• Senal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    The difference is in the potential for creep.

    The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

    AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who’s identity is verified in the app.

    What’s to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it’s been issued ?

    As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said “over 18”, you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

    I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

    Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn’s weren’t widespread enough to be a problem.

    Skip to now and they’ve got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn’t and can’t work the way they want.

    A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

    Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

    I’m not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.