Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

The opposition to the national ID in US is really, really weird. Especially when it comes from many of the same people who insist on photo ID when voting, because they're afraid of non-citizens going to vote. Since the federal government is the one that keeps track of things such as immigration status, it stands to reason that it should be the one issuing IDs that are used for voting purposes - and at that point you might as well use it for everything else.

And, of course, SSNs are already a de facto national ID system. It just happens to be one that wasn't designed for ID purposes, and so it's very suboptimal (but any government abuses you could do with a proper ID, you can also do with SSN).

View on HN

Opposition to using the SSN as an identifier started out as a privacy thing. It's also the reason that the Social Security Card itself is so flimsy and bare-bones. They did not want it to become a national ID card.

I used to respect this, but as time has passed, I think crooks and scammers get more benefit out of the lack of ID than most of the public gets out of these rudimentary guards. Anyone remotely serious (nation-states and bigcorps) can ID me if they want.

They did not want it to become a national ID card.

I laminated my card because it was flimsy. It's still OK over 40 years later. My card has the following words on it:

   FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
   AND TAX PURPOSES --
   NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION

time has passed

Yes you are right. That ship sailed way back in 1972 when the SSA removed those words.[1]

[1] https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

If the government issues a number for each citizen, it will be used for identification. The same way that government debit will be used as money. Lawering it away is like making gravity illegal.

The only way to stop the practice is issuing a more convenient identification.

Just a note that the SSA advises not laminating your card.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can...

That's good advice for the newer cards.

Back in the old days there were no security features. The name was hand typed onto the card. Here's an earlier example than mine, note that the text at the bottom is different: http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/img/elvis/50s/5...

Can any of you young whippersnappers (whatever that means!) tell me who that person was? :)

>> Opposition to using the SSN as an identifier started out as a privacy thing. ... They did not want it to become a national ID card.

That's the thing. I understand why that was the prevailing mode of thinking back in 1930s (?) when SSN was first introduced. There were plenty of people without any form of ID back then.

But it's just not so today. Vast majority of people in US have some form of ID, and it is extremely difficult to impossible to do even the most basic things (like, say, getting a job) without some form of ID. Even if there was some valid reasoning behind the desire to not have ID, this ship has sailed decades ago.

The best that can be done now is to acknowledge the actual situation for what it is, and fix the bureaucracy and overhead of dozens of different incompatible IDs. Have one national photo ID, with a guaranteed unique identifier, prominently featuring citizenship / green card status, and with a chip providing crypto for signing purposes and guaranteed secure communication with the government (say, submitting tax returns). Issue and re-issue it for free, using some existing federal government owned infrastructure - USPS seems like the most obvious choice here. Make all federal agencies use this ID for all purposes that require it - taxes, social security, immigration (i.e. replace green cards with it) etc.

States can do whatever they want with their own IDs, but I suspect that most would simply reuse national ID numbers on their driver licenses, concealed carry licenses etc. That would conveniently make all those IDs readily substitutable for most practical purposes.

I also don't see a national ID as a privacy thing in and of itself. It creates a record of you that the government has - sure, but so does your birth certificate (or immigration paperwork for naturalized citizens). The potential violations of privacy begin when government starts demanding ID for activities that didn't require it before, or even just for regular spot checks. But that is a different fight.

We are in vigorous agreement.

But it's worth mentioning that organizations from the ACLU (which I support) to Rand Paul are on the other side of this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/r...

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-a...

Voter ID isn't about ID; it's about racism and classism and making it more difficult for the non-rich-white minority to exercise their rights.[1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...

Voter ID as usually suggested or implemented in the USA is that, yes. But try taking your American hat off for a little bit, and ask yourself why most countries in the world, including all those (by US measure) "socialist" European countries, do require some form of identification to vote.

Voter ID, by itself, is not racist, classist, or anything. It is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote. We can argue whether it's really necessary or not based on how much voter fraud there is in practice, but if you do have a national ID anyway, there's no particular reason not to use it for voting.

The problem with US voter ID laws is that they are not coupled with an actual national ID system, and instead rely on existing IDs, which aren't free. On top of that, the laws are written in such a way, and also combined with other policies (e.g. closing DMVs that issue IDs in certain areas), so as to make vote suppression a deliberate side effect. It is entirely possible to implement voter ID without such side effects, though.

> Voter ID, by itself, is not racist, classist, or anything. It is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote.

Even on the assumption that everyone has the moral right to vote, and that therefore the check you mention is a crime against humanity, voter ID is still an important and prudent measure to ensure that people vote no more often than they're supposed to.

In theory, that makes sense, but has there ever been proof of large-scale voter impersonation in the US? To my knowledge there has not. And any proposed ID system is more likely to disenfranchise voters than prevent fraud.

There hasn't been such proof, and what information we have indicates that the levels are very low. But the problem is that you don't really have easily available and reliable data in the absence of IDs.

To some extent, this is symbolic. In most developed countries, and especially in US, resident non-citizens - especially permanent residents - have most of the legal and economic rights and the advantages enjoyed by citizens. Political rights, including right to vote, is one of the few things that are reserved for citizens alone. If it is to mean something, ensuring that it is only exercised by those who have it makes sense, even if you don't actually catch any miscreants - you could consider it an honor guard of sorts. But, by the same logic, it is crucial that those who do have the right to vote can exercise that right.

All true, but the parent was questioning policy in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com