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.
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Though I believe while we have outdated and unfair system of belonging to some borders, it's better not to make it even worse by adding new layers of dependency on these IDs.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?
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.
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.