6 ms·

>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous

by vpzom 7y ago

Iv 7y ago
I keep seeing people from US and UK equating IDs with totalitarianism. Why? I don't follow the reasoning here. I believe all Americans have a social security number, right? And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) I don't see what this enables that would be impossible without.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  The only reason for a UID is to track what you do. A world full of events where that is a pressing need is a frightening one.
- walrus01 7y ago
  I find it amusing at how many Americans seem resistant to a national ID system, but blithely give out their social security number to any number of private entities, along with their DOB, full name, mother's maiden name, etc. Basically a ready made identity theft kit when the inevitable data breach occurs. You already have a national attempt at a GUID per human, it's called a social security number, it just has incredibly lax security and data handling practices, and no teeth in penalties for its misuse.
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  I think there are several reasons: 1. Centralization gives provides a juicy target for misuse/negligence by both legitimate (see: Equifax) and illegitimate (see: Cambridge Analytica). De-centralization allows a preferable level of chaos 1. Historically there has been an attempt at balancing federal (national) vs local (state) powers. 2. The country can probably not even agree on one standard -- some states for examples are very strict while others are not (usually along party lines)
  - hrktb 7y ago
    But do any of these address the point that effectively anyone in a developped country already has one or more unique IDs of some kind ? And for any developping country, time will come where people who don’t have an ID now will need to get one, to receive care, go to school, get out of the country or drive a car. In that sense, if a country allows people to not have a surname, as long as they have at least one canonical ID I guess it’s fine.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Cambridge Analytica did not rely on any centralized ID scheme. Just Facebook ID. What you want are strong privacy laws. GDPR is overdue in USA.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The UK has no requirement for ID. The old WW2 ID was abolished in the early 50s as an infringement of civil liberties. The idea being that a citizen can go about their lawful business without interruption unless suspected of something. IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion. A passport or driving licence forms a de facto ID, but both of those are voluntary, and there is no requirement to carry them. You don't even need to carry your driving licence when driving. I haven't seen my driving licence for years! I think I know which drawer it's in. :) There are also voluntary ID schemes for youngsters who want to prove they're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco, or be in a club etc.
  - Iv 7y ago
    > IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion. Is the existence of an ID really the problem there? I like the idea that having to provide an ID is optional and the police can't force someone to comply without a good reason, but the existence of an UID for people seems really necessary in a lot of cases, to prove someone did not vote 10 times in an election, to track your pension state, your debts, your condemnations (I don't want someone to confuse me with a criminal of the same name!)
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      UID per se no. Asking for it, most definitely yes. This is a hill I would die on. I have a passport and driving licence. I can be asked to produce my driving licence in limited circumstances (suspected of driving offences and stopped) at a police station within 7 days. Every other production of ID is optional, except passport at international ports. No ID needed for NHS care, dental care - there's an NHS number but I haven't the foggiest what it is. It's unconnected with my criminal record or lack, my debts, my pension etc etc. To vote I have to be on the electoral role, which is a special purpose UID, and can be hidden from public view. None of these are wrapped in an all encompassing national ID. They are specific to purpose, and should remain localised to that purpose. e.g. My employer will want my NI Number for pension and tax contributions. I don't have to produce ID to the police, though I can be asked to identify myself. If arrested and I claim to be Winston Churchill I can probably expect a little more than average checking. Circumstantial proof of ID is more than enough in most cases. If I want to apply for my first passport there are ways of acceptably identifying myself without any other form of ID. We've managed without for 70 years without reducing ourselves to a banana republic (You may feel Brexit is doing that). :)
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  If you google "mark of the beast real ID" you'll see all kinds of very interesting reasoning. I don't know how much I'm joking about it, because if you don't think there's believers you're in a bubble -- I'm not saying whether or not they're crazy to reject a Real ID on religious grounds, but I think it is a pressure in american politics at least.
- afiori 7y ago
  > And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) Mostly agree with your point, but for the decades to come in this case it would be better to keep IDs of different nations separate.
- kragen 7y ago
  Like most measures that give more power to governments, it makes things easier for them, not possible. Are you honestly not aware of how unique permanent identifying numbers give governments more power over the people thus numbered? There are examples in the article. US passports, among others, do not have a number identifying the holder, only the passport. Each time you replace the passport, every ten years or less, you get a new number. The passport also does not bear the social security number.
- wtmt 7y ago
  > And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) In India, passport numbers change (for the same person) whenever they're reissued (renewal, lost, etc.). That's a good thing, IMO.

