Not sure exactly, but it would involve more security and less convenience, so it is unlikely to happen.
But even as a concept. We’re talking about something that has to reliably work for barely-literate, almost-deaf, crotchety old men, has to be a unique identifier, and has to serve as proof of credit worthiness with myriad businesses and agencies. On-the-fly generation of ID sequences pretty much flies out the window due to the first condition, and as soon as you have a persistent identifier string, you’re back where you’d started.
I have no problem with a unique identifier…it’s the crazy assumption that knowing that unique identifier is proof of identity that bothers me. So applying in person and showing ID doesn’t seem crazy to me.
1 Like
This is business as usual in much of the world, or the US 150 years ago. What about people who have no paperwork? Do people in Africa or the Middle East go around impersonating each other? How much is this a real problem, and how much do you trust bureaucrats to solve it for you?
If you want to see a bloodless coup which get you out from under the thumb of any authoritarian regime, then take control of the paper trail which puts people into their system from the cradle to the grave. If you and your friends, family, community, etc simply keep your own birth and death records - you have done more to fight the power than you could with a small army.
A nasty election I had the misfortune of living through in '06 robocalled the district multiple times each day with the same message starting off like it was from a first-time candidate but was paid for by her opposition. I had to unplug my phone for weeks.
She lost by 2%, and those calls undoubtably cost her the election.
They’re OK for identification - though not ideal, because they aren’t unique and not everybody has one. The problem is that some organizations use them for authentication.
1 Like
No ID is useful without authentication, so how do I look somebody up at Social Security? Or look up their license number? If you can’t, then possession of these does not prove who the person is! It’s just a number. There are other problems, such as some people not trusting others to keep records or vouch for them. I am opposed to the use of ID cards at all, since each person is supposed to be more of an authority on themselves than anybody else can be. And anybody who is in charge of their life should keep it that way. The alternative is forcing “everybody” subordinate themselves to a “trusted party” just in case somebody does something wrong. I prefer for laws and policies to be formulated for the average person rather than the remote possibilities that somebody somewhere might do something wrong.
If you need to authenticate that they are who they say they are, then you do so via some other means.
Your name is a form of identification. Yet clearly it’s useful without authentication, as you don’t go around showing people your passport or driver’s license every time you talk to them, and if someone refers to you in conversation they don’t have to provide documented proof that it’s you they are talking about.
SSNs were devised to solve a very specific problem – providing a unique identifier for taxpayers. You’ll notice that even the government doesn’t use them to authenticate taxpayers – you have to sign your tax return and obtain a separate authentication code if you want information on its progress, and if you get a refund it’s a check subject to the usual security and authentication requirements, and not a cashier’s check.
Wait, various people are saying social security numbers are not unique… is that right?
I mean 450 million have been issued, and I could easily see a few accidental duplicates being made, but they are supposed to be unique, right? And hopefully actually are unique for the past few decades…
I do know it is a bad idea to use them as a unique key in a database system, as has been done sometimes, because they are input data and thus duplicates can arise in various ways (most trivially: typos).
In general I think the right approach is to consider the ssn as a ‘number-name’ for the person. It is public information useful in that people have the same name far more often than the same ssn, but the two together are probably always unique. The idea that only the actual person knows their ssn is obviously false, so if you base any security on that it is useless.
It’s just a pity that the US has such a knee-jerk reaction against social democratic politics (SOCIALISM!). It seems to mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic. I’d 100x rather live in Denmark than the US, for sure.
But as long as you’re stuck with a 2-party system, you are effectively stuck with a 1-party system as they chase the median voter and pursue essentially the same agenda. That’s not democracy.
Wish I had a constructive suggestion, rather than just snarking about it. Sorry 
1 Like
It’s not that I disagree, but I think in practical terms people who sign on the dotted line see much more difference than there in fact is.
We all have the issues that are near and dear to our hearts, and perhaps on the issues you feel are important there is a political party that better expresses your ethics in action (not in words), and that’s great.
On many of the issues that I feel are important, there are rarely clear distinctions. As one example, the increasing militarization of law enforcement (and all of the “Wars” used to justify it, such as the “war on terror” and the “war on drugs”) is problematic, with each incoming administration ratcheting it up from the horrible places where it was when they entered. Even the progress we make is made despite our elected politicians, not because of them. (For example, Obama is lightening up on MJ issues because of popular mandate; remember, in his first term his league of justice was raiding even more dispensaries than Bush was). This is an affront to democracy, and neither of the dominant political parties can claim ethical superiority.
While this may sound somewhat cynical, I think people remember the campaign rhetoric, but unless they are paying attention (i.e., it happens to be one of their hot-button issues) they don’t notice the actions. Obama, for example, said all the right things about transparency in government when he was running, but his administration has failed that democratic ideal miserably. If you want to find some distinction between the Dems and the Pubs on this one, you’ll have to split some really, really fine hairs…
Don’t blame me, I voted Cthulhu.
2 Likes
Actually, I’m going to pull out all the cynicism stops, do be ready!
The main problem with the American political system is the electorate. The only reason people (or, moreover, special interest groups) can buy elections is because they are for sale by the voters. Meaning:
Meaningless attack ads win elections all the time. If the electorate wasn’t responsive the advertising like some hyper-charges Pavlovian dog, it wouldn’t be about the money. Seriously, politicians only care about their donors because people are too stupid to tell advertising from truth. And that’s the truth. (Not an ad 
)
1 Like
It might be the truth, but the cake you want to let the electorate eat, that cake is a lie.
1 Like
But that’s part of the point; it’s hard to see the interest in following popular mandate besides how it will impact votes.
I would say that at one point the Republican party was somewhat worse on things like the war on terror and drugs. It doesn’t seem to have mattered much to the voters, though; instead of consistently opting for lesser evils, they cycled them through the presidency and senate just the same.
So there’s no penalty for just doing things the way the lobbies would prefer, and if there isn’t, the Democratic party might as well start doing the same. Repeat, and I think that’s how things got to where they stand with Obama.
Yes, that’s kind of what I’m saying too.
Not sure I follow.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
