[HN Gopher] Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provi...
___________________________________________________________________
Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided by private
companies
Author : bontoJR
Score : 446 points
Date : 2021-03-07 17:45 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.swissinfo.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.swissinfo.ch)
| dunefox wrote:
| Meanwhile in Germany: "Hey, wouldn't it be so swell if people
| needed to provide their ID when signing up for email accounts and
| instant messengers?"
| ketzu wrote:
| It's currently only a request by the ministry of interior, not
| actually in the discussed law, isn't it? It's not like
| switzerland politics didn't propose the thing that's been voted
| out, either.
| dunefox wrote:
| Yes, it's just a request but it's quite a worrying trend that
| it's okay to even have a politician propose this - especially
| with the Stasi not long ago...
| throwaway3535f wrote:
| I'm a bit sad the referendum passed as the law was creating a
| regulated environment were anyone could start an ID provider and
| other providers would be forced to interoperate. Basically it
| mandated a distributed protocol. The alternative to my dream of
| having a cooperative of my choice handling my metadata seems will
| be to have the state know everything about me. Let's see how it
| will play out. Maybe we will put some privacy by design concepts
| in the implementation.
|
| On the plus side all the lobbyist that were involved in this
| story have been recalled to order.
| eznzt wrote:
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss--burka-ban--vote-too-clos...
|
| >A decade after another national vote that banned the building of
| minarets, Switzerland will introduce a clause in its constitution
| to outlaw face coverings, including the Islamic burka and niqab,
| in public spaces.
|
| That's very cool, the EU has a lot to learn regarding direct
| democracy--I wonder if the refugee crisis would have happened at
| all if people were asked if they wanted to accept the refugees or
| not.
| emteycz wrote:
| Oh no, another great country destroyed by democracy. When will
| people learn that there are things that shouldn't be voted
| about... :-(
| michaelmrose wrote:
| How do you decide the things that shouldn't be voted on
| without voting?
| emteycz wrote:
| Why do you need voting to understand a person's clothing is
| not for you to decide? It was well understood before
| democracy crazed the minds of everyone - not even feudal
| lords thought they could do that, not even communists did.
| tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote:
| > I wonder if the refugee crisis would have happened at all
|
| Pretty sure the main issue, the fact that people needed to
| leave their homes and countries, would still have happened.
| wirrbel wrote:
| It amazes me how people buy into the right-wing narrative
| about politicians having invited refugees to Europe, when in
| fact, the EU is trying hard to keep them from entering in the
| first place.
|
| What might have prevented the refugee crisis might have been
| if the middle-east region had not been destabilised in the
| previous decades. And part of that destabilisation is due to
| the US Republican party pushing for an invasion in Iraq.
| swayvil wrote:
| People believe whatever is shouted loudest and longest.
| That's physics. It's inevitable.
| eznzt wrote:
| > It amazes me how people buy into the right-wing narrative
| about politicians having invited refugees to Europe, when
| in fact, the EU is trying hard to keep them from entering
| in the first place.
|
| Have they tried, I don't know, mounted machine guns?
|
| Might sound like a joke, but what other options do you have
| when hordes of young, able-bodied males are invading your
| country?
| dang wrote:
| You can't do this here.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Drives me up the fucking wall. Spend years bombing the shit
| out of countries and selling arms to despots, then having
| the gall to complain when refugees from the situation you
| encouraged turn up on your doorstep.
|
| You solve the "refugee crisis" by fostering peace and
| prosperity in countries that don't have it, not by
| spreading lies about it.
| MikeUt wrote:
| It was the US that pushed for and did (is doing?) most of
| the bombing, and Europe that got hit with refugees.
|
| But even if it were the same country, it's not the same
| people - the wars were pushed from the top [1], the
| resistance to immigrants from the bottom ("populism").
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27
| /bush-a...
| emteycz wrote:
| You really need to update your knowledge of history. Look
| at Belgian, French, Dutch and British colonial empires.
| Especially the Belgian one and its brutality might
| interest you. And the British one was active in Middle
| East waaaay before America.
| MikeUt wrote:
| It's the colonial empires that caused the refugee crisis?
| I thought it was the much more recent bombings. But if it
| was the colonial empires, how come Turkey faced no
| refugee crisis from their colonies in south-eastern
| Europe [1,2]? How come the refugee crisis was _now_ , and
| not at the height of those colonial empires you blame?
|
| You see colonialism when it suits you, and are blind to
| it when it doesn't.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Thra
| cian_Bu...
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| > You solve the "refugee crisis" by fostering peace and
| prosperity in countries that don't have it, not by
| spreading lies about it.
|
| That's _really_ not an actionable goal.
|
| Fostering war and misery is really easy, you just have to
| bomb some places. Fostering peace and prosperity isn't
| something you can actively do.
|
| Even if you refrain from participating in abroad wars,
| they still happen. People still rise up against
| governments they don't like, the governments still
| violently crush uprisings, etc. The only difference if
| you get to say it's not your fault.
| [deleted]
| mLuby wrote:
| > "Facial coverings are contrary to our value system," Wobmann
| told Swiss public television, SRF. He said there were now clear
| rules in place so that "people know that in our country, you
| show your face in public".
|
| I wonder if this reasoning will be re-examined due to
| widespread good faith face mask use during the pandemic.
| zaik wrote:
| Wearing a mask for health reasons is still allowed. That
| being said, laws prohibiting what you may wear, targeted
| specifically against a religion, are concerning.
| throwoutttt wrote:
| Conserning to some, liberating to many
| sjwright wrote:
| Concerning to whom? The people who want to impose clothing
| upon others or the people who have clothing imposed upon
| them?
|
| (And before anyone cries discrimination, this particular
| subject is entirely geographic-cultural. Somehow we've been
| convinced that culture must have a veto over sexism. IMHO
| that shouldn't be considered a settled debate.)
| [deleted]
| aseerdbnarng wrote:
| "It is key for Switzerland to catch up with other countries when
| it comes digitalisation"
|
| Why?
| ThePadawan wrote:
| Because person hours are expensive (because food is expensive
| because person hours are expensive because socialized health
| care is expensive).
|
| Every process that currently involves reams of paperwork (like
| the ~20 page tax declaration that is due this month - yikes)
| that can be done digitally instead saves the taxpayer or
| customer money.
|
| And the Swiss do like their money.
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| > socialized health care is expensive
|
| Socialized health care? There's no such thing in Switzerland.
|
| Sure, health insurance is mandatory. No question that it's
| heavily regulated (i.e. basic insurance can't rule you out or
| discriminate against you for pre-existing conditions).
|
| But socialized health care? Give me a break.
|
| > like the ~20 page tax declaration that is due this month
|
| The actual declaration is covered by 4 basic pages. In
| addition there's a declaration of assets and a couple of
| helper pages for deductions.
|
| You can download tax declaration software for free (at least
| in the canton of Zurich) and using it for your declaration
| takes all of 20 minutes.
|
| It may be a bit more complex if you own real estate, or if
| some other complexities are involved.
|
| You either don't have a clue or you're massively over-
| exaggerating for reasons, which elude me.
| smoe wrote:
| Tax declaration are the cantons (state) responsibility . Some
| are further than others. I filled out my first declaration
| some 14 years ago via a web platform.
|
| Most everything being decentralized maybe makes nationwide
| digitalization slower, but that is crucial aspect of the
| political system.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Also, person-based systems break down when asked to scale
| suddenly, because it takes a while to hire and train more
| people. We already saw this with how quickly even contact
| tracing systems break down when infections go above a certain
| point. Depending on economic conditions, there also may not
| be people to hire; pre-COVID, there were public transport
| funds in Seattle being unused, because there was not enough
| drivers to spend the funds on.
|
| Another example, comparing how digital COVID payments in
| South Korea were a lot simpler and faster than in paperwork-
| heavy Japan:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-20/in-
| virus-...
| lwkl wrote:
| Taxes? You fill in the form in on your computer and can file
| it digitally. And if you print it it's encoded in a format
| similar to QR codes.
|
| Tax offices are fully digital since at least 10 years. If you
| file with paper it's scanned and destroyed. Your local tax
| office receives all the documents digitally. Of course this
| could vary by canton.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| > Of course this could vary by canton.
|
| It does. Zurich still sends me a thick envelope with the 20
| pages and tells me to throw away 90% of it if I do my taxes
| digitally.
| phreeza wrote:
| I only got this the first time after moving here, after
| that they switched to just sending me the access code.
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| I actually double checked.
|
| What they send out (and yes, in the canton of Zurich) is
| two A3 pages (printed on both sides) a form informing you
| how to extend sending it in and, most ironically, an A4
| page informing, why they send out less paperwork
|
| It's right in front of me. So feel free to prove me
| wrong.
| bbu wrote:
| You should check your envelope again. If you did your
| taxes online in the past you don't even have to snail
| mail the receipts anymore, they accept digital
| copies/photographs now.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| There seems to be plenty of economic incentive for automation
| in the US without socialized health care.
|
| It has occured to me though that one thing that makes
| automation and digitalization of society "affordable" by
| comparison to human labor is -- skimping on security,
| building this giant house of insecure fragile IT. If we were
| to actually pay for reliable secure systems we probably
| couldn't afford the computers-replace-person-hours version
| either, not sure where that would leave us.
|
| The USA-ians definitely like their money as much as the
| Swiss.
| eertami wrote:
| Imagine if you had to print a paper form and mail or deliver it
| to the local Government for even the simplest of administrative
| tasks.
|
| Because that is life in Switzerland.
| tsbinz wrote:
| I extended the deadline for my 2020 tax declaration today
| (Zurich). I did so by scanning a QR code, entering my email
| address for the confirmation, and clicking send.
| eertami wrote:
| Anecdotal, but in SG I recently had to submit ~20 pages of
| documentation for a permit. Obviously I don't have a
| printer so this was annoying in itself. Once I took those
| printed pages to the Rathaus they just scanned all the
| documents anyway.
|
| Maybe ZH does things better, but I still feel like it's a
| shame there is not more standardisation. I understand why
| politically this is difficult though with the independence
| of the cantons.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Well yes, but lots of Switzerland is rural, and dropping off
| paperwork is no more bother than picking up a loaf of bread.
