[HN Gopher] Digital ID, a new way to create and present an ID in...
___________________________________________________________________
Digital ID, a new way to create and present an ID in Apple Wallet
Author : meetpateltech
Score : 152 points
Date : 2025-11-12 16:40 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| robin_reala wrote:
| ...in the US.
| barbazoo wrote:
| ... for U.S. passports.
| pkolaczk wrote:
| We don't need it in Poland. We've been using a similar but
| official government issued app with ID, driving license, car
| documents for years now. Works both on Android and iPhone.
| Can be also used for logging into government web apps like
| taxes, for document signing or for voting. And it reminds me
| whenever my car insurance expires or it needs the annual
| check. Pretty impressive IMHO.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I was thinking of US permanent residents that have an
| interest in this but no US passport.
| atonse wrote:
| I can see them eventually doing this. Nothing on the tech
| side stopping them.
|
| You gotta start somewhere. They started with Driver's
| Licenses.
| withinboredom wrote:
| And if you live outside the US with a US passport, you can't
| use it.
| willio58 wrote:
| I'm still waiting for the day where 100% of state drivers
| licenses are supported in wallet and anyone requesting ID are
| required to accept them. Quite literally the only reason I have a
| wallet these days is for the drivers license.
| teeray wrote:
| > and anyone requesting ID are required to accept them
|
| This is the big one. I've seen a lot of states where digital
| drivers licenses are issued, but many retailers are like "lol
| no, we want the card." It needs to be legally enshrined as
| identical.
| avs733 wrote:
| I've had state government (including both cops and clerks)
| refuse to acknowledge my digital ID in my state.
| risico wrote:
| Same, although most of the time, at least cops, accept a photo
| of the actual ID card/driver license where I live (Romania), at
| least it worked the last time I got pulled over.
| astroflection wrote:
| Nope. I will continue to have a DL card so I can choose to
| leave my phone at home. When we are required to have our IDs on
| our person at all times I can at least not be tracked
| everywhere I go.
|
| Be watchful for legislation requiring: * us to have our ID on
| our person at all times. * IDs to be issued in digital format
| only.
| EGreg wrote:
| Very much, This! Up voted
| willio58 wrote:
| To be clear I don't want either of those laws to be passed,
| but I'd like the option to have it on my phone and require
| police to respect it
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Be watchful for legislation requiring_
|
| This is the paranoia I don't get. These are not things that
| are going to happen in the US, precisely because so many
| people (like yourself) are against it, and it's a democracy
| and people vote. So putting your drivers license on your
| iPhone isn't some slippery slope.
| the_other wrote:
| > These are not things that are going to happen in the US.
|
| Citation needed.
| 6510 wrote:
| > it's a democracy and people vote
|
| But they never get what they wanted nor what they voted
| for.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I already said why. But to go deeper: the US has, and has
| _always_ had, a strong libertarian and anti-government
| streak among a very large proportion of its citizens. And
| it 's not going away. That's why the US doesn't have a
| national ID, the way so many other countries do. That's
| why adults are not required to carry ID's with them, the
| way it is in many other countries.
|
| These political values are a strong part of American
| culture. The distrust of central government and authority
| has been around since the founding of the country. They
| belong to the most durable of American values.
|
| If the US _still_ doesn 't have a national ID, or require
| citizens to carry ID's, and there's literally _no_
| political movement towards that, what on earth makes you
| think this will change?
|
| Being able to put a driver's license on your phone is
| state-level. It's a form of ID we're OK with. It can't be
| mandatory because not everyone can drive. There's _zero_
| slippery slope here. I just want to carry the card _I
| already have to carry_ when driving or flying, on my
| phone instead of physically. There 's _zero downside_
| here.
|
| Is that enough citation for you?
| pcdoodle wrote:
| >So putting your drivers license on your iPhone isn't some
| slippery slope.
|
| Yes it is. And participating is accepting it.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| Geniuine question, why can't you just have your license in your
| car at all times?
| willio58 wrote:
| Yeah but I need it when I buy a drink too.
| tzs wrote:
| In the US if you need a state ID card and a driver's license
| those are generally combined into a single card. They usually
| only need its driver's license functionality when they are
| driving but often need its ID card functionality when they
| are away from the car and so it generally goes with them.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| Ah, that's why, ok. Didn't know they are combined.
| vel0city wrote:
| I mean, they don't _have_ to be. You can often get a
| state ID card _and_ a driver 's license, but that's
| essentially redundant. More fees, more time, more
| paperwork. Things that require an ID just require some
| state or federally issued photo ID, so you can use a DL,
| a state ID, a passport, etc. When the extreme majority of
| adults are already needing a DL to get groceries why
| bother with another ID.
| voxic11 wrote:
| I wasn't able to find any states where this is the case.
| They all appear to have rules that say you can only be
| issued a state ID or a state drivers license but not both
| at the same time. Additionally federal REAL ID rules have
| the same requirement for REAL ID compliant
| identification.
|
| https://legalclarity.org/can-you-have-a-non-driver-id-
| and-a-...
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-6/chapter-I/part-37/su
| bpa...
|
| So I think the only way to have a government ID card and
| a separate drivers license is to get a passport card and
| a state drivers license.
| vel0city wrote:
| Huh, interesting. It was legal here in my state until
| 2015, I didn't know that had changed.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I've been stopped by cops maybe once per 10 year. In that case
| I'm happy to pay $50 fine for failing to present license which
| they can check on their database anyway.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| This is the way
| jiehong wrote:
| Most of the world isn't even covered by this feature yet, like
| the EU digital id and driving licences.
| tzs wrote:
| Unless your state issues wimpy driver's licenses that fall
| apart if not kept in a wallet why bother with the wallet?
|
| I just carry my driver's license, a credit card, a health
| insurance card, and an Orca card [1] loose in a pants pocket.
|
| [1] Stored value card for several transit agencies in the Puget
| Sound region of Washington.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'd almost certainly lose one or more of them if I did that.
| I use a compact wallet containing no more than I need and it
| also gives me a place to stick the odd luggage check etc.
| beAbU wrote:
| I leave my wallet in my car, because the only reason I need it
| is for my driver license.
|
| My bank, however, has one of those authenticator doohickies
| that I need to use when I make big transactions online. Pop my
| debit card in, enter the pin, and then do a little dance with
| codes back and forth on their internet banking to authenticate
| the transaction.
|
| So I am in this annoying situation where my wallet is _never_
| where I needed it: either I 'm making a payment and I need to
| go to my car to get my card, or I need my license and my wallet
| is on my desk where I forgot it last time.
|
| Google Pay and digital wallets have literally freed up one of
| my jean pockets permanently.
| phantom784 wrote:
| Google Wallet supports this as well, but not for passports, only
| select state drivers licenses.
|
| https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/12436402?hl=en
|
| I wonder if passports will come to Google soon as well - that'd
| open it up nationwide as long as you have a passport.
| Clent wrote:
| Apple also supports select state drivers license.
|
| I would definitely expect Google to follow quickly.
| throw0101d wrote:
| * https://learn.wallet.apple/id#states-list
| FateOfNations wrote:
| Generally the hangup/timeline is with the state government,
| not Apple/Google.
| pxeboot wrote:
| Google Wallet has supported passports for about a year now [1].
| Works great at TSA. You scan it yourself. You never need to
| hand them your unlocked phone.
