Comment by mschuster91
3 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...
You don't need a national ID card scheme to do this, though.
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 Democrats and the ACLU fear them being used as part of a surveillance state.
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?
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.
Not sure how you jump from "ID with chip" to "AI-based drone and camera network". We can do one without the other.
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.
Exactly. You do not want to hand the US government the ability to “turn off” someone’s daily life at the press of a button.
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.
> Exactly. You do not want to hand the US government the ability to “turn off” someone’s daily life at the press of a button.
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.
2 replies →
> but that an individual cannot participate in society or survive if the government decides to revoke the id
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?
Some US citizens don’t even have SSNs, believe it or not. The Amish get by just fine.
2 replies →
Before my time, but I believe SSN was and probably still is controversial in my circle. I definitely recall rumblings about it even 30 years ago.
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.
1 reply →
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.
> 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...
What relevance does that have to the US federal government offering a digital ID verification system on top of existing passport infrastructure?
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.