3 ms·

This isn't a US Government problem though, it's an "average voter" problem. The US Government implementing an actual form of secure ID for government use would

by XorNot 3y ago

This isn't a US Government problem though, it's an "average voter" problem. The US Government implementing an actual form of secure ID for government use would be treated a gigantic conspiracy to do <insert already possible thing here>. But they still actually need to be able to securely identify residents, so here we are (well, and there is the victims of identity fraud due to the use of social security numbers as unique resident identifiers, a role they were never intended for).

reaperman 3y ago
Counterpoint: https://login.gov/ https://login.gov/
- easton 3y ago
  Which actually has an identity verification component: https://login.gov/partners/our-services/#verified-identity-and-authentication https://login.gov/partners/our-services/#verified-identity-a...
- c0pium 3y ago
  That’s a federated IDP which can be used to access your identity instead of using your social security number. It doesn’t replace the fact that your social security number is still your username and password in the canonical identity system, which is the problem GP is talking about. Edit: or if you prefer, your SSN is both your user record locator and user secret.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    The cause of identity fraud is lack of authentication, not existence of SSN. It's equivalent to going to a bank and telling "I'm Elon Musk, give me my money" and then complain that we must eliminate names to prevent this kind of fraud.
    - c0pium 3y ago
      That’s what I said, just less precisely. The system is as secure as the least secure auth mechanism, the existence of better ones is irrelevant.
Terr_ 3y ago
That political concern is real, but it wouldn't block them from at least white-labeling the private service though an *.irs.gov domain.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chiefalchemist 3y ago
But does the *Federal* gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corruptable Fed gov is the only option. It's not. We're getting what we're getting becuase we're keep buying the ruse, the status quo, instead of insisting on a system that protects us in the way the founding documents intend.
- pjc50 3y ago
  I've never understood the US belief that the states are less corruptible than the Federal government when the opposite seems to prevail in many places, and local government seems to be even worse.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    No one said the odds of corruption are less. But when everything is top heavy and centralized, the economies of scale for corruption are much better. That is, for example, buy off a single Fed official vs buy off 50 similar officials at the state level. And if someone tries that and one state gets exposed that's a red flag for all the other states to check their shit. States are the equivalent of a diversified stock portfolio. The Fed gov is like betting it all on Enron.
  - toast0 3y ago
    It's a lot easier to escape state corruption than federal corruption. If I don't like how my state maintains its affairs, I can move to one of the other 49 states (or territories) with relative ease. If I don't like how the US maintains its affairs, I have to convince another country to accept me, and as a US citizen, I've still got a US paperwork burden unless I renounce citizenship (which isn't easy either).
- lupire 3y ago
  We certainly could run Federal taxes through States (mandate states to assess and tax income, use the Feds only to investigate states, not investigate individuals), but that requires an attitude of anti-Federalism that is too pedantic for the average government official or citizen who only has headspace for or "government", and is opposed by the modern Federalists who favor a stronger union (intentional power, less civil war) over general independence and local control. anti-Federalists lose because the governments they build are structurally weaker than Federalist. Similar to how the extreme end of Anti-Federalism, "we don't need laws; everyone should just be nice" is a failed model for practical government.

by XorNot 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago

Counterpoint: https://login.gov/ https://login.gov/

easton 3y ago
Which actually has an identity verification component: https://login.gov/partners/our-services/#verified-identity-and-authentication https://login.gov/partners/our-services/#verified-identity-a...
c0pium 3y ago
That’s a federated IDP which can be used to access your identity instead of using your social security number. It doesn’t replace the fact that your social security number is still your username and password in the canonical identity system, which is the problem GP is talking about. Edit: or if you prefer, your SSN is both your user record locator and user secret.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  The cause of identity fraud is lack of authentication, not existence of SSN. It's equivalent to going to a bank and telling "I'm Elon Musk, give me my money" and then complain that we must eliminate names to prevent this kind of fraud.
  - c0pium 3y ago
    That’s what I said, just less precisely. The system is as secure as the least secure auth mechanism, the existence of better ones is irrelevant.

Terr_ 3y ago

That political concern is real, but it wouldn't block them from at least white-labeling the private service though an *.irs.gov domain.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chiefalchemist 3y ago

But does the *Federal* gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corruptable Fed gov is the only option. It's not. We're getting what we're getting becuase we're keep buying the ruse, the status quo, instead of insisting on a system that protects us in the way the founding documents intend.

pjc50 3y ago
I've never understood the US belief that the states are less corruptible than the Federal government when the opposite seems to prevail in many places, and local government seems to be even worse.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  No one said the odds of corruption are less. But when everything is top heavy and centralized, the economies of scale for corruption are much better. That is, for example, buy off a single Fed official vs buy off 50 similar officials at the state level. And if someone tries that and one state gets exposed that's a red flag for all the other states to check their shit. States are the equivalent of a diversified stock portfolio. The Fed gov is like betting it all on Enron.
- toast0 3y ago
  It's a lot easier to escape state corruption than federal corruption. If I don't like how my state maintains its affairs, I can move to one of the other 49 states (or territories) with relative ease. If I don't like how the US maintains its affairs, I have to convince another country to accept me, and as a US citizen, I've still got a US paperwork burden unless I renounce citizenship (which isn't easy either).
lupire 3y ago
We certainly could run Federal taxes through States (mandate states to assess and tax income, use the Feds only to investigate states, not investigate individuals), but that requires an attitude of anti-Federalism that is too pedantic for the average government official or citizen who only has headspace for or "government", and is opposed by the modern Federalists who favor a stronger union (intentional power, less civil war) over general independence and local control. anti-Federalists lose because the governments they build are structurally weaker than Federalist. Similar to how the extreme end of Anti-Federalism, "we don't need laws; everyone should just be nice" is a failed model for practical government.