3 ms·
I don't really understand the opposition to using a national identification number. It's a (non-secret) code to uniquely identify people, exactly what would've
by metafunctor 10y ago
I don't really understand the opposition to using a national identification number. It's a (non-secret) code to uniquely identify people, exactly what would've been needed in the Lisa Davis case, and exactly what quite a few countries are using without problems.
Just don't use it for any kind of authentication, ever, because it's not a secret. Also, add a checksum to avoid typos.
- protomyth 10y agoA simple explanation of the opposition is that a national identification number will be assigned, and then we go cashless, then only people with those numbers will be able to do commerce of any type. Add in a bit of requirements that would require a violation of someone's religion and you got the story. Preventing a national id number stops part of the problem. Expect a lot of push back on any attempt to get rid of cash.
- Nomentatus 10y agoYes there are advantages. But a loss, too. When I was young there was privacy. Believe it or not, you could start a new life somewhere else if you wished, and leave the old one behind, without any great effort. Move and get an unlisted number and you might as well have vanished from the face of the earth. Freedom as I knew it then required privacy, these were not concepts that could be separated. I'm not sure what the West means by freedom now; since I'm no longer in a practical sense free to do so much that I was once free to do, without scrutiny. No doubt crime rates are down as a result; but reducing crime wasn't the purpose of freedom. Of course, it would take real effort to maintain privacy in a digital world. I think the time will come when we make that effort.