[FireBeyond]

> We need DMVs to begin issuing IDs that are physical with digital capabilities

The problem is that there is a very vocal segment that views such things as "government overreach" through to the literal mark of the devil.

And then there are the challenges of issuing them. There are states (the same states, typically, who shut down voting locations in working class areas and defund their DMVs) who will fight tooth and nail about having to implement this in a way that is free to all.

[DenisM]

OTOH some other states should be able to do it. They just need to agree on a standard and then motivate creditors to make use of this standard.

[fragmede]

Real ID is whole 'nother can'o'worms

[stackskipton]

Feds could also do it using Passport card and DoD does it with CAC cards so Federal government knows how to do this.

[mindslight]

You've put forth an utter straw man. I am rationally against making government verification of identity stronger precisely because the existing identity systems have been pervasively abused with essentially no recourse. After there is a US equivalent of the GDPR that lets me prevent the surveillance industry, including the traditional financial surveillance industry, from unilaterally creating dossiers about me, then we can talk about better implementations of identity verification. Until then, that dumpster fire is the main thing holding back the surveillance industry from pushing identity verification for ever more routine things like opening online accounts or buying groceries.

[FireBeyond]

> You've put forth an utter straw man. I am rationally against making government verification of identity stronger precisely because the existing identity systems have been pervasively abused with essentially no recourse.

There's absolutely no straw man. Among other reasons, things like this are exactly why there is opposition in some segments.

You've literally argued "You're making a strawman by describing what I think!" You're against it because overreach and abuse. I say a segment is against it because of reasons including that. Maybe less of a hair trigger is needed.

[mindslight]

> There's absolutely no straw man. Among other reasons, things like this are exactly why there is opposition in some segments.

Sure, technically there is a sliver of actual people out there worried about "mark of the devil". I'd still say it's a straw man to use that to characterize general opposition.

> You've literally argued "You're making a strawman by describing what I think!"

Uh, not at all. I accept that the government wants to be able to identify citizens. I'm not calling this government overreach. What I have a problem with is the ongoing failure to pass any corresponding laws that prohibit companies from abusing these identification systems to build limitless privately-owned completely-unaccountable surveillance databases. These abuses need to be stopped first, rather than brushing off the problems we're already suffering and giving even more to the surveillance industry.

As I said, pass a US GDPR that gives me the right to opt out of most of the surveillance industry, lets me drastically curtail and audit the parts I don't completely opt out of, and make sure any new types of identity attestation are still refutable in the legal system, and I am generally on board with stronger identification through something like a smart card.