4 ms·

> terrified at the thought of any sort of coherent national identity document system If the outcome that they want to avoid is actually a global ID system, you

> terrified at the thought of any sort of coherent national identity document system If the outcome that they want to avoid is actually a global ID system, you'd think that a private corporation (that could offer its services to multiple countries, interoperably) would be more worrying to them. It's not like, by opposing a government-run ID system, they've prevented the existence of an ID system that the government accepts (and could mandate nationally).

robbedpeter 5y ago
There should be a protocol, in which voluntary individual participation is possible alongside identity brokers. This is one of those things that should have zero trust baked in at every level. It should require reversible data transactions, and real world mechanisms to allow legal authorities to reset or return ownership of ID information. It should work concurrently with a properly defined notion of valid, entirely offline identities to accommodate people who don't want their identity digitized. Multi signature cryptography and webs of trust are pretty mature concepts at this point. Using public notary systems could provide the real world authentication to publish keys, so the protocols could be developed around the idea that additional bureacracy and government shouldn't be needed - use the systems already in place wherever possible.
wmf 5y ago
This is a big blind spot in the US generally. Few people consider that corporations could be a bigger risk than the government, so they limit government power and leave corporations less regulated.
- genewitch 5y ago
  Yeah while that may be a reason, and I say that with respect, that's not the reason we let corporations do what they do. That's just temporary embarrassed millionaire syndrome and financial greed.
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. It's really not the same at all.
  - mushbino 5y ago
    Look up the case of Stephen Donziger. Chevron basically did just that.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    But when the government mandates usage of a private company, what’s the difference?
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    > Few people consider that corporations could be a bigger risk than the government, so they limit government power and leave corporations less regulated. > A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. I think that while corporations may be more likely to have risk, the risk may not be as big as if it were done by a government. So, high chance of risk but maybe lower damage vs low chance and higher damage may end up being a wash and may explain why some people fear the government more than corporations.
  - not2b 5y ago
    Typical libertarian blind spot. If the government contracts out to a corporation, you get the worst of both worlds: they can tell you what to do (follow id.me rules or else) and you can't vote them out of office. If you vote the people who hired them out of office they still have a contract so we are stuck with them. And a corporation hired to, say, run a prison can shoot you.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. It's really not the same at all. Corporations have done all things, even within the boundaries of the USA. You are welcome to argue that this should not have been possible, should not be possible etc., and very few people, including me, are going to disagree with you. But if we're going to talk about what actually happens in the real world rather than what should happen, everything you've said there is factually untrue.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
The goal is to be able to point the finger at someone else when there is a problem.
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Wrong. It’s due to capitalism as a political economic system. The US government is nothing but an association of global corporate stakeholders. It’s not in service of its citizens. It’s the neoliberal world order.

robbedpeter 5y ago

There should be a protocol, in which voluntary individual participation is possible alongside identity brokers. This is one of those things that should have zero trust baked in at every level. It should require reversible data transactions, and real world mechanisms to allow legal authorities to reset or return ownership of ID information. It should work concurrently with a properly defined notion of valid, entirely offline identities to accommodate people who don't want their identity digitized. Multi signature cryptography and webs of trust are pretty mature concepts at this point. Using public notary systems could provide the real world authentication to publish keys, so the protocols could be developed around the idea that additional bureacracy and government shouldn't be needed - use the systems already in place wherever possible.

wmf 5y ago

This is a big blind spot in the US generally. Few people consider that corporations could be a bigger risk than the government, so they limit government power and leave corporations less regulated.

genewitch 5y ago
Yeah while that may be a reason, and I say that with respect, that's not the reason we let corporations do what they do. That's just temporary embarrassed millionaire syndrome and financial greed.
jimmaswell 5y ago
A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. It's really not the same at all.
- mushbino 5y ago
  Look up the case of Stephen Donziger. Chevron basically did just that.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  But when the government mandates usage of a private company, what’s the difference?
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  > Few people consider that corporations could be a bigger risk than the government, so they limit government power and leave corporations less regulated. > A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. I think that while corporations may be more likely to have risk, the risk may not be as big as if it were done by a government. So, high chance of risk but maybe lower damage vs low chance and higher damage may end up being a wash and may explain why some people fear the government more than corporations.
- not2b 5y ago
  Typical libertarian blind spot. If the government contracts out to a corporation, you get the worst of both worlds: they can tell you what to do (follow id.me rules or else) and you can't vote them out of office. If you vote the people who hired them out of office they still have a contract so we are stuck with them. And a corporation hired to, say, run a prison can shoot you.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > A corporation can't arrest me, shoot me, confiscate my property, or otherwise tell me what to do outside any voluntary contract with them. It's really not the same at all. Corporations have done all things, even within the boundaries of the USA. You are welcome to argue that this should not have been possible, should not be possible etc., and very few people, including me, are going to disagree with you. But if we're going to talk about what actually happens in the real world rather than what should happen, everything you've said there is factually untrue.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The goal is to be able to point the finger at someone else when there is a problem.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

Wrong. It’s due to capitalism as a political economic system. The US government is nothing but an association of global corporate stakeholders. It’s not in service of its citizens. It’s the neoliberal world order.