old ideas of statehood, so enjoy the ride, everyone.
This is because the US made a critical flaw by tying the authentication and authorization tokens into one single token - your driving license/ID. They should be separate things. Your authentication token (who are you?) should have your picture and be forgery resistant. Your authorization token (what can you do?) should be a piece of plastic with zero pictures (like your insurance card). Did you get stopped for DUI? The officer takes your authorization token, instead, the officer confiscates both tokens and hands you a paper receipt.
The FAA does it the smart way, your authorization token (pilot's license) has no photo. You do something stupid, the ATC tells you to "call this number" and if it is really badly stupid, then the local FAA person confiscates your authorization token.
There is no reason a digital equivalent can’t be made using the passport system, and it can be left optional, just like passports are optional.
"Border controls aren’t supposed to exist between EU member states – that’s the promise of the 1985 Schengen treaty. Yet today, travelers routinely face checks when crossing borders within the [European] union"
https://euobserver.com/198454/law-professor-sues-germany-for...
EU did border checks without digital IDs being a thing, so why couldn’t US states do a border check without digital IDs?
Digital IDs are not a causal factor for these concerns, seeing as how those government abuses already happen without digital IDs.
AFAICS from the other side of the pond, United States Government can track people well enough even without a national ID card. They have successfully worked around that problem.
So, it's a moot point now. No?
The EU/EEA is rolling out a digital identity mechanism with interoperable wallets that can hold any range of identity documents and other credentials. You don't need to pick a single wallet provider - several EU countries are approving multiple, including private providers. You don't need to standardise on a single ID.
This is already the case for many already in-use ID solutions in Europe. E.g. in Norway, there are at least 3 signing providers, and only one provider is government issued - the by far most popular (BankID) is private. You identify yourself to the provider when requesting issuance, not to the government (unless you sign up with a government provider).
The GDPR in a nutshell......
Unnecessary personal data is a liability.
In the US, courts have ruled that the compiler of data owns all that data - you have no control about data about yourself (except in a few legal categories like credit reporting). Some of these old court rulings covered telephone books and business directories.
> Unnecessary personal data is a liability.
Absolutely.