| Lots of us _like_ seeing our neighbor, who happens to also be
| our greffe communal.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| No one is saying you can't see your neighbor if you don't
| have errands to run.
| etiam wrote:
| Exactly, no one is saying you can't see your neighbor if
| you don't have errands to run.
|
| But the fact is you won't be doing that anywhere near as
| much if the way of doing the errands works against seeing
| people as if it works for. Defaults matter, a lot.
| nixass wrote:
| Germany is hardly, if at all, better. For anything related to
| banking, insurances, taxes, rent, healthcare.. I have tons of
| papers
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| The latest European standard for IDs is a credit-card sized of
| plastic with a chip in it.
|
| It should allow more security, because digital signature is
| harder to forge than previous physical securities. But also you
| could use them more easily in other countries, as it can be
| read by a computer, and not a human that speaks a finite set of
| languages.
|
| Lastly, you could use them for authentication for various
| online and daily services, such as banking, taxes, creation of
| companies, digital signature,... that are said to save time on
| logistics.
| labawi wrote:
| > digital signature is harder to forge than previous physical
| securities
|
| Yet there are countries running 3072-bit RSA on Infineon
| chips, because their 3K keys are least broken. Discovery also
| entailed country-wide certificate revocation, which IIRC
| happened days if not weeks after the flaws were public, while
| the law states a digital signature has the same bearing as a
| physical one.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I would still argue that the losses caused by this breach
| were less than what other countries using a paper-based
| system see on a regular basis, both due to malicious action
| as well as the mere overhead of said paper-based system.
| williesleg wrote:
| Too late they already do it
| thitcanh wrote:
| This sounds like the Italian digital ID: required by the
| government, managed by multiple companies. It's called SPID.
|
| It's usually free, but there's also certified email (PEC) that
| costs from 5EUR to 30EUR per year. Also required by the
| government in some cases and also offered by a small number of
| companies.
|
| Does Estonia offer their digital IDs directly?
| stefano wrote:
| As an alternative to SPID you can also use your national
| electronic ID card, which is issued by the state without the
| involvement of private companies.
| asadhaider wrote:
| Estonia does, their identity card stuff is pretty amazing and I
| remember reading about it a few years ago thinking it was truly
| ahead of it's time [0].
|
| Looks like anyone can become an e-resident and apply [1], I'm
| unsure if this extends to the e-identify cards also or if
| they're for Estonian nationals only. I remember previously that
| anyone could apply for one however you had to go to an Embassy
| to submit information and biometrics.
|
| [0] https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-identity/smart-id [1]
| https://e-resident.gov.ee/become-an-e-resident/
| Etheryte wrote:
| Digital ID in Estonia is government-managed and comes for free
| for everyone with your physical ID. When you get your physical
| ID you also get the corresponding passwords to use the same ID
| online with a card reader etc. You can use all online services
| etc with the above without any extra fees. In addition to that,
| all telecom companies offer a cheap (usually free if you're on
| a recurring plan) tie in authentication with your phone where
| you can use your mobile to authenticate instead of a card
| reader.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Almost every politician wants more power over citizens. That is
| why a binding popular referendum is necessary in cases like
| these. Congrats to the Swiss people, I am a little bit jealous.
| isodev wrote:
| I don't think the eID gives the government control over its
| people... if anything I feel it's the opposite - one gains the
| freedom to manage their identity service directly and save some
| time because it just works across all government/bank/insurance
| services.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Indeed. The current American system based on bits of paper
| you have to remember about, or insecure ID numbers used as
| identification (SSN) just causes a lot of pain, imo. Having a
| central ID for each citizen at birth, and then a way to prove
| that you match that ID would make so many services much more
| secure and convenient. (Obtaining DL, getting loans, bank
| accounts, name changes, tax, etc)
|
| I agree there should be safeguards against a rogue or even
| non-rogue person modifying these records to hurt someone.
| KorematsuFred wrote:
| This only gives more power to government to harass people
| whom they don't like and who are poor minorities.
|
| > having a central ID for each citizen at birth, and then a
| way to prove that you match that ID
|
| This seems a trivial and no-brainer and yet you will be
| surprised how many Americans will be simply denied this
| sort of service after birth. Racist law makers would put
| severe restrictions on people they dont like. If they don't
| get this ID soon after birth they don't get anything. They
| will be illegals in their own country.
|
| Entire song and dance around illegal immigration, e-verify
| and all that crap was needless if there was no concept of
| SSN.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| > This seems a trivial and no-brainer and yet you will be
| surprised how many Americans will be simply denied this
| sort of service after birth
|
| The whole "centralized ID means your government will
| oppress minorities" narrative seems like a mostly
| american concept.
|
| I imagine part of it is due with the US's particularly
| bad history with minorities, and part of it is a general
| defiance against any kind of centralization that also
| seems kind of unique to american culture.
|
| Speaking as someone living in a country (France) that has
| had centralized ID for decades, it feels really weird to
| see people describing what a dystopian future American
| would become if it did that thing we do right now.
|
| (and yes, ID card checks are used as an excuse for racial
| profiling; and the lack of an ID card is used to track
| down undocumented immigrants, and that's bad; but it's a
| symptom of other problems, and it's nowhere as bad as
| "centralized = black people are denied access to social
| services")
| Threeve303 wrote:
| It's odd how we talk about something like centralized
| identification without the other areas of privacy
| limiting changes we are experiencing. Online we are
| tracked, logged and categorized like no other time in
| history. Even the basic means of conducting a business
| transaction leaves a digital trail whether it's a wire
| transfer, credit card transaction or bitcoin payment.
|
| Authoritarian countries have combined a cashless society
| with 24/7 surveillance of all kinds to create a black
| mirror style social credit system.
|
| None of this would be possible without first having a
| form of centralized identity. This will likely be coming
| soon to a democracy near you due to the level of state
| control it invites. Someone needs to get working on an ad
| blocker we can use in real life. I suspect it will be
| built around aluminum foil.
| sjwright wrote:
| The only difference is that your identity could be
| disambiguated with one data point instead of three or
| four. I don't see how that has any bearing on the
| functional aspect of any such hypothetical dystopia.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| We can very well have laws that restrict what ID can be
| required for - so it would be illegal to ask for ID for
| certain things (you shouldn't be required to present your
| ID to buy groceries for example).
|
| But for things where requiring an ID is already accepted
| (banking, etc) or inherently necessary (interacting with
| the government, like filing taxes), a robust, digital ID
| system would be much better than a paper-based system
| vulnerable to fraud and human error.
| sjwright wrote:
| Is there any issue with minorities receiving birth
| certificates now?
| max_ wrote:
| I really admire the swiss political system & culture.
|
| It's has all the modern postulates of liberty & governance that
| most countries are striving for without the "scam
| orchestration"
| smoe wrote:
| As a Swiss, the political system is to me the best aspect
| about the country. It makes it so, that it is almost
| impossible for anyone to obtain enough power to really abuse
| it.
|
| It also make any change, for the good or the bad, very very
| slow, which can be frustrating at times. So if stability is
| not high up on your list of life's values it might not be the
| best place to be.
| brink wrote:
| I'm an American and Switzerland is one of the few countries
| I really admire for those reasons. I'd love to live there
| some day if they'd have me.
| julianlam wrote:
| So basically Switzerland is the Debian Buster of the world?
| rodgerd wrote:
| > I really admire the swiss political system & culture.
|
| Do you admire denying women the vote until the end of the
| 20th century?
| fermienrico wrote:
| Just keep in mind, Switzerland has the population the size of
| SF Bay area for context.
| tompagenet2 wrote:
| The banning of minarets is a data point against this liberty.
| fastball wrote:
| They're also about to ban niqab / burka.
| pell wrote:
| They voted for the ban today. France showed that it had
| little positive effect for women.
|
| The University of Lucerne ran a study and came to the
| conclusion that there are around 20-30 women in all of
| Switzerland who wear a niqap or a burqa.
| fastball wrote:
| So it's ok to outlaw clothing if only 30 people wear it,
| or...?
| m_mueller wrote:
| I'm not for that ban, but I think that bit of direct
| democratic building code gets overly dramatized. Things
| like this serve to moderate the political landscape. If
| people feel like they stay in control throughout rising
| immigration from cultures they deem problematic, there is
| less of a tendency towards extremism. And so far I haven't
| seen any extreme counter reaction in Muslim communities
| either. The soup is cooked hotter than it's eaten.
| lukasbuenger wrote:
| The direct consequences for Muslims are hardly the
| problem here - only about 30 women in Switzerland (we
| know about) even wear a burka/niqab and quite a few of
| them are Swiss converts. Back when we banned minarets, we
| had like three (!) of them in the whole country. But we
| had ads like these [0] all over the country for months
| _again_ and if that doesn 't give you the most profound
| chills, I don't know. It's textbook right wing
| scapegoatism and I'm pretty sure Muslims can feel the
| very real consequences of that kind of propaganda.
|
| [0] https://verhuellungsverbot.ch/downloads/
| archsurface wrote:
| Only for people who moved there, knowing full well that
| they were moving into a different culture, and that as a
| minority they would have to adapt to local norms. I've
| lived in a number of countries on various continents, and I
| have never expected the locals to adopt my way of doing
| things - I think that would be utterly bizarre. If you go
| there without a degree of humility and willingness to adapt
| you're a colonist.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| While I agree with the premise, I don't see how this
| specific event ties to your argument.
|
| A simple Google search shows that the referendum passed
| with 57% of the voters support, so that leaves us with a
| 43% who thinks it's a bad idea for one reason or another.
| Since around 5% of Switzerland is muslim, one could argue
| building minarets is not such a scandalous idea for Swiss
| voters.
| yurielt wrote:
| That banning is only a point against liberty if your
| definition of liberty is very American (religion above
| welfare of people) for most people maintaining the culture
| that gives that liberty is as important as liberty so
| changing that culture would obviously destroy the
| possibility of that liberty I really do not understand why
| people simply close this eyes when this bans go against
| Catholics and christians but freak out as soon as
| separation of church and state touches any non Christian
| tompagenet2 wrote:
| Asked out of genuine inquiry and curiosity not to bait (I
| know it can be difficult to tell online): The referendum
| was simply to add the words "The building of minarets is
| prohibited" to the constitution. This only affects
| someone who would wish to build one (so Muslims) and in
| my mind says that your type are less welcome here. Why
| would Christians be negatively affected by this?
