That works great, so long as you don't have any malicious actors interested in the treasure trove of data you've amassed. It's kind of like how in physical sys

That works great, so long as you don't have any malicious actors interested in the treasure trove of data you've amassed. It's kind of like how in physical systems, if you kill all the predators in a few square km it leaves a void where any predator capable of evading your traps is able to prosper far more than you could have imagined, requiring intense efforts to actually secure whatever it is you were protecting. If you create an environment that's attractive to predators (giant pools of interconnected, personal data and a system designed around access to that data being equivalent to being the person in question), so long as there are predators you can expect them to infiltrate that system unless you apply extremely costly countermeasures. Rather than in-housing the identity verification (and allowing DOGE et all to slurp that up), I'd rather ban that sort of thing altogether and take out the private sector alternatives at the same time. If we really think that's not possible, a centralized implementation is usually preferable (e.g., why do I need to provide more information and photos to id.me than I ever did to the IRS when all I'm trying to do is access my tax data, and why do the new terms of service strongly suggest that my personal information is being used for reasons far beyond identity verification). I don't think that's required for most of the identity-related concerns I've seen the last few years though.