[kube-system]

First of all, they don't want to be out of the ID business. They like identifying their citizens to their own standards.

Second of all, the most common state ID is a drivers license. A federal ID would not replace the state's need to license drivers.

[Spooky23]

> First of all, they don't want to be out of the ID business.

How do you know?

State motor vehicle orgs are revenue generators. ID operations are expensive and operationally risky.

A federal ID would put the states in the business of selling endorsements. A drivers license would be like a deer tag or fishing license - higher margin and lower overhead.

It would also enable online services and local/county/state government could significantly reduce workforce and other expenses.

[kube-system]

How would a state assign endorsements to an ID they do not maintain or control? How would they use an ID database they don't have?

The answer is that they'd have to rely on the federal government instead, and given the functional relationship between the states and the federal government, states just aren't going to voluntarily give up that power and trust them to do this for them. It is in the existential interest of the states to maintain as much power as they can, despite the associated cost.

[Spooky23]

Easy. Just validate the Federal id, probably at a higher trust level than they do today.

Because state dmv compacts govern data exchange and DMVs are all about selling stickers, state programs don’t have access to the ID data they own, except for law enforcement purposes. Companies like id.me, experian, etc buy that data from states and the. sell it back. (usually do a shitty job at it to boot)

[kube-system]

Validating a federal ID would tell someone that I am who I say I am. A federal ID wouldn’t indicate whether I am qualified to drive a vehicle according to any state law.

[Spooky23]

It’s just an endorsement. Logging in to a website with a Google ID doesn’t tell me you paid. Authentication != authorization.