3 ms·
I don't really think being resistant to evil governments is within scope here. Using passports isn't perfect, but practically speaking it's a hell of a lot bett
by dom96 2y ago
I don't really think being resistant to evil governments is within scope here. Using passports isn't perfect, but practically speaking it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now which is a free for all.
- lxgr 2y agoIt only takes a single government losing their signing keys (through whatever means) to break such a scheme. And if that happens, what do you do? Deny service to that country's citizens?
- dom96 2y agoHow often does something like this happen? In that scenario there are a number of options though, one of which is just putting a banner on accounts that are impacted.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 2y agoMore often than you might think. The EU COVID-19 immunology status certificate scheme saw some fraudulent issuances, for example. And "putting a banner on impacted accounts" both partially deanonymizes and effectively bans legitimate users for no fault of their own. Travel documents are not a digital identity scheme, and using the ICAO biometric travel document scheme contrary to its explicit design goals is just asking for trouble.
- immibis 2y agoConsider the theory that Russian-government-sponsored bots ran wild with COVID disinformation. It doesn't matter whether you actually believe that theory or not - just consider it. If you allow Russian passports as a valid identification source, then Russia would have no problem running that operation. The same applies to every country of course.
- dom96 2y agoYeah, and this is why we capture the country that issued the passport we verified. Worst case we can add a feature that allows users to share which passport country they used. And yes, this will mean that Russian users will be screwed unfortunately.