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/15284332?hl=en
| altairprime wrote:
| Honestly, hooray for dragging the U.S. into everyday people
| having a federal ID in their pocket. Having to check fifty
| different ID layouts times three revisions is a nightmare and no
| one uses passports domestically today outside of airports.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| I feel uncomfortable with these changes. Between this, digital
| currencies, airlines not doing printed boarding passes, metros
| requiring smartphones, ... it feels like we are going to lose
| control and privacy as consumers.
| xd1936 wrote:
| I am never handing my phone to a cop.
| bitpush wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but if you think of it what we're
| doing today - handing over the one and only official piece of
| document to a) cop b) club bouncer etc.
|
| They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface it.
| All of that is a possibilty.
|
| You could argue, a sufficiently locked down phone is a better
| alternative. If they do something, you'll only lose $$
| barbazoo wrote:
| > They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface
| it. All of that is a possibility.
|
| But they can't potentially look at your banking app, read
| private notes, messages and emails, operate your home
| automation, look at your calendar, etc. if all they have is a
| plastic card.
| magnetic wrote:
| They can't do that either with Wallet items. That's kind of
| the point: you can hand over your phone with a wallet item
| "unlocked" and visible on the screen, and that's all
| they'll have access to.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Sure but then you've already given them your phone after
| which you don't know what happens. Plus it's a lot of
| leverage for them to have it, e.g. "unlock or you won't
| get it back".
| iamnothere wrote:
| Until they covertly plug it in to the Cellebrite unit
| back in the patrol car.
| therein wrote:
| I feel exactly the opposite about what you said. The ID is
| just an ID, my phone is my phone with other stuff in it.
| ayntkilove wrote:
| ... and if they hold the document upside down they can see
| your browser history and with a UV flashlight they can quick
| scan your app list for intel.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| If I lose a piece of ID, I've lost a piece of paper/plastic.
| I'm inconvenienced, but can easily get a replacement and have
| the original invalidated.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > have the original invalidated.
|
| Only for it's "original" use case - traffic laws
| enforcement. I don't think any other entity can validate if
| this piece of plastic is invalidated or not. Also, it's not
| like information on lost ID gets erased when you get a new
| one: still has your address, DOB and other info that can be
| misused.
| op00to wrote:
| > have the original invalidated.
|
| I once had three valid drivers' licenses, because my wallet
| was stolen (later returned), and I left my ID at a bar. All
| three were valid for use at the same time despite being
| reported lost/stolen - they had identical barcodes, etc.
| runako wrote:
| Exactly this. If your only license is on your phone, and the
| police officer decides to confiscate your license, now you
| have a lot more problems beyond not being able to legally
| drive.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I am never handing my phone to a cop._
|
| The point is that you don't have to:
|
| > _To present a Digital ID in person, users can double-click
| the side button or Home button to access Apple Wallet and
| select Digital ID. From there, they can hold their iPhone or
| Apple Watch near an identity reader, review the specific
| information being requested, and use Face ID or Touch ID to
| authenticate._
|
| "hold ... near ... review"
|
| If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific
| information" would be your birthday, and that is all that would
| be sent over. With a regular ID, verifying your age would mean
| handing over your physical card which would have all sorts of
| other non-relevant information to the task at hand.
|
| Further:
|
| > _Only the information needed for a transaction is presented,
| and the user has the opportunity to review and authorize the
| information being requested with Face ID or Touch ID before it
| is shared. Users do not need to unlock, show, or hand over
| their device to present their ID._
|
| AIUI, cops would have a verifying device or app and the
| information requested--which you authorize--is sent over
| wirelessly. Kind of like how you no longer have to hand over
| your credit/debit cards to (possibly malicious) cashiers, and
| just keep it in your hand and tap. (Older people may remember
| the carbon copy 'ka-chunk' machines.)
|
| With a physical ID you have to hand that over because that is
| the only way the information can be read off of it. With a
| digital ID you can send a copy of your ID _without physical
| exchange_ / handover.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific
| information" would be your birthday, and that is all that
| would be sent over.
|
| Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol nope.
| Big stores will request as much as they can to target you
| with ads.
| op00to wrote:
| You could then decide not to buy the alcohol. Unless you
| are severely addicted, you will not die if you don't
| purchase alcohol.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Yes, but the point is that we already know (app
| permissions, cookie tracking consents) that "ask only
| what you need to function" isn't how sellers operate.
|
| Also, you need an ID to buy some OTC medicine and to pick
| up some prescribed medicine. As well some other cases
| when ID needs to be presented, but those probably require
| more than just DOB anyway.
| op00to wrote:
| The irony is that most of the ID-to-buy-medicine rules
| people cite were created by the same GOP lawmakers who
| push voter ID. The Sudafed restrictions came from the
| Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, introduced by a
| Republican sponsor and signed by a Republican president.
| If you are worried about creeping ID requirements, look
| at who actually writes these laws.
| v3xro wrote:
| Again, citing the UK here, if you go to your doctor and
| get a prescription, all you need to pick it up is your
| name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID
| needed. I do not have statistics for the false pickup
| rates but I very much doubt it is anything to worry
| about.
| bradfa wrote:
| In the US lots of prescriptions work the same. But some
| prescriptions and some over the counter (OTC) medicine
| requires presenting a legal ID to purchase because of a
| variety of laws.
|
| Blood pressure prescriptions, no ID lots of times. OTC
| meds which are ingredients to make meth, need an ID.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said
| verbally over the counter) - no ID needed.
|
| Does it include controlled substances? Sure, I can pick
| up ibuprofen 800mg with just my name and DOB said
| verbally, but whatever is on schedule II (US term, but
| think Adderall) I required to show my ID.
| mrighele wrote:
| Following the same reasoning, one could decide not to
| open any website, their TV, their phone and even their
| fridge. None of these will kill you
|
| While should companies tracking us to make more money
| affect our habits?
| mpeg wrote:
| If anything, digitalisation will make it easier.
|
| Currently if you hand your id, the cashier _could_
| theoretically take a photo of it but it 's an extra (and
| awkward) step, and then someone would have to figure out
| how to extract the data and make it usable.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol
| nope. Big stores will request as much as they can to target
| you with ads._
|
| And you will now be informed about what is being asked for,
| as opposed to the current situation where if you are
| handing over your physical ID you may have no way of
| knowing what is being gleaned from it.
|
| And being informed, you can choose to accept or decline.
| You can also question the need for it (the cashier won't be
| of much help, but inquiries can be done to head office).
