No thank you.
I am glad that the first eID vote we had on this (in Switzerland) prevented private industry from issuing IDs etc.
What we have now (upcoming, after another vote) is an open source[1] non centralized eID issued by the government.[2]
Although there are still some problematic points (initial issuance software is not open source and who can ask for the ID is not limited enough) the solution we have now is the best way to do such a thing at this time.
Why "no thank you"?
I am very much thank you. I'm still waiting for Apple to support the driver's license from my state. It will be one less thing to carry.
There are literally no downsides. My state already had me in its electronic database because I'm a driver. The TSA already has me in its electronic database. Apple already knows exactly who I am from my many credit card purchases with them. It's not taking away any privacy. Having my ID on my phone gives me convenience and doesn't take anything away.
Obviously this isn't mandatory nor should it be. Physical IDs aren't going anywhere. But I already keep all my credit cards in my Apple Wallet. I want to keep my driver's license there too.
You have no issues with handing over your cell phone to a police officer who pulls you over? I imagine you'll say "all I have to do is present an ID", but what if the officer cannot read it, so he wants to hold it? Okay you wont let him hold it, so he bends down and gets real close to your phone? You know he must verify the address against his database, so you're going to make him write down your address as he walks back to his car? Yea some people cannot afford this type of friction when dealing with police officers.
Places that support Apple's digital ID / Wallet state ID do so by utilizing a an identity reader that the user taps their phone against after selecting which info they want to convey. It is not meant for the owner to physically show the phone to the requesting party.
I'm sure this will happen in some cases especially in the interim where digital ID is technically not accepted but the person doesn't have their physical ID. An example would be a traffic stop in a state that currently supports digital state ID since usually the digital ID is basically only supported at TSA currently. But the cop looking at your phone doesn't add any more authenticity vs you just verbalizing the info and them writing it down which is what they usually do if someone has a photo of their missing ID.
Also, Apple cleverly designed it so if phone is in locked state and you activate wallet and select ID, the biometric scan it does doesn't unlock the entire phone and trying to get into the rest of phone requires another biometric scan or phone password.
From the article "Users do not need to unlock, show, or hand over their device to present their ID."
That assumes every LEO, bodega, grocery store, etc. goes out and buys the terminals to read these things though. Assuming LEOs you encounter will never just say "sorry, my reader is broken, go ahead and unlock your phone so I can bring it back to my car and type in your info to look up your license" feels naive, especially for folks with darker skin tones.
I agree it's possible to present your ID without unlocking your phone, but is it likely?
It is likely that the reader will be implemented into a phone / tablet app so will be pretty ubiquitous eventually.
FWIW it will never technically be legal to rely on visually looking at someones phone to verify age / id bc it would be incredibly easy to fake the display and physical interaction. The only reason it can work as an ID is if it is digitally verified by a reader.
But I do agree that especially in the interim there will be cases where LEO will coerce a phone handover but I don't think this will be a long term problem since physical interaction with the phone does nothing to verify authenticity. You may as well hand them a piece of paper you printed out with your info.
> It is likely that the reader will be implemented into a phone / tablet app so will be pretty ubiquitous eventually.
They may wind up ubiquitous, but reader usage will be determined by the officers in the field, on a case by case basis. Take a look at jurisdictions where body cameras are mandated but are turned off, or intentionally obstructed.
Don't hand over your physical ID either. Unless you are driving no one can make you identify yourself with a government ID.
I think you're forgetting about flights. And country borders. And I'm not sure how much luck you're going to have opening a bank account... does your birth certificate work for that?
His point is more that if you're walking down the sidewalk on a cop asks you for your ID, you're under no obligation to provide it.
But now that ICE is carrying facial recognition scanners that you're not allowed to opt out of, I guess the point is probably moot.
You do not need an ID ti fly within the USA
As for birth certificate, it is a document that shows you are a citizenship and does identify you and can be used. It’s common in other countries as a document to open back accounts so in many ways it can in the USA.
> You do not need an ID ti fly within the USA
Unless you're trying to be unnecessarily pedantic, yes you do.
There are exceptions like if you're a minor, if you're a passenger on a general aviation flight instead of a commercial one, etc.
But if you're an adult and you want to hop on a commercial flight from JFK to LAX, you need government-issued photo ID, period. You're not getting through security otherwise.
No, you do not:
https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/trip-planning/us-tra...
"If you forget your ID, you may still be able to fly after some extra screening."
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-forg...
"I forgot my identification; can I still proceed through security screening? In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly. By providing additional information, TSA has other ways to confirm your identity so you can reach your flight."
Every USA airline has this documentaiton, and TSA has this documentation on their website too.
>Unless you're trying to be unnecessarily pedantic, yes you do.
Edge cases should be accounted for IRL. People like you are the reason why the right to privacy is being eroded away constantly.
>But if you're an adult and you want to hop on a commercial flight from JFK to LAX, you need government-issued photo ID, period. You're not getting through security otherwise.
The evidence I presented above states you can. Whether or not it's seamless or comfortable isn't a discussion, nor should it be "pedantic" to know the rules presented by these organizations.
If you forget your ID, then the extra screening will attempt to find existence of the ID in databases. The ID still needs to have been issued in the first place. This is mainly if you lose your driver's license while traveling, it lets you get back home. It is in no way some kind of general-purpose mechanism for flying without ID. And it's a gigantic hassle that may take hours at the airport to sort out, leading you to miss your flight and wait to be rebooked.
You're absolutely being pedantic and argumentative, and I can't even begin to imagine why. I assume you know perfectly well that an ID is required to fly as the general rule. I can't imagine what you think you're trying to accomplish by arguing otherwise.
And if you really want to be pedantic, note that the word used is "may", not "shall":
> In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly.
Because it's not a guarantee.
> You do not need an ID ti fly within the USA
As far as I can think of, you always need an ID to get through security, just before entering the baggage scan?
Then don’t do it
Just like it's an option to not use credit cards, cell phones, email, etc.
There are many downsides, like dependency on battery or storing sensitive data on non transparent (proprietary) device.
I think there are a lot of good reasons to (also) carry a small number of cards and cash.
Take medical. The usual procedure if they need to scan your insurance info is to feed one or two cards through a scanner thingie. Others mention traffic stops and other interactions of that sort.
Could this all change eventually? But I have no problem with carrying a small business card sized wallet if only as backup in the interim.
> Take medical. The usual procedure if they need to scan your insurance info is to feed one or two cards through a scanner thingie.
It's the usual procedure but as far as I know there's no requirement to do it. All they really need is your policy number, your name and any other pertinent insurance info. I routinely go to places without my insurance cards and just recite the info for them which they write down.
I'm guessing you're American? It's much different when a foreign company wants to provide this service to you.
Why? If anything, a foreign company seems to present less risk.
If you're concerned about the government getting your data, your own country can subpoena a company within its borders and get your info.
It's a lot harder to get your private data from a company outside of a country's borders.
So you would be happy to have your digital identity be managed by Xiaomi, Yandex, or Eitaa?
I don't know what you mean by "managed by".
But I'd be perfectly happy to use a phone made by any of them that let me upload my driver's license to a wallet they managed.
I mean, why wouldn't I? What do I care whether China knows who I am...? I mean, I've already given them my passport when I visited anyways.
I'll manage it for you. Just send me an email with a photo copy of your identifying information and I'll add it to a digital wallet I'm working on for you. You've got nothing to worry about, right?
Why would I want you to manage it? Are you making a phone I want to buy?
