Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us

[mef]

Hi,

Just sharing this old article from 2019 to draw attention to digital IDs.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/10/world-stumbling-zombie-digital-welfare-dystopia-warns-un-human-rights-expert

Many of our members may be young enough and tech savvy enough to like the idea of everything digital. Guess I’m saying be careful and sceptical.

Once you give up your physical I’d documents the government (wherever you are) May chose to not replace it and instead issue a digital document (that they can alter or remove if they chose so).

If you think the government would never do that, did you think the governments world wide would order lockdowns or in some cases mandatory jabs before Covid happened?

Perhaps I’m being too cynical but if I am I’d rather be that than be correct and governments really ARE hellbent on controlling us in the decades ahead.

What do you think about all this?

 

[eran0004]

Once you give up your physical I’d documents the government (wherever you are) May chose to not replace it and instead issue a digital document (that they can alter or remove if they chose so).

Why is that a problem with digitalisation? If the government wanted to deny you an ID they could just deny you an ID, they don’t need you to have a digital ID in order to do that.

 

[Joey D]

The government isn't the problem and they have all your information anyway. Have a driver's license, social security number, or ever file taxes? They have your information, digital or otherwise.

The bigger problem is how many companies have your data, how they profit from it, and how they don't bother to keep it secure.

 

[Keef]

If a few ones and zeros are the deal breaker then I've got news for ya.

 

[mef]

The government isn't the problem and they have all your information anyway. Have a driver's license, social security number, or ever file taxes? They have your information, digital or otherwise.

The bigger problem is how many companies have your data, how they profit from it, and how they don't bother to keep it secure.

I’m not sure why you think it’s a problem that companies use our data for nefarious affairs, yet for governments you seem to say “they have it anyway”.

Please consider the difference between physical documents that prove who you are, what qualifications you have, what pension contributions you may have made, that you have not committed crimes (printed police records), that you do not own anybody money (credit reports), and between digital equivalents only.

In certain situations Governments will do anything to stay in power, including breaking the law and suppressing dissent. Physical documents may be the last Defense eventually between their version of the truth and others, which is of course the reason courts admit physical documents as proof, but less so digital information.

You can see how digital everything opens the door to not trusting anything because the storage of the I formation is not secure and is not decentralised. The government has the keys to modify Information, we don’t. That’s one of the problems.

If a few ones and zeros are the deal breaker then I've got news for ya.

Can you not see the connection between digital surveillance and your image? A few ones and zeros could mean your life.

 

[TexRex]

physical documents that prove who you are, what qualifications you have, what pension contributions you may have made, that you have not committed crimes (printed police records), that you do not own anybody money (credit reports)

Only material insofar as they're recognized, most importantly by...wait for it...the government.

 

[mef]

Only material insofar as they're recognized, most importantly by...wait for it...the government.

I know what you mean but legally any official government document should carry some weight. That is until legislation is out in place to declare existing documentation as void. But such a thing is harder to abuse than a digital system with multiple fault lines that can be exploited and abused by many actors at different levels. I dare not think what a mess it will be if incompetent bureaucrats and power hungry politicians meddle with our ID documents or money (digital dollar, digital euro etc).

 

[TexRex]

I know what you mean but legally any official government document should carry some weight.

That's just it. Nobody is obligated to recognize any official government document but by government. Recognition doesn't fulfill any obligation to the individual but to government. When you're required by a non-government entity to present government-issued identification, that requirement fulfills an obligation to government. Non-government entities don't give the furry crack of a rat's ass about government-issued identification but because of government requirement.

I dare not think what a mess it will be if incompetent bureaucrats and power hungry politicians meddle with our ID documents or money (digital dollar, digital euro etc).

Incompetent bureaucrats and power hungry politicians meddle with fiat currency--be it in physical or digital form--constantly.

 

[Joey D]

I’m not sure why you think it’s a problem that companies use our data for nefarious affairs, yet for governments you seem to say “they have it anyway”.

Because I can pick and choose who I give data to for a private entity. With the government, if I want to function in everyday life, they need to have my data. Hell, if you're born, the government has your data.

In certain situations Governments will do anything to stay in power, including breaking the law and suppressing dissent. Physical documents may be the last Defense eventually between their version of the truth and others, which is of course the reason courts admit physical documents as proof, but less so digital information.

Not really, if the government wants to do some and suppress people, it won't matter if I have a digital or physical ID. Either way, if they want to suppress me, they're going to physically take me out of the picture either through death or imprisonment.

 

[Imari]

In certain situations Governments will do anything to stay in power, including breaking the law and suppressing dissent. Physical documents may be the last Defense eventually between their version of the truth and others, which is of course the reason courts admit physical documents as proof, but less so digital information.

