4 ms·
It comes down to an attempt to centralize and make mandatory which translates to excessive control and easy abuse. If there were some pressing real world need
by Reelin 6y ago
It comes down to an attempt to centralize and make mandatory which translates to excessive control and easy abuse.
If there were some pressing real world need for it then perhaps it would be acceptable. There isn't though, so I can only interpret such a move in the most cynical of terms (ie exploiting 9/11 to increase federal power).
It's already fairly difficult to get by without a state ID or passport. They're often required where they aren't really needed simply because everyone is assumed to have at least a driver's license. States already collect far more information about you (IMO) than they have any business doing. Various forms of state issued ID are already more than sufficient for the vast majority of use cases. In the rare instance that greater security is required for some reason, passports exist and can be used.
(As an example, the DoD has legitimate real world security concerns. As such they've had their own ID card system, which includes a PKI chip, for far longer than most institutions. But no one is complaining (I hope) about being subject to stringent ID requirements while working for the military.)