3 ms·

To me a Digital ID Program in itself is horrendously concerning...

by syshum 5y ago

throwawaygh 5y ago
The article would've been much better if it made a coherent case against Digital ID itself. But that's not what the article argues. Instead, it makes a wildly emotional but rationally/legally incoherent complaint about some pretty bog standard contract language. FWIW, I have no problem with Digital IDs. What do we have to fear? That the government will now have a copy of an ID that was issued by... the government? I don't get it. My only real critique is that "Digital ID" should not be some whizz-bang virtual wallet bullshit. It should be implemented in a stupidest-simplest way: "anywhere you need to present ID card, especially in interactions with the government, you can instead present a high-res picture of the same ID card". This is already how things work in sane states with eg insurance cards. But if, in addition that stupidest-simplest solution, state governments want to also offer inter-op with Apple Wallet / Android Pay (?), what's the harm?
- bradknowles 5y ago
  The thing that occurs to me is that insurance cards are usually verified with the insurance company immediately after being presented, so there is little incentive to try to fake an insurance card. But drivers licenses are frequently verified offline by someone standing at a door, and all they get is a couple seconds glance at it to see if they think it’s authentic. And there are many things that are gated by age, and presenting your drivers license is the common way to prove your age. They’re also used to prove your identity. So, drivers licenses need a much higher standard of robust offline verification, if they’re going to be digitized. That requires a lot more work, and the most critical parts of that work can only be done by the state that issues the drivers license. For Apple. The critical thing is that they are going to be the ones who get blamed if this thing goes sideways (like they’re already being blamed now), so they need to make sure that the states are really doing their due diligence to a high standard. The contract is the main thing that what will help enforce that.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Yes, this makes sense, and is a coherent case against Digital ID itself. Much more sensible than the article. But in interactions with the government -- e.g., traffic stops, government offices, perhaps voting -- the same method that's used to verify insurance should also suffice. Bars and stores that sell controlled substances can still insist on a physical ID. Just because there's a digital ID doesn't mean it has to be accepted everything a physical ID might be. It's still a huge convenience boost if it's only accepted during government interactions.

To me a Digital ID Program in itself is horrendously concerning...

by syshum 5y ago

To me a Digital ID Program in itself is horrendously concerning...

The article would've been much better if it made a coherent case against Digital ID itself. But that's not what the article argues. Instead, it makes a wildly emotional but rationally/legally incoherent complaint about some pretty bog standard contract language. FWIW, I have no problem with Digital IDs. What do we have to fear? That the government will now have a copy of an ID that was issued by... the government? I don't get it. My only real critique is that "Digital ID" should not be some whizz-bang virtual wallet bullshit. It should be implemented in a stupidest-simplest way: "anywhere you need to present ID card, especially in interactions with the government, you can instead present a high-res picture of the same ID card". This is already how things work in sane states with eg insurance cards. But if, in addition that stupidest-simplest solution, state governments want to also offer inter-op with Apple Wallet / Android Pay (?), what's the harm?

bradknowles 5y ago
The thing that occurs to me is that insurance cards are usually verified with the insurance company immediately after being presented, so there is little incentive to try to fake an insurance card. But drivers licenses are frequently verified offline by someone standing at a door, and all they get is a couple seconds glance at it to see if they think it’s authentic. And there are many things that are gated by age, and presenting your drivers license is the common way to prove your age. They’re also used to prove your identity. So, drivers licenses need a much higher standard of robust offline verification, if they’re going to be digitized. That requires a lot more work, and the most critical parts of that work can only be done by the state that issues the drivers license. For Apple. The critical thing is that they are going to be the ones who get blamed if this thing goes sideways (like they’re already being blamed now), so they need to make sure that the states are really doing their due diligence to a high standard. The contract is the main thing that what will help enforce that.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  Yes, this makes sense, and is a coherent case against Digital ID itself. Much more sensible than the article. But in interactions with the government -- e.g., traffic stops, government offices, perhaps voting -- the same method that's used to verify insurance should also suffice. Bars and stores that sell controlled substances can still insist on a physical ID. Just because there's a digital ID doesn't mean it has to be accepted everything a physical ID might be. It's still a huge convenience boost if it's only accepted during government interactions.