3 ms·

Maybe the opposite though - having a 'single, semi-competent authority and source of control/failure/security' is probably not a good reality for security and r

by jariel 6y ago

Maybe the opposite though - having a 'single, semi-competent authority and source of control/failure/security' is probably not a good reality for security and resiliency. Ironically, there's a >50% chance that the solution will entail 1) privately hosted platforms like AWS and 2) privately hosted support services and 3) privately written core modules (McKinsey business strategy, Accenture implemented etc.) and 4) at least some privately contracted IT people to manage the solution. There's no reason to believe the gov. will make a more robust, scalable and secure solution that other entities. A better approach might even be to mandate very specific identity protocols, and then allow citizens to chose their own identity provider among those that fit the regulatory requirements and oversight. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Post It's owned by gov. and effectively independent. They could be an identity provider. They are already close to being able to do whatever need be done. Having to create new government bureaucracies to do things is hard.

Ericson2314 6y ago
> Ironically, there's a >50% chance that the solution will entail 1) privately hosted platforms like AWS and 2) privately hosted support services and 3) privately written core modules (McKinsey business strategy, Accenture implemented etc.) and 4) at least some privately contracted IT people to manage the solution. That would be in the US, with it's shit managment and governance culture of no expertise being required. The Wwiss are explicitly rejecting such willy-nilly privatization; did you read the article? > There's no reason to believe the gov. will make a more robust, scalable and secure solution that other entities. Again this is US ideology about US government. In another places they have something closer to actual democracy, a robust civil service, and an awareness that some things are too important to risk the profit motive sliding to rent-seeking. > A better approach might even be... I actually agree with you here. The next step after centrally planning how electronic identity should work is to realize many things don't need to require an "official one true personhood" surrogate key, and can make due with something weaker and more friendly to anonymity. The same functioning society that can figure out devolved cantons and federated cooperatives would be excellently prepared to figure that out.

by jariel 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago

> Ironically, there's a >50% chance that the solution will entail 1) privately hosted platforms like AWS and 2) privately hosted support services and 3) privately written core modules (McKinsey business strategy, Accenture implemented etc.) and 4) at least some privately contracted IT people to manage the solution. That would be in the US, with it's shit managment and governance culture of no expertise being required. The Wwiss are explicitly rejecting such willy-nilly privatization; did you read the article? > There's no reason to believe the gov. will make a more robust, scalable and secure solution that other entities. Again this is US ideology about US government. In another places they have something closer to actual democracy, a robust civil service, and an awareness that some things are too important to risk the profit motive sliding to rent-seeking. > A better approach might even be... I actually agree with you here. The next step after centrally planning how electronic identity should work is to realize many things don't need to require an "official one true personhood" surrogate key, and can make due with something weaker and more friendly to anonymity. The same functioning society that can figure out devolved cantons and federated cooperatives would be excellently prepared to figure that out.