|
| I would take the view that banning the form of your
| religious buildings (and implicitly, to your comment,
| being hostile to Muslims who in your response you seem to
| equate with a culture that destroys the possibility of
| liberty) seems more of a betrayal of the principle of
| liberty and freedom for all than allowing different
| people to pray and associate as they wish, providing they
| follow basic tenants of human law (not harming people
| etc).
| halflings wrote:
| That had nothing to do with "separation of church and
| state". It was banning private individuals to use a
| specific form of architecture. Pretty much any country in
| the world allows building mosques with minarets... did
| they threaten anyone's liberty / change their culture?
|
| Going back to GP's point, the deeper issue is that people
| thought this was worth writing in the constitution. Other
| countries apply such laws in different ways, so I don't
| think the Swiss direct democracy is to blame here.
| warent wrote:
| This seems to be the largely the case with scandinavian
| countries in general.
|
| I've been seriously considering leaving the USA permanently
| because I'm having a difficult time reconciling my morals and
| ideals with the taxes I pay. Ballots and debates aren't
| enough. I'd rather vote with my taxes and my feet, and start
| helping a county I believe in.
| fla wrote:
| Switzerland is not part of Scandinavia
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I think you're possibly confusing Switzerland with Sweden
| there...
| anon4242 wrote:
| Though, as a Swede, I would love to have Swiss-style
| democracy...
| vinni2 wrote:
| Unfortunately such referendum don't scale well though.
| ur-whale wrote:
| >Unfortunately such referendum don't scale well though.
|
| It would if the federal government was shrunk back to what it
| was designed to be in the first place and states where given
| actual governing power.
| zo1 wrote:
| Why wouldn't it scale well?
| RedComet wrote:
| This is unsurprising, especially given what happened with recent
| elections in third-world countries (like the United States).
| jariel wrote:
| This is bad populism.
|
| It's understandable people fear Google/FB etc., but an entity
| contracted by the state to do digital ID services is not going to
| be selling your phone number if doing so would put them out of
| business and land them in jail.
|
| Sadly, the notion of basic digital ID would be very useful for so
| many things and maybe even help with privacy if content providers
| switched to this kind id vs. social logins.
|
| Ironically, these 'government IDs' may be a vanguard in the fight
| for privacy because they establish a privacy-based alternative
| that doesn't currently exist.
|
| (Edit) There are already private institutions that manage ID data
| (Finance, Health) no our behalf and generally we are not
| concerned. (Although VISA is owned by banks and that's a
| concern). In Canada, they have temporarily allocated ID literally
| to the banking system - you can login to the gov. tax portal
| using your banking login. So, de-facto, the banks provide ID
| services to gov. already.
|
| It's irrational populism. ID services are sensitive obviously,
| but governments already deal in such types of sensitive
| information and there's no reason 3rd parties can't manage those
| services with the right kind of oversight.
| fyleo wrote:
| The entity in question does not have the best reputation.
| jariel wrote:
| "The risk of data abuse by commercial providers would
| undermine the effort to make digitalisation more democratic,
| they say."
|
| It's as though citizens have no understanding of how
| contracts, oversight and regulations work.
|
| If the government requires certain parameters to be kept,
| they will be.
|
| The notion that these ID providers are going to 'abuse the
| data' is conspiratorially absurd to the extent that basic
| information control is written into the process.
|
| If the financial incentives for 'abuse' don't exist, then
| really it's a matter of operational capability and
| pragmatism, in which case, private sector is an ok choice,
| just as it is for so many other things.
|
| The government could feasibly do it, but there's no reason it
| can't be outsourced.
|
| It's a bit short-sighted.
| malthaus wrote:
| Really proud of this result; the failsafe once again has done its
| job against heavy lobbying.
|
| There was so much misinformation around mostly due to lack of
| technical understanding (e.g. "it's a digital passport!") and the
| (yellow) press heavily pushed for a yes.
| dashdot wrote:
| It was painfully obvious that heavy lobbying was involved... I
| was amazed how that problem somehow was never addressed by the
| opponents.
| audessuscest wrote:
| Common sense
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| They are also incredibly xenophobic (i.e. Japanese levels).
| loufe wrote:
| Their economy is humming along without immigration, so why
| would they open it? I would have a hard time believing I'm in a
| minority of people who think immigration is not an economic
| consideration before a social one in western countries right
| now. I'm not saying I disagree with it at all, though.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Our society is humming along in part because of the 25%
| foreign residents, and the hundreds of thousands who cross
| the border daily to work in our economy.
|
| There are certainly some xenophobic people in Switzerland,
| and the SVP is certainly a party that uses xenophobic
| rhetoric to get attention, but our economy is the opposite of
| xenophobic.
| 101008 wrote:
| Care to expand this? I went to Switzerland once (I was young,
| 20ish) and I spent only one day at Geneva. It didn't look
| xenophobic, but very strict. I am interested in knowing more
| about this, thanks!
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Sure, there are tons of foreigners in Geneva, since e.g. CERN
| is there. But native Swiss people will never consider you
| their equal. You can live and work in Switzerland for your
| whole life, but they will never consider you Swiss.
|
| Of course, they are also very polite about it. I'm not
| talking about US-redneck-tier xenophobia.
| wsc981 wrote:
| _> But native Swiss people will never consider you their
| equal. You can live and work in Switzerland for your whole
| life, but they will never consider you Swiss._
|
| But it's the same in many countries. I don't necessarily
| see a problem with that. Do you view this issue as
| problematic and if so, why?
|
| I live in Thailand and Thai people will never consider me a
| Thai, even if I would speak fluent Thai and would conform
| to all societal norms. I've moved to Thailand and decided
| that regardless of this, it's a decent place for me to
| stay, better than The Netherlands where I came from.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| Most people who travel to japan as tourists don't see the
| underlying xenophobia either, and that's very well
| documented. As far as xenophobia towards non-swiss - I think
| the popular referendum to add a constitutional ban on
| minarets in their country is a good example of how that
| reared its head in somewhat recent history.
|
| However, the corporate culture that is much more liberal in
| Geneva is very different than the vast majority of the
| country as well. I felt more welcome there than in a few
| places I visited in nearby Germany.
| esja wrote:
| Switzerland has one of the largest immigrant populations in the
| world per capita: 29.9% according to the link below.
|
| Very few countries are ahead of this. Even Australia is only
| 30%, and Canada (which has often led the world in immigration
| statistics) is 21.3%.
|
| Perhaps you can provide some evidence for your statement.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
| throw0101a wrote:
| Out of the 1.9M immigrants/permanent residents in
| Switzerland, 1.6M (84%) are from Europe:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland
|
| For Canada, the top ten breakdown of immigrants are: 8.9%
| from India, 8.6% from China, 7.8% from Philippines, 6.6% from
| UK, 3.3% from US, 3% from Italy, 2.8% from Hong Kong, 2.7%
| from Pakistan, 2.2% from Vietnam, 2.1% from Iran. Add those
| up, and you're only up to about 50%; there's a long tail out
| from there.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Sources
| _...
|
| A lot more of a mosaic/melting pot in Canada than
| Switzerland.
| esja wrote:
| So? How does any of that prove Switzerland is xenophobic?
| rdevsrex wrote:
| They is a over generalization. I'm American and black and my
| wife is Swiss and I have plenty of friends who are also Swiss
| and nothing but welcoming. Also xenophobic is unclear. Having a
| strict immigration policy is not xenophobic. You should be more
| precise.
| Shacklz wrote:
| He might be referring to a few laws/initiatives that passed
| in the last few years/decades - e.g., the initiative that
| forbids minarets (even though there were almost none to begin
| with; it was essentially a political stunt). Or the 'burka
| ban', which just got a slight majority today.
|
| Also, the biggest party (SVP) often uses very controversial
| advertisement, which I can easily imagine to be interpreted
| as xenophobic by foreigners (I'm Swiss myself).
|
| Glad to hear your positive experience in Switzerland -
| especially now with the passing of the 'Burka ban', seeing
| Switzerland as xenophobic isn't something that would surprise
| me too much.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| There have been many kind Swiss I've come to meet with the
| kindness to include those very different than them; Geneva
| is one of my favorite places in the world.
|
| To dismiss a whole people as xenophobic as OP did I think
| is very much an overgeneralization, but I think a large
| part of Swiss culture is certainly more xenophobic than
| even nearby European countries - accepting that is an ugly
| part of the situation does not mean the Swiss people should
| be any less proud of what they've built over the years.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| I only stop by to add that "xenophobia" is not inherently
| a bad or evil thing. Every culture should have the right
| to exist, in the land its ancestors built up or conquered
| - we can argue all day about the correctness of how a
| given culture and people got to a point where they were
| able to settle, but the point is that _today_ they are
| settled and stable. Why attempt to force unsettlement and
| destabilization through unnecessary "diversity"
| processes? If you do not fit in to a culture as an
| individual, but you do fit in to a different culture, why
| force the one you do not fit to accommodate you when you
| can be part of one that already accepts you?
|
| Current day exceptions like Donbas, Hong Kong, and Gaza
| (to name just a few) certainly exist, and there is room
| for discussion there. There is also an argument that can
| be held regarding the human and economic cost of getting
| to a place where the culture fits you.
|
| But to call all attempts to maintain a culture
| "xenophobic" and therefore associated with a negative...
| I don't think this is the right way to be.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post shallow provocations like this--whether you
| intended it that way or not, it functions as trolling.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?query=troll%20effects%20by:dang&date...
|
| In particular, please don't stoke nationalistic flamewars on
| HN, regardless of which countries are under discussion.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| (We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26378562.)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > They are also incredibly xenophobic
|
| The Swiss are xenophobic? Eh?
|
| They welcome people from all over the world to come together to
| work towards peace and humanitarianism in their country. They
| host the only truly international humanitarian organisation in
| the world. They helped build many of the institutions that try
| to reduce conflict.
|
| Calling them xenophobic is bizarre.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| >Calling them xenophobic is bizarre.
|
| You don't think the referendums on banning minarets and
| burqas are... Xenophobic in any form?
