[3RTB297]

This is immensely counter-intuitive to many Americans. They wrongly assume that digital IDs are some Biblical apocalyptic level invasion of privacy, when every state ID database is already 1) linked to Federal ones, and 2) full of the same data on your driver's license anyway.

I've tried to explain this to people, that a digital ID done well is better than the fraud-enabling 1960's hodgepodge in use that has served fraudsters better than citizens for 30 years. They set their teeth and refuse based on use of the word "digital" in the title alone.

It will take generational change for the US to get something as banal as a digital ID already in use in dozens of countries, for no other reason than mindless panic over misunderstanding everything about digital ID systems, how IDs even work, and how governments work.

[tsimionescu]

Oh, that's not the half of it. In my own country, digital ID adoption was a political hot topic for a long time after the Orthodox Church realized that the new chips contain 12-digit long IDs that might contain the sequence 666. This despite everyone in the country having a legal ID with a number code that can also happen to contain this same sequence - but somehow the mere possibility of this happening in the digital IDs sparked a huge outrage and made politicians avoid the topic for quite a while.

[derbOac]

I agree that there's a lack of awareness of what happens in other countries with ID, but I think it is also a different situation in the US.

States in the US in a lot of ways are more comparable to countries in the EU. It's not exactly like that but in many ways it is. So it would be like requiring an EU ID on top of a national ID.

I also don't think privacy per se is the real issue of concern, it's concern about consolidation of federalized power. Privacy is one criterion by which you judge the extent to which power has been consolidated or can be consolidated.

The question isn't "can this be federalized safely in theory", it's "is it necessary to federalize this" or "what is the worse possible outcome of this if abused?"

As we are seeing recently, whatever can be abused in terms of consolidated power will be eventually, given enough time.

I guess discussions of whether or not you can have cryptographic verification with anonymity kind of miss the point at some level. It's good to be mindful of in case we go down the dystopian surveillance route, but it ignores the bigger picture issues about freedom of speech, government control over access (cryptographic guarantees of credential verfication don't guarantee issuance of the id appropriately, nor do they guarantee that the card will be issued with that cryptographic system implemented in good faith), and so forth.