You don't think the courts are part of the government? You think that a court would hold up evidence based on physical documents, which could also be forged or modified, but not on digital records?

If the government wants you gotten, you're gonna get got.

I know what you mean but legally any official government document should carry some weight. That is until legislation is out in place to declare existing documentation as void. But such a thing is harder to abuse than a digital system with multiple fault lines that can be exploited and abused by many actors at different levels. I dare not think what a mess it will be if incompetent bureaucrats and power hungry politicians meddle with our ID documents or money (digital dollar, digital euro etc).

It's harder to abuse, is it? Proof required.

False papers of all sorts have been a thing for centuries. Counterfeit currency still exists even with all the measures modern technology has against it. As @TexRex points out, the government right now has the ability to functionally destroy the value of a currency despite the existence of physical tokens of value. Physical items are not immune from abuse, and so in order to claim that physical is less abusable than digital you're going to have to quantify and compare both of them.

I don't think you can. I think you have an emotional response that isn't really based on facts.

I’m not sure why you think it’s a problem that companies use our data for nefarious affairs, yet for governments you seem to say “they have it anyway”.

Your profile says you're from New Zealand. Is the New Zealand government is more of a threat to your information than Google and Amazon?

Can you not see the connection between digital surveillance and your image? A few ones and zeros could mean your life.

Digital surveillance by who? From the start of your linked article:

A UN human rights expert has expressed concerns about the emergence of the "digital welfare state", saying that all too often the real motives behind such programs are to slash welfare spending, set up intrusive government surveillance systems and generate profits for private corporate interests.

You shouldn't be worried about the government. You should be worried about the government becoming a puppet for corporations, which means that really you should be worried about corporations and corporate political influence.

 

[MatskiMonk]

M'eh, I made fake ID's in college, and my mate's now on a list because of digital evidence.

Digital ID's are an odd thing to use to generate fear.

 

[mef]

You don't think the courts are part of the government? You think that a court would hold up evidence based on physical documents, which could also be forged or modified, but not on digital records?

If the government wants you gotten, you're gonna get got.

It's harder to abuse, is it? Proof required.

False papers of all sorts have been a thing for centuries. Counterfeit currency still exists even with all the measures modern technology has against it. As @TexRex points out, the government right now has the ability to functionally destroy the value of a currency despite the existence of physical tokens of value. Physical items are not immune from abuse, and so in order to claim that physical is less abusable than digital you're going to have to quantify and compare both of them.

I don't think you can. I think you have an emotional response that isn't really based on facts.

Your profile says you're from New Zealand. Is the New Zealand government is more of a threat to your information than Google and Amazon?

Digital surveillance by who? From the start of your linked article:

A UN human rights expert has expressed concerns about the emergence of the "digital welfare state", saying that all too often the real motives behind such programs are to slash welfare spending, set up intrusive government surveillance systems and generate profits for private corporate interests.

You shouldn't be worried about the government. You should be worried about the government becoming a puppet for corporations, which means that really you should be worried about corporations and corporate political influence.

“you shouldn’t be worried about government”

I know you are trying to make a point about profits, but you really ought to consider how absolute a statement you make. Governments CAN turn against people, history has shown this. Dictatorships can replace democratic governments.
I don’t care about profiteering, that’s a given. And by the way, New Zealand draconian covid measures regarding preventing New Zealanders to return to their own country because not enough self isolation spots are available are an example of how extreme the NZ labour government was in terms of controlling people. The right of free movement to enter the country was removed overnight, because you had to prove you had an isolation spot before being allowed to board a plane to New Zealand during covid.

 

[TexRex]

“you shouldn’t be worried about government”

I thought about addressing this as well because it seems glaringly false but it's nestled cozily in the context of government recognizing and honoring documents it issues and purportedly backs. In that context, which is the context of the thread as you started it, it's entirely reasonable.

 

[mef]

I added a poll. I wonder if the answers will be correlated to age, similar to attitudes on privacy in general.

Incompetent bureaucrats and power hungry politicians meddle with fiat currency--be it in physical or digital form--constantly.

Exactly! Now imagine what it possible once currency is linked to digital IDs.

I'll list a few scenarios

- It will become mandatory for websites with forums and chats (such as gtplanet) to register all users with KYC information and their digital IDs (the EU is planning to do this under the pretext of child protection)

- Any government benefits will be linked to the digital ID

- Adding a social score to each digital ID (China already has this)

- If the individual does any action the government does not like benefits may be cut or their digital currency may be seized. In Canada truckers had their bank accounts frozen because they protested against Covid measures. So there is precedent for government to stop people from using their own money. This will only get worse if IDs and money is fully digital.

