[trunnell]

Is it fair to say this is objectionable mostly due to the government enforcement of one "score" per person?

After all, we have a "karma score" here on HN and we think it's great... in part, presumably, because it's opt-in and it doesn't follow you around.

Is there a middle ground? As in, an identity service that offers this kind of "trustworthiness score" across services but it's opt-in and you can have as many "identities" as you'd like. You could use a high-trust real-name identity with certain online accounts like banks but also have the ability to use throw-away identities for anonymous browsing and commenting? If such an identity protocol included some kind of cryptographic chain of proof as a way to validate the trustworthiness, it could be quite useful.

[NedIsakoff]

Or it doesn't merely apply to you? If you're score is too low, guess what? You're kids is not going to be allowed to go to good public schools. Want to do private instead? They won't let you in unless you're score is good.

[tzakrajs]

Yeah you could limit the system to only the most critical of citizen interactions (where capital moves between them). Maybe it could be like a credit score or something.