>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous

by vpzom 7y ago

>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous

Iv 7y ago

I keep seeing people from US and UK equating IDs with totalitarianism. Why? I don't follow the reasoning here. I believe all Americans have a social security number, right? And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) I don't see what this enables that would be impossible without.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
The only reason for a UID is to track what you do. A world full of events where that is a pressing need is a frightening one.
walrus01 7y ago
I find it amusing at how many Americans seem resistant to a national ID system, but blithely give out their social security number to any number of private entities, along with their DOB, full name, mother's maiden name, etc. Basically a ready made identity theft kit when the inevitable data breach occurs. You already have a national attempt at a GUID per human, it's called a social security number, it just has incredibly lax security and data handling practices, and no teeth in penalties for its misuse.
TuringNYC 7y ago
I think there are several reasons: 1. Centralization gives provides a juicy target for misuse/negligence by both legitimate (see: Equifax) and illegitimate (see: Cambridge Analytica). De-centralization allows a preferable level of chaos 1. Historically there has been an attempt at balancing federal (national) vs local (state) powers. 2. The country can probably not even agree on one standard -- some states for examples are very strict while others are not (usually along party lines)
- hrktb 7y ago
  But do any of these address the point that effectively anyone in a developped country already has one or more unique IDs of some kind ? And for any developping country, time will come where people who don’t have an ID now will need to get one, to receive care, go to school, get out of the country or drive a car. In that sense, if a country allows people to not have a surname, as long as they have at least one canonical ID I guess it’s fine.
- Iv 7y ago
  Cambridge Analytica did not rely on any centralized ID scheme. Just Facebook ID. What you want are strong privacy laws. GDPR is overdue in USA.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The UK has no requirement for ID. The old WW2 ID was abolished in the early 50s as an infringement of civil liberties. The idea being that a citizen can go about their lawful business without interruption unless suspected of something. IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion. A passport or driving licence forms a de facto ID, but both of those are voluntary, and there is no requirement to carry them. You don't even need to carry your driving licence when driving. I haven't seen my driving licence for years! I think I know which drawer it's in. :) There are also voluntary ID schemes for youngsters who want to prove they're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco, or be in a club etc.
- Iv 7y ago
  > IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion. Is the existence of an ID really the problem there? I like the idea that having to provide an ID is optional and the police can't force someone to comply without a good reason, but the existence of an UID for people seems really necessary in a lot of cases, to prove someone did not vote 10 times in an election, to track your pension state, your debts, your condemnations (I don't want someone to confuse me with a criminal of the same name!)
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    UID per se no. Asking for it, most definitely yes. This is a hill I would die on. I have a passport and driving licence. I can be asked to produce my driving licence in limited circumstances (suspected of driving offences and stopped) at a police station within 7 days. Every other production of ID is optional, except passport at international ports. No ID needed for NHS care, dental care - there's an NHS number but I haven't the foggiest what it is. It's unconnected with my criminal record or lack, my debts, my pension etc etc. To vote I have to be on the electoral role, which is a special purpose UID, and can be hidden from public view. None of these are wrapped in an all encompassing national ID. They are specific to purpose, and should remain localised to that purpose. e.g. My employer will want my NI Number for pension and tax contributions. I don't have to produce ID to the police, though I can be asked to identify myself. If arrested and I claim to be Winston Churchill I can probably expect a little more than average checking. Circumstantial proof of ID is more than enough in most cases. If I want to apply for my first passport there are ways of acceptably identifying myself without any other form of ID. We've managed without for 70 years without reducing ourselves to a banana republic (You may feel Brexit is doing that). :)
jazzyjackson 7y ago
If you google "mark of the beast real ID" you'll see all kinds of very interesting reasoning. I don't know how much I'm joking about it, because if you don't think there's believers you're in a bubble -- I'm not saying whether or not they're crazy to reject a Real ID on religious grounds, but I think it is a pressure in american politics at least.
afiori 7y ago
> And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) Mostly agree with your point, but for the decades to come in this case it would be better to keep IDs of different nations separate.
kragen 7y ago
Like most measures that give more power to governments, it makes things easier for them, not possible. Are you honestly not aware of how unique permanent identifying numbers give governments more power over the people thus numbered? There are examples in the article. US passports, among others, do not have a number identifying the holder, only the passport. Each time you replace the passport, every ten years or less, you get a new number. The passport also does not bear the social security number.
wtmt 7y ago
> And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) In India, passport numbers change (for the same person) whenever they're reissued (renewal, lost, etc.). That's a good thing, IMO.