Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jariel | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jariel

In 2020 your government has no way to identify you.

It's shocking and absurd and affects everything.

Beyond the operational stupidity ... they don't even know better.

Not a single anybody outside of the bureaucracy has even identified it as a problem.

We have the same thing in Canada: tons of COVID benefits fraudulent. They throw bazillions out the door.

Finally - though I don't want to throw smoke over the recent election in the US, it is high time that there are very open and rigorous standard for identification, there's too much at risk. If the government provided the service for free down at the DMV there'd be little excuse.

View on HN

It is absurd that we can't track people at the federal government level. We could be doing things like automatic voter registration, auto-filed taxes, automatic unemployment benefits, etc. But we don't because the government can't handle the development of fundamental software infrastructure to run government functions.

The US doesn't do those things because at least one of the major political parties opposes them, not because "software iz hard".

Most of the things you list are state functions, not federal government functions.

What costs do individuals have to pay when their government is very good at identifying them?

When you have a piece of data available, it tends to get used. How could that be a bad thing when enhancing identifiably is the topic?

It can be anonymous and you will have to present an evidence that certain transaction belongs to you only when the situation requires it. Government can ensure information split at the time of registration and then dictate that only warrant can allow to link the 2.

Anyway, the ability of governments to identify their citizens is technological problem. Overall during our history we agreed to potential of being identified by governments. Tech brings new tools to them. I wish they could adopt them quicker.

Overall we shouldn't be afraid of new tech and more reliability. But what we need is the system that will be future proof in terms of balance between individual and big entities even if their technological ability to identify you is near perfect.

Assigning some bytes to a person is easy, but how do you authorize transactions? People will not keep a secret... secret. People will not remember a secret. People will lose cards. Smart phone adoption is maybe 75% in the US. Many people do not have internet access, a phone line, or even electricity! People have all sorts of disabilities, many can't read, and many still don't have permanent housing or even an address. The technology is the easy part.

Follow-up questions: what data on race and creed does the USA collect that e.g. European states generally do not? And what is the difference between enabling the state to discriminate between its citizens vs.enabling its citizens to prove they are who they say they are?

How exactly do you think the government is going to get a bunch of people on board to develop and operate a system to discriminate based on race, such that there isn't a single whistleblower? Would they just outsource it directly to the KKK or what?

Like the Nazis did it, for example. That's the experience that keeps several European states from keeping tabs on race, isn't it?

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

Who says it needs to be a secret? The past shows that people happily let things happen out in the open. The present should show you that plenty of people still have the loyalty above all mentality and would easily be manipulated into doing whatever was desired.

Just leak demographic data to the proud boys and when they do things, low key condemn them but not really.

How have whistleblowers been working out lately? There have been many and the effects have been... underwhelming.

So I understand the 'drawback', especially for 'universal data'.

But let's just use something more mundane:

Are you concerned that the government has a 'record of you' regarding your Driver's License?

Probably not.

We have drivers licenses, we have social security.

It's a very reasonable step to have some kind of 'good id'.

Yes, there'll have to be legislation around it for privacy.

People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils.

It would be great if we didn't need ID to drive and didn't need SS but that's not the world we live in.

The fact that people tolerate necessary evil is not argument for more evil.

"People tolerate these kinds of things as necessary evils."

They are not 'necessary evils' in any minds but those of HN commenters.

They are just 'normal artifacts' in the minds most people.

People are generally not concerned with the existence of DLs and they are generally not some kind of 'threat'.

If you literally brought up 'privacy' issues to most Americans, maybe they would say something, but I'll be $100 that most Americans, on the subject of 'Drivers License' would never bring up the issue of 'privacy' unsolicited.

An SS card with literally a photo on it, the most minor of changes, could effectively serve as a really good 'ID'.

Well at least voting is still secure!

Two important ingredients in any secure voting system: we don't know who you are and we eliminated chain of custody.

I don't even think it needs to be free. Many US States provide a State ID for $20~$50. Even if you don't drive, it's very difficult to survive without at least a State ID (just to buy alcohol or for anything that needs legal identification ... like a job or I-9 form).

The arguments against requiring voter ID are silly now. Yes, at one time reading tests were required to vote in the Jim Crow era, and they were intentional to prevent blacks from voting. But we've come a long way since then. Asking someone to set aside one day and $30 to get an ID, in order to vote, should NOT be considered an unnecessary hardship. It's a bare minimum effort if you want to vote.

Some will say, "Well there are all these poor disenfranchised people who can't afford a day off work or the $30 to get an ID!" ... You've gotta be kidding me. Unless they're working under the table, how do they even have a job without ID? We cannot keep lowering the bar.

My best friend, a friend from Ecuador, talked about how some of the worst leaders in South and Central America worked on lowering voting ages down to 16 and 17, because they knew it was way more easier to influence younger people. It's straight up corruption.

State issued ID should be required to vote, period. This entire election cycle is a mess because of massive, unsolicited ballots with no chain of custody mailed out to dead people and people who have left their states. It's insane that all of Big Tech and US media is claiming there is no proof at all of fraud, when countless people are testifying in every state under oath. Just today in Georgia, people brought videos showing trucks shredding ballots. When they called the police, and even went to the Sherif, they were told law enforcement was specifically ordered not to send anyone to any voting precincts.

There is not excuse to not require Voter ID except to allow more fraud.

" This entire election cycle is a mess"

To be clear - the election is not a mess.

