Under the pretense of fortifying digital security in the United States, newly proposed legislation seeks to transform the United States Postal Service (USPS) into a hub for digital IDs. Senators Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Bill Cassidy, Republican, have put forth the bill known as the Post Office Services for Trustworthy Identity Act. The proposed legislation opens new discourse on digital privacy and the potential for abnormal surveillance measures, sparking debate over the delicate balance between biosecurity and preserving citizens’ fundamental rights.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here [PDF].

The proposed legislation comes in response to the piecemeal approach taken towards biometric identification in America. Historically, disjointed programs have been created by different states and separate agency undertakings, giving rise to the necessity for a more coherent national strategy. The Post Office Services for Trustworthy Identity Act could mark a landmark shift, focusing on service provision rather than overarching digital ID strategy.

  • @AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    361 year ago

    I’m gonna be real, we do need an actual id system in the US. Right now we treat social security numbers like one, but they’re extremely insecure.

    We’re going to have a number either way, may as well have one that isn’t as easy for scammers to steal.

      • @AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        SSN’s main issues are that it’s hard to change, and it’s predictable. If they know your date of birth and where you were born then they can reliably determine your SSN. And once your SSN is out, it’s very difficult to change unless your identity was already stolen.

        I have no idea why you just asking a question got down voted.

      • @library_napper
        link
        111 year ago

        Because it would be a private key associated with a public key

      • Dark Arc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        You wouldn’t use a number, you would use something closer to a yubikey/passkey.

    • @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right now we treat social security numbers like one, but

      They were never meant to be used that way. The solution is to stop using them that way. We do not need a digital-compatible id system in the US.

      • @AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We definitely do need one. Right now it’s a hodge podge of crap that wasn’t meant to be an identifier and it makes identity theft easy, and our privacy isn’t even being protected because we still have an SSN and tax ID.

        Having worked in the medical space, a lack of identifier is actually a huge issue that causes problems for people daily, especially people changing their names for whatever reason.

        • @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          I think it would be better to do everything with accounts that are not necessarily permanently connected to a person’s identity. Any government mediated, definitive system for identifying people is way too risky from a general privacy and freedom perspective.

          • @AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            The government can already identify you, and your identity is easy to steal. Making a better ID system just removes the identity theft issue.

            The other nice thing would be you could use the id number instead of your name so you can stop giving your PII out to every business. Just “here’s my ID number, bill my insurance, you don’t need anything else.”

            • @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              The government can already identify you, and your identity is easy to steal.

              Fixing both of these problems would be better than just one.

                • @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  The issue is that the surveillance state is actively bad, and expanding it and making it more official is a much bigger problem than the problem of ill-conceived verification systems, which could be better solved other ways. I don’t want things to be perfect, I want to prioritize moving away from a dystopian panopticon.