Comment by psychoslave

2 days ago

As a citizen under the France Passoire[1] and in an increasingly fascist chauvinist nationalist drifting in the geopolitical landscape, I wouldn’t be that found of delegating too much of these responsibilities to some centralized governmental institutions.

Note that’s this is not here some rant against any governmental power, just that in context, large private group use them as puppets and shrink their budget which of course impact quality of deliveries (not shaming the people who do the hard job without the relevant means). And while more distributed governmental topologies would have their own caveats, at least it would less likely offer opportunities for single point of failure.

[1] https://francepassoire.com/

20 comments

psychoslave

Reply
drcongo  2 days ago

I live in the UK and was having this exact discussion with someone recently - I'd actually prefer Apple to be the owners of my digital identity over the UK government who would happily throw you in jail for expressing support for Palestine Action.

  • padjo  2 days ago

    I think this is a bit of a non sequitur. The government will still be able to throw you in prison in either scenario. They will also be able to compel disclosure of your records in either scenario. So the difference is really just that in the scenario where apple verifies your identity there's an additional actor in the mix over who you have zero influence. It seems strictly worse.

  • myrmidon  2 days ago

    I understand the sentiment, but your government you can actually fix by voting.

    If Apple (or another large international company) suffers from decreasing margins, gets a new CEO and decides to turn the data it sits on into money there is absolutely nothing you can do, and you might in fact still stay a "forced" customer because of network effects (=> just consider whatsapp being an important communication channel in many places worldwide).

    I think this attitude in general is often harmful; if your government sucks, fix the government instead of making yourself dependent on some quasi-monopolist private company.

  • drawfloat  2 days ago

    Your digital identity would then be under the jurisdiction of the US government, who (despite talking a big game) are arguably worse for that same sort of behaviour.

    If anyone has to have this type of control, better it be a local national government that you can in at least some small way influence.

    • pibaker  2 days ago

      No it isn't. The 1A is held strongly even by the most reactionary parts of American politics and jurisdiction. You will not be thrown into a jail just for expressing your support for a group as it happens in the UK.

      1 reply →

  • esperent  2 days ago

    > throw you in jail for expressing support for Palestine Action.

    For those unfamiliar, you are, of course, allowed to peacefully protest in support of Palestine in the UK.

    Palestine Action is a specific group that was controversially labelled as a terrorist group after they broke onto a runway and spray painted military planes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Action

    • Nursie  2 days ago

      Which has now also been declared a terrorist organisation by the US, I believe, off the back of that.

  • psychoslave  2 days ago

    LOL, no, not in this side thanks. Be it by giant transnational corp or centralized all powerful government, the ruin of the noosphere is equally awful.

  • Tangurena2  2 days ago

    It would be best for any such ID system to capture only the minimum data to fulfil their function. Pre-WW2 Dutch records also listed religion, which made it very easy for the Nazis to round up and murder them. Some examples from Kansas show that even recording sex/gender is risky - state law requires driving licenses to record the original sex/gender from the first birth certificate leading to trans women having an M sex/gender marker getting arrested and prosecuted for identity fraud.

m4rtink  2 days ago

On the end of the day, it is the state that issues these ID documents. So if you let the government go bad, IMHO the form of the documents does not matter that much.

During the totalitarian communist rule in Czechoslovakia, the state would regularly interfere with passports of people considered not loyal enough - withholding them outright or inventing extra paperwork that was necessary for the border police to let you out of the country. They also controlled all supply of foreign currency, both in an out.

Then if someone was actually allowed to travel outside the country but failed to return, their family and relatives would be punished, including demotion at work & prohibition of higher education.

So if your government goes bad, this is what will happen - the form of the ID takes at that point does not make much difference.