I'm gonna be real, we do need an actual id system in the US. Right now we treat social security numbers like one, but they're extremely insecure.
We're going to have a number either way, may as well have one that isn't as easy for scammers to steal.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
98 points (96.2% liked)
Privacy
31847 readers
82 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m curious. What would make a different number more secure than a SSN?
SSN's main issues are that it's hard to change, and it's predictable. If they know your date of birth and where you were born then they can reliably determine your SSN. And once your SSN is out, it's very difficult to change unless your identity was already stolen.
I have no idea why you just asking a question got down voted.
Makes sense. Even just being able to easily change it on your own would go a long way. I have a hard time seeing public key cryptography really catching on for something like this, but maybe it will.
I love your username
Thanks! Lol
Because it would be a private key associated with a public key
You wouldn't use a number, you would use something closer to a yubikey/passkey.
Right now we treat social security numbers like one, but
They were never meant to be used that way. The solution is to stop using them that way. We do not need a digital-compatible id system in the US.
We definitely do need one. Right now it's a hodge podge of crap that wasn't meant to be an identifier and it makes identity theft easy, and our privacy isn't even being protected because we still have an SSN and tax ID.
Having worked in the medical space, a lack of identifier is actually a huge issue that causes problems for people daily, especially people changing their names for whatever reason.
I think it would be better to do everything with accounts that are not necessarily permanently connected to a person's identity. Any government mediated, definitive system for identifying people is way too risky from a general privacy and freedom perspective.
The government can already identify you, and your identity is easy to steal. Making a better ID system just removes the identity theft issue.
The other nice thing would be you could use the id number instead of your name so you can stop giving your PII out to every business. Just "here's my ID number, bill my insurance, you don't need anything else."
The government can already identify you, and your identity is easy to steal.
Fixing both of these problems would be better than just one.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
The issue is that the surveillance state is actively bad, and expanding it and making it more official is a much bigger problem than the problem of ill-conceived verification systems, which could be better solved other ways. I don't want things to be perfect, I want to prioritize moving away from a dystopian panopticon.
Luckily we haven't seen bad actors put in charge of the post office, doing unethical things, so all good here, nothing to see.
You know what would be great? Low-barrier non-predatory banking services for low-income people provided by the post office like basically every other country has.
This article is a mess. I did find another one that explains a little more here.
Ron Wyden has a really good record on privacy, free speech and digital rights, here's an unrelated post where the Electronic Frontier Foundation is interviewing him.
I do think with advancement in deep fake video and audio, verifying that you're talking to who you think you're talking to is going to become a big challenge. This bill seems to be addressing that - physically going somewhere to verify your Identity. And better for that to be an official government agency than a corporation who will charge who knows what and do who knows what with the data.
Another concept of verifying identity that I haven't heard much about lately is the web of trust. People can verify other people they know and trust, and then they can vouch for second or third connections who you have not verified yet. Trouble is it can seem convoluted to people who aren't familiar, and requires adoption from many people before it becomes useful. If the government just says "this is a thing we're doing" then much more likely to be adopted.
This is step one in building towards a CBDC (central bank digital currency) where the government can see every transaction you make regardless of size and without any legal justification to access that data. It's the end of privacy and enables turnkey fascism. Programmable money that not only lets them see all your transactions, but can stop you from spending money at certain places or in certain ways. It would integrate easily with a social credit score system.
Imagine a government you don't want in charge having that kind of power and insight. Imagine a government which already broadly abuses civil forfeiture laws now having that much control over the actual currency. Surprised to see Wyden being the sponsor of this bill, he has a long history of standing for people's right to privacy.
Edit: I understand why we need a nationally-recognized ID system and why SSNs are terrible. I am just very inherently skeptical of anything that grants more power to the government, especially when there is a decent chance a government which intends to take away rights like abortion and freedom to even discuss the existence of non-straight people currently has control of the supreme court and may very well win the next presidential race.
Nothing in that bill talks about biometrics.
It mentions biometrics in the thumbnail