3 ms·

Every place on earth has some legal definition of who is human. The system I’m thinking of isn’t a technical/captcha one, it’s a human curated list of humans. J

Every place on earth has some legal definition of who is human. The system I’m thinking of isn’t a technical/captcha one, it’s a human curated list of humans. Just an electronic ID. Those already exist but the challenge is making them (acceptably) privacy-preserving. I want to take my existing national digital ID and use it online basically. BUT I don’t want the websites to know it’s me. Just that I’m human (or perhaps over a certain age). And I don’t want the ID issuer to know what site/service asked whether I’m a human or I’m 18 etc.

Arubis 1mo ago
> Every place in earth has a legal definition of who is human. I actually doubt that! And in places that do I doubt it’s perfection. Citizenship is mostly defined legally. Residency has a legal definition that may or may not track with reality. Most legal regimes I’m aware of (IANAL) define personhood; whether humanness is defined I’m less sure of. Things that are more nebulous and subjective…sometimes they’re defined, but necessarily subjectively so. And that gets you into dangerous territory if you’re at the margins. A fun example: how do you define “alive”? Does the person have to have been born? Are there conditions on that? Would they exclude some people we think of as alive? Does the person’s body need to be self-sufficient or can it rely on mechanical or other intervention? Is there a line? Is the person alive if their body is functioning but their brain is not? What about vice-versa? And even if the answers to all these questions are currently perfect, what happens if and when the definition shifts? Being alive and human is messy business. And this is setting aside the discussion of making government issued records safely usable without leaking, which they already aren’t.
- alkonaut 1mo ago
  Issuing this digital ID for all the _other things_ I do with it already has to deal with all this! Of course the debate would revolve around ”is it fine to have a national government issued ID be the ultimate proof of your identity/humanity?” It’s problematic - yet I think it’s better than the alternative.

Arubis 1mo ago

> Every place in earth has a legal definition of who is human. I actually doubt that! And in places that do I doubt it’s perfection. Citizenship is mostly defined legally. Residency has a legal definition that may or may not track with reality. Most legal regimes I’m aware of (IANAL) define personhood; whether humanness is defined I’m less sure of. Things that are more nebulous and subjective…sometimes they’re defined, but necessarily subjectively so. And that gets you into dangerous territory if you’re at the margins. A fun example: how do you define “alive”? Does the person have to have been born? Are there conditions on that? Would they exclude some people we think of as alive? Does the person’s body need to be self-sufficient or can it rely on mechanical or other intervention? Is there a line? Is the person alive if their body is functioning but their brain is not? What about vice-versa? And even if the answers to all these questions are currently perfect, what happens if and when the definition shifts? Being alive and human is messy business. And this is setting aside the discussion of making government issued records safely usable without leaking, which they already aren’t.

alkonaut 1mo ago
Issuing this digital ID for all the _other things_ I do with it already has to deal with all this! Of course the debate would revolve around ”is it fine to have a national government issued ID be the ultimate proof of your identity/humanity?” It’s problematic - yet I think it’s better than the alternative.