Hacker News Reader

> Instead of a credit reporting agency existing at all, new credit applications could ask for your account numbers at existing creditors and then the new creditor can get your credit history directly from them.

How would this even be remotely viable? Why would you expect people to be honest about their credit histories in cases where they had late payments or some sort of default?

Places that extend credit often take into account incomplete data - my girlfriend was denied for an apartment lease because she didn't have __enough__ credit history.

> How would this even be remotely viable? Why would you expect people to be honest about their credit histories in cases where they had late payments or some sort of default?

Why would you expect people to not just give someone else's social security number?

But it is used that way for the lack of a better alternative. In my opinion the solution is a free federal ID card, where all the information on the card (including the picture) is digitally signed, to make forgery nearly impossible.

The only non trivial element is how to sign the photo. I guess there must be a way to sign a degraded version of the picture so that even an average scan of the ID card would be verifiable. Or the card could contain a small, cheap, water resistant memory chip which contains the picture in digital format. Then you can have a high degree of confidence in this physical document.

And there could be other usage of that card. Like if you make it a chip & pin so the card could become an unforgeable digital signature (physical signatures are absurdly unsecure too).

If the feds are signing the card, then they have the private key. Let the individual be the only one who knows their private key, and let the feds sign an attestation that the individual's public key corresponds to a particular person.

I can't ask my grand mother to know a private key. A physical document, if unforgeable, will do just fine. At the end of the day, all an ID card does is to outsource authentication to the government, which will do that regularly (every 5 to 10y) and issue an authentication token (the ID card) for third parties.

Many other countries have these exact cards. They are not new technology.

In fact, your US passport has that. Look for the biometric symbol on the front. It means there's a chip inside (not sure how to read off it) that includes your digitally signed identity details, including photo.

If you're willing to go the centralized route, then a minimalist ID card would just be a QR code that anyone can open and compare the official photo to you.

A QR code (of I presume a URL) would be even simpler to use but creates a big point of failure, as you need to secure a central server that contains the picture of every american and needs to be accessed publicly. We know how these things tend to end.

Whereas digital signing can be done in an offline, airtight system, as long as the public key is widely available.

> If you're willing to go the centralized route, then a minimalist ID card would just be a QR code that anyone can open and compare the official photo to you.

"Just a qrcode" would be a weird and inconvenient format.

Other countries (Estonia, Spain, Belgium) have smartcard IDs. You can add a qrcode to that, but the primary data store can be secured (and accessed and updated) in much the same way a regular smartcard is, you can access it from your home with a regular card reader and the relevant access application. And of course the size is completely standard. And you can add contactless support to it if desirable.

Plus the US already has experience with these types of IDs: DoD has issued 17 million Common Access Cards.

There's an Android app which will read your passport's information - including photo.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dexlab.eCL0WN&...

Probably the majority of US citizens do not want a federal ID card. A number of states refuse to comply with the RealID requirements on their drivers licenses and others are dragging their feet. As a result the drivers licenses of some states won't be suitable for federal identification soon.

At one level it's a bit silly as many have passports and drivers licenses are (almost) a form of universal ID. On the other hand, I sympathize with the push against mandatory federal ID.

There are people willing to riot in the streets and burn down major cities because you dare suggest they have an ID card to vote. Can you imagine the uproar and unrest suggesting people carry a national ID card to do anything would be?

Voting is a constitutionally protected right. Accessing a credit line is not. Requiring a national ID to vote potentially discriminates against those too old/poor/immobile to go out and buy the ID card. It's a de facto poll tax, which is illegal.

But, your point is still true. Americans have an irrational fear of a national ID .

In Europe, ID Cards are free.

You still have to...

- drive to the government office (cost of transit)

- typically during business hours (non-free for hourly employees)

- provide some backing ID (otherwise, what's to stop somebody claiming to be me/you). That might not be free.

Basically, anything that might disenfranchise a protected class of citizen is going to have a tough time getting bipartisan support. Look no further than state-wide voter ID programs - almost all originate in conservative, GOP-led states - and almost all are thinly veiled attempts to prevent poor and minorities from voting (those two groups are more likely to support Democrats).

Same with voting...

In some cases, yes. But, not always. The states are a bit of a hodgepodge...

- Washington and Oregon votes by mail for most/all elections (>95% mail ballot). No clue how they validate the sender, but you don't have to leave the house on election day.

- NC voters have to show an ID. But, just about any official-looking bill, bank statement, pay stub, or government document with voters name and address on it will do.

- Arizona similar to NC, but if no photo ID, must show 2 non-photo documents.

> Americans have an irrational fear of a national ID .>

Americans have a rational fear of a national ID.

How so? Many other western democracies have a national ID program. What does a national ID program give the government that they don't already have?

> In my opinion the solution is a free federal ID card, where all the information on the card (including the picture) is digitally signed, to make forgery nearly impossible.

But what advantage is there in having the federal government do this, instead of just having a bank issue one when you open your account? You could even use the same card with multiple creditors, which gives them access to shared credit history. Then filing for bankruptcy is the same as throwing away your bank card.

