8 ms·

In 2020 your government has no way to identify you. It's shocking and absurd and affects everything. Beyond the operational stupidity ... they don't even know

by jariel 6y ago

In 2020 your government has no way to identify you. It's shocking and absurd and affects everything. Beyond the operational stupidity ... they don't even know better. Not a single anybody outside of the bureaucracy has even identified it as a problem. We have the same thing in Canada: tons of COVID benefits fraudulent. They throw bazillions out the door. Finally - though I don't want to throw smoke over the recent election in the US, it is high time that there are very open and rigorous standard for identification, there's too much at risk. If the government provided the service for free down at the DMV there'd be little excuse.

colechristensen 6y ago
What costs do individuals have to pay when their government is very good at identifying them? When you have a piece of data available, it tends to get used. How could that be a bad thing when enhancing identifiably is the topic?
- john_minsk 6y ago
  It can be anonymous and you will have to present an evidence that certain transaction belongs to you only when the situation requires it. Government can ensure information split at the time of registration and then dictate that only warrant can allow to link the 2. Anyway, the ability of governments to identify their citizens is technological problem. Overall during our history we agreed to potential of being identified by governments. Tech brings new tools to them. I wish they could adopt them quicker. Overall we shouldn't be afraid of new tech and more reliability. But what we need is the system that will be future proof in terms of balance between individual and big entities even if their technological ability to identify you is near perfect.
  - kansface 6y ago
    Assigning some bytes to a person is easy, but how do you authorize transactions? People will not keep a secret... secret. People will not remember a secret. People will lose cards. Smart phone adoption is maybe 75% in the US. Many people do not have internet access, a phone line, or even electricity! People have all sorts of disabilities, many can't read, and many still don't have permanent housing or even an address. The technology is the easy part.
- rebuilder 6y ago
  Follow-up questions: what data on race and creed does the USA collect that e.g. European states generally do not? And what is the difference between enabling the state to discriminate between its citizens vs.enabling its citizens to prove they are who they say they are?
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    How exactly do you think the government is going to get a bunch of people on board to develop and operate a system to discriminate based on race, such that there isn't a single whistleblower? Would they just outsource it directly to the KKK or what?
    - rebuilder 6y ago
      Like the Nazis did it, for example. That's the experience that keeps several European states from keeping tabs on race, isn't it?
    - colechristensen 6y ago
      https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht Who says it needs to be a secret? The past shows that people happily let things happen out in the open. The present should show you that plenty of people still have the loyalty above all mentality and would easily be manipulated into doing whatever was desired. Just leak demographic data to the proud boys and when they do things, low key condemn them but not really. How have whistleblowers been working out lately? There have been many and the effects have been... underwhelming.
- jariel 6y ago
  So I understand the 'drawback', especially for 'universal data'. But let's just use something more mundane: Are you concerned that the government has a 'record of you' regarding your Driver's License? Probably not. We have drivers licenses, we have social security. It's a very reasonable step to have some kind of 'good id'. Yes, there'll have to be legislation around it for privacy.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils. It would be great if we didn't need ID to drive and didn't need SS but that's not the world we live in. The fact that people tolerate necessary evil is not argument for more evil.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils." They are not 'necessary evils' in any minds but those of HN commenters. They are just 'normal artifacts' in the minds most people. People are generally not concerned with the existence of DLs and they are generally not some kind of 'threat'. If you literally brought up 'privacy' issues to most Americans, maybe they would say something, but I'll be $100 that most Americans, on the subject of 'Drivers License' would never bring up the issue of 'privacy' unsolicited. An SS card with literally a photo on it, the most minor of changes, could effectively serve as a really good 'ID'.
sam36 6y ago
Well at least voting is still secure!
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Two important ingredients in any secure voting system: we don't know who you are and we eliminated chain of custody.
djsumdog 6y ago
I don't even think it needs to be free. Many US States provide a State ID for $20~$50. Even if you don't drive, it's very difficult to survive without at least a State ID (just to buy alcohol or for anything that needs legal identification ... like a job or I-9 form). The arguments against requiring voter ID are silly now. Yes, at one time reading tests were required to vote in the Jim Crow era, and they were intentional to prevent blacks from voting. But we've come a long way since then. Asking someone to set aside one day and $30 to get an ID, in order to vote, should NOT be considered an unnecessary hardship. It's a bare minimum effort if you want to vote. Some will say, "Well there are all these poor disenfranchised people who can't afford a day off work or the $30 to get an ID!" ... You've gotta be kidding me. Unless they're working under the table, how do they even have a job without ID? We cannot keep lowering the bar. My best friend, a friend from Ecuador, talked about how some of the worst leaders in South and Central America worked on lowering voting ages down to 16 and 17, because they knew it was way more easier to influence younger people. It's straight up corruption. State issued ID should be required to vote, period. This entire election cycle is a mess because of massive, unsolicited ballots with no chain of custody mailed out to dead people and people who have left their states. It's insane that all of Big Tech and US media is claiming there is no proof at all of fraud, when countless people are testifying in every state under oath. Just today in Georgia, people brought videos showing trucks shredding ballots. When they called the police, and even went to the Sherif, they were told law enforcement was specifically ordered not to send anyone to any voting precincts. There is not excuse to not require Voter ID except to allow more fraud.
- jariel 6y ago
  " This entire election cycle is a mess" To be clear - the election is not a mess. Even though we don't have 'state ID' the processes overall are legit on the whole. There is no systematic fraud. It appears as a mess because of the messaging of the President. That said: there are obviously antiquated and non-standardized problems - literally just yesterday, Stacey Abrahams sister, a Georgia Judge, had to rule on ballots being thrown out. It's politicized. So having ID would not so much make elections more fair (they are effectively fair), but it would give more confidence in elections. Also - the genie may be out of the bottle and we may be in a new era where a) people try to actually cheat and b) losers of elections refuse to concede based on lies. So it might be a good time to modernize with ID, and it would help with those problems. .... It 'needs to be free' because the some will otherwise believe it's voter suppression. Having a $10 payment would actually theoretically suppress some people from voting. In practice, I don't think that would be the case, but it's enough to blow it up. Homeless people are still 'citizens' - and 'citizenship' is not based on whether or not you have $10. Which is a fair argument (even through pragmatically a side show, because you need to have an address to vote already today). Citizenship is a right not a privilege ... so just make it free. Politically, they could make it an extension of SS - it's just 'SS with a photo' kind of thing.
Sevii 6y ago
It is absurd that we can't track people at the federal government level. We could be doing things like automatic voter registration, auto-filed taxes, automatic unemployment benefits, etc. But we don't because the government can't handle the development of fundamental software infrastructure to run government functions.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Most of the things you list are state functions, not federal government functions.
- jellicle 6y ago
  The US doesn't do those things because at least one of the major political parties opposes them, not because "software iz hard".