- A few examples of actions that could be punished by leveraging digitalIDs and currency:
protesting against Covid, future pandemic measures or anything else political. Do you have anything to say on LGPTQ? On abortion? On wars? On drug addiction? On the health system? On education?
Refusing to perform army service (conscientious objector)
having grades in school or uni that aren't good enough

The digitalID in itself isn't as harmful in itself. But once combined with KYC and digital currency it allows direct identification and santioning of all of us. How many will still speak freely online or in general if they can be identified and sanctioned?

 

[TexRex]

In Canada truckers had their bank accounts frozen because they protested against Covid measures.

Hmm...

 

[mef]

Hmm...

Bureaucrats who froze bank accounts of Freedom Convoy leaders weren't trying to 'get at the family'

Top officials at Finance Canada grilled at the inquiry into the Emergencies Act

nationalpost.com

The officials seemed unfazed when lawyer Sujit Choudhry from the Canadian Constitution Foundation pressed them on the effect that decisions from the government of Canada — such as freezing bank accounts — could have on individuals’ credit histories and credit scores.



“You’re talking about people involved in unlawful activities,” said Jacques.



Sabia added that the government was very clear when it invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, that individuals could have their bank accounts frozen as a consequence of their actions and they could prevent that from happening by leaving the protests.



“All that those individuals had to do was to leave,” he said.

And some links about the Digital Services act in the EU that mandates KYC for websites of a certain size (social networks). There is nothing to say this won't be extended to cover smaller websites eventually. I see very little discussion about preventing curtailing removal of free speech. How come governments are quick to regulate and control, yet slow to give back control? It's always the same story.

Regulatory requirements for ID verification could soon include social platforms - ZignSec Blog

Identity verification of users and rapid removal of content deemed illicit are just some of the regulatory requirements directed at social platforms in the UK and within the EU.

www.zignsec.com

https://www.fastcompany.com/90726617/know-your-customer-social-media

 

[TexRex]

Bureaucrats who froze bank accounts of Freedom Convoy leaders weren't trying to 'get at the family'

Top officials at Finance Canada grilled at the inquiry into the Emergencies Act

nationalpost.com

I'm familiar with the situation. Indeed I'm familiar enough with the situation that your characterization of it, which I quoted directly, is...curious.

 

[mef]

I wasn't involved in this protest and don't know anybody who was. I'm sorry if you were affect by it. I'm just speaking out as an example of government overreach which was identified. And the officials responsible just shrug when it was pointed out to them. It's funny how governments like to accuse and judge and when they break laws themselves they avoid responsibility. You could say they are above the law. It's a fine arrangement for them.

 

[TexRex]

I wasn't involved in this protest and don't know anybody who was. I'm sorry if you were affect by it. I'm just speaking out as an example of government overreach which was identified. And the officials responsible just shrug when it was pointed out to them. It's funny how governments like to accuse and judge and when they break laws themselves they avoid responsibility. You could say they are above the law. It's a fine arrangement for them.

I wasn't affected by it. At least not in any direct way that I've identified. Given the nature of the protest, which involved the blockade of international border crossings and trade arteries, I may well have been affected by it even if far downstream.

I view the United States as having more robust protection of civil liberties, especially regarding speech and association, than Canada. The United States certainly isn't perfect and efforts to cripple those protections are seemingly without repose, but they do strike me as favoring liberty more than those provided for my neighbors to the north. Even with strong protections, it has been reasoned (as in Cox v. New Hampshire) that time, place and manner restrictions on acts of expression and association don't meaningfully curtail individual liberty if such rstrictions are content-neutral, which is to say that restrictions aren't imposed because of the content of the expression. I tend to agree with this.

Blockade and barricade protests which infringe upon others' freedom of movement are not reasonably protected because they do infringe upon others' individual liberty. Blocking a highway, even one which isn't so vital, is an inappropriate act regardless of motivation because it violates the rights of others. It isn't deserving of protection against government action. Now I don't know if the Canadian government's actions taken against those who coordinated efforts to so constrict others' movement were what should have been taken, but I tend to think them preferable to physical force.

Characterizing those blockades as you did certainly doesn't strike me as being in good faith.

 

[Imari]

So there is precedent for government to stop people from using their own money.

There's precedent for much worse than that. Look up eminent domain - the government can literally just take your stuff.

You sound like you're just finding out now that actually a lot of parts of society essentially exist at the whim of the government. Well done on getting into university, you're gonna have a great time. Maybe keep reading though, the real world is a bit more complex than what you see on /pol/.

 

[MatskiMonk]

protesting against Covid, future pandemic measures or anything else political. Do you have anything to say on LGPTQ? On abortion? On wars? On drug addiction? On the health system? On education?

