5 ms·

We’re so far into internet and email being a necessary utility, that I wonder at what point you’ll get some sort of state-given (but not -controlled) FQDN/email

We’re so far into internet and email being a necessary utility, that I wonder at what point you’ll get some sort of state-given (but not -controlled) FQDN/email mailbox assigned to your legal name. (EDIT: I don’t mean handing off people’s data to a private corp — instead: there would be proper access control, encryption, etc. in place to prevent spying by the state giving it, or the company hosting it) Some countries have smart card IDs with well-defined PKI & personal certificates, you could build a whole E2EE citizen mailbox with that. So: the same way you have a state-registered mailing address for official mail etc., you would have a state-registered email address, potentially @city-or-state.country-tld. Of course you could use whatever email you want but rolling it out in the same process of legal ID means changing the default “paper mail” delivery to email, without having to just manually say “yes I want to receive emails instead” to everything.

ValentineC 4y ago
One problem I see with this is that if one's email somehow gets onto a spammer's list, there's likely no way to change their email address, since it's presumably formed from an ID number of some sort.
- smileybarry 4y ago
  Right, I didn't think of that, that practically seals it I guess.
- Razengan 4y ago
  Fix those problems: Better spam protection, more stringent penalties for spammers.
- numpad0 4y ago
  Yeah, and harassments are going to be huge problem as well. Full names displayed anywhere unless necessary, is generally a bad idea. It's not going to work - IF taken at full face value without further considerations. That said, I think might make sense as an address system for signing and verification. It'd be nice if I could just sign into a local municipality or state-level server with a national ID to read notices and do verification, instead of walking to the city hall and twice in a week and uploading drivers_license.jpg to weird e-commerce websites on random occasions.
- e2le 4y ago
  Ideally it would only be possible to receive mail from the government and a select few entities (bank, electricity provider, etc). > presumably formed from an ID number of some sort. One possible solution is that the address for an individual must be obtained from a directory before sending a mail. Allowing for the possibility of changing it in the future. Access to that information can then be granted/revoked by the individual as they see fit. Something similar to re:claimID. https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html
- ssivark 4y ago
  Changing an email address seems like a solution totally out of proportion to the pesky problem of spam. I can see many ways for the system to work effectively: 1. Have this "official" email only for communication with "state" entities, or some such filtered allow-list. It would be fantastic to have a high-SNR electronic channel for "all the important govt bureaucratic stuff". Folks could always forward mail to a unified inbox if they wish, but regardless they get an effective filtering tool. 2. For non allow-list entities, charge some trivial amount for every incoming mail that goes unread or gets flagged by a user as spam (or some such). I suspect this will quickly change the economics to make most spray-and-pray crap to become unviable. In essence, as with any communication system, I think the most important design goal is to have high SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio) channels which we can suitably label for specific delineated intents. We shouldn't be treating the inbox as a monolith with all pieces of uniform importance (or dictated by the shiny content of emails); we should be able to leverage IT to have the system work in the user's interest -- it's a matter of setting up incentives/responsibilities.
  - realityking 4y ago
    Germany has tried setting up a parallel, email-like system where it cost money to send messages to avoid spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail Uptake has been so limited, it‘s essentially useless.
- avivo 4y ago
  Halfbaked thought: Have it cost half the amount as normal mail to receive email there. Perhaps also gov use is free, and users can whitelist specific domains or subdomains to be free.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    Better yet, you could allow emails cryptographically signed by chosen entities (*.gov, power company, etc) and reject everything else.
edent 4y ago
Most people around the world don't have a state registered postal address. But, if they did, would that imply that the state ought to provide a free home to anyone who needs it? Similarly, there's no state requirement to have a smartphone - or even a phone number. I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. Given that there are a plethora of free email providers, why would the state step in to manipulate this market?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smileybarry 4y ago
  > Most people around the world don't have a state registered postal address. > Similarly, there's no state requirement to have a smartphone - or even a phone number. I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. True, also -- this is mostly based on my experience in Israel, not the USA, if that was accidentally implied. Here you do have some form of state-registered postal address (and can't remove, only change it), I don't know what homeless people have registered but from a brief check it's ignored if they're homeless. Instead, the city they're staying in handles it. There's no smartphone requirement, but I'm not sure how they deal with someone who just doesn't have any phone, it's a requirement in a lot of auxiliary services. > Given that there are a plethora of free email providers, why would the state step in to manipulate this market? I thought that provisioning it with the relatively-new smart card IDs (i.e. certificate authentication) would allow for better starting security, less hacked accounts and such.
- Arubis 4y ago
  > would that imply that the state ought to provide a free home to anyone who needs it? In some few countries & metro areas, people have decided to answer Yes to this question, so it’s not purely rhetorical.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. The so called “Obama phones”, not so rare… They also have low-income landline programs, I believe, along with low-income home internet plans but I think the internet ones are for households with school age children judging by the radio ads I used to hear.
ssivark 4y ago
I'm increasingly keen on such a system. If nothing else, it removes the massive costs & uncertainty of paper delivery, and allows a searchable archive of the "important" bureaucratic stuff. Among other things, this also means that you don't have to update addresses in a hundred registries every time you move. This will obviously be a target for spammers, so I don't mind controlling inbox access very strictly (suggested a couple of mechanisms down the thread). Basically, a high SNR channel which can be delineated for specific intent. This can be controlled through allow-lists or whatever. Even from the state's perspective, this seems like a very cheap solution to what must be a great administrative burden.
maratc 4y ago
This seems like trying to find a problem for the email solution. The mail system as it is is working. It has been for many years. It costs a non-significant amount of money to send mail, so this takes care of the spam problem: spam exists but isn't free so it isn't profitable. There's no need to have PKI or "personal certificates" infrastructure so even 80-year olds can receive and read mail. I have a mailbox. The government is obligated to send stuff there. If I move, I can redirect my mail. I would hate to have a (new) obligation to check my "government-assigned" email box (protected by "PKI" or "personal certificate"), or face penalties for not doing that — in addition to my obligation to check my mailbox. My parents would never be able to take care of it, so it would fall (again) on me to check their email boxes as well.