| nec4b wrote:
| Why, do you think it is a human right for men to force
| women to wear burqas? There are plenty of articles of
| lately how SF doesn't allow building high rises, which
| prevents migration and yet nobody calls them xenophobic.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| I do think people regularly criticize zoning policy like
| that in SF as racist, though. A quick Google search seems
| to yield many criticisms, actually.
|
| If you present a question as a falsifiable test to
| whether people are consistent in calling out
| discrimination, I would hope you would be open to
| changing your mind on the issue rather than simply
| convince yourself there is instead a conspiracy when new
| evidence is presented...
| nec4b wrote:
| It only shows that some people like to call other people
| whom they don't agree with, with slurs like racist,
| xenophobe,..., to imply there can't be any other rational
| explanation other that those people are bad.
| archsurface wrote:
| I would no more like minarets in very country than i like
| starbucks and mcdonalds in every country. It seems to me
| the anti-xenphobia people are in fact killing off cultures
| as they create a single global mishmash culture. The
| excitement and adventure of travel is on its way to dead.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Look at their impact on world peace over the centuries
| rather than their opinions on architecture.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| You didn't answer my question, and those aren't opinion
| polls, the difference between them being whether they are
| binding.
|
| You don't think those constitutional referendums which
| ban those historically Muslim traditions could be
| interpreted as xenophobic?
|
| You don't seem intent on actually answering my question
| or even directly addressing it, so I assume you are just
| gaslighting in bad faith. Good luck.
| throwaway5737 wrote:
| Swiss here that happen to have voted in both polls. I can
| give you an insight on my view of the topic that may be
| representative of a part of the population (probably not
| the majority but at least a significant fraction).
|
| Both initiatives are targeted to a specific extremely
| tiny population of citizens (most of the trouble is with
| << converted >> Swiss that embrace Islamist views, most
| of Muslim of foreign origin are pretty well integrated
| and many even supported the recent burka ban because they
| know very well what that means) that tries to exploit the
| democratic system to promote their totalitarian ideology.
| You have to nip that in the bud. There is for sure some
| collateral damage as not all people that would like to
| build a minaret are necessarily islamists but there are
| prices to pay so that everybody can live peacefully
| together. The sacrifices will be compensated when the
| times come.
|
| FYI, back when that was source of troubles Jesuits were
| banned in the constitution (ban lifted in the 70ties) and
| some cantons were forbidding to build bell towers for
| Catholic churches till last century, etc. When the
| tensions tapered out all the bans were lifted. I'm pretty
| sure in 50 years if we get rid of Islamism the minaret
| ban can be lifted with no troubles.
|
| As a side note, by the way it is constructed, essentially
| everybody in Switzerland is part of some minority and is
| both paying a bit and getting back a lot in terms of
| freedom and respect. Everybody depends on the goodwill of
| the majority so it is in general wary of stomping on
| other minorities but react strongly when somebody want to
| destroy the system or doesn't respect it (most of the
| sparse cases of real xenophobic behavior, which btw I
| don't condone, you may encounter in Switzerland often
| boils down normal human narrow minds and that).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > those aren't opinion polls
|
| What do you think a referendum is, if not a poll of the
| population's opinion on something?
|
| My answer to your question is to look at their actual
| positive impact all around the world, including for
| Islamic countries, not their opinions on architecture or
| dress.
|
| I literally don't think there's a more peaceful,
| welcoming, open-to-others' cultures anywhere in the world
| than the Swiss. If you think they're xenophobic then
| everyone else is 10x more xenophobic.
| nokya wrote:
| As a Swiss citizen (my age range is 40-50), I can only
| provide my own witness account about what you just wrote:
| I think you're completely wrong.
|
| The fact that some Swiss were able to contribute
| immensely to a "positive impact all around the world"
| doesn't magically turn us into a nice and warm
| population, open to other people's cultures. A large part
| of the population hates foreigners, considers them as
| opportunists and job stealers, if not criminals. This is
| not a "Swiss", it's the same everywhere in the world.
|
| The difference is that Swiss are educated and law abiding
| xenophobes: a foreigner will rarely feel insecure in
| Switzerland and discrimination will mostly be silent. As
| opposed to a country like the USA where racists are
| empowered with a low likelihood of criminal charges.
|
| But that doesn't mean in any way that a foreigner is more
| welcome in Switzerland than elsewhere. If you sincerely
| believe this, it could only indicate you don't share a
| significant part of your life with foreigners who
| actually visually look like foreigners.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > This is not a "Swiss", it's the same everywhere in the
| world.
|
| If you think everyone's a xenophobe and it's just that
| the Swiss are the best at not acting on it... then yeah
| they're the best aren't they? Beats acting on it with
| violence like every other country surely?
|
| Everyone always thinks the worst of their own country and
| holds their own to higher standards.
| zo1 wrote:
| Xenophobia is a loaded term. There could be any number of
| reasons why they're voting against those things. And so
| what if they dislike certain foreign cultures? It's their
| country, and they can accept who they want, or not.
|
| Or is Democracy suddenly not okay if the will of the people
| is misaligned with the "greater" society's views? Which, I
| would also argue, isn't conclusively in the camp that
| "xenophobia = bad". If anything, it's held by a minority of
| countries, and even then, not shared by all in those
| countries. But of course, xenophobia is a loaded term, so
| we could be talking about completely different things that
| fall under that umbrella.
| slg wrote:
| >Or is Democracy suddenly not okay if the will of the
| people is misaligned with the "greater" society's views?
|
| Yes exactly this. One of Democracy's greatest flaws is
| that is is often misaligned with the greater good. Almost
| every example of expanded civil rights that have occurred
| in recent memory was wildly unpopular at one point and
| was delayed by democratic mob rule until persistent
| effort was able to eventually turn the tide of public
| opinion.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| >And so what if they dislike certain foreign cultures?
| It's their country, and they can accept who they want, or
| not.
|
| Sure, but they are what we define as unambiguously
| xenophobic policies, even if it is a broad term which can
| include much more than that and were democratically
| enacted.
|
| Whether xenophobia is bad is another story - I'm not
| really sure anyone would find much insight from a
| discussion about it.
| nec4b wrote:
| I'm very much against genital mutilation as is practiced
| in some muslim countries and support bans against such
| practices in the west. Does that make me a xenophobe?
| tpush wrote:
| No, it doesn't. One can oppose (religiously motivated or
| not) genital mutilation on purely humanistic grounds,
| completely divorced from any religious concerns.
|
| Banning building minarets has no such justification; just
| blatant xenophobia.
| nec4b wrote:
| I guess where you come from all building codes are
| blatant xenophobia, because there can't possible any
| other reason as fear from stranger to disallow some
| buildings.
| tpush wrote:
| The point isn't that every banning of a style of building
| is xenophobia, but that in this particular instance it
| is.
|
| Making 'can't build minarets' part of your constitution
| isn't some local law building code thing; it's motivated
| by xenophobia.
| pell wrote:
| The SVP is a very strong party in Switzerland. It is not a
| stretch to call it xenophobic. Switzerland - like any place -
| has many faces. It hosts great institutions but yes, it also
| has its share of societal xenophobia.
| yurielt wrote:
| > The SVP is a very strong party in Switzerland. It is not
| a stretch to call it xenophobic. It is for anyone outside
| of Twitter and I say this as an immigrant but the extent to
| which people use the word "xenophobic" is ridiculous.
| pell wrote:
| The SVP was considered a xenophobic party a long time
| before Twitter existed.
|
| Here's an article from 2000 about the referendum on the
| migrant quota. You can read about the SVP's initiative
| and reaction here:
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/18-prozent-initiative-
| deutlich-...
|
| Here's another article from 2000 comparing different
| right-wing parties in Western Europe (including the SVP)
| and also mentioning xenophobia as part of their make-up:
| https://monde-diplomatique.de/artikel/!1243322
|
| Here's an article from 2002 about then SVP-president
| Oskar Freysinger and his infamous poetry. Please read
| what he wrote and explain how it's not xenophobic:
| https://www.nzz.ch/article8J5AD-1.443107
|
| Here's an article from 1999 about a thank-you letter
| written by SVP-cantonal president Christoph Blocher to
| the holocaust-denier Jurgen Graf: https://www.bielertagbl
| att.ch/nachrichten/vermischtes/kontro...
|
| It really doesn't take a lot of digging to understand
| what the SVP stands for. I mean today their initiative
| for a ban on burqas/niqab went through with 52% of the
| vote despite there only being around 20-30 burqa/niqab
| wearers in all of Switzerland.
|
| I often do see this take that whatever Twitter might
| currently be mad at is supposedly a hysterical view on
| things, yet it seems this automatic opposite view is
| never seen for the hyperbole it is.
| folli wrote:
| As a datapoint: Switzerland has the highest proportion of
| foreigners in Europe (25%; with the exception of Luxembourg,
| and perhaps some microstates like Vatican, Monte Carlo, don't
| know about those).
|
| So I don't think there's any comparison at all to Japan (2%).
| MikeUt wrote:
| Are the "foreigners" mostly other Europeans?
| esja wrote:
| About two thirds are from the EU28/EFTA countries.
|
| However: There are twice as many Asians in Switzerland as
| there are people from the Americas. There are also more
| Africans than there are Americans. The fifth largest
| immigrant group are from Kosovo (almost as many as France
| and way more than Spain or Austria). There have been
| multiple waves of immigration and the country is actually
| very diverse.
|
| https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/
| m...
| Bancakes wrote:
| What do you mean 'other Europeans'? There's a great variety
| of culture in Europe, it's a densely packed continent.
| xxpor wrote:
| There really isn't. Europeans consistently wildly
| overestimate the difference in cultures between
| countries. The language barriers probably don't help
| there.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Compared to what? Are cultural difference between US,
| Canada and mexico any greater than those between
| Switzerland, Italy and Russia?
| [deleted]
| zorked wrote:
| Yes, of course, each of those countries is internally
| very diverse, and in relation to the others.
|
| Each of those countries was made by a mix of native,
| European, African and Asian peoples of different kinds,
| in different proportions, at different times. Europe is
| made of just Europeans, and immigration is a very recent
| thing.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| I think he clearly is asking about the makeup of
| immigrants there being closely related European cultures
| because Switzerland has openly xenophobic policies
| towards Muslims, not historically Christian Europeans.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| More than 80% are from Europe. 35.5% are from Germany,
| Austria, Italy, and France, i.e. countries with the same
| language and ethnicity (to a certain extent) as the native
| Swiss.
