> The CERES project (Spanish Certification) headed by the FNMT-RCM consists of establishing a Public Certification Entity that will enable authentication and guarantee the confidentiality of communications between citizens, companies or other institutions and the Public Administrations via the open communication networks.
So far, in my ~decade here, it's been working out great and is so easy to use.
- MiDNI > https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=es.gob.interio... - Mi DGT > https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dgt.midgt
The next step will be EU-DI, an app based wallet with many more features and hopefully better interoperability between EU countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identification#Usag...
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU...
S Korea has had government issued digital IDs for all online transactions, although it was originally implemented as an Internet Explorer 5.5 plug-in (eww). I haven't heard anything about how it works these days.
Japan has new digital IDs cards and a standard little device available at every corner store to use it to digitally sign legal documents.
The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me. It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not.
Each and every vote is counted!
The people choose and it’s as simple as that!
In fact the people chose with their hard earned votes for Kamala and Trump to run against each other for president didn’t they?
Didn’t they?
And Europe is even freer!
So much global freedom and democracy where we all have a say :D
> It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not.
Well there are two things here. We don't in my opinion, have much of an issue with actual voter fraud - as claimed by those on the right. However, we also have a number of folks on the left who are against voter ID requirements because it might disenfranchise some voters who don't have an ID... an ID you need to do the vast majority of important tasks in life. I've always said if you're not responsible enough to get an ID we don't want you voting anyway (no I don't care about the downvotes).
It's sort of funny how these have seemed to change over time. Folks on the right historically were very much against "big government" ID programs. On the left? In favor! Well, until you start using it for checking who is voting or something. It's also amusing and a little bit irritating that our national ID system is basically 50 state ID systems and they are all centered on having a license to drive a car....
Also Americans can get IDs at a younger age too (children over a certain age need a passport to travel outside the US for example) but we don't really as a society require an ID for many things in practice - it's not really the culture here, we prefer a little bit of anonymity, but once you hit 15 1/2 or 16 you can get a state level driver's license which you'll then carry for the rest of your life. For those who don't drive you are also able to get what counts to just a state ID.
Not to make excuses but the US is a little hard to understand some times with these things because there's so much, especially in the news, emphasis on the federal level of the US government but it really is 50 sovereign states who send representatives to Washington DC. Unlike in, say, Estonia which from my very limited understanding is sort of one people, one country, some divisions. In the US you're from California, or Ohio, or Maine and the state manages most of your lifecycle affairs.
> The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me.
I actually refuse to get a "Real ID". I already have a passport. They can kiss my ass on paying an extra $25 for what amounts to the same ID card I already have. I'll take it for free but I'm not paying for it. I'll just carry my passport when I fly.
But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists.
10th/11th Amendment
With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/
"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
Related to your point about absolute sovereignty I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but I would say that, and I'm not accusing you of doing this by any means, we should be mindful not to shift the goalposts and attempt to depress the meaning and significance of sovereignty just because an entity isn't also absolutely sovereign.
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact.
>In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
Sovereign states in the latter sense can delegate their powers to external entities (as they do in the EU), but they can also unilaterally choose to take that power back (as the UK did).
The USSR was an interesting case when it comes to sovereignty. Legally its member republics were sovereign states, but that sovereignty meant little in practice. As a result of a weird compromise, Ukraine and Belarus were founding members of the UN, despite not being sovereign in the generally understood sense. There was a legal mechanism for secession, but in the end, the member republics ignored it and dissolved the union.
Just to be clear for our international friends, this is basically as unheard of. "In some cases" you could say well in some cases of murder someone is a cannibal too. It's a big country with over 340 million people under one roof. Shit happens.
Stop fear-mongering. One person doing something wrong one time does not constitute any sort of noticeable or wide-scale practice and the fact that if such an event occurs it makes national news and is fixed goes to show that the public is opposed to these practices, they are exceptionally rare.
Or perhaps there are "some cases" of voter fraud too ;)
Somehow this wasn't a problem for them, while whites-only water fountains still live rent-free in your mind.
