-
Features
The White House Wants to Issue You an Online ID
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
It's okay. They already track all your posts.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,868
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
As long as it is solely for Government services, paying local utility or tax bills, filing taxes, registering to vote, is there a problem, presuming it is secure? I don't think this meant to be your web board identity too.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 40,005
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Ooh, ooh!!! Can I get "G.I. Joe" for my handle? 
Ooh, ooh!!! Can I get "G.I. Joe" for my handle?
If you can parachute onto the roof of the White House, sneak and/or fight your way past all the Secret Service agents and hack your way into their servers to give yourself that handle, they will let you keep it.
Yo Joe!
This could be really useful depending on how it is used. I'd like for it to be used for all important financial transactions and then I would like for there to be a site to see all the recent transactions that were made in my name so I can instantly be aware if I am a victim of identity fraud. The website could also list all of the recent elections you've participated in and it could help detect voter fraud as well.
The FBI could do stress tests to ensure people are reporting fraud. They could document and record fake accounts of activity going on in your name and give you a window of time to report it. If you don't report it, you would get fined. This may be a giant annoyance to people, but it would also make people more aware of what is going on in their name and massively cut down on the ability of scammers to get away with fraud.
Another thing I'd like is for citizens to be given a certain amount of points each year. Instead of signatures for petitions for things like recalls or getting a candidate or initiative on the ballot, it would require a certain amount of points given by citizens through this website.
The FBI could do stress tests to ensure people are reporting fraud. They could document and record fake accounts of activity going on in your name and give you a window of time to report it. If you don't report it, you would get fined. This may be a giant annoyance to people, but it would also make people more aware of what is going on in their name and massively cut down on the ability of scammers to get away with fraud.
Another thing I'd like is for citizens to be given a certain amount of points each year. Instead of signatures for petitions for things like recalls or getting a candidate or initiative on the ballot, it would require a certain amount of points given by citizens through this website.
GenesisNemesis
I am a proud hedonist.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,121
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
So I couldn't use multiple passwords for different websites anymore? Wouldn't it be the opposite of secure to have only one password?
Underseer
Contributor
Americans have traditionally been against a national ID, particularly if it is meant to grease the wheels between different government agencies. We don't want them to do a better job of keeping track of us.
On line Voting! Do away with elected representatives and have the people vote directly on Bills. Would save so much money.
This ^^ But only This. But like Driver's Licenses, eventually everyone will want to see it for proof you are who you say you are. We enjoyed the Wild West equivalent of the internet, but the damn settlers are moving in now and bringing the bankers, and the party is over. Pretty soon the internet will be divided into different countries and regions. You will need a Pass of some kind to access news from other "server" sets or shards. Like a passport.
Enjoy your pr0n while you still can : )
This ^^ But only This. But like Driver's Licenses, eventually everyone will want to see it for proof you are who you say you are. We enjoyed the Wild West equivalent of the internet, but the damn settlers are moving in now and bringing the bankers, and the party is over. Pretty soon the internet will be divided into different countries and regions. You will need a Pass of some kind to access news from other "server" sets or shards. Like a passport.
Enjoy your pr0n while you still can : )
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 40,005
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Ooh, ooh!!! Can I get "G.I. Joe" for my handle?
If you can parachute onto the roof of the White House, sneak and/or fight your way past all the Secret Service agents and hack your way into their servers to give yourself that handle, they will let you keep it.
Yo Joe!
I'll never jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Guess I'm outta luck.
travc
Junior Member
About f-ing time. Of course, exactly what/how it is implemented is critical.
What the government bureaucracies mainly want is a way for individuals to electronically "sign" documents in a legally binding way. The simplest way of doing that requires reliable public-key server...
Let me explain to those who don't already know what I'm talking about. There is a clever cryptographic system which lets someone encrypt something with one code (their private-key), and someone else to decrypt it with a second code (the person's public-key). That setup allows for a lot of cool things, including someone "signing" a document by encrypting it with their private-key if the recipient has their public-key and knows it corresponds to the person signing the document. So there needs to be someplace where you can say "give me Joe Blow's public-key" and you have near certainty that the response will actually be Joe Blow's public-key. Private versions of these servers already exist, but none are particularly widely used.