|
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/migration-series-
| part-1...
| esja wrote:
| Quite a few people who voted against this did so purely because
| they didn't want private companies controlling the system.
|
| If the proposal had been for the government to issue and control
| the identities, it may well have passed.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Yes, and that's a good thing. Balkanizing ID info between a
| gazillion government databases as we do in the US just creates
| inefficiency, and raises the thirst for more intensive
| surveillance to counter the inefficiency with which the data is
| used. (Consider the talk after 9/11 on the FBI and CIA not
| sharing info, and then we get the Patriot Act.)
| [deleted]
| jariel wrote:
| Maybe the opposite though - having a 'single, semi-competent
| authority and source of control/failure/security' is probably
| not a good reality for security and resiliency.
|
| Ironically, there's a >50% chance that the solution will
| entail 1) privately hosted platforms like AWS and 2)
| privately hosted support services and 3) privately written
| core modules (McKinsey business strategy, Accenture
| implemented etc.) and 4) at least some privately contracted
| IT people to manage the solution.
|
| There's no reason to believe the gov. will make a more
| robust, scalable and secure solution that other entities.
|
| A better approach might even be to mandate very specific
| identity protocols, and then allow citizens to chose their
| own identity provider among those that fit the regulatory
| requirements and oversight.
|
| For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Post
|
| It's owned by gov. and effectively independent. They could be
| an identity provider. They are already close to being able to
| do whatever need be done.
|
| Having to create new government bureaucracies to do things is
| hard.
| XorNot wrote:
| That article about effective government policy being a
| database access policy a month or so ago was particularly
| illuminating (and made a lot of sense to me). That any given
| policies effectiveness really depends on whether you can
| actually construct - functionally - an appropriate database
| view to implement it's stages.
| [deleted]
| krastanov wrote:
| It does not seem like such a terrible idea if it is government
| run to me. But it depends on having trust in the checks and
| balances implemented in your system of governance.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| It's fine if a majority of the people can overrule a
| political policy by a referendum. It's not fine if the
| government was like the US or China.
| burundi_coffee wrote:
| Which is why the opponents, backed by a non-partisan alliance
| of representatives, will bring forward not one but two
| proposals to the houses. If they get a majority vote, the
| federal council will have to try to make it into a law.
| Shacklz wrote:
| Definitely why I voted against it. When I first heard about it
| I was all for it - until I realized that the plan was to let
| private companies handle it. Complete no go, glad it got
| rejected.
| _nalply wrote:
| I also voted against it. It's a pity that I couldn't approve
| the e-ID issued by the government.
| nickez wrote:
| In Sweden we have a company running the ID system and that
| works fine. The company is coowned by all the large banks
| afaik. I was really surprised at how far behind Switzerland is
| compared to Scandinavia when it comes to digitalisation. Being
| able to handle my life hassle free online instead of going to
| physical places (like post office, banks, gov office) is
| liberating. I also get all my bills digitally and all my
| receipts (even physical stores)
| zo1 wrote:
| If you think that's bad, look at the UK. They had a
| government-ID system with an ID card, and then they scrapped
| it. Now people run around using driver's licenses and
| municipal bills (I guess) to open bank accounts and other
| things. Utterly backwards.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Documents_Act_2010
|
| I've been formulating my thinking around it and I'm starting
| to think that this is some sort of new-age "luddism" at play,
| coupled with some odd distrust of government for this
| particular problem, as if government is trustable elsewhere.
| [deleted]
| msvan wrote:
| Since it's closed-source, privately owned and not based on
| any open standards, it doesn't work on Linux or any mobile
| device that isn't using Google Play Services or iOS.
|
| It's convenient, but it's an absolute travesty that we've
| left such an essential part of digital infrastructure to big
| banks.
| null_object wrote:
| I think pride and patriotism means you're overstating your
| case here.
|
| Indeed as you say, a subgroup of the largest Swedish private
| banks own the ID system in Sweden - for profit, and without
| any serious democratic oversight.
|
| Edit: I forgot to add that the system allows these private
| banks to see into almost every aspect of a person's life:
| where they shop, where they _are_ , who shares their
| household and so on. Almost every aspect of a Swede's life
| can and is tracked by this system.
|
| Every time someone identifies themselves with this system, it
| costs the retail merchant or service a non-trivial amount of
| money. Because it's effectively a private monopoly, that
| price is set by the banks, and often involves a lot of secret
| horse-trading behind closed doors (I've been involved with
| some aspects of this in the past).
|
| The secret negotiations also include terms that are not open
| to public scrutiny. One example, is that the merchant or
| service isn't allowed to blame BankID for any problems such
| as downtime or any other technical problems.
|
| btw I'm curious how you get all your receipts digitally.
| There are some services such as Kivra in Sweden, but they
| definitely don't cover all stores.
| Guthur wrote:
| Democratic oversight?
|
| Once they systems are in place they will be under the
| control of the great unelected, the civil servants, it will
| not be the subject of any political party policy again and
| so how exactly will you assert the voting based democratic
| control upon it?
| jariel wrote:
| Neither of the points you made I think are existentially
| problematic, especially in light of the fact that Sweden is
| 1) ahead and 2) it works for them.
|
| 'Cost' is going to be a part of the equation, there is no
| avoiding that, but access can be regulated, as can
| oversight (i.e. transparency) with respect to transactions.
|
| And: "merchant or service isn't allowed to blame BankID for
| any problems such as downtime or any other technical
| problems"
|
| Will Swiss private individuals or businesses be able to
| 'sue' the Swiss government for downtime? Like late trains?
| Invariably not. They'll just get the service they get and
| that's it.
|
| Sweden provides a pragmatic demonstrable example of what
| can work, it shouldn't be dismissed.
| nickez wrote:
| I guess I only shop with stores that use Kivra.
|
| BankID doesn't store any information, and I have no problem
| that the stores I'm a member in store my shipping history.
|
| I think you are overstating the scale of the surveillance.
| I don't think the different entities share data with each
| other.
|
| Edit: try live in a country like Switzerland once you have
| gotten use to all interaction being online. It's horrible.
|
| Edit2: actually other stores provide digital receipts
| without Kivra. You just have to be a member.
|
| Edit3: This has nothing to do with patriotism, there are
| many things that I don't like about Sweden. But the fact
| that we have taken digitalisation seriously since the 90s
| is something I think is great.
| null_object wrote:
| > BankID doesn't store any information
|
| I work with systems that use BankID identification, and
| know for a fact that you are wrong, because many (though
| not all) of the data-points collected by the banks can be
| retrieved for payment.
|
| For instance, if you just logged-in with the service I
| work with, I can retrieve your full-name, birthdate, your
| marital status, name of your spouse, their birthdate, any
| children and their IDs and names, where you live, your
| home and cellphone number, and many many other data
| points.
|
| From a service owned by a small group of private banks.
| nickez wrote:
| That is all public data. You can get that through open
| channels like birthday.se as well. I've been at BankID
| and I know for a fact exactly what information they
| store. They store only what is necessary from a
| regulatory standpoint.
| caskstrength wrote:
| Are personal mobile phone numbers considered public
| information in Sweden?
| dagw wrote:
| But surely if someone has your person number then they
| can retrieve all that information from companies like
| Ratsit and the like. Is there specific information you
| can get via BankID that isn't generally available from
| other 'open' databases?
| yawniek wrote:
| i live in switzerland. the only cases i had to be
| physically present at an official place was when i
| "adopted" my own son (due to not being married) and when
| i funded companies. 4x 15min in the last 4 years.
|
| i think the state of things is just already quite
| efficient without such an id. thus people are not willing
| to give that data away to a private monopoly. imo for
| good reason.
| mongol wrote:
| Actually, we have several. BankID is the most well known, but
| there is also Freja eID.
| kzrdude wrote:
| What about the danish NemId, how is it governed and owned,
| does anyone know?
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Developed by Nets together with the banks similar to the
| Swedes. If you're looking for public ownership of the
| various organs and products that Danes interact with on a
| daily basis: it basically doesn't exist. Just about every
| software product at the municipal and state level is
| contracted out to an enormous private megalith that gets
| paid vast sums of money to execute. And they're nearly all
| Microsoft affiliate shops, if you were also hoping for some
| silver lining.
|
| I love my country but the continuing parceling out of
| everything to private companies has been greatly negative
| to many public services. See, as an example, the DOT
| syndicate, which has made it prohibitively expensive to
| commute via public transit (why in God's name is it cheaper
| to travel to Germany than take a train from Copenhagen to
| Odense?) or the bridge to Sweden we're still paying truly
| insane toll fees for despite having paid for its
| construction years ago.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| As a US citizen, being able to go to various physical places
| without being forced to patronize an opaque, unaccountable
| corporate behemoth owned by a conglomeration of banks that
| centrally tracks everything I do, every penny I spend, and
| what and where I spend it on is liberating.
| Daho0n wrote:
| That is not what this is. Also what you are describing is
| spot on for VISA, MasterCard and all the other US
| businesses that track and sell data on everyone.
| exoque wrote:
| > I also get all my bills digitally
|
| So do I. In Switzerland.
| tchalla wrote:
| Are you willing to give up your privacy to corporates to be
| liberated online?
| cmehdy wrote:
| Which makes a lot of sense in Switzerland, since "the
| government is the people" is more true than in the overwhelming
| majority of countries on Earth. Pragmatic take from the Swiss
| as usual :)
|
| (said by a jealous French citizen)
| oumua_don17 wrote:
| AFAIK, Switzerland is the only country with direct democracy
| or 'Govt is the people'.
|
| As you said overwhelming majority, are there any countries
| that have direct democracy or come close?
| [deleted]
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Switzerland has this in its constitution:
|
| Article 13: Right to Privacy
|
| 1. All persons have the right to receive respect for their
| private and family life, home, and secrecy of the mails and
| telecommunications.
|
| 2. All persons have the right to be protected against the abuse
| of personal data.
|
| Also the constitution can be only changed by voting.
| elmo2you wrote:
| Plenty of countries (if not most) have this or something
| similar, anchored in either their constitution or at least in
| regular law.
