> You continue to make some good points, but at the end of the day, this is a government function and responsibility, not that of a private company.
I 100% agree. Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number. Those opposed to it don't have any good solution to "how to protect information the government keeps about you" either, so it's no good asking them.
Devising an actual public system for identity verification when you're being told the government cannot identify people is ... challenging.
> Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number.
I wonder if this mightn't change with states increasingly requiring voter ID.
After all, it'd be pretty dumb to on one hand mandate that every voter have government-issued ID, and on the other to oppose it.
The bulk of those who are pushing for more voter ID are from the most political alliance most vocal about both (a) insisting the voting is a state matter (b) federal government issuing ID is not OK.
I 100% agree. Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number. Those opposed to it don't have any good solution to "how to protect information the government keeps about you" either, so it's no good asking them.
Devising an actual public system for identity verification when you're being told the government cannot identify people is ... challenging.