| 0x457 wrote:
| So assuming your goal is to buy something that requires
| you to show an ID (don't move the goalpost with "you can
| just not buy it"), my options will be:
|
| 1) show a digital ID where I can see that they are asking
| for much more
|
| 2) show my physical ID where they can see much more, they
| need
|
| I mean, I'd pick #1 because at least it will be used just
| for marketing and not noting my address as I buy a lot of
| travel supplies.
| raoulj wrote:
| For buying alcohol, I wonder if faceID will also somehow be
| required to verify the holder of the phone corresponds to the
| digital id
| FateOfNations wrote:
| Data point: Albertsons/Safeway/etc. is rolling out new card
| readers that have a camera in them. Software support likely
| isn't in place yet, but that's definitely something they
| are thinking about long term.
| v3xro wrote:
| When buying alcohol in a physical store, in the UK we have
| the "Challenge 21/25" schemes
| https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-
| alcohol... such that yes if you look very young the
| cashier/automated checkout assistant will ask for your ID but
| in most cases, they will approve without checking anything. I
| do not see any positives to requiring identification for all
| transactions.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| The cashier wouldn't need to ask your ID at all?
|
| Since the phone would authenticate your age as well as give
| the payment information.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I do not see any positives to requiring identification
| for all transactions._
|
| It is not about requiring ID for _all_ transactions, it is
| about when ID _is actually_ asked for (which may _not_ be
| every time), the information can be provided in a more
| privacy-friendly way.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| The Netherlands is quite similar. You need to be 18 to buy
| alcohol, but only need to show an ID if you're under 25.
|
| It's pointless to ask someone who's clearly in their
| fourties for an ID in this case.
| moralestapia wrote:
| That is usually not something you choose.
| dmix wrote:
| Only if you're being arrested. If you're at a traffic stop or
| tons of other scenarios would never need to.
| runako wrote:
| It's normal for police at a traffic stop to take your
| license back to their car while they write a ticket or
| whatever. Until laws change, having your only license on
| your phone means handing your phone to an officer until
| they are satisfied they no longer need it.
| dmix wrote:
| Yeah that's why OP said he wouldn't hand his phone over.
| Implying he prefers a physical one.
| tjohns wrote:
| States that have implemented mobile drivers licenses are
| starting to issue handheld readers to police officers,
| precisely so what you describe doesn't happen.
|
| The people building this know nobody wants to hand their
| phone over to the police.
| Muromec wrote:
| Surely police would never say their reader is broken and
| never make it your problem
| runako wrote:
| Police sometimes confiscate licenses (rightly or
| wrongly).
|
| Having your license confiscated when it doubles as your
| wallet, MFA device for work, and primary communications
| device sounds like a disaster.
| jlokier wrote:
| You make a good point.
|
| In principle the police Wallet reader could have a
| function to virtually suspend the license, instead of
| physically confiscating your phone.
|
| I wonder if they thought of that, and I wonder if police
| would use the option or confiscate the phone anyway.
| chiph wrote:
| > They will also be asked to use their iPhone to read the chip
| embedded on the back of their passport to ensure the data's
| authenticity.
|
| I installed an RFID app from the Apple app store (3rd party, not
| from Apple) and it couldn't read the chip in my passport. Perhaps
| Apple's firmware was filtering those out at the time?
| chocolatkey wrote:
| I was able to use the (free) app "ReadID Me" to decode passport
| information months ago
| sublimefire wrote:
| There was a post from trailofbits blog recently about how
| passport crypto works. Kind of related here.
|
| I wonder if this is some zero knowledge proofs here or what?
| Reading the passport and its chip implies some terminal
| authentication capabilities coming from Apple devices. Passport
| would not allow reading sensitive data from the chip unless the
| terminal is valid.
|
| Another question is if Apple is allowed to read your biometric
| data?
| internetter wrote:
| > Reading the passport and its chip implies some terminal
| authentication capabilities coming from Apple devices
|
| They've had some form of this for ages with Apple Pay
| sublimefire wrote:
| Sorry I was meaning to say "passport terminal" capabilities
| which would require a cert to be issued by a country whose
| passport chips you want to read. Well maybe they had this for
| a while but AFAIK you could not read passport details with an
| apple device before
| frankus wrote:
| From that article it looks like all you need to establish a
| secure connection with the passport is some data that is
| printed in plaintext on the photo page.
|
| It seems (again, if I'm reading correctly) that you only
| really need a private key in order to _issue_ a passport.
| tjohns wrote:
| Yes, that's correct. There have been apps on iOS and
| Android that can read your passport via NFC for ages. As
| you noted, all you need is the plaintext information
| printed on the photo page to generate the Basic Access
| Control key, which will let you connect to the passport's
| NFC chip.
|
| Issuing a passport is a different issue entirely, since
| you need a country's document signing key.
| vessenes wrote:
| quick note -- I believe you need a separate key to get
| biometric data out of the passports, but it's been a
| while since I looked at passport digital infrastructure.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I still find it bonkers reading passport doesn't validate it
| against it some centralised database. Like, $1 in your bank
| account and a credit card is more advanced than a passport.
| tjohns wrote:
| Passports are inherently decentralized, which is needed
| because not all countries cooperate with each other - or have
| the same budget for technology/security. It's really way
| something at global scale could work.
|
| (There are national-level databases, but presumably not every
| country has access to every other country's database.)
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I struggle to imagine international airport without a
| credit card reader. Maybe some borders in some countries
| could've struggled before cheap ubiquitous internet, but
| not anymore. And even then it's their problem.
|
| Countries don't need access to database. They need to
| validate public key / hashsum is valid (or something along
| those lines).
| Muromec wrote:
| Thats a thing actually
| Muromec wrote:
| Passports have a signed data blob to ensure its authentic and
| usually a revocation lust too.
| saguntum wrote:
| Link to the blog for anyone else looking
|
| https://blog.trailofbits.com/2025/10/31/the-cryptography-beh...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45770875
| sugarpimpdorsey wrote:
| Can we use this for voter ID?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| You have to show ID to vote in my country, I thought that was
| the normal thing.
| hexis wrote:
| It is, many states in the US are abnormal in this way.
| pat2man wrote:
| We don't have a national ID here in the US. Passports can be
| quite expensive. Local state ID cards don't prove
| citizenship.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > Passports can be quite expensive.
|
| It's $165 per 10 years if you don't lose it or $65 if you
| just need in place of national ID (i.e. no international
| travel). I think anyone can save up that much in 10 years,
| renewals a bit cheaper btw.
|
| > Local state ID cards don't prove citizenship.
|
| No, but to get a Real ID in any state you have to prove
| you're in the country legally, and in some states to get
| any form of ID you have to prove that.
| op00to wrote:
| Americans do not need to provide ID to vote, so no?
| saguntum wrote:
| In some states you do need ID to vote. Texas, for example.
| op00to wrote:
| Huh, thanks! I am a yankee so I have a bit of a limited
| view.
| pookha wrote:
| Digital ID is a misnomer, it should be called "Digital Social
| Application". These are NOT ID"s. They're government dreamcasted
| app's for managing the lives of civilians.
| alberth wrote:
| As an aside, I've been using TSA Touchless at select airports.
|
| It's pretty slick.
|
| No ID, nor Board Pass needed.
|
| Just walk up to TSA, and only facial recognition is needed. It's
| extremely fast too.
|
| https://www.tsa.gov/touchless-id
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Surely nothing nefarious has ever been promoted with the offer
| of convenience!
