[consteval]

I think the main argument for having the government do it as opposed to the private sector is that the gov has a lot more restrictions and we, the people, have a say. At least theoretically.

Imagine if Walmart implemented an identity service and it really took off and everyone used it. Then, imagine they ban you because you tweeted that Walmart sucks. Now you can't get a rental car, can't watch TV, maybe can't even get a job. A violation of the first amendment in practice, but no such amendment exists for Walmart.

[cryptonector]

We're already there. Apple and Google know who we all are because we had to pay for our devices.

The government has no real restrictions.

[consteval]

> The government has no real restrictions

I disagree, we have the constitution.

[cryptonector]

The government violates or works around the constitution routinely and at will. They can't spy on you? They get other allied countries to do it and report back, or they just buy the info from companies that have collected it. And so on.

[consteval]

This is cynical. There's some truth to this, but the constitution provides a much stronger guarantee of rights as opposed to the Free Market, which guarantees nothing. There's real risk of allowing this to be a fully private-sector endeavor.