|
| This should not come as a surprise either, since it's
| essentially the implementation of Article 12 of the Universal
| Declaration of Human Rights.
|
| Where it usually goes wrong, is with the interpretation of the
| words "privacy" and "communication". Also, governments have a
| habit of defining exceptional situations in which these laws
| can be violated in the name of some supposedly higher purpose
| (e.g. national security).
|
| Strictly speaking, the UDHR is rather clear about one thing:
| the declared human rights are inalienable (meaning, they can
| neither be taken away nor be given away freely), so all the
| exceptions are essentially bullshit excuses. Those should not
| exist in the first place, at least not according to the
| "inalienably" part of "inalienable human rights".
|
| Additionally, there is no law/treaty that explains why modern
| technologies should not be subject to Article 12. While plenty
| of governments/businesses would like to convince people
| otherwise, almost everything we do online is strictly speaking
| telecommunication of some sort or another.
|
| The sad truth is that pretty much all of today's online privacy
| issues are strictly speaking in violation of the UDHR. There is
| just way too much at stake for businesses and governments alike
| for them to ever acknowledge it. It doesn't change that they
| are blatantly violating a treaty they signed, ratified and
| should be upholding though.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Notably the US has no right to privacy, except a very vague
| implied right which as far as I know has only been invoked in
| the context of abortion.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| It certainly doesn't help that the Constitution has more or
| less ossified over the past couple decades, with amendments
| becoming rarer and rarer. Heck, the last one has its
| origins as an academic exercise.
| buzzert wrote:
| 4th amendment to the constitution?
|
| > The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
| houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
| and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
| issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
| affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
| searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
| ghaff wrote:
| The (generally accepted) argument is that it's implicit
| in a number of the amendments that make up the Bill of
| Rights. It's not explicit however as Robert Bork argued
| during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings to his detriment.
| I think Griswold v. Connecticut is still considered the
| primary ruling on the matter.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Actually Roe vs Wade implied the right to privacy from
| the 14th amendment:
|
| _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
| abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
| United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
| life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
| nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
| protection of the laws._
|
| The alternative "right to privacy" has been found by
| other cases in the generic 9th amendment:
|
| _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
| shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
| retained by the people._
| ketzu wrote:
| The universal declaration of human rights 12 [1] contains the
| very important word "arbitrary" as a qualifier of privacy
| violations.
|
| > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with
| his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks
| upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
| protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
|
| One reason for this has broad applicability: Even inalienable
| human rights can be in conflict with each other. So solutions
| must weight them against each other, but will ultimately
| violate one or more of the clashing rights.
|
| The UDHR also recognizes the that even the article 3
| "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
| person" is limited as in so far people may be arrested (and
| therefore deprived of their freedom) by giving the explicit
| article 9 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
| detention or exile." Again, with the arbitrary qualifier.
|
| I believe, recognizing that even these funamental rights
| clash with each other is important. Often I feel that online
| discussion have each side pick the one in favor of their
| position and ignoring that other rights are in conflict with
| that position.
|
| But as you said, it is also important to recognize that there
| are bullshit excuses.
|
| [1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
| rights/ind...
| elmo2you wrote:
| I agree with you.
|
| My main reason for not bringing up the internal
| complications of the UDHR was to not add confusion, but you
| are completely right about how some of these rights can
| conflict.
|
| You are equally right about the "arbitrary" part. However,
| when it comes to today's trade in personal profiles and
| governments scooping up everything they can get their hands
| on (legalized or not), I very strongly believe that all of
| it rather clearly fits the classification of "arbitrary".
|
| I will even agree with that I picked an (extreme) side. But
| maybe not because I can't see nuance or because I ignore
| (at least not in private) what conflicts with my position.
|
| It's more about being sick and tired of listening for
| decades to blatant privacy abusers arrogantly (and
| incorrectly) claiming that what they do is legal .. and how
| we just all should accept this new reality. It sure didn't
| help to see governments either buying that bullshit or
| simply not deal with it because of how it could harm their
| own (surveillance) interests.
|
| Considering the now obvious rampant abuse and how far I
| believe we have veered off from how all this probably
| should have developed (in an ideal world), I'm convinced
| that the time for being nice and nuanced about all this has
| long passed.
|
| "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
| because it is a merger of state and corporate power" --
| Benito Mussolini
|
| Note: such a merger does not have to be overtly voluntary.
| It can also be a government seemingly dictating
| corporations or corporations covertly running a government.
| It's all about the two somehow joining forces (even if only
| because of shared interests and possibly still for
| different reasons), especially when against the interests
| of most citizens.
| nemoniac wrote:
| The European Union has the GDPR which offers protection of
| privacy and personal data. Mail and telecoms are covered by
| other legislation
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
| 101008 wrote:
| So taking a screenshot of a Instagram convesation and sharing
| on Twitter or Facebook or whenever is ilegal and against the
| constitution?
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Yes, and in fact avoiding abuses like this are part of the
| digital education offered in school. People are also pretty
| careful about asking for permission before publishing a
| person's photo.
|
| Swiss discretion is not only a marketing tactic, it is also a
| good habit many people keep.
| dghughes wrote:
| >...avoiding abuses like this are part of the digital
| education offered in school.
|
| I would hope that schools teach "don't publish anything you
| don't want shared" that would be smarter.
|
| If I post an add in a newspaper, many copies are sold, and
| then someone copies my add that should be expected. The
| Internet is one big newspaper it's a public forum and
| privacy shouldn't be expected or assumed.
| dheera wrote:
| > All persons have the right to receive respect for their
| private and family life, home, and secrecy of the mails and
| telecommunications.
|
| I really wish the US had this. Here, even simple acts like
| registering to vote or getting a driver license, bank account,
| credit card means your personal residence gets leaked to
| spammers, scammers, data brokers, and eventually, stalkers.
|
| There really should be laws saying that personal addresses
| cannot be given to third parties without explicit, optional,
| opt-in consent.
| ghaff wrote:
| The information in voter registration isn't "leaked." It's
| public as a matter of record. (The details probably vary by
| state.) So are real estate purchases. (Although the latter
| can be gotten around in various ways.) There are tradeoffs
| between transparency and privacy.
| dheera wrote:
| That's a problem. If I knew it was going to be given out, I
| would probably have not registered to vote, and I wasn't
| told about that by the people who helped me register. I
| don't think I agreed to any ToS that said that my address
| would be available to the public.
|
| As much as I think voter turnout is important, making
| personal addresses accessible to the public crosses the
| line for me.
| KirillPanov wrote:
| I'm thinking of buying a condemned, uninhabitable house in a
| tax foreclosure auction simply so I can list it as my
| residential address. Most places that demand a utility bill
| will accept a property tax bill, so it doesn't even have to
| have working water/power (the cheapest doomshacks have both
| shut off). You'd be surprised how cheap some of these places
| are. But it does have to show up as "residential" in the USPS
| databases.
| dheera wrote:
| My best solution right now is a UPS box, which gives you a
| proper street address.
|
| Most places that ask for utility bills will accept a phone
| bill or insurance bill or some such which you can have
| arranged to be sent to that address.
|
| I'd be interested to know if there are similar services
| that are cheaper and ideally less well-known than UPS but
| equally reliable. Delivery to my real address with the
| ability to trust them with my real address would also be
| cool to have.
|
| BTW -- if you have cash to burn, I'd think that renting a
| cheap studio somewhere that you don't actually live in (and
| as a bonus, can use as a storage unit, or sublease to
| someone if the lease allows) would be cheaper and more
| peace-of-mind than dealing with property taxes, crime,
| pests, and other issues around an uninhabitable house in
| your name.
| ghaff wrote:
| You could probably check out RV and van life forums. One
| question would be the degree to which you can get away
| with giving the state (for drivers license/ID/tax
| purposes), company, etc. a "fake" address that is not a
| residential address.
|
| A lot depends on what you think you're guarding against
| and how many compromises you're willing to make. For
| example, you can't actually buy a house and remain
| anonymous unless you set up some shell company which I
| assume is expensive and probably has tax consequences.
|
| I agree that buying a foreclosed property sounds like a
| massive headache and doesn't even really solve the
| problem of having to give your address to someone if you
| want anything delivered.
| KirillPanov wrote:
| > My best solution right now is a UPS box, which gives
| you a proper street address.
|
| USPS maintains a _very_ immaculately curated list of
| CMRAs (Commercial Mail Receiving Agents). It 's not hard
| because they need to register with USPS in order to
| receive mail on behalf of customers who pay them for
| mail-receiving service. USPS is allowed to deny them mail
| delivery if they refuse to register, and does.
|
| Every place that wants to know your residential address,
| _and insists that it is actually residential,_ checks the
| address you provide against this list.
|
| Side note: I knew a woman who bought a storefront that
| had previously been a mailboxes-etc type place. It was a
| complete nightmare for her, none of the banks or insurers
| or credit card companies would believe that was her
| business' physical address because it was on that list.
| Apparently it takes 1-2 years to fall off the list.
| Eventually she had to switch to a small local bank and
| have the bank manager come to physically inspect the
| location so they could override the databroker software.
|
| > renting a cheap studio somewhere
|
| That's an ongoing recurring cost. Also nobody will rent a
| place unless it's (somewhat) inhabitable; buying an
| uninhabitable toxic dump is actually cheaper than renting
| anything that can be advertised as inhabitable.
|
| Last of all, I am completely fed up with landlords
| insisting on credit checks. The data brokers exploit this
| like you wouldn't believe. That's why they have such
| perfectly accurate residential addresses for all renters.
|
| > peace-of-mind than dealing with property taxes, crime,
| pests,
|
| Property taxes are beyond easy. You don't even need to
| receieve the bill! The amount you owe is a matter of
| public record, and on the web in almost every
| jurisdiction. Once a year: look it up, buy a postal money
| order with cash, write the parcel number on it, mail it,
| done. Property taxes are also based on the value of the
| property, so for a toxic dump the taxes are tiny.
|
| Crime and pests don't matter if you don't visit the
| location. Take the mailbox off the front of the house
| after closing so no mail can be delivered there by
| accident.
|
| Definitely buy it through an LLC so that long-tail events
| (it burns down taking the neighbor's house with it, kids
| break in and injure themselves, etc) don't come back to
| you.
| ghaff wrote:
| Would there be any reason not just to buy undeveloped
| land instead? (Not sure when a property parcel gets
| assigned an address.)