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Now that we've got ice walking around with an app that uses
| facial recognition to determine if you're a citizen, fuck the
| facial recognition stuff. This tech should be out of government
| hands.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > Now that we've got ice walking around with an app that uses
| facial recognition to determine if you're a citizen, fuck the
| facial recognition stuff. This tech should be out of
| government hands.
|
| When I was in LAX last week, facial recognition on entry was
| only for US citizens anyway, and for it to work they need to
| take a photo of you when you're leaving. I don't see how it
| helps ICE in any way, plus it's handled by CBP.
|
| Also, it didn't work on me, because I left clean shaved and
| returned with a beard.
| runako wrote:
| > I don't see how it helps ICE in any way, plus it's
| handled by CBP
|
| ICE and CBP are both part of DHS. This data is going to be
| abused, if it is not already.
| Klonoar wrote:
| _> When I was in LAX last week, facial recognition on entry
| was only for US citizens anyway, and for it to work they
| need to take a photo of you when you 're leaving._
|
| I've definitely avoided photos on exit and used it coming
| back in, so I'm not sure this is accurate.
| edot wrote:
| Same here. I always refuse facial recognition when
| possible, but they had no problem using it on return from
| international travel. The systems aren't linked (yet).
| 0x457 wrote:
| Why? They already have photos of you and your biometric
| data. All you're doing is slowing down the line for
| everyone else.
| Klonoar wrote:
| It doesn't slow down the line, they hold you at just
| about every crowded airport until the line for the
| luggage/body scanner are ready for the next person. Even
| if it did, though, I have the right to opt out, so you
| will wait until I've exercised my right. Deal with it. :)
|
| I reject it because I don't believe in a world where
| rampant facial recognition should be the norm.
| 0x457 wrote:
| When I was in Haneda airport, a machine tells you which
| of 4 lines to go to and if you have forgotten there is a
| screen with live camera feed from screen POV and little
| boxes drawn on top kinda above you with your line.
|
| I thought it was pretty neat, but felt super invasive.
|
| CBP facial recognition is far less invasive. It's not an
| instance of "rampant facial recognition" in my opinion.
| There is really no downside, "they" already know you
| might be at the airport because you booked a ticket,
| since most US airports don't let to the air side without
| a ticket. You are already on bunch of cameras inside the
| airport, including right when:
|
| 1) your ID verified by human or by a kiosk
|
| 2) when you drop off your bags
|
| 3) when you board the plane
|
| 4) every other time you have to show your ID or boarding
| pass
|
| You do you though.
| velomash wrote:
| It's inevitable that identification and payments continue to
| digitize. I'd prefer that physical ID / cash remain legally
| protected but that I can also go for a run with only my watch and
| buy a beer afterward
| dmix wrote:
| Indeed, it needs some hard legal protections from abuse but it
| will come eventually.
| varispeed wrote:
| It's a matter of time transaction will be denied because you
| didn't run the required distance set by the government, so beer
| allowance has not renewed.
| stavros wrote:
| I'm really wary of these initiatives, because perfect law
| enforcement is how society ossifies. Imagine if we could
| prosecute all homosexual tendencies when they happened, or all
| interracial relationships, or any other antiquated law. Society
| would never progress.
|
| What happens if the government can now perfectly enforce that
| people under 18 can't do X or Y?
| pat2man wrote:
| How does this apply to a digital version of an official
| government ID? The government already has all this data.
| stavros wrote:
| I didn't say anything about the data the government has or
| doesn't have. I'm talking about perfect enforcement. Try
| faking a digital ID.
| watermelon0 wrote:
| We have this issue already with biometric passports and ID
| cards.
| alwa wrote:
| And, specifically, _frictionless_ perfect enforcement. Kind
| of like CCTV you can pull on request after a crime, vs
| proactive permanent ubiquitous surveillance (looking at
| you, Flock Safety).
|
| It feels healthier for the enforcement apparatus to have a
| budget, in terms of material personnel or time, that
| requires some degree of priority-setting. That priority-
| setting is by its nature a politically responsive process.
| And it's compatible with the kind of situation that allows
| Really Quite Good enforcement, but not of absolutely
| everything absolutely all the time.
|
| Otherwise ossification feels like exactly the word, as you
| said, stavros: if it costs nothing for the system to
| enforce stuff that was important in the hazy past but is no
| longer relevant, nobody wants to be the one blamed for
| formally easing restrictions just in case something new bad
| happens; 20 years later you're still taking off your shoes
| at the airport. (I know, I know, they finally quit that.
| Still took decades. And the part that was cost-free--
| imaging your genitalia--continues unabated.)
| dwaite wrote:
| This is based off of a biometric passport, which have been
| digitally signed for a very long time now.
| maratc wrote:
| > Try faking a digital ID.
|
| Since most of that "digital ID" manifestations are just
| _pixels on a screen_ , these are not a problem to fake
| pixel-perfect.
|
| I did some limited travel during the COVID era, including
| areas that did not want to recognise my country's digital
| vaccination certificate. I presented them with a pixel-
| perfect picture of their own country's digital vaccination
| certificate. It's easy to copy from a screen of a friend,
| and it's not complicated to create your own Apple Wallet
| pass that looks like the one you want.
| stavros wrote:
| How did you fake the cryptographic signature QR code?
| maratc wrote:
| I was showing a real QR code -- that was issued to a
| person who wasn't me. As soon as that produced a big
| green checkmark on anyone's QR scanner, I was in.
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| I know a guy who went to jail for that. He was in the
| news and everything. Banned from this country for life.
| Warned him that what he was doing was a stupid idea, he
| was even doing it for others who also got arrested...
| maratc wrote:
| I don't know what "that" was, and again, I had both the
| vaccination and the digital certificate to prove it; the
| system in place would not accept the real documents, so I
| fed it with other documents that it did accept.
