4 ms·

Yes it would. Repost of my comment from yesterday: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29982395) As technicall

by 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?
    - csdvrx 5y ago
      1. it remains to be seen, 2. should it happen, it would be illegal and expose the perpetrators to jail time Overall, I'm not so sure the status-quo is worth the tradeoff, especially when accumulated at the population level (10 000 people commiting stimulus check fraud is what, 0.01% of the population?)
epicide 5y ago
While I have long dreamt of public-key cryptography in place of a SSN, I don't think blockchain adds any value on top of that (except filling out a buzzword bingo square). (Among other issues) I really don't want my identity to become someone else's speculation device and would strongly prefer preventing that if at all possible. Companies selling personal data back and forth as a commodity is already bad enough. > 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..) Isn't this all information they already have (and would presumably keep)? Ultimately, it's the governing body that's dealing out these keys to access data they already have about you. What data is stored is completely separate from how that data is stored. If you don't want birthplace on the passport, that's totally separate from SSN vs public keys vs blockchain. > 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 It would need to also be public, no? Otherwise, it boils back down to "who says it's true". > moving away from the current system that's a direct descendant of the census (give the lord a list of people to tax them) If you don't want to be taxed, that's also a separate issue.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > If you don't want birthplace on the passport, that's totally separate from SSN vs public keys vs blockchain. Not really. If you don't put it there, it can't be collected. A blockchain solution should NOT have provision for fields you don't want out there, like say religion. > Isn't this all information they already have (and would presumably keep)? Ultimately, it's the governing body that's dealing out these keys to access data they already have about you. What data is stored is completely separate from how that data is stored. Information gets stale, so what's already out there become less relevant as time goes. Also, if you don't put everything in a nice convenient form inside a all-in-one document that's ripe for harvesting, you're making the job harder. That's the goal. > It would need to also be public, no? Otherwise, it boils back down to "who says it's true". Hence, blockchain > If you don't want to be taxed, that's also a separate issue. I tried to explain the origin of the current systems. I'm all for taxes at the point of origin (ex: wage, capital gains) without exposing more information than what's strictly required to do the job.

by csdvrx 5y ago

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?
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    1. it remains to be seen, 2. should it happen, it would be illegal and expose the perpetrators to jail time Overall, I'm not so sure the status-quo is worth the tradeoff, especially when accumulated at the population level (10 000 people commiting stimulus check fraud is what, 0.01% of the population?)

epicide 5y ago

While I have long dreamt of public-key cryptography in place of a SSN, I don't think blockchain adds any value on top of that (except filling out a buzzword bingo square). (Among other issues) I really don't want my identity to become someone else's speculation device and would strongly prefer preventing that if at all possible. Companies selling personal data back and forth as a commodity is already bad enough. > 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..) Isn't this all information they already have (and would presumably keep)? Ultimately, it's the governing body that's dealing out these keys to access data they already have about you. What data is stored is completely separate from how that data is stored. If you don't want birthplace on the passport, that's totally separate from SSN vs public keys vs blockchain. > 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 It would need to also be public, no? Otherwise, it boils back down to "who says it's true". > moving away from the current system that's a direct descendant of the census (give the lord a list of people to tax them) If you don't want to be taxed, that's also a separate issue.

csdvrx 5y ago
> If you don't want birthplace on the passport, that's totally separate from SSN vs public keys vs blockchain. Not really. If you don't put it there, it can't be collected. A blockchain solution should NOT have provision for fields you don't want out there, like say religion. > Isn't this all information they already have (and would presumably keep)? Ultimately, it's the governing body that's dealing out these keys to access data they already have about you. What data is stored is completely separate from how that data is stored. Information gets stale, so what's already out there become less relevant as time goes. Also, if you don't put everything in a nice convenient form inside a all-in-one document that's ripe for harvesting, you're making the job harder. That's the goal. > It would need to also be public, no? Otherwise, it boils back down to "who says it's true". Hence, blockchain > If you don't want to be taxed, that's also a separate issue. I tried to explain the origin of the current systems. I'm all for taxes at the point of origin (ex: wage, capital gains) without exposing more information than what's strictly required to do the job.