Credit bureaus — as well as the various credit building products that are so common in these countries — are required to play that role.
No they absolutely are not. You know what institutions, after government, should have been in principle be absoultely ideally placed to help with identity in a private distributed way?
BANKS (credit unions too perhaps). Lots of secure, physical locations people were used to going into. Already have a need to deal with serious physical security, and lots of money. Already tons of KYC infrastructure. Well regulated and trusted overall. Reasonable numbers of choices. Valuable in-house dogfooding opportunities. This should have been a slam-dunk service for banks themselves to do, and one near impossible to replicate the same way online which also would have been quite helpful for them vs online-only challengers. Each local branch could have a dedicated room or rooms to take photos and video, verify documentation, history, references, whatever else, all the stuff that was (and in much of the world still is) needed to prove ones' identity and open an account. Then the banks could all have their own CAs and give people a signed cert attesting that all this had been done in-person at XYZ location, every bank required to do it themselves with cross signing possible, and all online account usage required to use PKI, no password/email crap. And we'd live in a different, better world.
Instead they've tried to outsource or externalize that. That should be absolutely on them. All the tech has been easily possible develop for something like 20 years (OpenSC even first release was 2001). I'd love to see a law along the lines that financial transactions and products including loans, credit cards etc that are only backed by stuff like described in this article (name, SS#, birthday etc) are simply unenforceable in court and that defendants can challenge it along the lines of anti-SLAPP statutes where the challenge happens pre-discovery and stops the whole process with attorney fees going to the defendant if they win. Bank tries to after somebody for unpaid debt and all they have are info like that? Case dismissed, they can just eat it. Criminal for credit collectors to go after it too. Bet we'd see some changes in a hurry then.
Social security numbers were introduced for the sole purpose of administering the social security program. The protections on private entities abusing them were neutered, which is how we ended up with the backwards regime under discussion. People have a vague fear that social security numbers are important and shouldn't be casually shared, which is the only thing holding back (for example) grocery stores from demanding your social security number to get the regular prices.
If say the US issued everyone a cryptographic identity via a smart card, there would be little stopping every single business from demanding that you scan this card. Imagine needing to link your singular legal identity to every single online service, so they could better associate your surveillance records. Big tech is currently doing its best to accomplish this through phone numbers, but at least it's possible to get additional phone numbers.
The consequences of the problem the proposal is trying to address seem larger to me. Currently, you can be denied access to capital and even basic financial services because identity management has been outsourced to unreliable third parties with no incentive to do a better job.
[1] Sorry Jenny https://youtu.be/6WTdTwcmxyo
Still, there is a difference between this de facto state of affairs, and a de jure mandate from the government to make us more trackable.
If were talking about the deficiencies causing the original topic, the right answer is to rebuke this nonsensical concept of "identity theft" and make companies fully liable for their attempted frauds (ala the top level comment of this tree). If we're talking about constructively building systems to do things the "right way", then privacy needs to be incorporated in such systems from the ground up, as the previous bait and switch with social security numbers has demonstrated.
Innuendo amongst other things is the perfect trigger for paranoia, and in such situations, people will get banged up in a mental health hospital and have drugs forced down their throat otherwise they just get labelled as uncooperative, and then other drugs will be forced down their throat and their detention period increased, perhaps even indefinitely. Its a clever system and there is no judge or jury to convince, you just go straight to mental hospital without passing Go!
You cant argue against this craze for labelling everything as mental health issues, Doctors will not have their authority challenged. I even had a GP tell me how I could suicide myself!
You dont run a country by being nice!
You got a lot to learn, now obey your authority figures and back to work!