5 ms·

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.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > a system that's too perfect can uniquely identify you, Isn't this a basic requirement of any ID system?
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    > Isn't this a basic requirement of any ID system? And now you understand my core opposition to government run ID system. Think of it like SSH keys: you want them to allow access, and therefore one-way verification. You don't want a bijective system that would allow you to be uniquely identified. So you can have 1 key per system you access. Most uses of ID are compatible with that usecase: one ID to allow you to pay taxes, one ID to allow you to travel, one ID to prove you have a license to drive, etc. There's absolutely no need to merge them - except for the convenience of tracking you and adding new usecases easily, without the government shouldering the burden of rolling a new ID AND having people use it.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      If there was no cost having an ID that could serve for the sort of purposes you mention, I might agree with you. But I have no desire to see a society in which zero-cost (or effectively zero-cost) ID systems are the legal requirement for those purposes. As a result, issuing and maintaining the records associated with physical world forms of ID have real costs associated with them, and I would question the benefits to society (even with "privacy" in mind) of replicating that per-potential-ID-category. [ EDIT : Also, I would think that the way browser fingerprinting works would dissuade you from believing that one-ID-for-X and one-ID-for-Y is going to stop you from being uniquely identified. ]
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      If you had an ID system that allowed you to get multiple unconnected IDs, what would prevent someone from getting 10 million of them and casting 10 million votes in an election? Or even just having 2 or 3 and claiming stimulus checks or welfare or disability or whatever? Doesn't the government have to be able to uniquely identify you to even have a chance at providing services equally to everyone?

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.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> a system that's too perfect can uniquely identify you, Isn't this a basic requirement of any ID system?
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > Isn't this a basic requirement of any ID system? And now you understand my core opposition to government run ID system. Think of it like SSH keys: you want them to allow access, and therefore one-way verification. You don't want a bijective system that would allow you to be uniquely identified. So you can have 1 key per system you access. Most uses of ID are compatible with that usecase: one ID to allow you to pay taxes, one ID to allow you to travel, one ID to prove you have a license to drive, etc. There's absolutely no need to merge them - except for the convenience of tracking you and adding new usecases easily, without the government shouldering the burden of rolling a new ID AND having people use it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    If there was no cost having an ID that could serve for the sort of purposes you mention, I might agree with you. But I have no desire to see a society in which zero-cost (or effectively zero-cost) ID systems are the legal requirement for those purposes. As a result, issuing and maintaining the records associated with physical world forms of ID have real costs associated with them, and I would question the benefits to society (even with "privacy" in mind) of replicating that per-potential-ID-category. [ EDIT : Also, I would think that the way browser fingerprinting works would dissuade you from believing that one-ID-for-X and one-ID-for-Y is going to stop you from being uniquely identified. ]
  - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
    If you had an ID system that allowed you to get multiple unconnected IDs, what would prevent someone from getting 10 million of them and casting 10 million votes in an election? Or even just having 2 or 3 and claiming stimulus checks or welfare or disability or whatever? Doesn't the government have to be able to uniquely identify you to even have a chance at providing services equally to everyone?