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| Showing a QR code that belonged to someone else, like you
| know, the thing you said you did
|
| Eventually in a system like that they may refine their
| procedures and then you get dinged essentially...
| maratc wrote:
| The people who check your QR code with scanners on the
| entrance to a shopping mall (and refuse to let you in
| unless the scanner shows a green mark) are not the police
| nor the prosecution, and I have a good case to present to
| a judge in any case.
|
| "The guy who went to jail" could be unvaccinated (or even
| infected) and presenting other people's certificates to
| enter an area for vaccinated people only (e.g. hospitals)
| where he might have endangered other people's lives;
| that's something that might be deserving jail time. I
| _was_ vaccinated however, and by all means had the right
| to enter that shopping mall; I just wasn 't able to prove
| it to the imperfect system that was there to check.
| stavros wrote:
| Then you're hoping they won't try to match the info on
| the screen with the info on the paper, which is very easy
| to foil (just don't skip the check).
| maratc wrote:
| If they need to match with the info on paper it's not
| clear what the case for "digital id" is? If one needs to
| present "digital id + paper id" one can simply present
| the paper id as they do today.
| stavros wrote:
| They won't. They'll just check the digital ID. I said you
| can't fake a digital ID, you said you've faked a physical
| ID, which isn't really relevant.
|
| Digital IDs can't be faked. The only way to fake them
| would be to convert them to physical (what you did) and
| hope that the physical ID gets accepted.
| maratc wrote:
| That's kinda theoretic discussion by now. As the whole
| COVID thing is behind us, we can probably look at all the
| money that were spent in the world to create vaccination
| certificates, sign them, create the distribution network,
| distribute the certificates, build the verifying
| scanners, purchase them en-masse and pay the thousands of
| people who were standing at the entrance of numerous
| shopping malls and using these scanners to check the QR
| codes, only to create a system that is trivially bypassed
| by using a jpeg file.
| stavros wrote:
| I'm not sure how this relates to the main argument that
| "digital IDs are bad because they lead to perfect
| enforcement".
| maratc wrote:
| My argument is that "digital ids can't be faked" is a bad
| argument, and if you rely on it to prove a point then it
| might be a weak proof.
|
| (Digital IDs indeed can't be faked but usually they are a
| part of a process that can be easily bypassed by using
| something that presents itself as a valid Digital ID even
| if it's not.)
| stavros wrote:
| They'll be a part of a process that can be easily
| bypassed until they're the only thing that's accepted.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Yeah, perfect enforcement is dystopian. I don't think most
| people understand this, but your point is very well taken.
| pat2man wrote:
| To set this up, you have to scan the chip on your passport.
| Its essentially the same data on both chips, one is just in
| my phone's enclave and the other is in an embedded NFC chip.
| godelski wrote:
| At best a digital ID has an additional attack surface and is
| just more accessible.
|
| You normally aren't carrying your passport with you, right?
| So even if lower security, the chance of that information
| being swiped is generally lower.
|
| Phones are pretty high profile targets, this makes them more
| so.
|
| I do like the idea and the convenience, but I'm definitely
| wary of these things too. Especially in the modern tech world
| where security is often being treated as a second thought as
| it is less impactful for sales. I'm pretty sure it is always
| cheaper to implement the security, but right now we're not
| great at playing long games and we like to gamble. Humans
| have always been pretty bad at opportunity costs. We see the
| dollars spent now and that seems to have far more value than
| what you save later.
|
| On the other hand, currently US citizens are not legally
| required to walk around with their IDs on them. That's not
| true for non-citizens btw. You should have to just give the
| officer your name, but they can detain you while they "verify
| your identity." With an ID becoming frictionless and more
| commonly held on person, will this law change? Can we trust
| that it'll stay the same given our current environment of
| more frequent ID requests (I'm trying to stay a bit
| apolitical. Let's not completely open up that issue here?).
| I'd say at best it is "of concern." But we do live in a world
| run by surveillance capitalism.
|
| There's a really good example I like of opportunity cost that
| shows the perverse nature of how we treat them. Look at the
| Y2K bug. Here on HN most of us know this was a real thing
| that would have cost tons of money had we not fixed it. But
| we did. The success was bittersweet though, as the lack of
| repercussions (the whole point of fixing the problem!)
| resulted in people believing the issue was overblown. Most
| people laugh at Y2K as if it was a failed doomsday prediction
| rather than a success story of how we avoided a "doomsday"
| (to be overly dramatic) situation. So we create a situation
| where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you
| do fix a problem, people treat you as if you were
| exaggerating the problem. If you don't fix the problem you
| get lambasted for not having foreseen the issue, but you do
| tend to be forgiven for fixing it.
|
| Just remember, CloudStrike's stock is doing great[0] ($546).
| Had you bought the dip ($218) you'd have made a 150% ROI.
| They didn't even drop to where they were a year previously,
| so had you bought in July of 2023 ($144) and sold in the dip
| you'd have still made a 50% profit in that year... (and 280%
| if you sold today).
|
| Convince me we're good at playing the long game... Convince
| me we're not acting incredibly myopic... Convince me
| CloudStrike learned their lesson and the same issue won't
| happen again...
|
| [0] https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/CRWD
| GardenLetter27 wrote:
| You're ignoring the benefits though - it will help adapt
| more services to work online and reduce bureaucracy.
|
| Look at Germany where they outright refuse to acknowledge
| emails as a legal notification / correspondence so
| everything still gets sent as letters and fax. It's
| extremely slow and cumbersome.
|
| Also it will help for security as the central service can
| authenticate you, instead of every little hotel and bank
| branch, etc. keeping a copy of your passport.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Good. Send it in the mail. I don't want my inbox to
| require legal burden to read.
| ghaff wrote:
| There are a ton of things in the US that require or at
| least almost universally use letters for notifications.
| godelski wrote:
| Am I ignoring the benefits or am I just responding to the
| comment?
| varispeed wrote:
| Most people are missing the fact that your passport in the
| drawer doesn't know where you are.
|
| Once everyone is mandated to carry digital ID, then
| possibilities to track population open up.
| frankus wrote:
| Isn't this just seeing a slippery slope and deciding to
| build a terrace[1], in that the existence of a digital ID
| doesn't automatically lead to mandate to carry one--any
| more than the existence of a physical ID card does?
|
| [1] to paraphrase one many excellent John McCarthy-isms:
| http://jmc.stanford.edu/general/sayings.html
| varispeed wrote:
| physical ID doesn't report your location.
| vel0city wrote:
| A physical ID can, depending on the validation process.
|
| Digital ID doesn't have to report your location either,
| depending on the implementation. It's not like it's a
| given a digital ID system has to give your location.
|
| An SSH key is a digital ID. Does it report your location
| when you use it? A GPG key can be a digital ID. Does it
| report your location when you sign something?
| steve_taylor wrote:
| Governments aren't just rolling out Digital IDs. They're
| rolling out the platform to enable them to require that you
| authenticate with a range of apps and websites, ostensibly to
| keep children safe, with the real purpose being to link your
| unique identifier to all your online activity. They can then
| easily build an overall picture of who you are from that ID.
| Potentially, all this data can be fed into a pre-crime AI.
| sedatk wrote:
| They're already doing that without digital IDs. I don't see
| how this affects the other.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Why would you want to streamline that process for them
| even more?
| sedatk wrote:
| Because anti-privacy laws can be fought, and the
| convenience, privacy, and reliability benefits of these
| applications can stay.