That's got nothing to do with Digital ID's though. New Zealand has a constitution that recognises your right to freedom of expression, digital ID's don't change that, what changes that are alterations and amendments to the law either curbing your rights, or permitting the police greater freedom in dealing with it... that's what you want to worry about, not this tin foil hat ****.

 

[mef]

I’m surprised at the tone of the discussion here. Why the condescending tone?
I won’t bother making further threads. Cya

 

[TexRex]

 

[Joey D]

I’m surprised at the tone of the discussion here. Why the condescending tone?
I won’t bother making further threads. Cya

I mean people are bringing up really good points and this isn't the worst topic to have a discussion on. But many of us think you're off target with your rage toward digital data. The government isn't the one we have to worry about because they have all your info to begin with (they're the ones that give it to you), it's the private sector that is more worrisome.

 

[Imari]

I’m surprised at the tone of the discussion here. Why the condescending tone?
I won’t bother making further threads. Cya

Bye.

You're in here peddling doom and gloom but you haven't thought about the topic enough to have an opinion that takes in even the basic complexities of the things you're talking about. You're just repeating right wing conspiracy talking points. And it's funny, because there are obvious, major problems in the current day with things like data collection and representative governance. But you managed to miss the core issues on just about all of them while accepting wholesale the warped stories of wanna-be authoritarians.

That's not someone who is looking for a discussion. That's someone who is looking for an echo chamber, because they keep presenting these ideas to other people and keep getting shut down. The reason people are condescending and dismissive is because it's all your ideas deserve. Digital IDs specifically are the problem here? Like if we just ban digital IDs then all these other problems can't happen? Righto.

You can be butthurt and scuttle off to an even darker corner of the internet and find some like-minded zealots to boost your ego. Or you can grow a set of gonads, admit that your initial approach to the issue was insufficiently informed and make an effort to identify the real problems here. I'm not holding my breath though given how you've chosen to bail instead of attempt to address any of the points raised so far.

 

[mef]

I’ve given many examples of why digital IDs in combination with other tech are problematic. You just read over it or dismiss it, to make your point that I’m parroting conspiracy theories.
I’m leaving this Convo because I want nothing from toxic people like yourself.

 

[Imari]

I’ve given many examples of why digital IDs in combination with other tech are problematic. You just read over it or dismiss it, to make your point that I’m parroting conspiracy theories.
I’m leaving this Convo because I want nothing from toxic people like yourself.

You've given examples of why they're potentially problematic, while ignoring the other contributing factors to the problems. Digital IDs are not all that's going on. Add in that a lot of your "examples" are things that already can and/or do happen with physical IDs and currency and it's hard to see why the "threat" of digital IDs should be taken seriously. What is your point here beyond fear mongering and conspiracies? It's not discussion, you have not engaged with any of the discussion in this thread so far. You just repeat your opinion without attempting to address any of the flaws pointed out in your arguments.

I've stated several times that I think that there are problems in this space, I just don't think that digital IDs are the root cause or even a major factor. If you think that's dismissal then okay. I guess you're more interested in specifically digital IDs than the broader societal issues in which case, yeah, I'm dismissing your hyperbolic digital ID dystopian nightmare claims unless you can show more than fears about what is technically possible. And if you're just worried about anything that might potentially result in invasions of privacy and non-representative government, then digital IDs are way, way down the list of things that are bringing that world about.

If you wanted open discussion you got it, but it seems like you didn't want discussion of your points as much as you wanted other people to agree with you. You say you want nothing, but it looks a whole lot like you just want validation. Sorry, I'm all out of that.

 

[R3V]

The bigger problem is how many companies have your data, how they profit from it, and how they don't bother to keep it secure.

What's your solution to this? IIRC you were a "free market" capitalist. Please don't suggest living in the woods or something to that effect.

 

[Joey D]

What's your solution to this? IIRC you were a "free market" capitalist. Please don't suggest living in the woods or something to that effect.

Other than not giving your data or being wary of who you give your data to? I'm not sure there's much anyone can realistically do. Civil suits would work, but it'd be expensive and difficult to fight even if you were in the right. I'm just saying it's a problem, but I don't really have a good way to fix it.

 

[Exorcet]

Other than not giving your data or being wary of who you give your data to? I'm not sure there's much anyone can realistically do. Civil suits would work, but it'd be expensive and difficult to fight even if you were in the right. I'm just saying it's a problem, but I don't really have a good way to fix it.

Individually I don't see much that can be done, but if people as a whole become more aware or concerned then I think some measure of control will be possible. What it would take to get the issue on enough people's radars with a high enough priority to act, I'm not sure.