To give some historical insight into identity, I highly suggest people read:
"Fingerprints:The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science" by Colin Beavan
The overall book is excellent and good balance of the science and history wrapped around an interesting murder case.
The part of the book that felt most apropos to this HN comment thread is this:
In the 1800's there were multiple countries with large populations (by 1800s standards0 where a majority of the population had essentially zero identity documents. This made it trivial for criminals to commit a crime, get caught, move to a different region and commit the exact same crime over and over again.
On the flip side, the book highlights a case where an innocent person is charged with a crime due to a passing resemblance to a criminal. There was no way to prove the innocent person was NOT the criminal and therefore the charge stood.
The goal of bringing this up isn't to say "100% we need digital ID!" but rather to help provide some balance to a discussion on the pros and cons of having "an identity" that is easily verifiable.
To counter-balance... we should realize that if there's a way to 1:1 identify people, then "they" (they is whoever happens to rule over you at any given time, because lord knows we haven't the power to rule our own lives) will require identity even when you don't want to give it.
Sure everything seems nice now, but when they force all to be part of the network, or else, then they have even further control, possibly total control.
So it's not something to tread into lightly. Make sure the means of technological progress is in the hands of the user, not outside powers. This means crypto(graphy)(includes crypto currency, but also DID, etc.), it means running AI locally rather than in the cloud, it means even things as simple as hydroponics in the home and in public spaces.
At the end of the day, technological advancement is a fine line between beneficial progress and absolute tyranny at this stage.
"Fingerprints:The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science" by Colin Beavan
The overall book is excellent and good balance of the science and history wrapped around an interesting murder case.
The part of the book that felt most apropos to this HN comment thread is this:
In the 1800's there were multiple countries with large populations (by 1800s standards0 where a majority of the population had essentially zero identity documents. This made it trivial for criminals to commit a crime, get caught, move to a different region and commit the exact same crime over and over again.
On the flip side, the book highlights a case where an innocent person is charged with a crime due to a passing resemblance to a criminal. There was no way to prove the innocent person was NOT the criminal and therefore the charge stood.
The goal of bringing this up isn't to say "100% we need digital ID!" but rather to help provide some balance to a discussion on the pros and cons of having "an identity" that is easily verifiable.