|
| I'm against "let's hold all progress because a few states
| can go backwards faster than they've been" perspective.
| boxed wrote:
| You're streamlining it for the USER, not the government.
| steve_taylor wrote:
| Part of a Digital ID is an identity provider that
| implements protocols such as OAuth 2 and OIDC. Once this
| is in place, the government that owns the Digital ID
| system can mandate that platforms such as social
| networks, search engines, email providers, etc. link the
| users in its jurisdiction to its Digital ID via
| OAuth/OIDC. As this isn't as onerous as reviewing
| identity documents, governments can make this a
| requirement for a large range of platforms, even quite
| small ones.
|
| Yes, I realise governments already have some powers to
| view private data, but they have to do a lot of legwork
| to link data to specific people. They'll always get false
| positives, false negatives, duplicates, etc. And they'll
| miss a number of platforms that have data on the person
| of interest. Digital ID combined with a mandatory
| identity platform and data retention requirements will
| make law enforcement far more efficient and give
| governments unprecedented power over what we see, hear
| and say online. The government will have a complete list
| of all the platforms on which you authenticated with
| their Digital ID.
|
| We're already sleepwalking into this. In Australia, we
| have the under-16 social media ban taking effect next
| month. We're also in the process of rolling out our
| Digital ID, which has an OAuth/OIDC-based identity
| system. Numerous government departments have already
| integrated with it. It opens up to private sector
| integrations in December 2026, just in time for all
| involved in the under-16 social media ban to realise it's
| not working effectively and for Digital ID to save the
| day. The law states that Digital ID is a voluntary means
| of identification and other methods should always be
| offered, but the UX of OAuth 2 vs. uploading photos of
| your ID documents and a selfie, and waiting for it to be
| reviewed, will make Digital ID the de facto standard for
| Australians proving their age and, in the process,
| permanently linking their Digital ID Identifier to all
| their social media accounts. That includes "anonymous"
| ones like Reddit. And integrators can apply for an
| exemption to Digital ID being voluntary on their
| platform, making the case that the per-user cost of
| complying with the law without Digital ID is
| prohibitively expensive.
|
| Once Australia rolls this out to social networks, it will
| keep expanding until virtually everything is captured.
| bootsmann wrote:
| > Governments aren't just rolling out Digital IDs. They're
| rolling out the platform to enable them to require that you
| authenticate with a range of apps and websites, ostensibly
| to keep children safe, with the real purpose being to link
| your unique identifier to all your online activity.
|
| This is just straight up not true for the EUDI which is
| probably the most serious and advanced approach to digital
| ID. The wallets are decentralized and the government does
| not see the individual authentication transaction in any
| way.
| jjgreen wrote:
| s/Potentially/Obviously/g
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Also, if it's easy to check your ID, there will be more and
| more checks of your ID. And that's not great...
| Muromec wrote:
| I live in one of the countries where id is mandatory to have
| and to carry.
|
| Not counting times when id was exchanged for another id, I
| believe I was asked to show the physical card maybe twice (in
| six years), one of those was for voting, the was in
| healthcare. Guess how white I am, lol.
|
| Digital thingy zo, that needs button pressing every time I
| log into whatever government or goverment-related things.
|
| So you are kind of right
| perihelions wrote:
| It also normalizes in the public eye the notion that
| conventional ID's _deserve suspicion_ , and pushes the
| Overton window, in the US context, further in the direction
| of accepting that LEO's can and should be jailing people
| solely on their personal suspicions about ID authenticity.
|
| A person without an iPhone (or not utilizing it fully) does
| not deserve suspicion. It's not a crime to opt out of the
| mainstream iPhone sociology. It is not right to treat a
| person who is e.g. elderly, or for some other reason has
| "fallen" behind the digital divide, as an inferior person
| with fewer rights and privileges.
|
| It's reliably in tech peoples' blind spot, when thinking
| about how to make things "efficient" for the common case, one
| that reflects their own experience, to not think or care
| about the less-common cases that don't affect them. See:
| digital-only payments[0]. But being banned from shopping in a
| few hipster stores is a small thing compared to being wrongly
| jailed!
|
| [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cashless
| mathgeek wrote:
| > It is not right to treat a person who is e.g. elderly, or
| for some other reason has "fallen" behind the digital
| divide, as an inferior person with fewer rights and
| privileges.
|
| While it may not be moral, our entire world and society are
| set up to treat folks with more resources as superior
| people with more rights and privileges. Poorer folks fall
| behind the digital curve just as readily as they fall
| behind the professional, educational, etc. ones. Who you
| are born as and where that takes place is still one of the
| driving factors of your rights and privileges. It's
| certainly noble to fight that (just to be clear that I'm
| not arguing for digital IDs as somehow valid because the
| rest of the system is already unjust).
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > While it may not be moral, our entire world and society
| are set up to treat folks with more resources as superior
| people with more rights and privileges.
|
| I don't know about that. Ability to buy more !=
| superiority and rights and privileges.
|
| I know a bunch of people who disdain the ultra rich and
| see them as the opposite of superior if anything. And
| rights are the same for everyone...
| mathgeek wrote:
| While morality is a different discussion for sure, I was
| only referring to how society as an organism views
| people. The wealthy undeniably have more rights and
| privilege than the poor.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| privilege yes, but rights... maybe in some societies, but
| I wouldn't generalize
| noir_lord wrote:
| The fundamental dichotomy of all tools is they have multiple
| uses.
|
| People proposing these ID's frequently suggest positive uses
| and there are _some_.
|
| What they fail to do is consider the negative use cases and
| there are _some_ (or the history of governments using tools to
| suppress).
|
| In that respect the two sides struggle to see each others point
| of view because one doesn't see the problems and the other only
| sees the problems.
| stavros wrote:
| I'm not sure about that, I definitely see the benefits, I
| just think that the drawbacks are worse.
| mathgeek wrote:
| While I totally get what you are saying, and feel the same
| way, I often remind myself that folks who take extreme
| views _also_ say they see the benefits but think the
| drawbacks are worse. Not the paragons of such views,
| naturally, but the majority of folks who follow them. Take
| single issue voters, for a mild but clear example.
| rpdillon wrote:
| This is extremely common. I think Alan Perlis captured this
| sentiment in his Epigrams in Programming when he said "lisp
| programmers see the value of everything and the cost of
| nothing."
|
| I frequently find that advocates ignore cost.
| 6510 wrote:
| While that problem certainly exists we also have countless
| crooks and con men getting away with it. The criminals are also
| using technology, all of it.
|
| On one side you have people with multiple video feeds,
| trackers, wife-jammers, password/data leaks, backdoors,
| work/private schedules, purchase history, etc, etc for you,
| your family, friends, coworkers etc etc
|
| On the other side you have law enforcement not knowing which
| person walked- or which car drove where, not for any location,
| not knowing which phones were at the crime scene. No access to
| any relevant camera (if they even exist) no access to chat
| logs, email, photos people made.