Just because I'm happy with some corporations having a scan of my driver's license doesn't mean I'm happy with anybody having it.
Are you already storing the details of millions of others, and mine is nothing special? Are you a publicly traded corporation accountable to shareholders? Are you a nation-state with procedures around all these things? Or are you a criminal trying to sign up for credit cards in my name?
Your supposed equivalence isn't an equivalence at all.
> There are literally no downsides. My state already had me in its electronic database because I'm a driver. The TSA already has me in its electronic database. Apple already knows exactly who I am from my many credit card purchases with them. It's not taking away any privacy. Having my ID on my phone gives me convenience and doesn't take anything away.
"Everyone already knows who I am why should I care?"
You're the exact reason our rights across the spectrum of the constitution have been eroded consistently since 2001. This view of privacy is so toxic I could go on a 10 page rant about it. There's so much wrong with this single paragraph.
First, while you are correct to say the government knows who you are. You are in databases all over. So why should you care?
1. Government organizations are not allowed to share information in many cases w.r.t. constitutionally protected things. Warrants are still required intra-government (though thanks to your type of thinking it's getting simpler and simpler for them).
2. It is taking away your privacy because cell phones are legally treated differently than paper ID. If you hand the phone to a law enforcement officer, of which most normal people have plenty of information that can be used to manufacture a case, they can legally search it as your ID and other pertinent information are there. Just like you can be compelled to open your phone if you use biometrics, you can be compelled to open your phone for your digital ID. I sure hope your nose is as clean as you imply because DAs could put Mother Teresa in prison if they worked hard enough!
3. The purpose of Apple Pay from a privacy perspective is to prevent credit card theft by using tokens. In reality it's used to track you and monetize you.
4. This is no more convenient than carrying around your ID and if you find it inconvenient to carry around 2" x 4" card in your pocket your life is so unbelievably decadent I can't possibly understand you.
5. From a security standpoint an "ID reader" at a club/bar/restaurant could feasibly lift sensitive information out of your phone without you knowing it. How much do you trust your security posture on your phone? Enough to show us all your last 5 years of text messages?
Rights are eroded over time. Slowly, year by year, election cycle by election cycle, as politicians capitalize on the collective panic over whatever moral crisis we are currently in.
> "Obviously this isn't mandatory nor should it be. Physical IDs aren't going anywhere. But I already keep all my credit cards in my Apple Wallet. I want to keep my driver's license there too".
We didn't start out with much mandatory stuff in 2001. All of it was seen as "convenient" (for the prevention of terrorism). But the fact privacy infringing things were allowed opened the door to further invasion. When you allow politicians/business to get a single millimeter of their toe in the crack of the door it's over. These "people" do not understand "reasonable". So while you hand over your most important shit to Apple and the government they're busy planning on how to either use it to imprison you or profit off you. This is true for every every constitutional right. If you're willing to give up freedom for security you deserve neither. Congratulations you've personally made the EFF and other right's organization's jobs another 1% harder.
Agreed. And perhaps most importantly it is saving me $35 for that absolute fucking scam that is “Real ID”. Normally I carry my passport when I fly but now I won’t even have to do that.
US tech is for many Europeans what Chinese tech is for US people. Great for inconsequential things, dangerous for critical ones.
Nah, it's really not.
It's probably good for individual European countries or even the EU as a whole to have more homegrown industry (gasp protectionism! guess you gotta agree with Trump now. Ouch), and certainly the US does use its tech companies to spy and such, but outside of Trump being an asshat the US by and large follows the rule of law, and we are indeed allies with Europe. NATO, for example. US bases helping to defend Europe, again, for example. Oh and let's not forget, every major European power spies on the US and its diplomats and activities too - that's just business as usual.
This is in stark contrast to China and the Chinese approach to the West, which includes European countries. Have you forgotten that China is helping to fund and ship weapons to Russia to fight a war against Ukraine? Last I checked the US has given aid and is selling weapons and sanctioning Russia and Russian oil. And you want to equate the US and, idk, Microsoft to buying and installing Chinese equipment, software, and services while they help support a war on European soil?
I'm really wary of these initiatives, because perfect law enforcement is how society ossifies. Imagine if we could prosecute all homosexual tendencies when they happened, or all interracial relationships, or any other antiquated law. Society would never progress.
What happens if the government can now perfectly enforce that people under 18 can't do X or Y?
The fundamental dichotomy of all tools is they have multiple uses.
People proposing these ID's frequently suggest positive uses and there are some.
What they fail to do is consider the negative use cases and there are some (or the history of governments using tools to suppress).
In that respect the two sides struggle to see each others point of view because one doesn't see the problems and the other only sees the problems.
I'm not sure about that, I definitely see the benefits, I just think that the drawbacks are worse.
While I totally get what you are saying, and feel the same way, I often remind myself that folks who take extreme views _also_ say they see the benefits but think the drawbacks are worse. Not the paragons of such views, naturally, but the majority of folks who follow them. Take single issue voters, for a mild but clear example.
This is extremely common. I think Alan Perlis captured this sentiment in his Epigrams in Programming when he said "lisp programmers see the value of everything and the cost of nothing."
I frequently find that advocates ignore cost.
How does this apply to a digital version of an official government ID? The government already has all this data.
Governments aren’t just rolling out Digital IDs. They’re rolling out the platform to enable them to require that you authenticate with a range of apps and websites, ostensibly to keep children safe, with the real purpose being to link your unique identifier to all your online activity. They can then easily build an overall picture of who you are from that ID. Potentially, all this data can be fed into a pre-crime AI.
> Governments aren’t just rolling out Digital IDs. They’re rolling out the platform to enable them to require that you authenticate with a range of apps and websites, ostensibly to keep children safe, with the real purpose being to link your unique identifier to all your online activity.
This is just straight up not true for the EUDI which is probably the most serious and advanced approach to digital ID. The wallets are decentralized and the government does not see the individual authentication transaction in any way.
They’re already doing that without digital IDs. I don’t see how this affects the other.
Part of a Digital ID is an identity provider that implements protocols such as OAuth 2 and OIDC. Once this is in place, the government that owns the Digital ID system can mandate that platforms such as social networks, search engines, email providers, etc. link the users in its jurisdiction to its Digital ID via OAuth/OIDC. As this isn't as onerous as reviewing identity documents, governments can make this a requirement for a large range of platforms, even quite small ones.
Yes, I realise governments already have some powers to view private data, but they have to do a lot of legwork to link data to specific people. They'll always get false positives, false negatives, duplicates, etc. And they'll miss a number of platforms that have data on the person of interest. Digital ID combined with a mandatory identity platform and data retention requirements will make law enforcement far more efficient and give governments unprecedented power over what we see, hear and say online. The government will have a complete list of all the platforms on which you authenticated with their Digital ID.
We're already sleepwalking into this. In Australia, we have the under-16 social media ban taking effect next month. We're also in the process of rolling out our Digital ID, which has an OAuth/OIDC-based identity system. Numerous government departments have already integrated with it. It opens up to private sector integrations in December 2026, just in time for all involved in the under-16 social media ban to realise it's not working effectively and for Digital ID to save the day. The law states that Digital ID is a voluntary means of identification and other methods should always be offered, but the UX of OAuth 2 vs. uploading photos of your ID documents and a selfie, and waiting for it to be reviewed, will make Digital ID the de facto standard for Australians proving their age and, in the process, permanently linking their Digital ID Identifier to all their social media accounts. That includes "anonymous" ones like Reddit. And integrators can apply for an exemption to Digital ID being voluntary on their platform, making the case that the per-user cost of complying with the law without Digital ID is prohibitively expensive.
