4 ms·
Right, but it's like using a private key as an identifier. As soon as it's compromised you need to get a whole new ID. I'd rather see something like Bitcoin's
by cal5k 8y ago
Right, but it's like using a private key as an identifier. As soon as it's compromised you need to get a whole new ID.
I'd rather see something like Bitcoin's HD wallets used for identification - your private keys are on a hardware device, but you can generate new "personal identifiers" for use with public services that, if compromised, could be burned through a central registry without requiring a replacement of the private keys.
- solarkraft 8y agoThis is good, but it'll take a while to catch on. I can well imagine everyone receiving a hardware key generator for personal identification purposes. Some id cards already have something similar and it shouldn't be all too expensive.
- ngneer 8y agoAssuming a fair bidding process...
- njarboe 8y agoThe only real problem with most of these "identity theft" problems are that lenders are not punished/fined when they lie to credit bureaus and say you borrowed some money instead of someone who has impersonated you. Prevent the banks/loan makers from libeling you and this information leaking is not that much of a big deal. Banks might not like it, but the populous would definitely support it.
- drewmol 8y agoTo further your suggestion, start referring to "identity theft" as fraud. Banks/loan makers don't just libel you, they further the initial crime and commit fraud every time they transfer/sell/bundle the fraudulent debt.
- njarboe 8y agoThere needs to be a specific phrase to replace the phrase "identity theft". I think the phrase "bank libel" could work as it is not a phrase currently used very often. Unfortunately "bank fraud" is a common occurrence, so not a great name for this specific type of bank fraud.
- cal5k 8y agoWell, the above solution would actually allow you to connect the stolen number to the specific organization you supplied it to. That would help with accountability quite a bit!
- Kalium 8y agoThis is a great idea! It solves a lot of problems up front - it allows for multiple, verifiable, identity slices and separate revocations of each. That said, you may also want to consider that a system design may want to have the ability to re-issue private keys. It's wise to assume that hardware dongles may, in the fullness of time, prove attackable. Certainly many Bitcoin wallets have.
- cal5k 8y agoIt might be necessary to issue new dongles every once in a while, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a user fee for doing so. Certainly people have to pay to renew driver's licenses and such already.
- Kalium 8y agoYou may wish to consider stepping carefully with this one. It's reasonable to charge for driver's licenses and passports because those are privileges. It would be unreasonable to charge people a fee for a basic requirement of being enabled to be verifiable by their government. Especially if the system you're imagining is to be used for things like identification to establish voter eligibility.
- cal5k 8y agoWhy is it unreasonable? You could exempt anyone below a certain income level from paying the fee - it's no different than any other kind of tax.
- Kalium 8y agoIt's a de facto poll tax. You may wish to research the history of such, it's both fascinating and horrifying. Your idea of using income levels is an interesting and intriguing one. Thank you for bringing it forth for discussion! However, have you considered that it may pose some complications, such as how one can document and prove income without a way to prove identity in a system where every such document is tied to identity? Might it not be easier to skip that administrative overhead entirely?