I would love to see government IDs be available as a form of auth on the internet. It would open up the possibility of real-person communities with fewer bots and trolls.
Similarly with digital payments, I'd much rather trust the government with that than some rando cryptobro of the week.
There is nothing extreme about this. The government already does both functions in the analog world. It's about time they caught up digitally.
Meanwhile some YouTuber screeching about some Bible quote... not a convincing start
Edit: didn't downvote you btw, just don't agree that this is a bad thing
> I would love to see government IDs be available as a form of auth on the internet. It would open up the possibility of real-person communities with fewer bots and trolls.
And reintroduce all the chilling effects of knowing everything you say is on a permanent record linked to your name. I know the government wouldn't be running the sites, but they'd have activity metadata, and data breaches could be correlated to work out who the "opaque" ID refers to (perhaps it would be possible to mitigate that by having the IdP identify users to the site as a hash combining the site and the user. Not sure). There are a few types of companies that may have a genuine reason for requiring government auth, but generally we should not make it easy for Facebook or Google to require it
A community with fewer bots and trolls should be accomplished with moderation, and not just allowing a firehose of signups
Ideally, the government login/auth would be an opt-in for sites where anonymity isn't important. Facebook, for example, already has a real-name policy but still has fake accounts. Moderation alone isn't sufficient; it's hard to keep up with the number of bad actors. Limiting signups to verified humans, and possibly validating their nationality, can help with that IRT to bots and foreign agents.
It's important that the mechanism be opt-in, though, and yeah, metadata would be a problem. But realistically it's just a matter of degree... they already have access to all of that metadata today with just a subpoena or national security letter. Centralizing the login would make it easier for them to collect it, but also make it easier to audit via government mechanisms (FOIAs, etc.) compared to the opacity of private companies (which are under zero obligation to reveal how things are stored).
My concern with digital payments is the elimination of cash. Having the ability to transfer value without it being monitored or blocked is an exceptionally useful property of paper money.
I don't trust the govt quite as much as you, but could see this being a useful govt function if the issuing body didn't maintain any record of when, where, or why an ID was used--and only acted to verify the authenticity of an ID.
I don't know if it's really a matter of "trusting" the government, but of accepting that they already have access to most of my data anyway. Between credit cards, IP logs, subpoenas, national security letters, warrantless wiretapping, etc., they already know everything there is to know about me.
What makes this tradeoff (of convenience vs privacy) acceptable to me is not that I trust the government, but that I already accept I have near-zero privacy right now, as it is. Making it slightly easier for them isn't a big deal. I'm not a very exciting person to begin with.
And frankly I suspect that outside of techno-libertarian echo chambers, this is the case for most regular people. They just don't really care if the government knows about them. Not everyone has the same degree of desire/need for privacy.
I also fit into that camp of un-interesting people you're describing, but I'd say the intersections between privacy and law are a bit more underhanded and dangerous than the intersections between privacy and corporations.
In legal circles, for example, there's the refrain that you should never share unnecessary information with police, even if you're well intentioned and have nothing to hide, because innocence isn't a preclusion from being royally fucked in court. It's true that "the government" as a homogenous blob has mountains of information on you, but I guess I'm not so eager to dissolve what few helpful divisions within that blob exist.
On the whole though I agree that my information existing somewhere in that blob isn't the hugest deal.
And that's OK. I'm sure there would still be anonymous forums, the 4chans and reddits of the world and such. But this would enable real-identity communities that we don't currently have, useful for things like public comments and discussions for local news (god, those newspaper comment sections are horrible right now), government requests for comments (like when they're starting a new development or changing land use or whatever), things like a public version of Nextdoor/Yelp/etc.
The hope is not that it would kill anonymity altogether, but that it would create some alternative communities linked to real-world identities, and maybe that would help people behave better, with real-world decorum, in those specific identities. Yeah, some people would never sign up for those... and maybe that's OK, as long as the remaining community is more civil and thoughtful?
> maybe that would help people behave better, with real-world decorum, in those specific identities
I don't think that would be the result, really, because when sites do have real identity requirements, it doesn't increase civility much, if any.
I think it's the absence of a physical presence that makes people feel OK with being less civil. Emotionally, it doesn't feel like you're talking with real people.
Governments are far harder to remove than tech firms. You may be able to ditch Google, but there's only one government in your country. And "democracy" doesn't prevent state surveillance.
