This is like "X guidance" that then becomes mandatory because "To cover ourselves we'll just follow X guidance".

You're describing the same outcome pretending it won't happen.

There's already OpenId. The government can already use it with a YouGov or similar systems which you could integrate with. There's no problem here other than actually trying to force ID for internet access (one of the excuses is the old "who will think of the children", age verification for social media).

▲

lotsofpulp 3 days ago | parent [-]

Is OpenID liable for identify verification? I don't see how they could be without physical offices everywhere in world.

Passports require people to physically go prove themselves to a government employee, an actual attempt at identity verification.

>There's no problem here other than actually trying to force ID for internet access (one of the excuses is the old "who will think of the children", age verification for social media).

There is a problem with people impersonating other people. There is economic gain from creating a trustable system in which to do business.

>You're describing the same outcome pretending it won't happen.

What outcome? The internet is still there, and all users can still do whatever they want. Including website owners that want to verify identity, and website owners that do not want to verify identity.

▲

isaacremuant 2 days ago | parent [-]

Total security doesn't exist. You can also fake passports and many other things. Do you also want to add online ID verification to purchase alcohol in a convenience store because someone can trick the salesman with fake ID?

You're not analyzing any tradeoffs and going directly to the total surveillance total government power. I was spot on in my assessment from the first comment.

> There is a problem with people impersonating other people. There is economic gain from creating a trustable system in which to do business

There's economic incentives for lots of crimes. We don't install cameras in people's homes (or shouldn't) to make sure it doesn't happen. The possibility of a crime is not an argument for disregarding civil liberties.

> What outcome? The internet is still there, and all users can still do whatever they want.

This is the most disingenuous or naive comment I've read today.

Internet freedom is severely curtailed with different excuses around "protecting against foreign actors, drugs, porn, protecting the children, etc". The police can show up at your house and arrest you in a European country for posting political opinions on Twitter. ISPs will block websites and the government will force sites to require authentication to read about Israel criticism in relation to gaza.

> Including website owners that want to verify identity, and website owners that do not want to verify identity.

There's a lot of ways to silently encroach on liberties pretending it's "companies exercising freedoms" when it's actually governments directly or through payment processors forcing them to act in certain ways. Removing choice. Usually based on political leanings. Whether it's to ban specific types of journalism or forms of media.

You can pretend it's all correct and good limitation of freedom but we both know that's just an authoritarian position. Everything the government does in a country is good by definition, let's always ignore corruption and the natural desire to accumulate more power.

	▲	lotsofpulp 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>You can also fake passports and many other things. Do you also want to add online ID verification to purchase alcohol in a convenience store because someone can trick the salesman with fake ID? And yet we still use passports. And yes, it would be super convenient to not have to have a physical ID on me to verify my identity. Nothing is changing legal rights or government surveillance capability wise, except that people gain convenience. >You're not analyzing any tradeoffs and going directly to the total surveillance total government power. I was spot on in my assessment from the first comment. As if the government cannot secretly subpoena and force Apple and Google to reveal anything they want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes At least if the government operates an identity verification API, it can be subject to the constitution. Businesses are not subject to the laws that restrict the government, and governments love that loophole. If all the banks or tech companies ban you, tough shit, that is their business right. If a government service bans you, then you can fight it in court. >Internet freedom is severely curtailed with different excuses around "protecting against foreign actors, drugs, porn, protecting the children, etc". The police can show up at your house and arrest you in a European country for posting political opinions on Twitter. ISPs will block websites and the government will force sites to require authentication to read about Israel criticism in relation to gaza. This has nothing to do with government providing an identity verification API. This is a separate issue about not having sufficient civil rights. >Everything the government does in a country is good by definition, Not at all, and that is why the government should be the one doing it, so that it can be litigated in court, transparently. Currently, governments are loving the use of businesses to do bad things, and throwing their hands up because it isn't the government doing it, it's the business doing it.