ValentineC 4y ago

One problem I see with this is that if one's email somehow gets onto a spammer's list, there's likely no way to change their email address, since it's presumably formed from an ID number of some sort.

smileybarry 4y ago
Right, I didn't think of that, that practically seals it I guess.
Razengan 4y ago
Fix those problems: Better spam protection, more stringent penalties for spammers.
numpad0 4y ago
Yeah, and harassments are going to be huge problem as well. Full names displayed anywhere unless necessary, is generally a bad idea. It's not going to work - IF taken at full face value without further considerations. That said, I think might make sense as an address system for signing and verification. It'd be nice if I could just sign into a local municipality or state-level server with a national ID to read notices and do verification, instead of walking to the city hall and twice in a week and uploading drivers_license.jpg to weird e-commerce websites on random occasions.
e2le 4y ago
Ideally it would only be possible to receive mail from the government and a select few entities (bank, electricity provider, etc). > presumably formed from an ID number of some sort. One possible solution is that the address for an individual must be obtained from a directory before sending a mail. Allowing for the possibility of changing it in the future. Access to that information can then be granted/revoked by the individual as they see fit. Something similar to re:claimID. https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html
ssivark 4y ago
Changing an email address seems like a solution totally out of proportion to the pesky problem of spam. I can see many ways for the system to work effectively: 1. Have this "official" email only for communication with "state" entities, or some such filtered allow-list. It would be fantastic to have a high-SNR electronic channel for "all the important govt bureaucratic stuff". Folks could always forward mail to a unified inbox if they wish, but regardless they get an effective filtering tool. 2. For non allow-list entities, charge some trivial amount for every incoming mail that goes unread or gets flagged by a user as spam (or some such). I suspect this will quickly change the economics to make most spray-and-pray crap to become unviable. In essence, as with any communication system, I think the most important design goal is to have high SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio) channels which we can suitably label for specific delineated intents. We shouldn't be treating the inbox as a monolith with all pieces of uniform importance (or dictated by the shiny content of emails); we should be able to leverage IT to have the system work in the user's interest -- it's a matter of setting up incentives/responsibilities.
- realityking 4y ago
  Germany has tried setting up a parallel, email-like system where it cost money to send messages to avoid spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail Uptake has been so limited, it‘s essentially useless.
avivo 4y ago
Halfbaked thought: Have it cost half the amount as normal mail to receive email there. Perhaps also gov use is free, and users can whitelist specific domains or subdomains to be free.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  Better yet, you could allow emails cryptographically signed by chosen entities (*.gov, power company, etc) and reject everything else.

edent 4y ago

Most people around the world don't have a state registered postal address. But, if they did, would that imply that the state ought to provide a free home to anyone who needs it? Similarly, there's no state requirement to have a smartphone - or even a phone number. I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. Given that there are a plethora of free email providers, why would the state step in to manipulate this market?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smileybarry 4y ago
> Most people around the world don't have a state registered postal address. > Similarly, there's no state requirement to have a smartphone - or even a phone number. I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. True, also -- this is mostly based on my experience in Israel, not the USA, if that was accidentally implied. Here you do have some form of state-registered postal address (and can't remove, only change it), I don't know what homeless people have registered but from a brief check it's ignored if they're homeless. Instead, the city they're staying in handles it. There's no smartphone requirement, but I'm not sure how they deal with someone who just doesn't have any phone, it's a requirement in a lot of auxiliary services. > Given that there are a plethora of free email providers, why would the state step in to manipulate this market? I thought that provisioning it with the relatively-new smart card IDs (i.e. certificate authentication) would allow for better starting security, less hacked accounts and such.
Arubis 4y ago
> would that imply that the state ought to provide a free home to anyone who needs it? In some few countries & metro areas, people have decided to answer Yes to this question, so it’s not purely rhetorical.
UncleEntity 4y ago
> I understand that citizens of the USA can qualify for a state-provided phone and number, but I think that's quite rare. The so called “Obama phones”, not so rare… They also have low-income landline programs, I believe, along with low-income home internet plans but I think the internet ones are for households with school age children judging by the radio ads I used to hear.

ssivark 4y ago

I'm increasingly keen on such a system. If nothing else, it removes the massive costs & uncertainty of paper delivery, and allows a searchable archive of the "important" bureaucratic stuff. Among other things, this also means that you don't have to update addresses in a hundred registries every time you move. This will obviously be a target for spammers, so I don't mind controlling inbox access very strictly (suggested a couple of mechanisms down the thread). Basically, a high SNR channel which can be delineated for specific intent. This can be controlled through allow-lists or whatever. Even from the state's perspective, this seems like a very cheap solution to what must be a great administrative burden.

maratc 4y ago

This seems like trying to find a problem for the email solution. The mail system as it is is working. It has been for many years. It costs a non-significant amount of money to send mail, so this takes care of the spam problem: spam exists but isn't free so it isn't profitable. There's no need to have PKI or "personal certificates" infrastructure so even 80-year olds can receive and read mail. I have a mailbox. The government is obligated to send stuff there. If I move, I can redirect my mail. I would hate to have a (new) obligation to check my "government-assigned" email box (protected by "PKI" or "personal certificate"), or face penalties for not doing that — in addition to my obligation to check my mailbox. My parents would never be able to take care of it, so it would fall (again) on me to check their email boxes as well.