Once Australia rolls this out to social networks, it will keep expanding until virtually everything is captured.
> Once this is in place, the government that owns the Digital ID system can mandate that platforms such as social networks, search engines, email providers, etc. link the users in its jurisdiction to its Digital ID via OAuth/OIDC
Governments can do that today already. Digital IDs don't contribute anything to this. They just make our lives easier, not governments'.
> but they have to do a lot of legwork to link data to specific people. They'll always get false positives, false negatives, duplicates, etc.
Those false positives/negatives, duplicates affect real people too. That's just a case for digital IDs, not against.
> and, in the process, permanently linking their Digital ID Identifier to all their social media accounts
How do you reach to that conclusion? How are they permanently linked? It's perfectly possible to verify your age digitally without permanently linking your ID with your social accounts.
> Once Australia rolls this out to social networks, it will keep expanding until virtually everything is captured.
Again, that can be done without digital IDs. You're holding the wrong front here. Privacy invading laws should be fought, but the public shouldn't be kept away from the convenience and privacy gains of digital IDs. It makes no sense.
- [deleted]
Why would you want to streamline that process for them even more?
Because anti-privacy laws can be fought, and the convenience, privacy, and reliability benefits of these applications can stay.
I’m against “let’s hold all progress because a few states can go backwards faster than they’ve been” perspective.
You're streamlining it for the USER, not the government.
s/Potentially/Obviously/g
To set this up, you have to scan the chip on your passport. Its essentially the same data on both chips, one is just in my phone's enclave and the other is in an embedded NFC chip.
I didn't say anything about the data the government has or doesn't have. I'm talking about perfect enforcement. Try faking a digital ID.
And, specifically, frictionless perfect enforcement. Kind of like CCTV you can pull on request after a crime, vs proactive permanent ubiquitous surveillance (looking at you, Flock Safety).
It feels healthier for the enforcement apparatus to have a budget, in terms of material personnel or time, that requires some degree of priority-setting. That priority-setting is by its nature a politically responsive process. And it’s compatible with the kind of situation that allows Really Quite Good enforcement, but not of absolutely everything absolutely all the time.
Otherwise ossification feels like exactly the word, as you said, stavros: if it costs nothing for the system to enforce stuff that was important in the hazy past but is no longer relevant, nobody wants to be the one blamed for formally easing restrictions just in case something new bad happens; 20 years later you’re still taking off your shoes at the airport. (I know, I know, they finally quit that. Still took decades. And the part that was cost-free—imaging your genitalia—continues unabated.)
This is based off of a biometric passport, which have been digitally signed for a very long time now.
We have this issue already with biometric passports and ID cards.
> Try faking a digital ID.
Since most of that "digital ID" manifestations are just pixels on a screen, these are not a problem to fake pixel-perfect.
I did some limited travel during the COVID era, including areas that did not want to recognise my country's digital vaccination certificate. I presented them with a pixel-perfect picture of their own country's digital vaccination certificate. It's easy to copy from a screen of a friend, and it's not complicated to create your own Apple Wallet pass that looks like the one you want.
How did you fake the cryptographic signature QR code?
I was showing a real QR code -- that was issued to a person who wasn't me. As soon as that produced a big green checkmark on anyone's QR scanner, I was in.
Then you're hoping they won't try to match the info on the screen with the info on the paper, which is very easy to foil (just don't skip the check).
If they need to match with the info on paper it's not clear what the case for "digital id" is? If one needs to present "digital id + paper id" one can simply present the paper id as they do today.
They won't. They'll just check the digital ID. I said you can't fake a digital ID, you said you've faked a physical ID, which isn't really relevant.
Digital IDs can't be faked. The only way to fake them would be to convert them to physical (what you did) and hope that the physical ID gets accepted.
That's kinda theoretic discussion by now. As the whole COVID thing is behind us, we can probably look at all the money that were spent in the world to create vaccination certificates, sign them, create the distribution network, distribute the certificates, build the verifying scanners, purchase them en-masse and pay the thousands of people who were standing at the entrance of numerous shopping malls and using these scanners to check the QR codes, only to create a system that is trivially bypassed by using a jpeg file.
I'm not sure how this relates to the main argument that "digital IDs are bad because they lead to perfect enforcement".
My argument is that “digital ids can’t be faked” is a bad argument, and if you rely on it to prove a point then it might be a weak proof.
(Digital IDs indeed can’t be faked but usually they are a part of a process that can be easily bypassed by using something that presents itself as a valid Digital ID even if it’s not.)
They'll be a part of a process that can be easily bypassed until they're the only thing that's accepted.
I don't think they will, as this will leave a significant amount of population without ids. The fallback will always be there.
Credit cards are a great example: they can't be faked, however while the cryptographers are sitting on their high hill and patting themselves on the back for doing great job, the credit card fraud rings billions of dollars every month. It doesn't happen because of fake cards -- it happens by exploiting the flaws in the whole process that a (non-fakeable) card is a part of.
I know a guy who went to jail for that. He was in the news and everything. Banned from this country for life. Warned him that what he was doing was a stupid idea, he was even doing it for others who also got arrested...
I don't know what "that" was, and again, I had both the vaccination and the digital certificate to prove it; the system in place would not accept the real documents, so I fed it with other documents that it did accept.
Showing a QR code that belonged to someone else, like you know, the thing you said you did
Eventually in a system like that they may refine their procedures and then you get dinged essentially...
The people who check your QR code with scanners on the entrance to a shopping mall (and refuse to let you in unless the scanner shows a green mark) are not the police nor the prosecution, and I have a good case to present to a judge in any case.
"The guy who went to jail" could be unvaccinated (or even infected) and presenting other people's certificates to enter an area for vaccinated people only (e.g. hospitals) where he might have endangered other people's lives; that's something that might be deserving jail time. I was vaccinated however, and by all means had the right to enter that shopping mall; I just wasn't able to prove it to the imperfect system that was there to check.
Yeah, perfect enforcement is dystopian. I don't think most people understand this, but your point is very well taken.
Most people are missing the fact that your passport in the drawer doesn't know where you are.
Once everyone is mandated to carry digital ID, then possibilities to track population open up.
Isn't this just seeing a slippery slope and deciding to build a terrace[1], in that the existence of a digital ID doesn't automatically lead to mandate to carry one—any more than the existence of a physical ID card does?
[1] to paraphrase one many excellent John McCarthy-isms: http://jmc.stanford.edu/general/sayings.html
physical ID doesn't report your location.
A physical ID can, depending on the validation process.
Digital ID doesn't have to report your location either, depending on the implementation. It's not like it's a given a digital ID system has to give your location.
An SSH key is a digital ID. Does it report your location when you use it? A GPG key can be a digital ID. Does it report your location when you sign something?
At best a digital ID has an additional attack surface and is just more accessible.
You normally aren't carrying your passport with you, right? So even if lower security, the chance of that information being swiped is generally lower.
Phones are pretty high profile targets, this makes them more so.
I do like the idea and the convenience, but I'm definitely wary of these things too. Especially in the modern tech world where security is often being treated as a second thought as it is less impactful for sales. I'm pretty sure it is always cheaper to implement the security, but right now we're not great at playing long games and we like to gamble. Humans have always been pretty bad at opportunity costs. We see the dollars spent now and that seems to have far more value than what you save later.