Following your logic, no problem is solvable until you have eliminated all potential issues and outliers. No startups would ever get off the ground with that attitude.
> People who want to just ram through voter ID laws without solving the problem of undocumented citizens can't be treated as serious members of society.
Maybe we want to be more like Europe with IDs from birth and to use them for all government activities.
Who are you to be the arbiter of who is a serious member of society?
Sure, because the documentation required used to be less.
When I was first getting my driver's license, you could establish your identity by having a birth certificate or some sort of vouching process. These days, you need a birth certificate.
It would be hard to immigrate today without a birth certificate, in part because it would be hard to get a passport without it, and it's hard to enter the country without a passport. Countries where record keeping was historically poor tend to have more accessible ways to obtain a passport without a birth certificate... A passport is sufficient proof of birth in an immigration file, and a certificate of naturalization is sufficient proof of citizenship, so a birth certificate isn't explicitly necessary.
I believe it's more rare than citizens without documentation of birth.
If you want to tie a 'universal' ID to a birth document when birth documentation is not universal, you need to lead with a proposal for how to actually make it universally accessible, including to those without documentation of birth.
It’s a lot harder these days given the 60 years of progress
If one or both of the two who just got married wants to change their name? The process is downright bizarre. There is no central name database you go update. You just send off forms to a bunch of places saying “this is my name now,” some with a copy of your marriage license.
Very strange system IMO.
Why go through some centralized, hackable database, wait in line, and maybe get told to go away by some nameless official making minimum wage to update your last name when you can just decide to start using it and that's your prerogative? "I go by this, you don't get to decide". "My gender is this: it's not up to you to decide". I think it's something worth debating whether or not these kinds of things should even have anything to do with the government. I think there are good reasons, but I can certainly see very well-reasoned and principled arguments against the government being involved in some affairs like this.
Also, it should be noted, parents can opt out of enumeration at birth. The child certainly doesn't have input into that decision.
Medical professionals are generally legally obligated to report births, but not all births happen with medical supervision.
I was in college around 2000. Some of my fellow students had no way to obtain an official birth certificate as the county records had been lost in a flood or a fire or something.
Older generations also have the legacy of Jim Crow. Birth registration rates in 1940 in some states was close to 80%. [1].
If you're born today and don't have a birth certificate, it's a giant PITA and your parents will likely end up getting your birth retroactively documented. Maybe when they want to claim you for taxes; maybe to enroll you in school.
If you were born in 1940 and didn't have one, you probably just made do... When 24% of the children in Arkansas didn't get a birth certificate, everybody is going to be fine with you not having one.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1527492/?page=3 (paper from 1943)
it's stupid easy to setup, the app is not overly bloated and it has different options to authenticate.
Recently I added my passport to my Apple wallet but I’m not sure if that’s used anywhere.
I'd love to read more about what security features US passports are missing and what they have implemented. Just out of curiosity.
The private key itself is locked into the Emirates ID, and need my biometrics to unlock.
Example: When I get delivery that needs my ID, the delivery man just put my Emirates into a card reader, and they need my biometrics to digitally sign the receipt.
It’s often used for important delivery (banks/gov documents), and any related gov services (including telecom, if i want to reload my sim card but forgot my pin, i can just insert my Emirates ID and scan my fingerprint and it retrives my SIM card by magic!)
You can try to read how they are doing the Emirates ID and the UAE Pass app, it’s super interesting to see this so well intergrated and at scale.
https://www.e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/
The design standard for US & Canadian driving licenses & ID cards allows for chips on them. Page 27 of
https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a553...
A pet hobby of mine is to get my state to adopt something similar to the Estonian standard. With a card reader, one would be able to vote from home with the election board being confident that the vote was cast by an authorized voter. This would address the fearmongering by one political party that has been going on since some black dude got elected President. Other things could include signing tax returns online.
Since REAL ID, getting a driving license/ID is a lot more controlled.