[Avamander]

> Electronic ID provides the means to tie together multiple systems that must currently be matched manually, with frequent false positives/negatives.

I don't think a totalitarian government cares much about false positives though.

> It creates the means to quickly build a system that could “switch off” a person’s ability to function in society, and improves the ability of security services to pool data about individuals from disparate sources with a high level of confidence.

I also don't think that bunch of different places to turn off someone's ability to participate in a society is a meaningful difference in practice. Even if it takes slightly longer or has false positives like you describe, it still achieves the totalitarian goal.

> A price I’m willing to pay, given the behavior of our political establishment and the recent attitude of my fellow citizens.

I unfortunately struggle to see the results of this sacrifice to be honest.

[iamnothere]

This reply tells me you haven’t read or understood my post above. Historically, inefficient totalitarianism is self-defeating, as its oppressive acts create constant friction and sweep up innocent bystanders, creating resentment among the population. This eventually builds to an explosive release.

Technologically modernized totalitarianism may be able to implement large-scale oppressive policies without affecting most of the population. In fact the average person may see a net benefit! This would create a more stable society despite the significantly lower level of freedom and self-determination. We may be witnessing the development of this sort of system in China, for example. The average person benefits, but a segment of the population faces brutal oppression with no recourse and must simply submit. (Contrast with the US, where people who face repression can sometimes start over by going dark and moving across the country.)

[Avamander]

I read it and I think I understood it. But I disagree on the premise. I don't find that inefficiency is needed, protective or preventative.

I find it more likely that a totalitarian system that doesn't tolerate wrong-think will inherently start accumulating inefficiencies among other things. Which can then end up with the collapse of such a regime.

Building a technologically modernized authoritarian state might increase stability for a while, but not thinking is simply not competitive long-term. Unless you achieve total world domination, I guess.

[iamnothere]

Then I suppose I’m just less willing to risk tyranny through removing potential barriers. The best protection against a massive, complex system being wielded by evildoers is to never build the system properly in the first place.

While they may be able to gain power initially, would-be totalitarians will likely be fighting off multiple threats while they consolidate power. The more they have to manage and spend, the less likely they will be to succeed at their aims. You could argue that the DOGE debacle is the most recent and obvious example of this. All indications are that the project failed, and it occupied quite a lot of energy and effort during the critical transitional period of the administration.