On the other hand, currently US citizens are not legally required to walk around with their IDs on them. That's not true for non-citizens btw. You should have to just give the officer your name, but they can detain you while they "verify your identity." With an ID becoming frictionless and more commonly held on person, will this law change? Can we trust that it'll stay the same given our current environment of more frequent ID requests (I'm trying to stay a bit apolitical. Let's not completely open up that issue here?). I'd say at best it is "of concern." But we do live in a world run by surveillance capitalism.
There's a really good example I like of opportunity cost that shows the perverse nature of how we treat them. Look at the Y2K bug. Here on HN most of us know this was a real thing that would have cost tons of money had we not fixed it. But we did. The success was bittersweet though, as the lack of repercussions (the whole point of fixing the problem!) resulted in people believing the issue was overblown. Most people laugh at Y2K as if it was a failed doomsday prediction rather than a success story of how we avoided a "doomsday" (to be overly dramatic) situation. So we create a situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you do fix a problem, people treat you as if you were exaggerating the problem. If you don't fix the problem you get lambasted for not having foreseen the issue, but you do tend to be forgiven for fixing it.
Just remember, CloudStrike's stock is doing great[0] ($546). Had you bought the dip ($218) you'd have made a 150% ROI. They didn't even drop to where they were a year previously, so had you bought in July of 2023 ($144) and sold in the dip you'd have still made a 50% profit in that year... (and 280% if you sold today).
Convince me we're good at playing the long game... Convince me we're not acting incredibly myopic... Convince me CloudStrike learned their lesson and the same issue won't happen again...
You're ignoring the benefits though - it will help adapt more services to work online and reduce bureaucracy.
Look at Germany where they outright refuse to acknowledge emails as a legal notification / correspondence so everything still gets sent as letters and fax. It's extremely slow and cumbersome.
Also it will help for security as the central service can authenticate you, instead of every little hotel and bank branch, etc. keeping a copy of your passport.
There are a ton of things in the US that require or at least almost universally use letters for notifications.
Am I ignoring the benefits or am I just responding to the comment?
Good. Send it in the mail. I don't want my inbox to require legal burden to read.
Also, if it's easy to check your ID, there will be more and more checks of your ID. And that's not great...
It also normalizes in the public eye the notion that conventional ID's deserve suspicion, and pushes the Overton window, in the US context, further in the direction of accepting that LEO's can and should be jailing people solely on their personal suspicions about ID authenticity.
A person without an iPhone (or not utilizing it fully) does not deserve suspicion. It's not a crime to opt out of the mainstream iPhone sociology. It is not right to treat a person who is e.g. elderly, or for some other reason has "fallen" behind the digital divide, as an inferior person with fewer rights and privileges.
It's reliably in tech peoples' blind spot, when thinking about how to make things "efficient" for the common case, one that reflects their own experience, to not think or care about the less-common cases that don't affect them. See: digital-only payments[0]. But being banned from shopping in a few hipster stores is a small thing compared to being wrongly jailed!
> It is not right to treat a person who is e.g. elderly, or for some other reason has "fallen" behind the digital divide, as an inferior person with fewer rights and privileges.
While it may not be moral, our entire world and society are set up to treat folks with more resources as superior people with more rights and privileges. Poorer folks fall behind the digital curve just as readily as they fall behind the professional, educational, etc. ones. Who you are born as and where that takes place is still one of the driving factors of your rights and privileges. It's certainly noble to fight that (just to be clear that I'm not arguing for digital IDs as somehow valid because the rest of the system is already unjust).
> While it may not be moral, our entire world and society are set up to treat folks with more resources as superior people with more rights and privileges.
I don't know about that. Ability to buy more != superiority and rights and privileges.
I know a bunch of people who disdain the ultra rich and see them as the opposite of superior if anything. And rights are the same for everyone...
While morality is a different discussion for sure, I was only referring to how society as an organism views people. The wealthy undeniably have more rights and privilege than the poor.
privilege yes, but rights... maybe in some societies, but I wouldn't generalize
Do you have an example?
do YOU have an example? rights are the same for everyone is in probably every constitution and sorta default;)
An example from me wouldn’t disprove your claim that there are places with equal rights across the board. E.g. in the US it’s clear that the wealthy have rights granted via political donations. That doesn’t prove or disprove your claim. I hesitate to even mention such examples for fear of a response being more focused in it than the claim you made.
I am ok if you say "people with more money live better lives" but if you say "people with more money have more rights" is a bomb statement because "rights" means something specific and legally important.
I live in one of the countries where id is mandatory to have and to carry.
Not counting times when id was exchanged for another id, I believe I was asked to show the physical card maybe twice (in six years), one of those was for voting, the was in healthcare. Guess how white I am, lol.
Digital thingy zo, that needs button pressing every time I log into whatever government or goverment-related things.
So you are kind of right
While that problem certainly exists we also have countless crooks and con men getting away with it. The criminals are also using technology, all of it.
On one side you have people with multiple video feeds, trackers, wife-jammers, password/data leaks, backdoors, work/private schedules, purchase history, etc, etc for you, your family, friends, coworkers etc etc
On the other side you have law enforcement not knowing which person walked- or which car drove where, not for any location, not knowing which phones were at the crime scene. No access to any relevant camera (if they even exist) no access to chat logs, email, photos people made.
I'm not-at-all arguing they should have access to any of that but we shouldn't be ignorant of the balance between the two.
It seems to me a major pain in the ass if you cant bring your phone when stealing a car, doing a robbery, driving off without paying for gas or harassing people for not living up to your antiquated expectations.
I’m still waiting for the day where 100% of state drivers licenses are supported in wallet and anyone requesting ID are required to accept them. Quite literally the only reason I have a wallet these days is for the drivers license.
> and anyone requesting ID are required to accept them
This is the big one. I've seen a lot of states where digital drivers licenses are issued, but many retailers are like "lol no, we want the card." It needs to be legally enshrined as identical.
I've had state government (including both cops and clerks) refuse to acknowledge my digital ID in my state.
I leave my wallet in my car, because the only reason I need it is for my driver license.
My bank, however, has one of those authenticator doohickies that I need to use when I make big transactions online. Pop my debit card in, enter the pin, and then do a little dance with codes back and forth on their internet banking to authenticate the transaction.
So I am in this annoying situation where my wallet is never where I needed it: either I'm making a payment and I need to go to my car to get my card, or I need my license and my wallet is on my desk where I forgot it last time.
Google Pay and digital wallets have literally freed up one of my jean pockets permanently.
Nope. I will continue to have a DL card so I can choose to leave my phone at home. When we are required to have our IDs on our person at all times I can at least not be tracked everywhere I go.
Be watchful for legislation requiring: * us to have our ID on our person at all times. * IDs to be issued in digital format only.
To be clear I don’t want either of those laws to be passed, but I’d like the option to have it on my phone and require police to respect it
> Be watchful for legislation requiring
This is the paranoia I don't get. These are not things that are going to happen in the US, precisely because so many people (like yourself) are against it, and it's a democracy and people vote. So putting your drivers license on your iPhone isn't some slippery slope.
> This is the paranoia I don't get. These are not things that are going to happen in the US
Many brown looking citizens carry their passport so as to not be excessively detained by ICE.
> These are not things that are going to happen in the US.
Citation needed.
> it's a democracy and people vote
But they never get what they wanted nor what they voted for.
I already said why. But to go deeper: the US has, and has always had, a strong libertarian and anti-government streak among a very large proportion of its citizens. And it's not going away. That's why the US doesn't have a national ID, the way so many other countries do. That's why adults are not required to carry ID's with them, the way it is in many other countries.
