8 ms·

> while insiders were pulling checks with both hands, using certain kinds of identities that would slip through How can you slip through public key cryptograph

> while insiders were pulling checks with both hands, using certain kinds of identities that would slip through How can you slip through public key cryptography? * not american here

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
netr0ute 5y ago
What public key cryptography?
- franciscop 5y ago
  I guess OP, like me, is from a country where we have a digital signature installed in our computers or a physical smart card+reader with which you can make many official legal procedures on our local governments. I just got mine from Spain, and I was "late" (but very necessary since I don't live there anymore) and I'm applying literally today for my card in Japan.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    There isn't anything like that in the US.
dharmab 5y ago
Americans have no national identity card. The closest thing is a Social Security number, which has no security or biometric features. https://youtu.be/Erp8IAUouus https://youtu.be/Erp8IAUouus
- csdvrx 5y ago
  And it's a good thing, and personally I would love it if we could stop having even SSNs.
  - messe 5y ago
    > I would love it if we could stop having even SSNs Why?
    - gumby 5y ago
      The case that a universal identifier, or even some authoritative list of people, has a benefit that exceeds its cost, has never been made. It’s simply “one of those things”
      - jdmichal 5y ago
        The problem with SSNs is that places treat it like a secret, when it's an identifier. They were not designed to be a secret, and obviously are a pretty terrible secret at this point in time. What with the fact that probably every person older than 18 has had theirs leaked at some point in time.] If places would just stop treating them as a secret, it wouldn't even matter.
      - Lammy 5y ago
        "The invention of permanent, inherited patronyms was, after the administrative simplification of nature (for example, the forest) and space (for example, land tenure), the last step in establishing the necessary preconditions of modern statecraft. In almost every case it was a state project, designed to allow officials to identity, unambiguously, the majority of its citizens. When successful, it went far to create a legible people. Tax and tithe rolls, property rolls, conscription lists, censuses, and property deeds recognized in law were inconceivable without some means of fixing an individual's identity and linking him or her to a kingroup. Campaigns to assign permanent patronyms have typically taken place, as one might expect, in the context of a state's exertions to put its fiscal system on a sounder and more lucrative footing. Fearing, with good reason, that an effort to enumerate and register them could be a prelude to some new tax burden or conscription, local officials and the population at large often resisted such campaigns." — James C Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (Thanks shoo — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885742)
    - 5y ago
- mindslight 5y ago
  Until the existing system is reformed with something like the GDPR, nobody should support increasing the technical strength of identification. Currently, the only way you can prevent surveillance companies from unaccountably creating permanent records on you is to avoid feeding them your personal information in the first place. There is absolutely no recourse or even legal concept that prevents "ID.me" from using the data you're basically forced to give them here, for any purpose they later desire. Until there are real data protection laws that allow for the creation of trust through accountability, auditing, and right of deletion, then opposing anything that benefits the surveillance industry is the only way we can protect ourselves.
Spellman 5y ago
I'm taking a leap of logic here and guessing you're suggesting a blockchain solution to national identity would have solved this problem?
- dharmab 5y ago
  Many European countries have public key encryption integrated into their national ID card system. No blockchain needed.
- Isamu 5y ago
  Thanks for brightening my day! Honestly- I can use the laughs today.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  Yes it would. Repost of my comment from yesterday: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395) As technically interesting as using a card to sign stuff may be, I don't want that to be the government responsibility, as it then opens the door for it to be used in ways that limit our freedoms: a system that's too perfect can uniquely identify you, in ways that prevent disassociation (ex: the place of birth on the passport is of great interest to some totalitarian places, while only citizenship should matter..) So for me, the ideal ID system is decentralized, self-declarative, and the weight of the proof depends on the length of history, not on "who" says it's true: there should be many such services where you could declare a name and an address and anything else you wish (phone, email...) The value after a few weeks would be close to nil, so you could decide to "increase it" by having several people vouch for you (strength in numbers) instead of relying on a "who" (public notary). Or you could totally decide that you care about your freedom/independence/whatever and NOT ask for any vouching. It may be hard, but after a few years of reliably receiving mail and orders at that address, it would acquire some serious weight - a bit like you tend to trust online accounts that have been open for some year. Among many other things, this would also allow anyone the opportunity to "change" easily: want a new name/move to a new address/etc: create a revocation certificate for the old, sign it with the new, boom you inherit the credential history! It's just a quick idea, but it shows how IDs could be more like URLs (multiple competing services, and you could have a few at the same time, why not!) by moving away from the current system that's a direct descendant of the census (give the lord a list of people to tax them) and the passport (limit freedom of movement during the war) At the core, I believe people should be in control of their identity, not governments or states.