|
| I'm not-at-all arguing they should have access to any of that
| but we shouldn't be ignorant of the balance between the two.
|
| It seems to me a major pain in the ass if you cant bring your
| phone when stealing a car, doing a robbery, driving off without
| paying for gas or harassing people for not living up to your
| antiquated expectations.
| the_sleaze_ wrote:
| Someone recently joked about Apple holding elections on the
| iPhone with Face ID to verify your voting eligibility.
|
| Hmm..
| lvl155 wrote:
| I am against digital IDs. There's a reason why security-minded
| people carry around physical hardware keys. The fact that Apple
| remains a black box company means I can't trust them now and
| definitely not later when their changing financial circumstances
| COULD jeopardize management decisions and commitment to privacy.
| kkfx wrote:
| No thanks. It's 2025, identity needs to be resilient, so having a
| national public blockchain that every public administration
| entity, every private who wants to participate, compensated for
| the IT resources they provide, whether a citizen or a business
| maintains well, that makes sense. The fingerprint of a key is
| shared, this key is on a smart-card, therefore offline, on well-
| known (bank cards, SIM cards) proven and reliable platforms, and
| signs what is needed with zk proofs where required.
|
| Identity on mobile, proprietary platforms, whose level of
| complexity makes it humanly impossible to understand them even
| for governments themselves, notoriously closely monitored and yet
| with a long history of bugs and problems, is UNACCEPTABLE.
|
| It's time to understand that IT is the nervous system of society
| and that public information must be public, for everyone, not for
| a specific actor and with no specific actor being "more equal"
| than others.
| metadat wrote:
| If you're not an LLM bot, why does almost every post have one
| thing in ALL-CAPS?
| kkfx wrote:
| It's a compact textual way to state bold, two char less than
| _this is bold_...
| emptybits wrote:
| While Apple has some admirable history in standing up to
| government information requests[1], am I alone in wondering now
| if Apple has started to voluntarily align itself with the current
| administration? For example, Apple is helping to build Donald
| Trump's new gold-plated ballroom.[2] (!)
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trumps-
| ballro...
| varispeed wrote:
| Apple has introduced ankle tag. It's just legislation away for
| everyone to be tracked in realtime and perhaps even listened to,
| initially for "keywords" to protect <insert group of people>.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Doesn't seem to work if you are outside the US, it's not even an
| option to add.
| sschueller wrote:
| No thank you.
|
| I am glad that the first eID vote we had on this (in Switzerland)
| prevented private industry from issuing IDs etc.
|
| What we have now (upcoming, after another vote) is an open
| source[1] non centralized eID issued by the government.[2]
|
| Although there are still some problematic points (initial
| issuance software is not open source and who can ask for the ID
| is not limited enough) the solution we have now is the best way
| to do such a thing at this time.
|
| [1] https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch
|
| [2] https://www.eid.admin.ch/de/swiyu-coming-soon-d
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why "no thank you"?
|
| I am _very much_ thank you. I 'm still waiting for Apple to
| support the driver's license from my state. It will be one less
| thing to carry.
|
| There are literally no downsides. My state already had me in
| its electronic database because I'm a driver. The TSA already
| has me in its electronic database. Apple already knows exactly
| who I am from my many credit card purchases with them. It's not
| taking away any privacy. Having my ID on my phone gives me
| convenience and doesn't take anything away.
|
| Obviously this isn't _mandatory_ nor should it be. Physical IDs
| aren 't going anywhere. But I already keep all my credit cards
| in my Apple Wallet. I want to keep my driver's license there
| too.
| ericmay wrote:
| Agreed. And perhaps most importantly it is saving me $35 for
| that absolute fucking scam that is "Real ID". Normally I
| carry my passport when I fly but now I won't even have to do
| that.
| jcon321 wrote:
| You have no issues with handing over your cell phone to a
| police officer who pulls you over? I imagine you'll say "all
| I have to do is present an ID", but what if the officer
| cannot read it, so he wants to hold it? Okay you wont let him
| hold it, so he bends down and gets real close to your phone?
| You know he must verify the address against his database, so
| you're going to make him write down your address as he walks
| back to his car? Yea some people cannot afford this type of
| friction when dealing with police officers.
| quit32 wrote:
| Places that support Apple's digital ID / Wallet state ID do
| so by utilizing a an identity reader that the user taps
| their phone against after selecting which info they want to
| convey. It is not meant for the owner to physically show
| the phone to the requesting party.
|
| I'm sure this will happen in some cases especially in the
| interim where digital ID is technically not accepted but
| the person doesn't have their physical ID. An example would
| be a traffic stop in a state that currently supports
| digital state ID since usually the digital ID is basically
| only supported at TSA currently. But the cop looking at
| your phone doesn't add any more authenticity vs you just
| verbalizing the info and them writing it down which is what
| they usually do if someone has a photo of their missing ID.
|
| Also, Apple cleverly designed it so if phone is in locked
| state and you activate wallet and select ID, the biometric
| scan it does doesn't unlock the entire phone and trying to
| get into the rest of phone requires another biometric scan
| or phone password.
|
| From the article "Users do not need to unlock, show, or
| hand over their device to present their ID."
| blessedwhiskers wrote:
| That assumes every LEO, bodega, grocery store, etc. goes
| out and buys the terminals to read these things though.
| Assuming LEOs you encounter will never just say "sorry,
| my reader is broken, go ahead and unlock your phone so I
| can bring it back to my car and type in your info to look
| up your license" feels naive, especially for folks with
| darker skin tones.
|
| I agree it's _possible_ to present your ID without
| unlocking your phone, but is it _likely_?
| quit32 wrote:
| It is likely that the reader will be implemented into a
| phone / tablet app so will be pretty ubiquitous
| eventually.
|
| FWIW it will never technically be legal to rely on
| visually looking at someones phone to verify age / id bc
| it would be incredibly easy to fake the display and
| physical interaction. The only reason it can work as an
| ID is if it is digitally verified by a reader.
|
| But I do agree that especially in the interim there will
| be cases where LEO will coerce a phone handover but I
| don't think this will be a long term problem since
| physical interaction with the phone does nothing to
| verify authenticity. You may as well hand them a piece of
| paper you printed out with your info.
| overfeed wrote:
| > It is likely that the reader will be implemented into a
| phone / tablet app so will be pretty ubiquitous
| eventually.
|
| They may wind up ubiquitous, but reader usage will be
| determined by the officers in the field, on a case by
| case basis. Take a look at jurisdictions where body
| cameras are mandated but are turned off, or intentionally
| obstructed.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Don't hand over your physical ID either. Unless you are
| driving no one can make you identify yourself with a
| government ID.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I think you're forgetting about flights. And country
| borders. And I'm not sure how much luck you're going to
| have opening a bank account... does your birth
| certificate work for that?
| culopatin wrote:
| Then don't do it
| ghaff wrote:
| I think there are a lot of good reasons to (also) carry a
| small number of cards and cash.