These political values are a strong part of American culture. The distrust of central government and authority has been around since the founding of the country. They belong to the most durable of American values.
If the US still doesn't have a national ID, or require citizens to carry ID's, and there's literally no political movement towards that, what on earth makes you think this will change?
Being able to put a driver's license on your phone is state-level. It's a form of ID we're OK with. It can't be mandatory because not everyone can drive. There's zero slippery slope here. I just want to carry the card I already have to carry when driving or flying, on my phone instead of physically. There's zero downside here.
Is that enough citation for you?
>So putting your drivers license on your iPhone isn't some slippery slope.
Yes it is. And participating is accepting it.
Very much, This! Up voted
Geniuine question, why can't you just have your license in your car at all times?
In the US if you need a state ID card and a driver's license those are generally combined into a single card. They usually only need its driver's license functionality when they are driving but often need its ID card functionality when they are away from the car and so it generally goes with them.
Ah, that's why, ok. Didn't know they are combined.
I mean, they don't have to be. You can often get a state ID card and a driver's license, but that's essentially redundant. More fees, more time, more paperwork. Things that require an ID just require some state or federally issued photo ID, so you can use a DL, a state ID, a passport, etc. When the extreme majority of adults are already needing a DL to get groceries why bother with another ID.
I wasn't able to find any states where this is the case. They all appear to have rules that say you can only be issued a state ID or a state drivers license but not both at the same time. Additionally federal REAL ID rules have the same requirement for REAL ID compliant identification.
https://legalclarity.org/can-you-have-a-non-driver-id-and-a-...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-6/chapter-I/part-37/subpa...
So I think the only way to have a government ID card and a separate drivers license is to get a passport card and a state drivers license.
Huh, interesting. It was legal here in my state until 2015, I didn't know that had changed.
Yeah but I need it when I buy a drink too.
Unless your state issues wimpy driver's licenses that fall apart if not kept in a wallet why bother with the wallet?
I just carry my driver's license, a credit card, a health insurance card, and an Orca card [1] loose in a pants pocket.
[1] Stored value card for several transit agencies in the Puget Sound region of Washington.
I’d almost certainly lose one or more of them if I did that. I use a compact wallet containing no more than I need and it also gives me a place to stick the odd luggage check etc.
Same, although most of the time, at least cops, accept a photo of the actual ID card/driver license where I live (Romania), at least it worked the last time I got pulled over.
I've been stopped by cops maybe once per 10 year. In that case I'm happy to pay $50 fine for failing to present license which they can check on their database anyway.
This is the way
Most of the world isn’t even covered by this feature yet, like the EU digital id and driving licences.
I am against digital IDs. There’s a reason why security-minded people carry around physical hardware keys. The fact that Apple remains a black box company means I can’t trust them now and definitely not later when their changing financial circumstances COULD jeopardize management decisions and commitment to privacy.
There was a post from trailofbits blog recently about how passport crypto works. Kind of related here.
I wonder if this is some zero knowledge proofs here or what? Reading the passport and its chip implies some terminal authentication capabilities coming from Apple devices. Passport would not allow reading sensitive data from the chip unless the terminal is valid.
Another question is if Apple is allowed to read your biometric data?
> There was a post from trailofbits blog recently about how passport crypto works. Kind of related here. > > I wonder if this is some zero knowledge proofs here or what? Reading the passport and its chip implies some terminal authentication capabilities coming from Apple devices. Passport would not allow reading sensitive data from the chip unless the terminal is valid. > > Another question is if Apple is allowed to read your biometric data?
Passport chips aren't that complex, especially not American ones. You just need to transmit part of the MRZ to unlock them (Other ICAO compliant passports have slightly different requirements, still all easily doable for any smart phone with NFC transmit)
The Apple ID isn't a ZKP - IIRC they're doing a CBOR representation of the claims which is signed with their own cert.
> Reading the passport and its chip implies some terminal authentication capabilities coming from Apple devices
They’ve had some form of this for ages with Apple Pay
Sorry I was meaning to say "passport terminal" capabilities which would require a cert to be issued by a country whose passport chips you want to read. Well maybe they had this for a while but AFAIK you could not read passport details with an apple device before
From that article it looks like all you need to establish a secure connection with the passport is some data that is printed in plaintext on the photo page.
It seems (again, if I'm reading correctly) that you only really need a private key in order to issue a passport.
Yes, that's correct. There have been apps on iOS and Android that can read your passport via NFC for ages. As you noted, all you need is the plaintext information printed on the photo page to generate the Basic Access Control key, which will let you connect to the passport's NFC chip.
Issuing a passport is a different issue entirely, since you need a country's document signing key.
quick note -- I believe you need a separate key to get biometric data out of the passports, but it's been a while since I looked at passport digital infrastructure.
Link to the blog for anyone else looking
https://blog.trailofbits.com/2025/10/31/the-cryptography-beh...
I still find it bonkers reading passport doesn't validate it against it some centralised database. Like, $1 in your bank account and a credit card is more advanced than a passport.
Passports are inherently decentralized, which is needed because not all countries cooperate with each other - or have the same budget for technology/security. It's really way something at global scale could work.
(There are national-level databases, but presumably not every country has access to every other country's database.)
I struggle to imagine international airport without a credit card reader. Maybe some borders in some countries could've struggled before cheap ubiquitous internet, but not anymore. And even then it's their problem.
Countries don't need access to database. They need to validate public key / hashsum is valid (or something along those lines).
Thats a thing actually
Passports have a signed data blob to ensure its authentic and usually a revocation lust too.
I feel uncomfortable with these changes. Between this, digital currencies, airlines not doing printed boarding passes, metros requiring smartphones, … it feels like we are going to lose control and privacy as consumers.
[flagged]
You can be wrong or you can be an ass, but, unfortunately, you're both.
What's your magic solution, then? Tattle to the FTC? Beg the President to reign in Tim Apple before he manifests the antichrist?
I'm afraid you're the wrong one here, this is our fealty to Apple paid back in due. If I have to be an ass to get people to stop buying surveillance slopware, so be it. You have no other option at this point, I'm not going to canvas for your rights as an Apple customer in 2025. This is what you support when you give them your money, enjoy!
Edit: I am addressing the OP's point. You called me wrong - I am defending my original point to OP, while illustrating why your dismissal is not relevant to the discussion.
Wrong assumptions in your comments:
1. I'm an Apple customer.
2. I live in the US.
3. It's a free market.
It’s inevitable that identification and payments continue to digitize. I’d prefer that physical ID / cash remain legally protected but that I can also go for a run with only my watch and buy a beer afterward
Indeed, it needs some hard legal protections from abuse but it will come eventually.
It's a matter of time transaction will be denied because you didn't run the required distance set by the government, so beer allowance has not renewed.
Google Wallet supports this as well, but not for passports, only select state drivers licenses.
https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/12436402?hl=en
I wonder if passports will come to Google soon as well - that'd open it up nationwide as long as you have a passport.
Google Wallet has supported passports for about a year now [1]. Works great at TSA. You scan it yourself. You never need to hand them your unlocked phone.
Apple also supports select state drivers license.
I would definitely expect Google to follow quickly.
Generally the hangup/timeline is with the state government, not Apple/Google.
I am never handing my phone to a cop.
> I am never handing my phone to a cop.
The point is that you don't have to:
> To present a Digital ID in person, users can double-click the side button or Home button to access Apple Wallet and select Digital ID. From there, they can hold their iPhone or Apple Watch near an identity reader, review the specific information being requested, and use Face ID or Touch ID to authenticate.