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Jameson Lopp had spent tens of thousands of dollars or more
| on lawyers to make his life untracable after the CIA got
| into his house, and he shared a lot of what he did.
| KirillPanov wrote:
| Um, CIA? Sounds tinfoily.
|
| I'm aware that he's been the target of at least one
| mugging attempt, and I think he even maintains a list of
| people who were robbed as a result of being high-profile
| early adopters of bitcoin.
|
| But the CIA? Are you sure aliens weren't involved?
| wombatmobile wrote:
| Switzerland has an awesome electoral system [1]. Instead of being
| ruled by a president or a prime minister who can be polarising,
| divisive, or selective, Switzerland has an Executive Council.
|
| The 7 member Executive Council is composed of the top 7
| candidates from each election. The chairperson of the executive
| council rotates each year, so that the top 4 vote winners each
| get a turn at being chairperson.
|
| This means that different social and political priorities get
| implemented in turn. It also means the way the government works
| is more cooperative, because each council member, including the
| chairperson, knows there will be a new chairperson next year.
|
| So, if a pro-business candidate places 1st, and an environment
| candidate 2nd, and a social welfare candidate 3rd, and a
| libertarian candidate 4th, it is in all their interests to
| cooperate and create legislation that serves all of their
| interests as much as possible. Instead of disregarding the
| environment, the pro-business council member is encouraged to
| develop green business initiatives that will be supported for the
| full 4 year term under the different chairs.
|
| The system creates a leadership team that looks for win-win,
| rather than a sole victor who can abuse majority rule.
|
| [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_(Switzerland)
| zorked wrote:
| It has its advantages and disadvantages. It is also the
| political system that caused this:
|
| "In 1991 following a decision by the Federal Supreme Court of
| Switzerland, Appenzell Innerrhoden (AI) became the last Swiss
| canton to grant women the vote on local issues."
|
| Notice how it was a court decision, not a result of the
| political process. I'd say 1991 is a bit too late to have full
| voting rights for women.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
| jeofken wrote:
| How can you so sure that your ideal is how they should live?
|
| What I admire about the Swiss is how they live and let live -
| they may disagree with the neighbour, but let them be.
| zorked wrote:
| Why am I not surprised that HN is a place to find people
| who argue against women's right to vote.
| jeofken wrote:
| HN is very diverse :) But we all argue in good faith and
| are willing to yield to reason
| momothereal wrote:
| What happens when a council member leaves office unexpectedly,
| i.e. dies or resigns? Does it kick an election for everyone or
| just that one seat?
| dashdot wrote:
| The members of the council are elected by the united
| parliament. They will also elect the successor...
|
| Since it's not done by popular vote, political games in that
| process are rare or just not excessive. The people trust the
| parliament with the process of electing their leaders, you
| better shouldn't fail them. So they mostly elect according to
| the current concordance.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| Good question. I'm not sure exactly how the successor is
| chosen, but this section from Wikipedia indicates just the
| one member is replaced:
|
| > Until 1999, the Constitution mandated that no canton could
| have more than one representative on the Federal Council.
| Until 1987, the place of origin was used to determine which
| canton a Federal Councilor was from. After 1987, the place of
| residence (or, for councilors who were previously members of
| the Federal Assembly or of a Canton's legislative or
| executive body, the canton from which they were elected)
| became the determinant factor. Nothing prevented candidates
| from moving to politically expedient cantons, though, and the
| rule was abandoned in 1999. Since then, the Constitution has
| mandated an equitable distribution of seats among the cantons
| and language regions of the country, without setting concrete
| quotas. Whenever a member resigns, he/she is generally
| replaced by someone who is not only from the same party, but
| also the same language region. In 2006, however, Joseph
| Deiss, a French Swiss, resigned and was succeeded by Doris
| Leuthard, a German-speaking Swiss, and in 2016, Eveline
| Widmer-Schlumpf, German-speaking, was succeeded by Guy
| Parmelin, a French Swiss.
| marcod wrote:
| Well, that same system also voted on banning Muslim face
| coverings ("Experts estimate that at most a few dozen Muslim
| women wear full-face coverings in the country of 8.5 million
| people."), while a pandemic is going on and face coverings for
| protection are recommended.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/health-legislation-coronavirus-pa...
| jeofken wrote:
| Is it not more of an expression of how the general public of
| (native) Europeans want to keep their country for their
| people and culture
| wombatmobile wrote:
| You seem to be expressing an opinion about banning Muslim
| face coverings.
|
| I am not responding to your expression of opinion - just
| clarifying how the Swiss electoral system is structured.
|
| That vote was a referendum, which is another component of the
| Swiss system, separate and complimentary to the Executive
| Council.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
| bitcharmer wrote:
| What's wrong with banning a backwards custom that limits
| women's rights?
| lwkl wrote:
| Let's stop a backwards custom that is practiced by 30
| people with a backwards law that limit's clothing choices
| for seven Million people.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I'm friends with a few Muslim women and can assure you
| that it has nothing to do with choice.
| XorNot wrote:
| Because the presumption is that the women in question are
| being forced to do this and don't want to.
|
| But your solution is to implement a law which punishes the
| victim, rather then doing _anything_ about their presumed
| victimizer.
|
| If the women who didn't want to wear the covering didn't
| want to wear it, what is stopping them from simply not
| doing it to start with? The answer of course is husband's,
| brothers, family etc. and probably that they'd be
| recognized in their community.
|
| But this is someone's religion - a fair bit more important
| to them then the laws of the state in a lot of cases. So
| you haven't answered how you're going to protect those
| women from being targeted and forced to simply never leave
| the house, if they are being targeted by people who are
| forcing them to do something they don't want to.
|
| Your law offers no solution to this - and again -
| implements itself by _targeting the apparent victims it
| proposes to protect_ with punishment.
|
| Setting aside that the government can stay the hell out of
| what I choose to wear, this is just a monumentally stupid
| approach to anything.
| ulucs wrote:
| Burqua isn't islamic to begin with anyway.
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| If even SWITZERLAND votes for socialism : congrats, capitalism,
| you've played yourself
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post generic comments and/or ideological flamebait
| to HN. It leads to generic threads and/or ideological
| flamewars, which we're trying to avoid because they're tedious
| and turn nasty.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| oh ok, professionals have standards
|
| my bad !
|
| I will elaborate and be "more thoughtful and substantive" as
| written in the guidelines, next time
|
| I didn't know where to place the cursor, since the issue was
| inherently politic and not about technology, as the article
| states
|
| But this article deserved political comments, nonetheless
| sparkling wrote:
| uhm, what?
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Not sure if it is helpful to reduce every issue to a one-
| dimensional scale of capitalism/socialism. Particularly this
| specific issue is about privacy culture, corruptability of big
| tech, government and use of technologies, surveillance, etc...
| There are so many more societal and just plain epistemological
| axis than just socialism/capitalism.
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| That can also be read on the scale of "privatize anything
| because the state should just make 'laws'"/"have a public
| sector to offer basic services to citizens", that is a debate
| in Europe
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| And the results are pretty similar to the 2018 vote on
| cancelling their public broadcaster, which also highlighted
| questions of corruptibility of big companies, but was not
| around privacy, technology, or surveillance.
|
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/vote-march-4--
| 2018_att...
| paddim8 wrote:
| In what way is this a vote for socialism?
| ILikeBikes wrote:
| They don't trust private companies, and they'd rather have
| their government to manage their IDs. As explained in the
| article.
| ddingus wrote:
| Great, as they should. The basic civics should not be private,
| open and performed under the public eye.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| it's surprising to me there was a vote on this.
| wmkn wrote:
| If these private companies are anything like Serafe I can see why
| this referendum ended in a no.
| ncphil wrote:
| "... almost no government has the IT capacity and resources to
| single-handedly develop an eID quickly and to the appropriate
| standards." Bullshit. We're talking identity management here. Any
| government that can't handle that internally doesn't deserve to
| exist. What that's really about is feathering the nests of tech
| industry donors (and/or the non-tech middlemen or middlewomen who
| seem to grow like weeds around the tech sector). A handful of IdM
| SMEs with serious field experience could set it up in six months:
| assuming they had sufficient backing from their government
| employer to overcome static at Layer 8 of the OSI Model, you
| know,"politics".
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Indeed. Someone's making excuses to support a privatized
| deployment.
| avereveard wrote:
| Our country rolled out two certification based systems (Carta
| Nazionale Servizi which then got rolled into the Carta di
| Identita Elettronica), plus a federation based system built
| around SAML (Sistema Pubblico di Identita Digitale) where you
| can access to most italian bureoucracy.
|
| And we're talking about Italy, not some first rated
| technological paradise.
| genericacct wrote:
| Yes and now your picture, a picture of your id card, your
| email and telephone are in the hands of the same people who
| store banking passwords in plaintext..