A big advantage is that it would push identity control risks to the federal government, which is in a position to want to protect its citizens (it has to remain accountable to voters).

A current problem in the US is that we have three for-profit companies doing that today, whom are only really accountable to each other (sort of) and their shareholders. Their customers are each other and banks; you whose data is actually at risk are not a customer of strong value to them directly.

> And there could be other usage of that card. Like if you make it a chip & pin so the card could become an unforgeable digital signature (physical signatures are absurdly unsecure too).

Digital signatures are this just as much as any other cryptography:

https://xkcd.com/538/

You can put a gun to someone's head and force them to sign something, or observe their PIN and borrow their card while they're not looking, and the signature will match. Which means it is no solution to the problem where you claim there is a valid signature and they claim it isn't legitimate and the signature can't tell you who is telling the truth.

SSNs aren't being used for identification (they're ... an identifier), but for authentication.

That's a subtle though crucial distinction.

> This was a serious fear when social security was originally created. For many years social security cards had the words "not for identification" printed on them. They contain no biometric data, not even a picture. Their purpose is not identification.

That's still printed on them.

> Then people will figure something else out on their own. Instead of a credit reporting agency existing at all, new credit applications could ask for your account numbers at existing creditors and then the new creditor can get your credit history directly from them. It would be straight forward to automate this -- and even require you to prove that you're the account holder by presenting your card from the other bank (or signing into its website if online).

> There is no need for a national identification system.

This seems like wishful thinking to me.

> This seems like wishful thinking to me.

The correct answer is correct regardless of who wants it to be.

While you are correct, reality nearly always differs.

"technically correct" - the best (and worst) kind of correct.

Ah the equally frustrating corollary to "works on my machine"

I'm not sure I get the relevance, but I don't see it as self-evident that simply by banning the use of SSNs you will end up with a coherent national identification system (and if you do I'm not sure why that'd be preferable to one run by the government).

We don't need a coherent national identification system. We don't have a global one, the EU doesn't have one, why does the US need one?

Centralized identification is bad. There exists no competent, accountable, trustworthy party to administer it. It inherently gets abused to aggregate information about people that should be private. Monolithic systems are slow to adapt, allowing attackers to continuously outflank them.

When a bank needs to identify you, let them use your bank account number. When a doctor needs to identify you, let them use your patient ID number. And never the two shall meet.

What happens in that case is they all do it anyway, except in a haphazard and careless way where you might get mixed up with someone else.

Besides that, sometimes multiple entities do need to know who you are; how is it supposed to work if your insurer and your healthcare providers don't aren't able to match you up to one person?

> What happens in that case is they all do it anyway, except in a haphazard and careless way where you might get mixed up with someone else.

It is possible to make things sufficiently mixed up that the entire consent-absent aggregation system falls apart. Prohibiting them from using social security numbers and otherwise not providing any alternative unique primary key would go a long way toward that end.

> Besides that, sometimes multiple entities do need to know who you are; how is it supposed to work if your insurer and your healthcare providers don't aren't able to match you up to one person?

You don't need a single global identifier for that. You can give your healthcare provider your insurance policy number.

> It is possible to make things sufficiently mixed up that the entire consent-absent aggregation system falls apart. Prohibiting them from using social security numbers and otherwise not providing any alternative unique primary key would go a long way toward that end.

Not really. Log onto Spokeo, look yourself up, and see how many errors there are -- but at the same time, how the data is "close enough" to be useful. All compiled without a single identifier like SSNs.

> That's still printed on them.

Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

They will figure out that they need some form of 2FA. There is a very simple and crude way of 2FA: Mail.

If you say "I'm bob smith with SSN 12345", then you gave them your id. You didnt' verify that you are in fact bob smith with SSN 12345.

Now they have to verify with some degree of certainty that you are. So they lookup your address, and send a regular paper mail describing what needs to be authorized, and you sign and return it (or call a number and enter a code, or visit a website, or whatever).

This kind of crude 2FA can still be circumvented by someone stalking you mailbox, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Now: what this requires is a mapping from name+ssn (or some unique identifier) to an up to date address. Having that has several other benefits when it comes to e.g. automatic voter registration etc.

Historically something like this, with our without transactions involving SSN, was pretty common. Forget the PIN associated with your frequent flyer account? The airline would send you a new PIN in the mail that would arrive in about a week or so.

There are obvious latency issues with this though and it would mostly be considered less than optimal today.

Right. So this mail 2FA is clearly not good enough for general use, but you really only need to use it once. Just like the airline just mailed the PIN for the next auth, so would a reasonable digital ID work too.

Make a national digital ID app. Applicants fill in a web form saying they want to have it. They enter their personal ID number (SSN or equivalent). The one time key for the digital ID is then sent to the mail address. The user installs the digital ID app on their smartphone/computer and enters the key from the mail.

Now they can use that app to 2FA anything: fill in their tax returns online, buy things online, send money to anyone else, login to their internet bank or any other website (by open API), manage social security and other systems, apply for schools etc. This must sound like science fiction in the US but it's been a reality for 5-10 years where I live.

