🖲️ Skyet poll: GAW opinion on ID checks?
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
List of things I believe ID should be required for:
- Voting
- Running for office
- Becoming a citizen from foreign country
- Strip clubs, bars / night clubs, escort services
- Porn or gore websites, dating websites
- Alcohol, drugs, tobacco purchases (online and IRL)
- Being hired at a job
- Joining the military
- Picking up children from a school or event
- Getting a Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
- ...anything else, anons? please comment below! I am updating this list with the new additions. If I disagree with your submission I will wait for you to walk me through the Constitutionality of it. If I agree yet someone else disagrees, I will wait for them to walk me through the Unconstitutionality, and then remove it.
List of things I believe ID should in no way be required for:
- Everything not listed in the above
Tricky one. I believe like most commentors that the less is better. But when it comes to banking, if someone wants to make a withdrawl from an account, how else can you verify its the account holder making said withdrawl? Without some form of ID, I could go into any bank, claim to be Joe Shmoe, ask for every penny in the account and they'd give it to me. ID, I think, is needed for banking, otherwise a lot of scumbags would drain a lot of innocent people's accounts.
u/bubble_bursts might be able to educate on this matter with the 'anonymous hashes' idea he has presented to me before
Interesting. I'd love to hear it u/bubble_bursts whenever time allows. As long as it doesn't involve sacrificing something else, like our DNA, fingerprint, retinal scan, etc.
I had written a detailed comment a few weeks ago, I will try to pull it out.
But basic idea:
You have government that issues you the digital ID. They verify your official documents - passport, DL, birth certificate etc and they create an encrypted digital certificate "blob" (basically just a bunch of letters and numbers that mean nothing to anyone).
Only you can decrypt that digital certificate. Once encrypted, even the issuer cannot decrypt it - uses one way encryption.
Now I am a bank and I want to make sure you are an American and >18 before I give you a loan. (Just example). I can now exchange digital bits with you, based on your digital certificate you have, and be able to verify that you are indeed American and >18 years old. I wont know your name, your address or your actual age even.
At no point in this transaction, does any data need to go outside the two of us. Not to the government. Not to a central authority. Nothing. All pure maths baby.
Now I open you an account and I give you my own digital certificate that says you are an account holder and your account number is XYZ. I encrypt it for you and send it to you.
Next time you want to withdraw cash, we repeat the same process, but this time using the certificate the bank gave you and I can verify that you are indeed the account holder XYZ. I now check your balance, process your transaction, update balance and we are done. If the transaction is via crypto, I wont even need to see you nor do I need to deliver you anything physical.
Important points:
"DNA, Fingerprint, retinal scan" can be used in this system - but only to create your private encryption key, which you NEVER send to anyone. So you DO NOT need to share your biometrics with the government or any central agency. You simply use them to create your encryption key on your own device.
This is how you and only you will be able to decrypt the certificates. Alternately, you can use passwords or "security USBs" instead of biometrics. They have their own pitfalls and most people will end up preferring biometrics instead.
Very interesting. Thx for the info. It would seem like going this route may also eliminate the dependency on SS#s, which are used for so many things and too easily stolen or compromised in security breaches. That's another problem that needs attention IMO. SS#s are floated around way too willy-nilly
u/Winn check my other reply, but also this:
From the inception of Social Security until 2008 or so, you only needed an address and a name to request a new social security card.
Not only was the number itself a completely insecure, but the method of getting access to documented proof was as well.
Oh and it’s illegal to use a social security number as an identifier.
Also, I forgot about issuing loans (commercial and savings banks need to be reseparated btw). Banks need ID to issue loans to be sure of nationality, per u/bubble_bursts
Although actually, loans need to go back to a more sensible method. Pure fiat loans are probably insane (no withholding, loan creates new money, interest to pay the loan isn’t created). Fully backed loans may make capital too scarce. Crypto and AI may make it possible for anyone to be a loan issuer / funding supplier. We are going to be needing entirely new financial system(s).
u/knew2u
Very interesting 🧐🧐
Hmmm. An ID to access funds from a bank vs. a password to access an email inbox seem different.
Sidenote, love the geocities.com reference!! Takes me back to the glory days of Netscape Navigator, AltaVista and excite.com.
Once the account is set up, not really. They give you a card that has the routing and account numbers encoded, and outside of that, you’re secured by a 4 digit pin.
The pin is the direct equivalent to the password, everything else would be like the certificate store and encryption later and vpn or whatnot. From the UI side, this leaves it infinitely less secure than an 8-24 alphanum with 1u/l/p. All the security is built into whether the account should be allowed to be created, and interface from your “key” (debit card) to the account itself. License validates account creation legality and identity for credit scoring and such and maybe some other background things we don’t know about (criminal flagging, etc)
Gotta love good old nutscrape.