Comment by agnishom

Comment by agnishom 7 hours ago

The main concern here is that it will create a narrow bridge (i.e, the digital ID system) between people and various services and opportunities which will make it an easy target for people who wish to wield power against someone.

Perhaps your digital ID is needed to open a bank account, get a phone number, sign up for insurance, etc. Now, suppose some fascist government comes into power. They could start cancelling the digital ID's of people or groups they do not like or are bigotted against. These people start losing access to critical infrastructure.

Now, this could already happen, even with imperfect paper IDs, of course. But by making everything digital, we are reducing societal resilience towards such kind of hostility.

buildfocus 7 hours ago

We already have exactly this right now, without digital ids, it's not even theoretical. The government blocks plenty of residents from aspects of society (eg can't work based on visa rules, can't access public/health services at all without legal residency). Currently that's enforced by random members of e.g. medical staff looking at your skin colour to decide whether to ask to check your physical paperwork before they'll look at your weird looking mole. Governments enforce plenty of paperwork checks & blocks today. I think a digital id strictly improves this scenario.

Reply View 5 replies

agnishom 7 hours ago

> We already have exactly this right now, without digital ids, it's not even theoretical.
That is true. I was answering skrebbel's question about [how does having a digital ID system lead to perfect law enforcement?].
> Governments enforce plenty of paperwork checks & blocks today. I think a digital id strictly improves this scenario.
I hope you are right. Personally, I am not against Digital ID. My concern is, (a) how can we make sure that the infrastructure operating the digital ID is democratically controlled and not just owned by tech oligopolies; and (b) what security practices, social norms, and legal checks and balances shall we implement to prevent weaponization of this sort of infrastructure and violations of privacy?

Reply View | 0 replies
Xelbair 7 hours ago

>(eg can't work based on visa rules, can't access public/health services at all without legal residency)
You aren't a citizen in such case - you aren't legally allowed to do so. This is another issue with law being in power but it's enforcement over the years was spotty - and people just got used to it.
What you are saying is that government blocks you from committing a crime - which it should try to do so as government's responsibility should be first and foremost towards it's citizens.
Whether you agree if such law is moral or not is irrelevant in this case. As an active participant in the system you could vote for parties that want to change it or campaign to have it changed(even by talking to people) if you find it immoral.
Digital ID on the other hand affects citizens, and allows power abuse towards citizens from government, including unelected officials and middle-level clerks.

Reply View | 2 replies
- agnishom 6 hours ago
  
  > government blocks you from committing a crime - which it should try to do
  You may have missed stavros's comment in the parent thread. The fact that the government is not perfect at blocking people from commiting crimes is actually good in some cases
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  Xelbair 5 hours ago
  
  indeed, but the problem isn't from them trying to do so.
  It's the success rate that matters.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
Muromec 5 hours ago

> I think a digital id strictly improves this scenario.
"Improves" does a lot of work here.

Reply View | 0 replies