Being a Russian passport holder who lives abroad for years, I don't want to be in touch with my gov in any way possible, and moreover depend on it.
That's actually the case for millions of people from different countries with dictatorships, do you propose just to discriminate everyone outside of 20-30 countries with more or less democratic systems ? Those countries don't care about "citizen privacy".
Apart from that, we all see the bill in the UK which is as much a disaster to human freedoms as Russian and Chinese laws, for example. So even being a citizen of a more modern country is not a guarantee.
People don't always live in their country of citizenship, they don't always live in one place (see digital nomads) and have a residence, they don't always trust their government and they should not be discriminated on internet usage because of that. That makes a person more of a government property rather than a human being.
Being nobody's resident doesn't mean that you're not a human.
And anyway, there are a lot of people inside Russia, China, Iran, etc. And instead of helping them to use services with better privacy and consume uncensored views from outside id based system will give an impressive way to censor internet usage by government attesters. Have wrong views - say goodbye to the internet.
> to optimize their taxes
But in most of the states that have been pushing such laws that is very much not the case. The deliberately pick forms of ID that are less prevalent among poor and minority voters and that for many are expensive to obtain. In several they have also taken measures to make it even more difficult for those people to obtain ID.
For example if they require an ID that you get from the state's department of motor vehicles (DMV) they (in the name of budget cuts) close many DMV offices, and in the ones that remain open the cut back on the hours during which they will issue licenses to a few hours on weekdays. The closures mostly hit in poor and minority districts.
Yes, some of those laws do make some forms of acceptable ID free, but only in the sense that there is no fee to obtain that ID. Obtaining the documents necessary to obtain the ID will still have fees.
Real identity doesn't necessarily mean passport. It can mean, for example, a visa issued by your host government; being a valid visa holder therefore grants you a valid digital identity issued by that country.
> People don't always live in their country of citizenship, they don't always live in one place (see digital nomads) and have a residence, they don't always trust their government and they should not be discriminated on internet usage because of that. That makes a person more of a government property rather than a human being.
Then let's get rid of passports. Sounds like the deeper issue, no? Wouldn't you agree that freedom of movement and immigration is a higher and more important freedom than freedom of internet access?
This is the world we live in. Immigration concerns exist. Government-issued identity is real. It just hasn't caught up to the 21st century.
You can stay in UAE for half a year, start being their resident with 0% tax and then moving around stayng less than 183 days anywhere. It's of course better to be connected to UAE or other low tax jurisdiction in case of "personal connection" taxes requirements. Nothing unethical, illegal or bad in that. As far as it's perfectly legal in lots of countries, that's optimizing and not dodging or avoiding.
If you are staying UAE resident this way, you probably will have some troubles receiving gov services, because you don't live there in fact most of the time (and you are still just a tax resident and not always resident in terms of long-term living permit).
Anyway, placing a person to be "managed" by some government is a really dystopian concept.
There is basically no reason for, for example, African young person to be more restricted in his freedom of movement than European one, but we are where we are.
Though I believe while we have outdated and unfair system of belonging to some borders, it's better not to make it even worse by adding new layers of dependency on these IDs.
Wouldn't be better to add more opportunities equality instead of hardening it?
You claim to believe it's not and offer no counter point outside of you feel it in your gut and a desire to deflect and attack OP for making the point by calling the poster prejudice.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jul/11/eric-holde...
https://www.aclu.org/documents/oppose-voter-id-legislation-f...
https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...
https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/4/7157037/us-voter-id-req...
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-voters-ge...
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-...
https://www.theregreview.org/2019/01/08/shapiro-moran-burden...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/heres-h...
https://scholars.org/contribution/high-cost-free-photo-voter...
https://now.tufts.edu/2018/01/23/proving-voter-id-laws-discr...
I couldn't agree more, but you gotta apply the right leverage to the right problem, put the round pegs in the round holes and the square pegs in the square holes. Real digital identity does for the digital economy what credit cards did for the retail economy: dramatically reduce the cost of friction, and therefore dramatically expand, how much activity there will be. It is this reduction in friction which opens additional opportunities even to people with identities issued by less-favored governments. Separately, we can and should push to make qualified immigration simpler, faster, and for more applicants.
I am a bit opinionated about that, because I already saw lots of that in Russia with all these fancy "security" and "convenient" digital tools and how it ended.
Digital Id should be solved by some kind of WebOfTrust, private DIDs and somehow distributed reputation systems, not by centralized government databases. It's a straight way to tyranny.
Th main idea as that I strongly disagree that a person must have an ID outside of some questionable country and that's more of an example. I personally traveled just because I wanted to travel a lot, it was before the war and stuff, but as I know currently lots of Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians are changing countries to find the best for them. When you don't have home anymore, there is no reason to settle to the first place you visited.
BTW, 3 flights per year with 2-3 bags will cost you around 3k USD, you will probably overpay around 300-400 USD per month staying in Airbnb in low-cost of living countries like Thailand, so in fact the whole cost of moving will be around 7-10k USD per year. If you earn IT remote salary, you will probably save a lot.
Though you'll need a tax consultant to avoid breaking any tax law accidentally, but that's not so expensive outside of the EU and the US.
The reason why it needs to be managed by the government is because legal contracts are ultimately enforced by government courts. Many things that, today, rely upon pen-and-paper signature (and Docusign-style electronic variants, which are just digital facades to the pen-and-paper reality), to get them enforced, require submitting more mountains of paperwork and physical appearances etc. We can't get out from behind that paper legacy, really start to explore contracts that can be disputed and enforced with simple online forms and no in-person appearances (everything from employment, to real estate / housing, to credit...) until the courts have a trustworthy to say, for this digital identity that signed that agreement, we know that it really was such-and-such a real person.
> It's a straight way to tyranny.
You'll disagree, but I would argue that it isn't more powerful tools that make government tyrannical, but a lack of education, poor culture, and a lack of checks-and-balances on government power. The government is supposed to have a monopoly on various parts of life, first and foremost a monopoly on violence (police, courts, and justice). "Democratic" but weak governments (consider e.g. Mexico, in the context of the drug wars) are ineffective at securing the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; America has a history of strong governmental institutions that protect these rights. "Technology is neither good, nor evil, nor neutral, it simply is," and indeed, improving governmental strength by pushing past technical barriers is simply an orthogonal concern (IMO) to whether or not governments are just or tyrranical.