"hold … near … review"
If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific information" would be your birthday, and that is all that would be sent over. With a regular ID, verifying your age would mean handing over your physical card which would have all sorts of other non-relevant information to the task at hand.
Further:
> Only the information needed for a transaction is presented, and the user has the opportunity to review and authorize the information being requested with Face ID or Touch ID before it is shared. Users do not need to unlock, show, or hand over their device to present their ID.
AIUI, cops would have a verifying device or app and the information requested—which you authorize—is sent over wirelessly. Kind of like how you no longer have to hand over your credit/debit cards to (possibly malicious) cashiers, and just keep it in your hand and tap. (Older people may remember the carbon copy 'ka-chunk' machines.)
With a physical ID you have to hand that over because that is the only way the information can be read off of it. With a digital ID you can send a copy of your ID without physical exchange / handover.
When buying alcohol in a physical store, in the UK we have the "Challenge 21/25" schemes https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-alcohol... such that yes if you look very young the cashier/automated checkout assistant will ask for your ID but in most cases, they will approve without checking anything. I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.
> I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.
It is not about requiring ID for all transactions, it is about when ID is actually asked for (which may not be every time), the information can be provided in a more privacy-friendly way.
The Netherlands is quite similar. You need to be 18 to buy alcohol, but only need to show an ID if you’re under 25.
It’s pointless to ask someone who’s clearly in their fourties for an ID in this case.
The cashier wouldn't need to ask your ID at all?
Since the phone would authenticate your age as well as give the payment information.
For buying alcohol, I wonder if faceID will also somehow be required to verify the holder of the phone corresponds to the digital id
Data point: Albertsons/Safeway/etc. is rolling out new card readers that have a camera in them. Software support likely isn't in place yet, but that's definitely something they are thinking about long term.
> If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific information" would be your birthday, and that is all that would be sent over.
Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol nope. Big stores will request as much as they can to target you with ads.
You could then decide not to buy the alcohol. Unless you are severely addicted, you will not die if you don't purchase alcohol.
Following the same reasoning, one could decide not to open any website, their TV, their phone and even their fridge. None of these will kill you
While should companies tracking us to make more money affect our habits?
Yes, but the point is that we already know (app permissions, cookie tracking consents) that "ask only what you need to function" isn't how sellers operate.
Also, you need an ID to buy some OTC medicine and to pick up some prescribed medicine. As well some other cases when ID needs to be presented, but those probably require more than just DOB anyway.
The irony is that most of the ID-to-buy-medicine rules people cite were created by the same GOP lawmakers who push voter ID. The Sudafed restrictions came from the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, introduced by a Republican sponsor and signed by a Republican president. If you are worried about creeping ID requirements, look at who actually writes these laws.
Again, citing the UK here, if you go to your doctor and get a prescription, all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed. I do not have statistics for the false pickup rates but I very much doubt it is anything to worry about.
In the US lots of prescriptions work the same. But some prescriptions and some over the counter (OTC) medicine requires presenting a legal ID to purchase because of a variety of laws.
Blood pressure prescriptions, no ID lots of times. OTC meds which are ingredients to make meth, need an ID.
> all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed.
Does it include controlled substances? Sure, I can pick up ibuprofen 800mg with just my name and DOB said verbally, but whatever is on schedule II (US term, but think Adderall) I required to show my ID.
If anything, digitalisation will make it easier.
Currently if you hand your id, the cashier could theoretically take a photo of it but it's an extra (and awkward) step, and then someone would have to figure out how to extract the data and make it usable.
> Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol nope. Big stores will request as much as they can to target you with ads.
And you will now be informed about what is being asked for, as opposed to the current situation where if you are handing over your physical ID you may have no way of knowing what is being gleaned from it.
And being informed, you can choose to accept or decline. You can also question the need for it (the cashier won't be of much help, but inquiries can be done to head office).
So assuming your goal is to buy something that requires you to show an ID (don't move the goalpost with "you can just not buy it"), my options will be:
1) show a digital ID where I can see that they are asking for much more
2) show my physical ID where they can see much more, they need
I mean, I'd pick #1 because at least it will be used just for marketing and not noting my address as I buy a lot of travel supplies.
That is usually not something you choose.
Only if you're being arrested. If you're at a traffic stop or tons of other scenarios would never need to.
It's normal for police at a traffic stop to take your license back to their car while they write a ticket or whatever. Until laws change, having your only license on your phone means handing your phone to an officer until they are satisfied they no longer need it.
States that have implemented mobile drivers licenses are starting to issue handheld readers to police officers, precisely so what you describe doesn't happen.
The people building this know nobody wants to hand their phone over to the police.
Police sometimes confiscate licenses (rightly or wrongly).
Having your license confiscated when it doubles as your wallet, MFA device for work, and primary communications device sounds like a disaster.
You make a good point.
In principle the police Wallet reader could have a function to virtually suspend the license, instead of physically confiscating your phone.
I wonder if they thought of that, and I wonder if police would use the option or confiscate the phone anyway.
Surely police would never say their reader is broken and never make it your problem
Yeah that’s why OP said he wouldn’t hand his phone over. Implying he prefers a physical one.
- [deleted]
I get what you're saying, but if you think of it what we're doing today - handing over the one and only official piece of document to a) cop b) club bouncer etc.
They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface it. All of that is a possibilty.
You could argue, a sufficiently locked down phone is a better alternative. If they do something, you'll only lose $$
Exactly this. If your only license is on your phone, and the police officer decides to confiscate your license, now you have a lot more problems beyond not being able to legally drive.
> They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface it. All of that is a possibility.
But they can't potentially look at your banking app, read private notes, messages and emails, operate your home automation, look at your calendar, etc. if all they have is a plastic card.
They can't do that either with Wallet items. That's kind of the point: you can hand over your phone with a wallet item "unlocked" and visible on the screen, and that's all they'll have access to.
Sure but then you've already given them your phone after which you don't know what happens. Plus it's a lot of leverage for them to have it, e.g. "unlock or you won't get it back".
Until they covertly plug it in to the Cellebrite unit back in the patrol car.
- [deleted]
If I lose a piece of ID, I've lost a piece of paper/plastic. I'm inconvenienced, but can easily get a replacement and have the original invalidated.
> have the original invalidated.
Only for it's "original" use case - traffic laws enforcement. I don't think any other entity can validate if this piece of plastic is invalidated or not. Also, it's not like information on lost ID gets erased when you get a new one: still has your address, DOB and other info that can be misused.
> have the original invalidated.
I once had three valid drivers' licenses, because my wallet was stolen (later returned), and I left my ID at a bar. All three were valid for use at the same time despite being reported lost/stolen - they had identical barcodes, etc.
I feel exactly the opposite about what you said. The ID is just an ID, my phone is my phone with other stuff in it.
... and if they hold the document upside down they can see your browser history and with a UV flashlight they can quick scan your app list for intel.
Someone recently joked about Apple holding elections on the iPhone with Face ID to verify your voting eligibility.
Hmm..
As an aside, I've been using TSA Touchless at select airports.
It's pretty slick.
No ID, nor Board Pass needed.
Just walk up to TSA, and only facial recognition is needed. It's extremely fast too.
Now that we’ve got ice walking around with an app that uses facial recognition to determine if you’re a citizen, fuck the facial recognition stuff. This tech should be out of government hands.
> Now that we’ve got ice walking around with an app that uses facial recognition to determine if you’re a citizen, fuck the facial recognition stuff. This tech should be out of government hands.