by jariel 6y ago

colechristensen 6y ago

What costs do individuals have to pay when their government is very good at identifying them? When you have a piece of data available, it tends to get used. How could that be a bad thing when enhancing identifiably is the topic?

john_minsk 6y ago
It can be anonymous and you will have to present an evidence that certain transaction belongs to you only when the situation requires it. Government can ensure information split at the time of registration and then dictate that only warrant can allow to link the 2. Anyway, the ability of governments to identify their citizens is technological problem. Overall during our history we agreed to potential of being identified by governments. Tech brings new tools to them. I wish they could adopt them quicker. Overall we shouldn't be afraid of new tech and more reliability. But what we need is the system that will be future proof in terms of balance between individual and big entities even if their technological ability to identify you is near perfect.
- kansface 6y ago
  Assigning some bytes to a person is easy, but how do you authorize transactions? People will not keep a secret... secret. People will not remember a secret. People will lose cards. Smart phone adoption is maybe 75% in the US. Many people do not have internet access, a phone line, or even electricity! People have all sorts of disabilities, many can't read, and many still don't have permanent housing or even an address. The technology is the easy part.
rebuilder 6y ago
Follow-up questions: what data on race and creed does the USA collect that e.g. European states generally do not? And what is the difference between enabling the state to discriminate between its citizens vs.enabling its citizens to prove they are who they say they are?
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  How exactly do you think the government is going to get a bunch of people on board to develop and operate a system to discriminate based on race, such that there isn't a single whistleblower? Would they just outsource it directly to the KKK or what?
  - rebuilder 6y ago
    Like the Nazis did it, for example. That's the experience that keeps several European states from keeping tabs on race, isn't it?
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht Who says it needs to be a secret? The past shows that people happily let things happen out in the open. The present should show you that plenty of people still have the loyalty above all mentality and would easily be manipulated into doing whatever was desired. Just leak demographic data to the proud boys and when they do things, low key condemn them but not really. How have whistleblowers been working out lately? There have been many and the effects have been... underwhelming.
jariel 6y ago
So I understand the 'drawback', especially for 'universal data'. But let's just use something more mundane: Are you concerned that the government has a 'record of you' regarding your Driver's License? Probably not. We have drivers licenses, we have social security. It's a very reasonable step to have some kind of 'good id'. Yes, there'll have to be legislation around it for privacy.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils. It would be great if we didn't need ID to drive and didn't need SS but that's not the world we live in. The fact that people tolerate necessary evil is not argument for more evil.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils." They are not 'necessary evils' in any minds but those of HN commenters. They are just 'normal artifacts' in the minds most people. People are generally not concerned with the existence of DLs and they are generally not some kind of 'threat'. If you literally brought up 'privacy' issues to most Americans, maybe they would say something, but I'll be $100 that most Americans, on the subject of 'Drivers License' would never bring up the issue of 'privacy' unsolicited. An SS card with literally a photo on it, the most minor of changes, could effectively serve as a really good 'ID'.

