Comment by mschuster91
2 hours ago
The problem is... being opposed to a national ID card scheme is bipartisan in the US [1]. The Republicans go as far as to yap about "mark of the beast", the Democrats and the ACLU fear them being used as part of a surveillance state.
[1] https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/letter-beware-mark-beast-wa...
Which is insane. The federal government already knows who we are, via SSN, tax returns, and whatever else. The state already knows via tax returns, driver's license, and whatever else.
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.
>Which is insane. The federal government already knows who we are, via SSN, tax returns, and whatever else. The state already knows via tax returns, driver's license, and whatever else.
"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.
I grew up in that tradition, so I can shed some light: The fear of a national ID isn’t just about tracking and privacy, but that an individual cannot participate in society or survive if the government decides to revoke the id.
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.
A national ID card scheme has existed for many decades. It’s called a passport.
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.