> while insiders were pulling checks with both hands, using certain kinds of identities that would slip through How can you slip through public key cryptography? * not american here

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

netr0ute 5y ago

What public key cryptography?

franciscop 5y ago
I guess OP, like me, is from a country where we have a digital signature installed in our computers or a physical smart card+reader with which you can make many official legal procedures on our local governments. I just got mine from Spain, and I was "late" (but very necessary since I don't live there anymore) and I'm applying literally today for my card in Japan.
- netr0ute 5y ago
  There isn't anything like that in the US.

dharmab 5y ago

Americans have no national identity card. The closest thing is a Social Security number, which has no security or biometric features. https://youtu.be/Erp8IAUouus https://youtu.be/Erp8IAUouus

csdvrx 5y ago
And it's a good thing, and personally I would love it if we could stop having even SSNs.
- messe 5y ago
  > I would love it if we could stop having even SSNs Why?
  - gumby 5y ago
    The case that a universal identifier, or even some authoritative list of people, has a benefit that exceeds its cost, has never been made. It’s simply “one of those things”
    - jdmichal 5y ago
      The problem with SSNs is that places treat it like a secret, when it's an identifier. They were not designed to be a secret, and obviously are a pretty terrible secret at this point in time. What with the fact that probably every person older than 18 has had theirs leaked at some point in time.] If places would just stop treating them as a secret, it wouldn't even matter.
    - Lammy 5y ago
      "The invention of permanent, inherited patronyms was, after the administrative simplification of nature (for example, the forest) and space (for example, land tenure), the last step in establishing the necessary preconditions of modern statecraft. In almost every case it was a state project, designed to allow officials to identity, unambiguously, the majority of its citizens. When successful, it went far to create a legible people. Tax and tithe rolls, property rolls, conscription lists, censuses, and property deeds recognized in law were inconceivable without some means of fixing an individual's identity and linking him or her to a kingroup. Campaigns to assign permanent patronyms have typically taken place, as one might expect, in the context of a state's exertions to put its fiscal system on a sounder and more lucrative footing. Fearing, with good reason, that an effort to enumerate and register them could be a prelude to some new tax burden or conscription, local officials and the population at large often resisted such campaigns." — James C Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (Thanks shoo — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885742)
  - 5y ago
mindslight 5y ago
Until the existing system is reformed with something like the GDPR, nobody should support increasing the technical strength of identification. Currently, the only way you can prevent surveillance companies from unaccountably creating permanent records on you is to avoid feeding them your personal information in the first place. There is absolutely no recourse or even legal concept that prevents "ID.me" from using the data you're basically forced to give them here, for any purpose they later desire. Until there are real data protection laws that allow for the creation of trust through accountability, auditing, and right of deletion, then opposing anything that benefits the surveillance industry is the only way we can protect ourselves.

Spellman 5y ago

I'm taking a leap of logic here and guessing you're suggesting a blockchain solution to national identity would have solved this problem?

dharmab 5y ago
Many European countries have public key encryption integrated into their national ID card system. No blockchain needed.
Isamu 5y ago
Thanks for brightening my day! Honestly- I can use the laughs today.
csdvrx 5y ago
Yes it would. Repost of my comment from yesterday: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395) As technically interesting as using a card to sign stuff may be, I don't want that to be the government responsibility, as it then opens the door for it to be used in ways that limit our freedoms: a system that's too perfect can uniquely identify you, in ways that prevent disassociation (ex: the place of birth on the passport is of great interest to some totalitarian places, while only citizenship should matter..) So for me, the ideal ID system is decentralized, self-declarative, and the weight of the proof depends on the length of history, not on "who" says it's true: there should be many such services where you could declare a name and an address and anything else you wish (phone, email...) The value after a few weeks would be close to nil, so you could decide to "increase it" by having several people vouch for you (strength in numbers) instead of relying on a "who" (public notary). Or you could totally decide that you care about your freedom/independence/whatever and NOT ask for any vouching. It may be hard, but after a few years of reliably receiving mail and orders at that address, it would acquire some serious weight - a bit like you tend to trust online accounts that have been open for some year. Among many other things, this would also allow anyone the opportunity to "change" easily: want a new name/move to a new address/etc: create a revocation certificate for the old, sign it with the new, boom you inherit the credential history! It's just a quick idea, but it shows how IDs could be more like URLs (multiple competing services, and you could have a few at the same time, why not!) by moving away from the current system that's a direct descendant of the census (give the lord a list of people to tax them) and the passport (limit freedom of movement during the war) At the core, I believe people should be in control of their identity, not governments or states.