4 ms·
There is no need for a single centralized identifier. Each need for an identifier has its own requirements, things like ensuring a person has been served only
by otakucode 9y ago
There is no need for a single centralized identifier. Each need for an identifier has its own requirements, things like ensuring a person has been served only once, ensuring every person has been served at least once, ensuring every participant meets some criteria, etc. There is no need for, for example, the social security administration to be able to cross-reference with the drivers license registry. It makes no sense, and would be pretty dangerous, to create a single identifier that invites cross-relation of a persons entire existence into an easily-profileable bundle.
- specialist 9y agoYou perfectly articulated the opposition to Real ID. I usedto share your views. Then I created regional health exchanges and worked in election integrity policy (voter registration databases). Without guids, there is no way to both link demographic records across systems AND encrypt those records at rest. I’d be okay with a handful of id (guid) issuing authorities per use case. Voting, health care, pension, etc. I very much wanted infratructure for faceted identities (personas) which could not be correlated. But now I don’t think such a thing is possible. I believe, but cannot prove, that Big Data will always win the privacy vs deanonymization arm’s race. PS- Corps like Facebook, Lexis/Nexus, NSA, etc have already uniquely identified everyone living and dead. My proposal daylights that fact, restoring power to the people, and insisting that our data is encrypted at rest.