3 ms·
See I do understand the distrust of the state with the ability to cut people off from society, by revoking an id for example. Especially if there are laws aroun
by californical 5y ago
See I do understand the distrust of the state with the ability to cut people off from society, by revoking an id for example. Especially if there are laws around the ID checks being mandatory (which I am generally against).
But I think this is mitigated as long as it’s optional for a company. The company is held liable for any fraud that they allow. The company has the option to use the government ID to prevent fraud, but they can also assume more risk and take on a customer without the “official” gov ID, if they want to.
I can see this resulting in something like creditors saying: “either you can use a govID to sign up for this credit card, like normal. OR you can send us a $10k deposit and forego the govID entirely, if you like.”
This solution makes it so that companies are held more responsible, but decreases the risk of having more government power by making it a decision for the company’s “risk management team” to decide.
- acdha 5y ago> See I do understand the distrust of the state with the ability to cut people off from society, by revoking an id for example. Especially if there are laws around the ID checks being mandatory (which I am generally against). How does that not already happen, just inefficiently? It's hard to function in the U.S. if you don't have a Social Security Number — that's why people bother using someone else's — and we already have a de facto ID system for most people but it's a patchwork at the state level which was somewhat federalized with RealID. It's hard to imagine an environment where people would unjustly be “cut off” where the state level system would prevent abuse which would otherwise happen — it's not like, for example, California stopped politically-motivated DHS activity during the Trump era.