|
| Take medical. The usual procedure if they need to scan your
| insurance info is to feed one or two cards through a scanner
| thingie. Others mention traffic stops and other interactions
| of that sort.
|
| Could this all change eventually? But I have no problem with
| carrying a small business card sized wallet if only as backup
| in the interim.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > Take medical. The usual procedure if they need to scan
| your insurance info is to feed one or two cards through a
| scanner thingie.
|
| It's the usual procedure but as far as I know there's no
| requirement to do it. All they really need is your policy
| number, your name and any other pertinent insurance info. I
| routinely go to places without my insurance cards and just
| recite the info for them which they write down.
| contagiousflow wrote:
| I'm guessing you're American? It's much different when a
| foreign company wants to provide this service to you.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why? If anything, a foreign company seems to present _less_
| risk.
|
| If you're concerned about the government getting your data,
| your own country can subpoena a company within its borders
| and get your info.
|
| It's a lot harder to get your private data from a company
| outside of a country's borders.
| contagiousflow wrote:
| So you would be happy to have your digital identity be
| managed by Xiaomi, Yandex, or Eitaa?
| close04 wrote:
| US tech is for many Europeans what Chinese tech is for US
| people. Great for inconsequential things, dangerous for
| critical ones.
| ericmay wrote:
| Nah, it's really not.
|
| It's probably good for individual European countries or
| even the EU as a whole to have more homegrown industry
| (gasp protectionism! guess you gotta agree with Trump now.
| Ouch), and certainly the US does use its tech companies to
| spy and such, but outside of Trump being an asshat the US
| by and large follows the rule of law, and we are indeed
| _allies_ with Europe. NATO, for example. US bases helping
| to defend Europe, again, for example. Oh and let 's not
| forget, every major European power spies on the US and its
| diplomats and activities too - that's just business as
| usual.
|
| This is in stark contrast to China and the Chinese approach
| to _the West_ , which includes European countries. Have you
| forgotten that China is helping to fund and ship weapons to
| Russia to fight a war against Ukraine? Last I checked the
| US has given aid and is selling weapons and sanctioning
| Russia and Russian oil. And you want to equate the US and,
| idk, Microsoft to buying and installing Chinese equipment,
| software, and services while they help support a war on
| European soil?
| stuffn wrote:
| > There are literally no downsides. My state already had me
| in its electronic database because I'm a driver. The TSA
| already has me in its electronic database. Apple already
| knows exactly who I am from my many credit card purchases
| with them. It's not taking away any privacy. Having my ID on
| my phone gives me convenience and doesn't take anything away.
|
| "Everyone already knows who I am why should I care?"
|
| You're the exact reason our rights across the spectrum of the
| constitution have been eroded consistently since 2001. This
| view of privacy is so toxic I could go on a 10 page rant
| about it. There's so much wrong with this single paragraph.
|
| First, while you are correct to say the government knows who
| you are. You are in databases all over. So why should you
| care?
|
| 1. Government organizations are not allowed to share
| information in many cases w.r.t. constitutionally protected
| things. Warrants are still required intra-government (though
| thanks to your type of thinking it's getting simpler and
| simpler for them).
|
| 2. It is taking away your privacy because cell phones are
| legally treated differently than paper ID. If you hand the
| phone to a law enforcement officer, of which most normal
| people have plenty of information that can be used to
| manufacture a case, they can legally search it as your ID and
| other pertinent information are there. Just like you can be
| compelled to open your phone if you use biometrics, you can
| be compelled to open your phone for your digital ID. I sure
| hope your nose is as clean as you imply because DAs could put
| Mother Teresa in prison if they worked hard enough!
|
| 3. The purpose of Apple Pay from a privacy perspective is to
| prevent credit card theft by using tokens. In reality it's
| used to track you and monetize you.
|
| 4. This is no more convenient than carrying around your ID
| and if you find it inconvenient to carry around 2" x 4" card
| in your pocket your life is so unbelievably decadent I can't
| possibly understand you.
|
| 5. From a security standpoint an "ID reader" at a
| club/bar/restaurant could feasibly lift sensitive information
| out of your phone without you knowing it. How much do you
| trust your security posture on your phone? Enough to show us
| all your last 5 years of text messages?
|
| Rights are eroded over time. Slowly, year by year, election
| cycle by election cycle, as politicians capitalize on the
| collective panic over whatever moral crisis we are currently
| in.
|
| > "Obviously this isn't mandatory nor should it be. Physical
| IDs aren't going anywhere. But I already keep all my credit
| cards in my Apple Wallet. I want to keep my driver's license
| there too".
|
| We didn't start out with much mandatory stuff in 2001. All of
| it was seen as "convenient" (for the prevention of
| terrorism). But the fact privacy infringing things were
| allowed opened the door to further invasion. When you allow
| politicians/business to get a single millimeter of their toe
| in the crack of the door it's over. These "people" do not
| understand "reasonable". So while you hand over your most
| important shit to Apple and the government they're busy
| planning on how to either use it to imprison you or profit
| off you. This is true for every every constitutional right.
| If you're willing to give up freedom for security you deserve
| neither. Congratulations you've personally made the EFF and
| other right's organization's jobs another 1% harder.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I'm still going to keep using the digital id lane whenever I can.
| The gov and tsa already has my biometrics because of my passport
| + global entry + precheck status. Might as well use the much
| faster security lane.
|
| But this offering from Apple seems like it could be a nice choice
| for folks with passports but no desire to get pre or global
| entry. (Which seriously if you have a credit card that covers it,
| definitely do it)
| kukkeliskuu wrote:
| In completely unrelated news, Spain's PM proposes mandatory
| Digital ID for social media users at Davos.
|
| https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-...
| mooiedingen wrote:
| The age of digitized "Slave Certificates" is upon us... As only
| the "Masters" that are mandated by the government extending to
| the UN that "Need" it for you to prove who that you are who you
| are assigned as at birt(In case nature was involved) for when you
| are already made "Artificial" it comes build in... "How dare you
| fill in another name than WE ASSIGNED You?!?"
|
| In an age wherein everything is backdoored somehow voluntary or
| not, "You Shall still sync your digital twin!!!" So we can
| predict pre-crime whilst we are busy with depopulation &
| Migration(See press release last Bilderbergclub meeting!)
|
| Make no mistake as 95% of countries is looking to implement
| this.. for it is your right as defined by the United
| Nations(whenever democracy needs to be declared war!) (See joint
| declaration of 1942)
| stuffn wrote:
| Yeah I'm not handling my phone to a police officer for
| identification. This will give them immediate probable cause to
| search my phone.
|
| It is INSANE to me that people are excited about this nonsense.
| Apple Pay at least made sense as a back up source for something
| inconsequential, legally speaking.
| fmajid wrote:
| Doesn't give the option, perhaps because I am in London at the
| moment. The California e-driver's license app didn't have this
| nonsense restriction.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-13 23:02 UTC)