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.
Be watchful for legislation requiring: * us to have our ID on our person at all times. * IDs to be issued in digital format only.
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.
Citation needed.
But they never get what they wanted nor what they voted for.
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?
Yes it is. And participating is accepting it.
Many brown looking citizens carry their passport so as to not be excessively detained by ICE.
https://legalclarity.org/can-you-have-a-non-driver-id-and-a-...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-6/chapter-I/part-37/subpa...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would definitely expect Google to follow quickly.
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 $$
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blood pressure prescriptions, no ID lots of times. OTC meds which are ingredients to make meth, need an ID.
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.
While should companies tracking us to make more money affect our habits?
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.
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).
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.
Since the phone would authenticate your age as well as give the payment information.
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.
It’s pointless to ask someone who’s clearly in their fourties for an ID in this case.
The people building this know nobody wants to hand their phone over to the police.
Having your license confiscated when it doubles as your wallet, MFA device for work, and primary communications device sounds like a disaster.
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.
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?
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?
They’ve had some form of this for ages with Apple Pay
It seems (again, if I'm reading correctly) that you only really need a private key in order to issue a passport.
Issuing a passport is a different issue entirely, since you need a country's document signing key.
(There are national-level databases, but presumably not every country has access to every other country's database.)
Countries don't need access to database. They need to validate public key / hashsum is valid (or something along those lines).
https://blog.trailofbits.com/2025/10/31/the-cryptography-beh...
Passport chips aren't that complex, especially not American ones. You just need to transmit part of the MRZ to unlock them (Other ICAO compliant passports have slightly different requirements, still all easily doable for any smart phone with NFC transmit)
The Apple ID isn't a ZKP - IIRC they're doing a CBOR representation of the claims which is signed with their own cert.
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.
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.
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.
ICE and CBP are both part of DHS. This data is going to be abused, if it is not already.
I've definitely avoided photos on exit and used it coming back in, so I'm not sure this is accurate.
I reject it because I don't believe in a world where rampant facial recognition should be the norm.
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.
If they know that already, then they don't need to use facial recognition. It acts as a de-facto endorsement of the idea that it should be used everywhere else in society, which is what my issue is.
I also lived in Japan for a number of years and I'm familiar with their system at the airports. Japan is not America and I do not find it useful or interesting to compare the two approaches; when I lived there - and indeed, whenever I go back - I'm aware of and resigned to the aspect of that society not giving a shit about it all. I do not think America needs to be the same way.
What happens if the government can now perfectly enforce that people under 18 can't do X or Y?
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.)
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.
Eventually in a system like that they may refine their procedures and then you get dinged essentially...
"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.
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.
(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.)
Credit cards are a great example: they can't be faked, however while the cryptographers are sitting on their high hill and patting themselves on the back for doing great job, the credit card fraud rings billions of dollars every month. It doesn't happen because of fake cards -- it happens by exploiting the flaws in the whole process that a (non-fakeable) card is a part of.
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...
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.
Once everyone is mandated to carry digital ID, then possibilities to track population open up.
[1] to paraphrase one many excellent John McCarthy-isms: http://jmc.stanford.edu/general/sayings.html
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?
I’m against “let’s hold all progress because a few states can go backwards faster than they’ve been” perspective.
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.
Governments can do that today already. Digital IDs don't contribute anything to this. They just make our lives easier, not governments'.
> 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.
Those false positives/negatives, duplicates affect real people too. That's just a case for digital IDs, not against.
> and, in the process, permanently linking their Digital ID Identifier to all their social media accounts
How do you reach to that conclusion? How are they permanently linked? It's perfectly possible to verify your age digitally without permanently linking your ID with your social accounts.
> Once Australia rolls this out to social networks, it will keep expanding until virtually everything is captured.
Again, that can be done without digital IDs. You're holding the wrong front here. Privacy invading laws should be fought, but the public shouldn't be kept away from the convenience and privacy gains of digital IDs. It makes no sense.
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.
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
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!
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).
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...
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.
I frequently find that advocates ignore cost.
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.
Hmm..
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trumps-ballro...
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.
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.
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."
I agree it's possible to present your ID without unlocking your phone, but is it likely?
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.
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.
But now that ICE is carrying facial recognition scanners that you're not allowed to opt out of, I guess the point is probably moot.
As for birth certificate, it is a document that shows you are a citizenship and does identify you and can be used. It’s common in other countries as a document to open back accounts so in many ways it can in the USA.
As far as I can think of, you always need an ID to get through security, just before entering the baggage scan?
Unless you're trying to be unnecessarily pedantic, yes you do.
There are exceptions like if you're a minor, if you're a passenger on a general aviation flight instead of a commercial one, etc.
But if you're an adult and you want to hop on a commercial flight from JFK to LAX, you need government-issued photo ID, period. You're not getting through security otherwise.
https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/trip-planning/us-tra...
"If you forget your ID, you may still be able to fly after some extra screening."
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-forg...
"I forgot my identification; can I still proceed through security screening? In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly. By providing additional information, TSA has other ways to confirm your identity so you can reach your flight."
Every USA airline has this documentaiton, and TSA has this documentation on their website too.
>Unless you're trying to be unnecessarily pedantic, yes you do.
Edge cases should be accounted for IRL. People like you are the reason why the right to privacy is being eroded away constantly.
>But if you're an adult and you want to hop on a commercial flight from JFK to LAX, you need government-issued photo ID, period. You're not getting through security otherwise.
The evidence I presented above states you can. Whether or not it's seamless or comfortable isn't a discussion, nor should it be "pedantic" to know the rules presented by these organizations.
You're absolutely being pedantic and argumentative, and I can't even begin to imagine why. I assume you know perfectly well that an ID is required to fly as the general rule. I can't imagine what you think you're trying to accomplish by arguing otherwise.
And if you really want to be pedantic, note that the word used is "may", not "shall":
> In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly.
Because it's not a guarantee.
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.
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.
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.
But I'd be perfectly happy to use a phone made by any of them that let me upload my driver's license to a wallet they managed.
I mean, why wouldn't I? What do I care whether China knows who I am...? I mean, I've already given them my passport when I visited anyways.
Just because I'm happy with some corporations having a scan of my driver's license doesn't mean I'm happy with anybody having it.
Are you already storing the details of millions of others, and mine is nothing special? Are you a publicly traded corporation accountable to shareholders? Are you a nation-state with procedures around all these things? Or are you a criminal trying to sign up for credit cards in my name?
Your supposed equivalence isn't an equivalence at all.
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?
"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.
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)
https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-...
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)
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.
robin_reala•2mo ago
barbazoo•2mo ago
pkolaczk•2mo ago
barbazoo•2mo ago
atonse•2mo ago
You gotta start somewhere. They started with Driver's Licenses.
withinboredom•2mo ago