When I was in LAX last week, facial recognition on entry was only for US citizens anyway, and for it to work they need to take a photo of you when you're leaving. I don't see how it helps ICE in any way, plus it's handled by CBP.
Also, it didn't work on me, because I left clean shaved and returned with a beard.
> I don't see how it helps ICE in any way, plus it's handled by CBP
ICE and CBP are both part of DHS. This data is going to be abused, if it is not already.
> When I was in LAX last week, facial recognition on entry was only for US citizens anyway, and for it to work they need to take a photo of you when you're leaving.
I've definitely avoided photos on exit and used it coming back in, so I'm not sure this is accurate.
Same here. I always refuse facial recognition when possible, but they had no problem using it on return from international travel. The systems aren’t linked (yet).
Why? They already have photos of you and your biometric data. All you're doing is slowing down the line for everyone else.
It doesn't slow down the line, they hold you at just about every crowded airport until the line for the luggage/body scanner are ready for the next person. Even if it did, though, I have the right to opt out, so you will wait until I've exercised my right. Deal with it. :)
I reject it because I don't believe in a world where rampant facial recognition should be the norm.
When I was in Haneda airport, a machine tells you which of 4 lines to go to and if you have forgotten there is a screen with live camera feed from screen POV and little boxes drawn on top kinda above you with your line.
I thought it was pretty neat, but felt super invasive.
CBP facial recognition is far less invasive. It's not an instance of "rampant facial recognition" in my opinion. There is really no downside, "they" already know you might be at the airport because you booked a ticket, since most US airports don't let to the air side without a ticket. You are already on bunch of cameras inside the airport, including right when:
1) your ID verified by human or by a kiosk
2) when you drop off your bags
3) when you board the plane
4) every other time you have to show your ID or boarding pass
You do you though.
You say these points as if they're not day-one considerations of this discussion.
If they know that already, then they don't need to use facial recognition. It acts as a de-facto endorsement of the idea that it should be used everywhere else in society, which is what my issue is.
I also lived in Japan for a number of years and I'm familiar with their system at the airports. Japan is not America and I do not find it useful or interesting to compare the two approaches; when I lived there - and indeed, whenever I go back - I'm aware of and resigned to the aspect of that society not giving a shit about it all. I do not think America needs to be the same way.
Unused rights atrophy.
Surely nothing nefarious has ever been promoted with the offer of convenience!
- [deleted]
I’m still going to keep using the digital id lane whenever I can. The gov and tsa already has my biometrics because of my passport + global entry + precheck status. Might as well use the much faster security lane.
But this offering from Apple seems like it could be a nice choice for folks with passports but no desire to get pre or global entry. (Which seriously if you have a credit card that covers it, definitely do it)
While Apple has some admirable history in standing up to government information requests[1], am I alone in wondering now if Apple has started to voluntarily align itself with the current administration? For example, Apple is helping to build Donald Trump's new gold-plated ballroom.[2] (!)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trumps-ballro...
In completely unrelated news, Spain’s PM proposes mandatory Digital ID for social media users at Davos.
https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-...
> They will also be asked to use their iPhone to read the chip embedded on the back of their passport to ensure the data’s authenticity.
I installed an RFID app from the Apple app store (3rd party, not from Apple) and it couldn't read the chip in my passport. Perhaps Apple's firmware was filtering those out at the time?
I was able to use the (free) app “ReadID Me” to decode passport information months ago
…in the US.
... for U.S. passports.
We don’t need it in Poland. We’ve been using a similar but official government issued app with ID, driving license, car documents for years now. Works both on Android and iPhone. Can be also used for logging into government web apps like taxes, for document signing or for voting. And it reminds me whenever my car insurance expires or it needs the annual check. Pretty impressive IMHO.
I was thinking of US permanent residents that have an interest in this but no US passport.
I can see them eventually doing this. Nothing on the tech side stopping them.
You gotta start somewhere. They started with Driver's Licenses.
And if you live outside the US with a US passport, you can't use it.
The age of digitized "Slave Certificates" is upon us... As only the "Masters" that are mandated by the government extending to the UN that "Need" it for you to prove who that you are who you are assigned as at birt(In case nature was involved) for when you are already made "Artificial" it comes build in... "How dare you fill in another name than WE ASSIGNED You?!?"
In an age wherein everything is backdoored somehow voluntary or not, "You Shall still sync your digital twin!!!" So we can predict pre-crime whilst we are busy with depopulation & Migration(See press release last Bilderbergclub meeting!)
Make no mistake as 95% of countries is looking to implement this.. for it is your right as defined by the United Nations(whenever democracy needs to be declared war!) (See joint declaration of 1942)
Yeah I'm not handling my phone to a police officer for identification. This will give them immediate probable cause to search my phone.
It is INSANE to me that people are excited about this nonsense. Apple Pay at least made sense as a back up source for something inconsequential, legally speaking.
Doesn't seem to work if you are outside the US, it's not even an option to add.
Apple has introduced ankle tag. It's just legislation away for everyone to be tracked in realtime and perhaps even listened to, initially for "keywords" to protect <insert group of people>.
Digital ID is a misnomer, it should be called "Digital Social Application". These are NOT ID"s. They're government dreamcasted app's for managing the lives of civilians.
No battery, no personality.
Doesn’t give the option, perhaps because I am in London at the moment. The California e-driver’s license app didn’t have this nonsense restriction.
Honestly, hooray for dragging the U.S. into everyday people having a federal ID in their pocket. Having to check fifty different ID layouts times three revisions is a nightmare and no one uses passports domestically today outside of airports.
[dead]
[flagged]
How is Trump using digital ID's on iPhones to complete a coup?
It's the last step of his plan before he activates the lizard clones and death rays.
[flagged]
Can we use this for voter ID?
Americans do not need to provide ID to vote, so no?
In some states you do need ID to vote. Texas, for example.
Huh, thanks! I am a yankee so I have a bit of a limited view.
You have to show ID to vote in my country, I thought that was the normal thing.
We don't have a national ID here in the US. Passports can be quite expensive. Local state ID cards don't prove citizenship.
> Passports can be quite expensive.
It's $165 per 10 years if you don't lose it or $65 if you just need in place of national ID (i.e. no international travel). I think anyone can save up that much in 10 years, renewals a bit cheaper btw.
> Local state ID cards don't prove citizenship.
No, but to get a Real ID in any state you have to prove you're in the country legally, and in some states to get any form of ID you have to prove that.
It is, many states in the US are abnormal in this way.
[flagged]
No party in the US seem to fight for a secure (end-to-end auditable) voting process. I've yet to hear any politician talk about anything like that, a process where no voter has to trust the system and can be still confident (assuming they understand the underlying math) their vote was counted and counted correctly.
It is true that every scheme out there (that I've read about) has some flaws. But I'd rather have NSA spending their budgets and talent working on this kind of stuff, than spying on citizens or whatever they do.
The current discourse is all about identification during registration vs when voting. Which is meaningful but feels like avoiding the actual issue, as it is still not really secure either way.
The reason is nobody trusts a single party to implement that honestly.
Last time I checked, Party X only cared about Party Y’s voters who are voting illegally. They’re perfectly fine with their voters doing it.
Technology is a tool against corruption not a cure for it.
What Democratic policies are geared towards disenfranchising Republican voters? I don't believe there are any. Unlike Republican-enacted policies, which have been found in court to have discriminatory intent.