sam36 6y ago

Well at least voting is still secure!

Consultant32452 6y ago
Two important ingredients in any secure voting system: we don't know who you are and we eliminated chain of custody.

djsumdog 6y ago

I don't even think it needs to be free. Many US States provide a State ID for $20~$50. Even if you don't drive, it's very difficult to survive without at least a State ID (just to buy alcohol or for anything that needs legal identification ... like a job or I-9 form). The arguments against requiring voter ID are silly now. Yes, at one time reading tests were required to vote in the Jim Crow era, and they were intentional to prevent blacks from voting. But we've come a long way since then. Asking someone to set aside one day and $30 to get an ID, in order to vote, should NOT be considered an unnecessary hardship. It's a bare minimum effort if you want to vote. Some will say, "Well there are all these poor disenfranchised people who can't afford a day off work or the $30 to get an ID!" ... You've gotta be kidding me. Unless they're working under the table, how do they even have a job without ID? We cannot keep lowering the bar. My best friend, a friend from Ecuador, talked about how some of the worst leaders in South and Central America worked on lowering voting ages down to 16 and 17, because they knew it was way more easier to influence younger people. It's straight up corruption. State issued ID should be required to vote, period. This entire election cycle is a mess because of massive, unsolicited ballots with no chain of custody mailed out to dead people and people who have left their states. It's insane that all of Big Tech and US media is claiming there is no proof at all of fraud, when countless people are testifying in every state under oath. Just today in Georgia, people brought videos showing trucks shredding ballots. When they called the police, and even went to the Sherif, they were told law enforcement was specifically ordered not to send anyone to any voting precincts. There is not excuse to not require Voter ID except to allow more fraud.

jariel 6y ago
" This entire election cycle is a mess" To be clear - the election is not a mess. Even though we don't have 'state ID' the processes overall are legit on the whole. There is no systematic fraud. It appears as a mess because of the messaging of the President. That said: there are obviously antiquated and non-standardized problems - literally just yesterday, Stacey Abrahams sister, a Georgia Judge, had to rule on ballots being thrown out. It's politicized. So having ID would not so much make elections more fair (they are effectively fair), but it would give more confidence in elections. Also - the genie may be out of the bottle and we may be in a new era where a) people try to actually cheat and b) losers of elections refuse to concede based on lies. So it might be a good time to modernize with ID, and it would help with those problems. .... It 'needs to be free' because the some will otherwise believe it's voter suppression. Having a $10 payment would actually theoretically suppress some people from voting. In practice, I don't think that would be the case, but it's enough to blow it up. Homeless people are still 'citizens' - and 'citizenship' is not based on whether or not you have $10. Which is a fair argument (even through pragmatically a side show, because you need to have an address to vote already today). Citizenship is a right not a privilege ... so just make it free. Politically, they could make it an extension of SS - it's just 'SS with a photo' kind of thing.

Sevii 6y ago

It is absurd that we can't track people at the federal government level. We could be doing things like automatic voter registration, auto-filed taxes, automatic unemployment benefits, etc. But we don't because the government can't handle the development of fundamental software infrastructure to run government functions.

ghaff 6y ago
Most of the things you list are state functions, not federal government functions.
jellicle 6y ago
The US doesn't do those things because at least one of the major political parties opposes them, not because "software iz hard".