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Your picture, e-mail and telephone is mostly public (social
| media, etc), and the government would have your ID card
| information anyway - I don't see how this is worse?
| avereveard wrote:
| because of the certificate inside, the id card without the
| pin is worthless; having the identity split from
| authorization is an absolute win. compare and contrast with
| the SSN number.
|
| also, the government already owns all my data, from birth
| onward. the authentication system makes it so forgery is
| much harder from the officials themselves, so this protects
| me from that as well.
| mellavora wrote:
| "Any government that can't handle that internally doesn't
| deserve to exist."
|
| So, like the US?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| This. In Europe you'll find the likes of Capgemini, Accenture,
| Cognizant, etc. hovering like flies around government IT
| projects.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| IT services companies that work on government contracts in
| Switzerland are much smaller.
|
| And they're usually pretty competent, especially the few ones
| that work for the federal government.
| osrec wrote:
| And they keep getting awarded contracts despite their
| continued poor delivery. I really don't understand how their
| terrible track record never seems to impact their ability to
| win more business. I can only assume corruption, but I have
| no evidence of this.
| random5634 wrote:
| Prior delivery is not generally a major consideration in a
| govt RFP award.
|
| This is in part because no score is ever released related
| to prior delivery (ie, no central assessment record), and
| attempts to include it get tied up in process issues (ie,
| rights to respond, litigation) or claims it is subjective.
| It also overlaps with govt agency disfunction around scope
| and requirements and no govt manager wants a failed
| project, so everyone just sweeps them under the rug and
| keeps moving. It is crazy though, you are literally hiring
| the same HORRIBLE firms over and over.
|
| What is PARAMOUNT is that you be willing spend absolute
| metric tons of UNPAID time responding to RFP's, have enough
| money in bank to lose 4 out of 5, be willing to go through
| 2 year RFP processes, be willing to agree to every item on
| the requirements lists filled with further buzzwords and
| "standards". This does NOT attract high performing
| companies, no competent engineer would even put up with
| this / sit through this. So you get body shop type
| consulting firms, using giant java framework and other
| solutions, and everything is insanely siloed.
|
| The crazy pricing is often justified because the hassle in
| dealing with these contracts from a contract admin overhead
| can absolutely DWARF actual deliverables, and nothing has
| to be logical (and sometimes is not).
|
| My recommendations here would be either:
|
| a) just pay to bring stuff in house so you get cooperation,
| develop open source apps and prohibit any scope creep
| outside of absolute minimum needed until project is in
| operation. EVERY freaking agency hangs 100's of new
| requirements they never even used before onto these
| projects - solutions can be undeliverable and unusable as a
| result, for example 40 questions PER VACINNE SHOT here in
| California is the height of stupidity to make these idiots
| feel important.
|
| b) pay for actual use / adoption, and let there be a
| somewhat free market. A lot of time the users of any govt
| system have ZERO input. Oddly, if they let agencies find
| their own solutions on a smaller scale, whatever you lose
| in "efficiency" by not having the megaproject (hint nothing
| - mega projects = disaster in govt land) you would see some
| natural winning solutions start to bubble up. I worked with
| an agency with a totally fantastic contract management /
| invoicing system, and I kept on wondering, holy hell, they
| actually got it right. I started to see other agencies use
| it in neighboring govts - it was great - people really
| liked it (super easy use, allowed users to do the google,
| Microsoft etc login even which is unheard of) and it was
| fast which is also rare.
|
| But then someone convinced the head tech folks they should
| stomp on everything with the new and improved people. They
| actually had to roll back the mega project for another year
| (after years of dev) because it didn't even cover a
| fraction of what old systems easily did.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| RFPs frequently reference past activity. That's just not
| accurate.
|
| The reality is that you only hear about failed projects.
| When was the last time that you heard about taxes not
| being collected or welfare payments not being paid or
| SNAP cards not being refilled?
|
| It's all background activity, and those awful contractor
| companies are often responsible for material aspects of
| delivery.
| ganstyles wrote:
| Their ability to win business is based on their expertise
| at writing responses to RFPs in a successful way, not in
| their ability to deliver. Also, they do have a few
| successful projects, to some standard of success, which
| they point to in the RFP responses as a "successful" track
| record. Often the ability to point to an almost perfectly
| analogous project and writing the responses in the
| "correct" way is all it takes.
| sircastor wrote:
| This reminds me of how much universities value the
| ability of staff and students that can write grant
| applications that get awarded.
| toyg wrote:
| "writing responses to RFPs in a successful way" really
| means "successfully identifying decision-makers at top
| levels and brib-- 'charm' them into compliance", often
| even "dictating how RFPs should be written so that they
| will be the only ones who know exactly how to reply to
| them in the only acceptable way".
| [deleted]
| RedShift1 wrote:
| Belgium has been doing digital identities for years now, we had
| our first identity cards with chip and digital signature I
| think 15 years ago? I frequently use it to sign documents and
| login to some government stuff. So if Belgium, which didn't
| have a government 3 out of the last 10 years, can do it, surely
| Switzerland can do it too.
| EnderWT wrote:
| Except Belgium didn't build it. They contracted it out to
| Zetes. https://peopleid.zetes.com/en/reference/eid-belgium
| [deleted]
| edoceo wrote:
| And Estonia too!
| dijit wrote:
| and Sweden. But these are largely outsourced to private
| companies iirc. There was a scandal in Estonia where they
| had to recall all the ID's because the main private key
| which signed them all got leaked (and that key was held by
| a private company)
| tialaramex wrote:
| To be more specific than the existing "No" reply, what
| famously happened is that Estonia's IDs used Infineon-
| based chips for a period of time with 2048-bit RSA keys
| and Infineon's RSA implementation mints RSA keys with a
| peculiar property that, once you know about it, makes
| breaking them much cheaper than it should be.
| CVE-2017-15361 - for HN readers it's more likely you were
| impacted by this defect in a Yubikey.
|
| "Much cheaper" here means we might expect criminals to
| break the RSA key for an individual Estonian ID card for
| less than a million bucks, whereas by design this ought
| to be impractical at any plausible price. It doesn't mean
| your bored teenager can make a fake ID on his laptop on a
| Friday evening. As a practical matter it seems likely key
| officials & police could be bribed for less than a
| million bucks, but forging RSA signatures might still be
| desirable in some circumstances, and anyway of course the
| mere possibility of this happening ruins public trust in
| the scheme.
|
| Estonia switched to P-384 keys on the same platform.
| Unlike choosing random RSA keys (which involve finding
| large primes) choosing a good P-384 key is trivial so
| there's no temptation to come up with clever but insecure
| algorithms to mint keys.
|
| What's interesting about this flaw is that it only
| happens because the keys are minted on the Infineon
| device you own. But we know Estonia has historically had
| some weird incidents which are best explained by keys
| _not_ being minted on device but instead burned into the
| ID card after being made (and potentially recorded)
| elsewhere. Estonia 's laws establishing these cards are
| clear that mustn't happen (if it did the government can
| seamlessly impersonate any ID, including ID issued to
| citizens, non-citizen residents and diplomatic staff) but
| evidence suggests it did, at least a few times and at
| least on some older platforms.
|
| Estonia's IDs are all public using a very different
| scheme to Certificate Transparency, since it assumes you
| trust the Estonian government to decide which IDs exist -
| but with similar effect, if anybody is minting bogus IDs
| there would be a smoking gun in the official public
| records of Estonia.
|
| On the other hand if the government (or a government
| agency perhaps without wider knowledge) has copies of
| some or all keys, they would be able to _decrypt_
| messages sent to citizens / residents using the embedded
| PKI. We would not necessarily have any public evidence
| that this was happening if indeed it was happening.
|
| You should probably be confident in Estonian IDs as proof
| of someone's identity in the usual course of things, but
| it may be prudent _not_ to rely on this to keep secrets
| from the Estonian government or its allies.
| Avamander wrote:
| > There was a scandal in Estonia where they had to recall
| all the ID's because the main private key which signed
| them all got leaked (and that key was held by a private
| company)
|
| No.
| dijit wrote:
| Helpful comment.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/estonia-gemalto-
| idUSL8N1WD5J...
|
| > Estonia's Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) said in a
| statement Gemalto had created private key codes for
| individual cards, leaving the government IDs vulnerable
| to external cyber attack, rather than embedding it on the
| card's chip as promised.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| It's not an issue of whether it's technically feasible do it,
| but whether it's feasible to do it with appropriate
| safeguards that protect privacy and anonymity online while
| authenticating in a targetted way to those end points that
| need it.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > six months
|
| I think you may underestimate the system needed. Identity
| management is the tip of the iceberg: this needs to tie into
| any future digital currency, income taxes, property ownership,
| government benefits, and who knows what else. Any off-the-shelf
| product will need customization. I'm not saying it can't be
| done.... it SHOULD be done. But not in 6 months.
| mcny wrote:
| >> six months
|
| > Identity management is the tip of the iceberg: this needs
| to tie into any future digital currency, income taxes,
| property ownership, government benefits, and who knows what
| else.
|
| I'll put my shoe on my head if you can find me a private
| company that can do this in six months. Previously on HN: CDC
| website built by Deloitte at a cost of $44M is abandoned due
| to bugs (technologyreview.com)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975110
|
| 1167 points by donsupreme 35 days ago
|
| 664 comments
| edoceo wrote:
| Vendors with years of time to build can't even track
| Cannabis properly. Human are much harder than trees to keep
| track of.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I don't think you could do it in six months, but the good news
| is you wouldn't need to. Passports already have an x509
| certificate in them saying, "we are the government, and this is
| Jeff". So the government already know how to do this, they just
| were trying to give a gift to their buddies in private industry
| and they got caught and got their hand slapped by the citizens.
|
| There's actually nothing new here: digital IDs were already a
| thing, corruption has always been a thing, and the referendum
| process worked correctly to remind the politicians who is in
| charge.
| tialaramex wrote:
| > Passports already have an x509 certificate in them saying,
| "we are the government, and this is Jeff"
|
| No they don't but I can see why you might think that.
|
| ePassports (the ones with the stylised "chip" image on the
| cover) do have X.509 certificates baked into them. And
| ePassports do say "We are the government, and this is Jeff"
| (if you are Jeff) but that's not what the X.509 certificate
| says.
|
| Each X.509 certificate is one of a relatively small number
| minted by your government which says "We are the government
| of country X and this is a public document signing key".
|
| Then the _passports_ all contain raw data (such as a
| photograph and summary information about their subject) with
| this certificate and a signature over the raw passport data
| that can be authenticated with the public signing key.
|
| So there's an X.509 certificate but it isn't for Jeff, and
| there's data about Jeff, but it isn't in an X.509
| certificate.
| ben_w wrote:
| Building a system which works for 99% of the population, 99% of
| the times they want to use it, sure.
|
| That 1% though, is going to have _all_ the weird edge cases.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Seriously. I suppose Santa's elves issue drivers licenses.
| sigzero wrote:
| > set it up in six months
|
| There is no way it could be done in 6 months given any
| reasonable parameters you care to throw at it.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| > We're talking identity management here. Any government that
| can't handle that internally doesn't deserve to exist.
|
| ... I mean, as a French citizen who kind of wants my government
| to keep existing, I also agree with the statement you quote?
|
| Our government's public-facing IT systems have gotten better
| over the last few years, but my default expectations for any
| new projects would still be for them to mess it up.
|
| Of course, the problem is I'd also expect the average
| contractor to mess it up in very similar ways, for similar
| reasons.
| ddeyar wrote:
| I'm super happy about this result. I hope the government will
| learn from this case.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-07 23:00 UTC)