Americans are very resistant to the idea of a national ID. Yes, in some respects it already sort of exists between SSN, Passports, and individual states drivers licenses (about which there's still some residual squabbling about complying with the RealID federal standard). It may seem silly but if you as a politician propose a national ID card, you'll probably be involved in a recall election within a few months.

I think it hasn't been framed right. National ID is what gives the easy tax returns, protection against identity theft, less reliance on outdated systems like slow bank transfer, paper checks, manual voter registration, census processes...

I'm not sure what the fear is with a large central table having a number in one column and your name and address in the others.

I'm not going to argue it's wholly rational but there's a strong undercurrent of suspicion of and resistance to federal government power in the US. As a result, distributed messy processes are often seen as a feature rather than bug. I realize that it's probably hard for many Europeans to get their heads around this but it's the way it is--especially outside of coastal urban centers. And I don't even really disagree with this general attitude.

There is nothing that inherently requires this to be national. You could have this system distributed over 50 different databases if you wanted. It would require "transferring" people that move between the systems.

That said -if you are afraid of federal/national systems (which is an entirely valid if not entirely rational position) then why have a federal tax authority, national passports etc? It seems like getting the worst of both worlds if you have to run authorities that obviously need to keep track of every living soul in the country whether they like it or not - but then not giving them the tools to do so.

The EU is federal in much the same way (independent states, we don't want the central EU government to meddle too much in state business etc) but then we made sure that the EU government doesn't have anything to do with individuals in the member states, they deal only with the member states themselves. I pay taxes to the EU only indirectly through my home country's tax - so there is no need for an EU tax authority to know who I am, and so on.

The analogous situation for the US would be there was no federal taxes collected from individuals, if states issued passports etc.

My guess is the fear is of national anything, not just ID. Regardless if it's good or bad, state level authority is a big deal to a lot of people in the US, especially those on the conservative side of the fence.

This solution is still being used all the time. But they've outsourced the sending. They ask you to provide your utility bill, proving that it's you. Therefore there's no need to send a new document, if we already know that you already got existing document.

I've worked on several (poorly designed) systems where the SSN is used as a primary key. In itself, the SSN is not for identification, but as a primary key, it is used to aggregate tons of data about a person. Just think of the scores of databases where data elements exist that are associated by SSN.

It's the possession of that primary key linking all of our data that is the security issue.

Or creating a real citizen identification number: An ID that is connected to your photo and your finger prints at the federal level .. You know, like every other high income country in the world.

In America this would be impossible though. People would cry about state's rights, sign of the beast, privacy, etc.

> In America this would be impossible though. People would cry about state's rights, sign of the beast, privacy, etc.

I don't understand this logic, so perhaps someone can help me out. Nearly all US citizens has a SSN or tax ID number that is tied to them at the federal level. The first is a pseudo-random (I use that term loosely) group of digits that is basically required for you to get anything accomplished in the US. There are no safeguards built in to the SSN, yet it is the most ubiquitous form of unique identification used in the US with no easy way to escape it. If yours gets compromised, you're screwed, and no one is willing to help you.

A driver's license is a step down from that. Most Americans will have a state drivers license or state issued ID. No, it's not federal, but you're still entered into a government database where the information can be shared nationally if needed.

On the other hand, a bonafide identification system with real safeguards to protect your identity would alleviate so many headaches, and it would be no more invasive than an SSN. What is the actual drawback to a national ID?

Do you live in the US? There's a deeply ingrained distrust of the government basically everywhere. You're right that it's beyond rational. I've had conversations here where people would rather the government do literally nothing about a problem than attempt solutions that could not possibly be worse than the status quo because of how deep government distrust runs.

I do. That's why it baffles me. It's so very irrational to me. I don't trust the government to get a lot of things right, but a simple ID system (even when poorly implemented) can't be any worse than SSN as ID.

Lots of significant things use an SSN as a key - medical records, tax information, credit history, financial accounts. An SSN is one of the identifying things that the government definitely has access to. They could easily strong-arm their way around different agencies/companies with an SSN, so protection from government (in my eyes) is a non-argument.

A nationalized ID is supposed to protect us from unscrupulous 3rd parties. If you get someone's name and SSN, you can do a quick public records look up for an address. Confirm it with one company (say a cable co.) and you have unfettered access to that person's life.

I don't think the government could actually do worse than SSN as ID. It's a pseudo-random number with the person's place of birth and time of birth as "seeds". I already assume that Uncle Sam has (or at least access to) troves of data on me. So can they do me a favor and at least give me a half-assed ID system?

I agree a national ID number would be helpful, but I also don't think the distrust of the government is irrational.

The United States is the largest initiator of war and conflict in the world. It is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It has more air craft carriers than the next five nations combined. It has 1% of its population in prison, more than any other high income country in the world. In 2008, congress/the senate bailed out a terrible corrupt banking industry, allowing CEOs to get away with millions, without consequence, while Americans all over the country lost their homes due to outright fraud.

Distrust of the US government is by no means irrational.