Most politicians back it, so voting differently makes little difference. Labour and the Conservatives support the Online Safety Bill, the Patriot Act was bipartisan, and voters have very little control over the EU and can’t stop Chat Control. And most of “government” isn’t directly elected: you can’t vote out the NSA, and Congress has little power over them either. The government blunts corporate abuses but doesn’t stop them: revolving doors ensure authorities target small fry while big companies like Visa keep going unimpeded. And finally, most voters don’t mind surveillance that much, since government and media manufacture consent for it. Don’t count on ordinary people to “vote it out” until it’s too late.
Lobbying against government surveillance helps marginally, but it's an eternal struggle. Governments take as much power as they can get, while abuses are exponentially harder to detect and stop than refusing to grant that power in the first place. The “slippery slope” isn’t a fallacy, it’s the record of the last twenty years. Don’t let them track speech and money with a central ID and digital currency, just because you don’t like a few tech bros or online trolls.
> Governments are far harder to remove than tech firms. You may be able to ditch Google
Ditching Google is not the same thing as removing Google from governance of your life, though. I don't use Google search, but I am sure they know who I am and sell that data to anyone who wants it, including government agencies which can't legally obtain that data on their own due (ostensibly) to citizen oversight.
Realistically, the average person has exactly 0 chance of "removing" either a government or a big multinational company.
However, the average person at least has some teeny tiny say in government via democratic processes and oversights. They have zero power against a big company unless they are a major shareholder.
The fundamental difference of "one person, one vote" and "one dollar, one vote" should not be lost in this discussion.
Big bureaucracies are terribly disempowering no matter who runs them, but in government at least you have some tiny amount of representation vs zero in the private sector.
The military? When was the last time they turned on the citizens? I don't live in Tiananmen, thankfully. Meanwhile it's private companies that oppress most of us: private hospitals, private prisons, private insurances companies, private credit bureaus, private banks, private tech companies, private surveillance companies, private small arms manufacturers and dealers. It ain't the government that's crimping my freedoms.
Taxes? So I get some roads and schools and parks and old people healthcare, and lose some to corruption. Better that than making Bezos and Zucky even richer.
Forget the military, when was the last time the government used force on its own citizens? Probably 1 second ago, and thousands of times a day. Are you really more oppressed by a private hospital today than you are by literally thousands of laws that have penalties that will put you in prison? I'm not pro private hospital, or anti-law, but let's be real about who has ultimate control of your freedom. Even if we grant the threat to your freedom by a private [fill in the blank], that entity only is allowed to exist by dint of the government. Not a coincidence that many of your examples are the most regulated industries, or directly in business with Government (hospitals, firearms manufactures, prisons, insurance companies).
If the question is "are you really more oppressed by the private sector than the government"... then the answer for me is, 100% yes. Healthcare is a big one (the insurance industry, along with Republicans, not wanting single-payer). Tax filing is another one (damn you, Intuit). Hospital pricing opacity another one (until recently).
Meanwhile the government protects many of my "freedoms" from private intrusions when it comes to things like bankruptcy protections, credit bureau limitations, telemarketing, angry gunowners, etc.
I've run into trouble with the law on a few occasions, but it was never terribly oppressive -- probably largely thanks to my race, class, and politics. If I were a poor Black man or a conservative white man, I'd probably have a very different view of government.
Thinking about it some more, I think think this just circles back to the old "freedom from" and "freedom to" debate... not sure that's worth getting too much into here, since we're unlikely to change anyone's minds or reveal new perspectives.
If your government's military wanted to oppress you, PayPal wouldn't protect you from the consequences. No payment system ever conceived by even the stanchest technoanarchist is immune to bullets.
It's a bit ironic... all this talk about crypto evading government hasn't really changed much. Then you have multinationals like Meta and Apple that really do have more money and power than most governments because of their centralization and scale.
The idea that the USD you earn in a wage is "yours" and the government has no right to tax it makes no sense to me. They printed the money. Your wage wouldn't exist without the government making the modern economy possible (in more ways than just printing it). Many of our jobs wouldn't even exist without the government's participation in the economy.
> Meanwhile some YouTuber screeching about some Bible quote
Why do you lie when it takes 1 second to verify the facts? I wasn't interested, but clicked on the video and the man is talking in a calm and collected manner, not even close to "screeching". Or is it always "screeching" when somebody says something you disagree with?
Similarly with digital payments, I'd much rather trust the government with that than some rando cryptobro of the week.
There is nothing extreme about this. The government already does both functions in the analog world. It's about time they caught up digitally.
Meanwhile some YouTuber screeching about some Bible quote... not a convincing start
Edit: didn't downvote you btw, just don't agree that this is a bad thing