> Id cards are not unpopular with the general public.
At the time of writing, 1,017,754 British people have already signed the official petition opposing them; a petition that has only been running a matter of hours.
This is HN, it is unsurprising that you will find complaints of people who think governments are icky. You know, the usual libertarian bullshit.
I lived in countries that have mandatory unique IDs, and countries that don't. Typically the countries that do not are more a pain in the ass to deal with, because institutions will proxy to the next best thing in the absense of an actual ID, typically documents that are not mandatory and not supposed to be used as ID, but end up being used like that anyway.
> - is it a good idea to tie various public records together under a unique ID
Generally, yes. It simplifies dealing with government bureaucracy. Proving your identity is generally something you will have to do anyway, this is will just remove a bunch of hoops you have to go through.
> - is it a good idea to issue voluntary ID for those situations where people need to prove it
One of the countries I lived in had a system similar to this one. It worked fine
- typically you only needed this ID when opening a bank account or registered for work. Originally it was a tax registration ID (which is why it was related to banking and working), but it was secure enough that it was later repurposed as the actual unique ID. Nowadays I think they issue one to every registered person (e.g. newborns).
> - where is this going to be made mandatory and under what circumstances will it be used against people?
We are talking about the government here, who has the monopoly of force. If you live in an authoritarian country where the government fucks over citizens, they will do it to you irrespective of you having a mandatory ID or not.
My actual main concern is the level of access private corporations have to the records tied to this unique ID. I am highly suspicious of corporations (e.g.: banks, healthcare providers, etc).
> Generally, yes. It simplifies dealing with government bureaucracy. Proving your identity is generally something you will have to do anyway, this is will just remove a bunch of hoops you have to go through.
This community, more than most, should understand in its bones that security and convenience are the ends of a see-saw. Convenience is five-character passwords, security is 2FA. Convenience is contactless payments, security is cash. Etc etc.
When you argue from convenience, I find it almost axiomatic that my security is going to take a beating.
Convenience and security are not opposite to one another, they are orthogonal. Inconvenient means to prove your identity may be terribly insecure, and still be inconvenient.
Ok. Well I gave a couple of examples of what I'm getting at.
So how can a convenient way to establish a digital identity also be secure? To run with the see-saw analogy, what element would of that process would make the process both more convenient and more secure? (make the see-saw rise at both ends).
My point of them being orthogonal is that both ends of the seesaw can come down together. The logical conclusion is that they can come up together. In other words, it is not a seesaw.
Counter example - the usage of a password manager so that you have strong passwords on every service. It is extremely convenient (I don't have to remember passwords anymore, just the one for the password manager). It is also inherently more secure, as I can now use a different strong password for every service.
If the password manager is cloud backed, you're at risk of a LastPass-style data breach. If it's local only, you're at risk of someone confiscating your device also removing your access to all your online tools.
(I think I'm edging towards "measuring secureness is really hard", which isn't where either of us came in).
https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3lzq2w3ovgk2...