So why the government (or at least a private entity given special mandate by the government)? Well, quite bluntly, the government has its own law enforcement. I've been proposing for years that the USPS actually do the job, since they have some very particular laws which boil down to "don't fuck with the mail" (IMO they also need to expand their mandate to maintain relevant in the 21st century). The government also has a critical mass of services which really need this sort of system, along with basically universal 'market penetration' (everyone paying taxes at least)... so it has a really good prospect of becoming a standard system to make use of for pretty much everyone.
The really good part of this, assuming it is done reasonably, is that all sorts of other parties can make use of it for online ID verification. Of course, that means that the key-server (aka the entity the government pays to run it) will be able (hopefully not legally) to collect records of who requests each individual's public-key. Other than the info required for initially registering the public-key, that is the only info the server should have.
Of course, this is just the minimalistic sensible approach... I have no clue how they are planning on setting up the actual system. However, assuming that there were some lessons learned from the ACA exchange rollout and fixing it, I'm thinking that the Obama administration might be the least-bad prospect we're going to ever get for setting up this much needed system/resource.
BTW: I expect that medical communications (to comply with HIPPA) and stuff like mortgage documents will very quickly start using this... again, assuming it is done competently. Complying with existing privacy laws is actually quite a pain for them, and this would make it simple. Credit card and other financial institutions/companies should also find it very appealing.
What the government bureaucracies mainly want is a way for individuals to electronically "sign" documents in a legally binding way. The simplest way of doing that requires reliable public-key server...
Let me explain to those who don't already know what I'm talking about. There is a clever cryptographic system which lets someone encrypt something with one code (their private-key), and someone else to decrypt it with a second code (the person's public-key). That setup allows for a lot of cool things, including someone "signing" a document by encrypting it with their private-key if the recipient has their public-key and knows it corresponds to the person signing the document. So there needs to be someplace where you can say "give me Joe Blow's public-key" and you have near certainty that the response will actually be Joe Blow's public-key. Private versions of these servers already exist, but none are particularly widely used.
So why the government (or at least a private entity given special mandate by the government)? Well, quite bluntly, the government has its own law enforcement. I've been proposing for years that the USPS actually do the job, since they have some very particular laws which boil down to "don't fuck with the mail" (IMO they also need to expand their mandate to maintain relevant in the 21st century). The government also has a critical mass of services which really need this sort of system, along with basically universal 'market penetration' (everyone paying taxes at least)... so it has a really good prospect of becoming a standard system to make use of for pretty much everyone.
The really good part of this, assuming it is done reasonably, is that all sorts of other parties can make use of it for online ID verification. Of course, that means that the key-server (aka the entity the government pays to run it) will be able (hopefully not legally) to collect records of who requests each individual's public-key. Other than the info required for initially registering the public-key, that is the only info the server should have.
Of course, this is just the minimalistic sensible approach... I have no clue how they are planning on setting up the actual system. However, assuming that there were some lessons learned from the ACA exchange rollout and fixing it, I'm thinking that the Obama administration might be the least-bad prospect we're going to ever get for setting up this much needed system/resource.
BTW: I expect that medical communications (to comply with HIPPA) and stuff like mortgage documents will very quickly start using this... again, assuming it is done competently. Complying with existing privacy laws is actually quite a pain for them, and this would make it simple. Credit card and other financial institutions/companies should also find it very appealing.
The only advantage to this is that you concentrate anti-fraud security to one point, possession of the ID, rather than spreading it over multiple points, confirming your identity whenever you do anything significant. The problem with this approach should be obvious - it makes it vastly easier to engage in systemic fraud. As a result what tends to happen with this sort of thing is that trivial matters get handled by the central ID, but anything serious has to have it's own ID confirmation process anyway. It's the same reason that your passport is separate from your driver's license, and the US authorities constantly warn people not to use the passport for other identification purposes. So if you want a single document to both take out library books and pay parking tickets, and maybe applying for parking permits, then fair enough. But trying to use it for voter fraud, social security and important legal documents aren't going to give the predicted benefits.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
How is this different (better?) than the current CAC/PIV Smartcards used today? Is the encryption one step beyond?