I don’t have a say here… but wouldn’t allowing potentially illegal votes be exactly disenfranchising the side that illegal votes do not benefit?
Allowing “potentially illegal votes” is a hypothetical. Actual disenfranchisement is not hypothetical, it is measurable.
To date, every audit, recount, signature review, and court case has found illegal voting rates so low they have no statistical impact. Meanwhile, multiple Republican-backed laws have been struck down by federal courts for intentionally or disproportionately disenfranchising specific groups of eligible voters.
So one side is dealing with documented, court-verified disenfranchisement. The other is raising a theoretical scenario that has no evidence behind it. Hypotheticals do not outweigh the real, observed effects of restrictive voting laws on lawful voters.
Leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverifiable voting system, so it's not surprising that audits, cases, etc. find little fraud. That's the entire idea, to make it difficult if not impossible to find!
This is the MAGA playbook: make an allegation, produce no evidence, then claim the lack of evidence proves the cover-up. It’s two fallacies at once.
1. Unfalsifiable claim.
2. Reversed burden of proof.
If fraud is real at meaningful scale, you show it. You don’t assume it, declare the system rigged, and treat every failed audit or court case as part of the conspiracy. That’s not analysis. It’s a closed loop designed to protect the claim from scrutiny.
[flagged]
Each of those claims is not only incorrect but reveals a deep lack of knowledge about all of the measures taken to improve election security in the current century, not to mention the apparent unawareness of the lack of a leftist political party in power.
We already have an electoral system which people who aren’t actively mislead trust. The problem is the same as in other areas where something established far beyond reasonable doubt, such as the reality of climate change or vaccine efficacy and safety, is questioned not because facts are lacking but because a multi-billion dollar propaganda network pushed false claims for political purposes.
Sure, but that's the point of an end-to-end auditable system so you don't have to trust whoever implements it. The whole idea is that no crooks can make math work any differently than it does.
In the United States, getting an ID is expensive and time-consuming and is often inaccessible to many people, particularly those who don’t speak English, are poor, or work service jobs. These people are the same people who are historically marginalized and oppressed. This is why voter ID laws in the United States are fundamentally anti-democratic and disenfranchising.
If IDs were free and incredibly easy to get, I wouldn’t care about a voter ID law.
> In the United States, getting an ID is expensive and time-consuming and is often inaccessible to many people, particularly those who don’t speak English, are poor, or work service jobs.
No to all of that? Passport book (which you don't need unless you travel internationally) cost 165 USD per 10 years.
Time-consuming...it's a one short trip to local-ish post office (not every post office has passport services). Sure, it's appointment only and only M-F, but you need to do it once every 10 years.
Non-English speakers... You have to pass a basic English test for naturalization, and if you're born here, you probably should speak at least basic English. It's one form as you have to fill out online.
Objectively, it's easier for a service worker to get shit done during the workweek than for 9-5 salaried.
Anyway, California got it right: applied for Real ID? Want to register to vote or update your registration while you're at it? And it cost like $40 (depending on state)
IDs are cheap and easy to get, and I wouldn't want a person who can't figure something that simple to have any voice on the federal level.
Yes to all of that. Your experience is not universally shared, and the people who are affected disproportionately belong to specific groups which have been discriminated against in the past (e.g. Native Americans on a reservation are more likely not to have a short trip to a local post office).
Here’s a summary from 2012 by people who study this professionally:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/vote...
I would also note that in theory, this is a fixable problem and no election security expert I’ve heard of opposes doing it in the right order (make ID universally available before disenfranchising anyone), they’re just quick to note that there’s absolutely no evidence that it would make a difference in outcomes despite the high cost.
> (e.g. Native Americans on a reservation are more likely not to have a short trip to a local post office).
People that choose to live on a reservation required to take a slightly longer trip once in 10 years. The horror.
> No to all of that? Passport book (which you don't need unless you travel internationally) cost 165 USD per 10 years.
This won't work for people who don't have a government issued photo ID because you need a government issued photo ID to get a passport. If you can get a passport then you've already got what you need to vote in the states with voter ID laws.
I'm aware. I'm saying getting a passport (or any state id...) in the US is not some epic battle against the system: it's a few bucks and reading comprehension to understand which documents to bring or someone to tell you what to bring.
Not only that, but I went from having zero photo IDs that aren't expired as a foreigner in the US to Real ID really quick without even making a DMV appointment.
> I'm saying getting a passport (or any state id...) in the US is not some epic battle against the system
It is for many people. There are a bunch of relevant links in this comment [1].
How do they buy alcohol?
40% of Americans never do, and many of the people who do don’t buy it themselves. For example, elderly people are one of the groups which disproportionately lack current photo ID but would also be more likely to have relatives helping with their shopping or simply not being carded either because they’re visibly far past the limit or have been buying at the same place for ages.
Without an ID?
I look young for my age (well over 21) and I almost never get carded for alcohol purchases. Even on my 21st birthday when I went to make my first legal purchase I wasn't carded.
Ask a friend who does have ID to pick up your alcohol?
I hear this a lot, can you give me any examples of how these IDs are inaccessible? Can you please give concrete examples of what is asked for that feels onerous, or any specific cases where people aren't able to get IDs?
For example, I know that Maryland DMV will even offer a translator to help you with your driving test. I'm not sure why, because all signs are in English.
I have seen exactly the opposite, that at least in Maryland and bigger states, they go out of their way to make things convenient.
Here's a comment [1] from a discussion a prior thread that contains a whole bunch of links to why ID is very hard to get for many eligible voters.
Thank you. This is why I appreciate HN.
Very very few people actually fundamentally disagree with the core idea of identification to vote.
The problem is the act of getting the ID itself. In most (all?) states getting an ID is not free, takes time, and if you lost everything will require jumping through a lot of hoops.
If getting an ID was actually simple, free, and not time consuming than we could have a genuine discussion about ID requirements. But until that point it is very thinly veiled classism and racism.
Also the numbers just simply don't back up this being a serious issue to begin with.
TLDR: Fix the fundamental issues with having identification in the first place and we can talk.
> leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverified voting process
that is false
what they fight for is a voting process that provides equal access to voting by all citizens
for those from Europe who wonder why this is even an issue when voting is the most basic of rights in a democracy, the US has a terrible history of voter suppression, especially of African Americans, where local systems were intentionally designed to make it as difficult for them to vote; this still happens today
the fact that voting takes place on a weekday, and you don't get a day off from work to do it, and polling stations in poorer areas are removed or have restricted hours, is one example of how the right to vote is stacked against poorer working class people
this is why some states allow you to vote by mail, which Trump is desperately trying to outlaw
if you're worried about insecure voting processes, lets take a look at the companies who own the electronic voting machines
No thanks. It's 2025, identity needs to be resilient, so having a national public blockchain that every public administration entity, every private who wants to participate, compensated for the IT resources they provide, whether a citizen or a business maintains well, that makes sense. The fingerprint of a key is shared, this key is on a smart-card, therefore offline, on well-known (bank cards, SIM cards) proven and reliable platforms, and signs what is needed with zk proofs where required.
Identity on mobile, proprietary platforms, whose level of complexity makes it humanly impossible to understand them even for governments themselves, notoriously closely monitored and yet with a long history of bugs and problems, is UNACCEPTABLE.
It's time to understand that IT is the nervous system of society and that public information must be public, for everyone, not for a specific actor and with no specific actor being "more equal" than others.
If you're not an LLM bot, why does almost every post have one thing in ALL-CAPS?
It's a compact textual way to state bold, two char less than this is bold...