4 ms·

How would setting up a primary credential with an identity provider differ from the process of registering to vote for USA citizens? All the discrimination oppo

How would setting up a primary credential with an identity provider differ from the process of registering to vote for USA citizens? All the discrimination opportunities and accountability issues seem to apply equally there.

lmz 1y ago
The same people who argue this will also argue that voter ID rules are discriminatory.
- sltkr 1y ago
  Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? Or is it only discriminatory when you prevent people without IDs from watching porn?
  - mattnewton 1y ago
    The definition of Porn by the state can change to include things that some people consider protected by the first amendment - right now there are a lot of state politicians or members of the house on record supporting classifying discussion of LGBTQ lifestyles as pornography for example. I think alcohol, tobacco and gambling here are mostly irrelevant, but the firearms is a better example because of the second amendment, where you have a clash between a very old right granted by the bill of rights clashing with modern societies beliefs.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? So long as it is done for a legitimate purpose and in good faith, generally no. As such, IDs are only expected where there is reasonable suspicion of possible violation. For example, there is no onus, with a few exceptions, to see an elderly person's ID to buy alcohol when there is no reason to think that they aren't below the minimum age. The exceptions haven't really been tested. It very well could be found discriminatory, and you could make a pretty good case that it is. Which is ultimately the same case being made earlier. Asking a no-question-about-it 50 year old to provide his ID to watch porn isn't really in good faith, is it?
- mattnewton 1y ago
  Voter ID laws actually have a long history of being used for disenfranchisement of certain classes in the US (most notably former slaves and their descendants, but also women), so it's understandable there is scar tissue there. It gives the incumbent state another lever of power in our very close first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections. Americans don't need imagination to see how it could be abused, just a good history book.
- crote 1y ago
  The problem with voter ID laws have rarely been with the ID itself. Very few people would have issue with a voter ID law which also guarantees that 100% of the population can easily obtain said ID at zero cost. The issue is that those laws are usually linked to very specific forms of ID, which just so happen to be easily available to certain demographic groups. Imagine a voter ID law where the only acceptable form of ID would cost $50.000 to purchase. Would you consider that fair and nondiscriminatory? What if you could only get the ID on the third Tuesday of the month, between 14:00 and 14:30, at a single location in the entire state? What if the ID required you to pass a certain kind of test, judged arbitrarily by a government official?
Seattle3503 1y ago
I agree "ensuring everyone has ID" is a separate problem that we should absolutely trying to tackle. We are already seeing people struggle with it absent any new ID schemes, eg in the case of trying to get access to banking. You can already get ID at a post office, maybe we should add other government facilities such as libraries.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  That's absolutely true, and orthogonal to the problem that you shouldn't need to identify yourself to anyone in order to access arbitrary websites.
  - Seattle3503 1y ago
    I don't think thats the proposal. The proposal is that you prove to websites that you are over 18 to see adult content.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      "adult content" is the boogeyman, to try to make this harder to argue against. The actual net result is shutting down a wide variety of websites and making people identify themselves (to paid identity providers conveniently provided by those who lobbied for this legislation) in order to access others, including Reddit, Discord, etc. You should not need to identify yourself to access arbitrary websites, either to the website or to some third party.
      - Seattle3503 1y ago
        I agree, you shouldn't need to identify yourself. Protocols like mobile drivers license (and others) allow you to do selective disclosure of properties such as "over 18", without disclosing any other personal identifiers. That seems like reasonable compromise.
        JoshTriplett 1y ago
nemomarx 1y ago
if you had to register to vote to use Reddit or whatever people would complain about that constantly. and voter id laws are in fact controversial yes.

lmz 1y ago

The same people who argue this will also argue that voter ID rules are discriminatory.

sltkr 1y ago
Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? Or is it only discriminatory when you prevent people without IDs from watching porn?
- mattnewton 1y ago
  The definition of Porn by the state can change to include things that some people consider protected by the first amendment - right now there are a lot of state politicians or members of the house on record supporting classifying discussion of LGBTQ lifestyles as pornography for example. I think alcohol, tobacco and gambling here are mostly irrelevant, but the firearms is a better example because of the second amendment, where you have a clash between a very old right granted by the bill of rights clashing with modern societies beliefs.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? So long as it is done for a legitimate purpose and in good faith, generally no. As such, IDs are only expected where there is reasonable suspicion of possible violation. For example, there is no onus, with a few exceptions, to see an elderly person's ID to buy alcohol when there is no reason to think that they aren't below the minimum age. The exceptions haven't really been tested. It very well could be found discriminatory, and you could make a pretty good case that it is. Which is ultimately the same case being made earlier. Asking a no-question-about-it 50 year old to provide his ID to watch porn isn't really in good faith, is it?
mattnewton 1y ago
Voter ID laws actually have a long history of being used for disenfranchisement of certain classes in the US (most notably former slaves and their descendants, but also women), so it's understandable there is scar tissue there. It gives the incumbent state another lever of power in our very close first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections. Americans don't need imagination to see how it could be abused, just a good history book.
crote 1y ago
The problem with voter ID laws have rarely been with the ID itself. Very few people would have issue with a voter ID law which also guarantees that 100% of the population can easily obtain said ID at zero cost. The issue is that those laws are usually linked to very specific forms of ID, which just so happen to be easily available to certain demographic groups. Imagine a voter ID law where the only acceptable form of ID would cost $50.000 to purchase. Would you consider that fair and nondiscriminatory? What if you could only get the ID on the third Tuesday of the month, between 14:00 and 14:30, at a single location in the entire state? What if the ID required you to pass a certain kind of test, judged arbitrarily by a government official?

Seattle3503 1y ago

I agree "ensuring everyone has ID" is a separate problem that we should absolutely trying to tackle. We are already seeing people struggle with it absent any new ID schemes, eg in the case of trying to get access to banking. You can already get ID at a post office, maybe we should add other government facilities such as libraries.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
That's absolutely true, and orthogonal to the problem that you shouldn't need to identify yourself to anyone in order to access arbitrary websites.
- Seattle3503 1y ago
  I don't think thats the proposal. The proposal is that you prove to websites that you are over 18 to see adult content.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    "adult content" is the boogeyman, to try to make this harder to argue against. The actual net result is shutting down a wide variety of websites and making people identify themselves (to paid identity providers conveniently provided by those who lobbied for this legislation) in order to access others, including Reddit, Discord, etc. You should not need to identify yourself to access arbitrary websites, either to the website or to some third party.
    - Seattle3503 1y ago
      I agree, you shouldn't need to identify yourself. Protocols like mobile drivers license (and others) allow you to do selective disclosure of properties such as "over 18", without disclosing any other personal identifiers. That seems like reasonable compromise.
      - JoshTriplett 1y ago

nemomarx 1y ago

if you had to register to vote to use Reddit or whatever people would complain about that constantly. and voter id laws are in fact controversial yes.