4 ms·

Tbf, well implemented digital ID would be much preferable to the idiotic situation that we're in now. The emphasis on well implemented.

reorder9695 1y ago
That would require trusting a government such as the British one to implement it well. That's far too big an ask for them, so the current situation is preferable.
- gambiting 1y ago
  Tbf, the team behind .gov websites has been exceptional and I think that part of the digitization of government services has been done really well. So I think it's definitely possible - the question is will the government do that, or will they pay someone few billion quid for an off the shelf solution from a company owned by someone's uncle/brother/cousin that will be a flaming mess.
  - gortok 1y ago
    It’s not the technical expertise that is the concern. It’s what the UK government has shown time and again when they ask for more data: they use it for previously denied-aims to expand their surveillance state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mass_surveillance...
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
I still don't understand how someone is supposed to benefit from such a thing. If I want to use some service, I'll sign up for an account with it. The only thing a centralized ID is going to do is let the service correlate me with a different account on a different service, which is exactly the thing that I don't want. How is someone supposed to benefit from a thing whose only function is to reduce the friction against forcing them to correlate their otherwise-independent activity against their will?
- verisimi 1y ago
  Don't you want ai governance or something? If the last human, political act is to ensure deanonymised data online, and there is then the capacity to slurp all that data up and auto-governance is ushered in, you then just need think about how to tweak the algo to get the effect you want. Who owns the algo, is the question.
- weavie 1y ago
  A well implemented system would somehow allow you to use your ID to prove you have the attributes a service needs (being over 18, able to drive, no criminal records, not a communist or whatever it is they need) without providing any further information that would allow multiple services to correlate ID's against eachother.
  - flir 1y ago
    Better, but still vulnerable to deanonymization, I think. And doesn't address many of the other problems (eg accuracy)
  - account42 1y ago
    Making confirmations of those attributes easily available will only result in more services requiring them. It's not worth the convenience for the vanishingly few cases where such a verification is actually beneficial.
- einarfd 1y ago
  What I use my digital id for, is services, where the provider needs to know that I am me. I only use a small part of the services that we have in Norway that you can access with out digital id (BankID) solution, but those are useful for me, and I do not think all of them would exists without it. For governmental services, I use it for things like logging into health care services. Where I've used it for checking my prescriptions, and communicating with my doctor. If I had kids I would have used it for contact with the school. An other governmental use is tax filling and tax returns which comes around every year, and this is just scratching the surface. When it comes to non governmental usage, it is mostly bank and bank adjacent usage. I do use it to log into my different banks, my stock broker, and insurance providers. The solution we have in Norway, is not perfect and one of the persistent problems, are that not everyone can get one, and since it is used a lot by the government, not having it, makes you a bit of a second class citizen. I do believe that they are finally doing something about that, and that the system will be redone a bit next year, so even if the banks don't like you. You will be able to get one.

reorder9695 1y ago

That would require trusting a government such as the British one to implement it well. That's far too big an ask for them, so the current situation is preferable.

gambiting 1y ago
Tbf, the team behind .gov websites has been exceptional and I think that part of the digitization of government services has been done really well. So I think it's definitely possible - the question is will the government do that, or will they pay someone few billion quid for an off the shelf solution from a company owned by someone's uncle/brother/cousin that will be a flaming mess.
- gortok 1y ago
  It’s not the technical expertise that is the concern. It’s what the UK government has shown time and again when they ask for more data: they use it for previously denied-aims to expand their surveillance state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mass_surveillance...

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

I still don't understand how someone is supposed to benefit from such a thing. If I want to use some service, I'll sign up for an account with it. The only thing a centralized ID is going to do is let the service correlate me with a different account on a different service, which is exactly the thing that I don't want. How is someone supposed to benefit from a thing whose only function is to reduce the friction against forcing them to correlate their otherwise-independent activity against their will?

verisimi 1y ago
Don't you want ai governance or something? If the last human, political act is to ensure deanonymised data online, and there is then the capacity to slurp all that data up and auto-governance is ushered in, you then just need think about how to tweak the algo to get the effect you want. Who owns the algo, is the question.
weavie 1y ago
A well implemented system would somehow allow you to use your ID to prove you have the attributes a service needs (being over 18, able to drive, no criminal records, not a communist or whatever it is they need) without providing any further information that would allow multiple services to correlate ID's against eachother.
- flir 1y ago
  Better, but still vulnerable to deanonymization, I think. And doesn't address many of the other problems (eg accuracy)
- account42 1y ago
  Making confirmations of those attributes easily available will only result in more services requiring them. It's not worth the convenience for the vanishingly few cases where such a verification is actually beneficial.
einarfd 1y ago
What I use my digital id for, is services, where the provider needs to know that I am me. I only use a small part of the services that we have in Norway that you can access with out digital id (BankID) solution, but those are useful for me, and I do not think all of them would exists without it. For governmental services, I use it for things like logging into health care services. Where I've used it for checking my prescriptions, and communicating with my doctor. If I had kids I would have used it for contact with the school. An other governmental use is tax filling and tax returns which comes around every year, and this is just scratching the surface. When it comes to non governmental usage, it is mostly bank and bank adjacent usage. I do use it to log into my different banks, my stock broker, and insurance providers. The solution we have in Norway, is not perfect and one of the persistent problems, are that not everyone can get one, and since it is used a lot by the government, not having it, makes you a bit of a second class citizen. I do believe that they are finally doing something about that, and that the system will be redone a bit next year, so even if the banks don't like you. You will be able to get one.