Comment by buildfocus

> 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?

>(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.

> I think a digital id strictly improves this scenario.

"Improves" does a lot of work here.