3 ms·

this feels like a workaround. We should not be treating phonenumbers as SSN round two, where everyone relies on it for your identity, and it should never be ch

this feels like a workaround. We should not be treating phonenumbers as SSN round two, where everyone relies on it for your identity, and it should never be changed because of how much shit was needlessly tied to it. I rue the day I need to change my phone number and my digital identity becomes a huge headache, especially for far flung services that decided they wanted my phone number, but I wouldn't have considered going explicitly to them to update it.

calibas 4y ago
It's not ideal, but phone numbers already are how we verify identity online and sometimes offline. There's been other methods proposed, but they've generally been rejected because of concerns over privacy. I'm not proposing a solution for the real issue, simply a way of making things easier for people who have a hard enough time already.
syrrim 4y ago
It already is that, which is precisely why google is using it here. Google is an american private company. Phone numbers have government mandated systems around the world that allow a individual to keep using them even when they lose their phone. Google uses it because it lets governments solve the identity problem in the fashion and to the degree they deem acceptable, and leaves google in the tech business. Some countries have issued ID cards which support encrypting and signing documents. If that becomes more widely practiced, then google could switch to that instead, but until then I imagine they'll keep using phone numbers.
yamtaddle 4y ago
The correct solution to this and a shitload of other problems is a real, national ID program. But there's enough resistance to it in both US political parties that it can't happen. The lack of it causes a ton of stress, over the population, and is a drag on the economy, but we're just never gonna fix it. Instead we'll de-facto have one (or more) anyway, including 99% of the risks that a real one would carry with it that everyone's so hand-wringy about, but without the benefits of the real thing.
- mcshicks 4y ago
  There was a bill to improve digital identity in the us Congress but I don't think it went anywhere. I wrote my congressman about it more than once. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4258 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4258 edit: Actually there is a similar bill being sponsored in the senate now this year. So something is happening https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4528/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/452...
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Yeah, it's brought up from time to time but the right hates national ID programs and enough on the left don't like it (including elected officials, not just voters—the distinction's worth mentioning) that it'd take an implausibly-huge supermajority of Democrats to ever pass such a thing. Never mind that all the things they're worried about would barely even be easier with an official national ID versus what exists now. Let alone hard/impossible without one. But no, we just suffer though tons of wasted time for all bureaucratic processes and all kinds of hassle keeping our documents in order and tons of fraud and abuse instead. For no benefit. So we can pretend the government can't already "make a database" about dissidents or gun owners or Christians or whoever very nearly as easily and effectively as if we had an official national ID, if they wanted to. Sigh.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      I think it's worth noting here that the passive resistance to the idea of a national ID among Democrats has a lot to do with Republicans regularly hijacking voter ID bills to specifically make things harder for the poor and minorities, and the expectation that they would absolutely do the same for any national ID program that actually got Republican support.
- xani_ 4y ago
  Uh, no, that's even worse thing to give to the for-profit companies as indentifier. Now they have country-unique ID of a person that will never change so it can be linked to a person regardless of where that person logs in

calibas 4y ago

It's not ideal, but phone numbers already are how we verify identity online and sometimes offline. There's been other methods proposed, but they've generally been rejected because of concerns over privacy. I'm not proposing a solution for the real issue, simply a way of making things easier for people who have a hard enough time already.

syrrim 4y ago

It already is that, which is precisely why google is using it here. Google is an american private company. Phone numbers have government mandated systems around the world that allow a individual to keep using them even when they lose their phone. Google uses it because it lets governments solve the identity problem in the fashion and to the degree they deem acceptable, and leaves google in the tech business. Some countries have issued ID cards which support encrypting and signing documents. If that becomes more widely practiced, then google could switch to that instead, but until then I imagine they'll keep using phone numbers.

yamtaddle 4y ago

The correct solution to this and a shitload of other problems is a real, national ID program. But there's enough resistance to it in both US political parties that it can't happen. The lack of it causes a ton of stress, over the population, and is a drag on the economy, but we're just never gonna fix it. Instead we'll de-facto have one (or more) anyway, including 99% of the risks that a real one would carry with it that everyone's so hand-wringy about, but without the benefits of the real thing.

mcshicks 4y ago
There was a bill to improve digital identity in the us Congress but I don't think it went anywhere. I wrote my congressman about it more than once. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4258 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4258 edit: Actually there is a similar bill being sponsored in the senate now this year. So something is happening https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4528/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/452...
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah, it's brought up from time to time but the right hates national ID programs and enough on the left don't like it (including elected officials, not just voters—the distinction's worth mentioning) that it'd take an implausibly-huge supermajority of Democrats to ever pass such a thing. Never mind that all the things they're worried about would barely even be easier with an official national ID versus what exists now. Let alone hard/impossible without one. But no, we just suffer though tons of wasted time for all bureaucratic processes and all kinds of hassle keeping our documents in order and tons of fraud and abuse instead. For no benefit. So we can pretend the government can't already "make a database" about dissidents or gun owners or Christians or whoever very nearly as easily and effectively as if we had an official national ID, if they wanted to. Sigh.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    I think it's worth noting here that the passive resistance to the idea of a national ID among Democrats has a lot to do with Republicans regularly hijacking voter ID bills to specifically make things harder for the poor and minorities, and the expectation that they would absolutely do the same for any national ID program that actually got Republican support.
xani_ 4y ago
Uh, no, that's even worse thing to give to the for-profit companies as indentifier. Now they have country-unique ID of a person that will never change so it can be linked to a person regardless of where that person logs in