Even though we don't have 'state ID' the processes overall are legit on the whole.

There is no systematic fraud.

It appears as a mess because of the messaging of the President.

That said: there are obviously antiquated and non-standardized problems - literally just yesterday, Stacey Abrahams sister, a Georgia Judge, had to rule on ballots being thrown out. It's politicized.

So having ID would not so much make elections more fair (they are effectively fair), but it would give more confidence in elections.

Also - the genie may be out of the bottle and we may be in a new era where a) people try to actually cheat and b) losers of elections refuse to concede based on lies.

So it might be a good time to modernize with ID, and it would help with those problems.

....

It 'needs to be free' because the some will otherwise believe it's voter suppression.

Having a $10 payment would actually theoretically suppress some people from voting. In practice, I don't think that would be the case, but it's enough to blow it up.

Homeless people are still 'citizens' - and 'citizenship' is not based on whether or not you have $10. Which is a fair argument (even through pragmatically a side show, because you need to have an address to vote already today).

Citizenship is a right not a privilege ... so just make it free.

Politically, they could make it an extension of SS - it's just 'SS with a photo' kind of thing.

considering we have $36B that we can afford to send to Nigeria, I think we could just make the ID free. Certainly we have all contributed at least $10 to the tax coffers at some point above 18.

> There is no systematic fraud. > It appears as a mess because of the messaging of the President.

We have GOP observers being thrown out of all of the critical election sites during the counting. We have tons of unsolicited ballots with no chain of custody. We have tons of confirmed cases of dead people voting, and women having votes case under maiden names. There is unmistakable, wide spread, voting irregularity. This isn't just the messaging of the president, this is a corrupt media that is on the side of establishment Democrats and Republicans that is clearly feeding a pure bullshit narrative to anyone willing to dull their senses, turn off all sources except the official industry standard media (Which got weapons of mass destruction wrong, which got Syria wrong, and which has a historic record of getting nearly everything wrong).

If you stop listening to the various Ministries of Truth (both private and government) the entire idea there was "no election fraud" falls apart. The voting machines were/are a red haring. The real issue has always been the massive amounts of ballots with no chain of custody.

The courts have looked at these allegations and the actual evidence is slim to none, and far from being about a big enough number of votes to change the result of the election, it's not even enough to change the result in one state.

[citation needed]

This is not true, and the and a good example of conspiratorial rationalization.

Why doesn't Mike Pence, the VP back your claims?

Are you saying you have more information that him?

Why don't any GOP Senators?

Judges?

Consider if 'bad elections' claims had any merit whatsoever, the real GOP apparatus would be running full tilt at the problem.

The Supreme Court would practically be inviting cases.

Arguing that 'irregularities exist' is not an argument - because we know they exist, what matters is the magnitude and systematic efforts.

The 'conspiratorial argument' falls apart immediately under any scrutiny - and there has been a lot of scrutiny.

So we have a problem with giving out money, and appearance of problems in voting, maybe we can have 'voter ID' and get around some of the legitimacy/privacy issues.

But the elections are effectively fair.

Please try to understand that this is an issue of public communications and conspiratorial logic, and not reality.

The 'ministries of truth' have considerably more integrity - especially as a whole - then

Like a third to a half of the country thinks the election was illegitimate depending on how you phrase the question.

I'd call that "a mess"

It doesn't matter whether there was or wasn't fraud in this context. A government is only legitimate because the people believe it is. The appearance of fraud challenges that belief. Challenge that belief enough and people die. The system needs to be sufficiently robust that the result cannot be disputed with any sort of credibility.

If I need to pay a hundred bucks to get permission to buy a gun, DHS can search people with no reason within a hundred miles of the border, cops can seize your cash without evidence of a crime (I can go on) and the and all that's compatible with the constitution, then everyone dragging their ass to the DMV and forking over $30 for an ID should be perfectly fine.

"Like a third to a half of the country thinks the election was illegitimate depending on how you phrase the question. I'd call that "a mess""

1/3 of the USA will believe anything the President says, whoever the are.

This is because the position of the President comes with a huge amount of legitimate authority.

When that authority is transgressed, it causes a 'mess'.

(Like if your doctor told you that 'Opium was good for you' - you might be inclined to believe them even if you thought you knew otherwise, after all, it's their job to know better).

The 'real integrity' of the election, meaning election officials, governors, tabulators, Dept. of Justice - i.e. everyone involved in the system validates it as 'being ok' - then 'it's ok'.

Don't confuse 'public perception' - which is manipulated and hugely influenced when legit authority is transgressed - with 'reality'.

The 'cause' of the 'perceived mess' is someone transgressing their leadership responsibility.

The 'perceived mess' has basically nothing to do with the election.

'Voter ID' would not materially change the quality of electoral outcomes, but would help tamp down concerns about voter fraud.

Huh? There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Just because someone testifies that they saw something doesn't prove it. It's just hearsay. Please stop spreading disinformation.

Many people working minimum wage jobs don't have the ability to take an entire day off and spend the money to deal with the nightmare that is the DMV. Just because they aren't a fancy software developer doesn't mean that there vote shouldn't count equally as someone who can afford to take the day off.

Regarding needing a state ID to work, you can read on UCSIS' website what is required. One can use things like school IDs, voter registration, birth certificate, and SSA card. So, no, if you don't have a state ID it does not mean that you are working under the table.

In reality, there are tons of reasons why we shouldn't require more strict voter ID laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com