> One election gone wrong is all it takes and all those data will be used for genocide. Again.

I like to believe we are a bit further away from genocide than one election gone awry. 71 years passed, you know.

Societies pass from peaceable to terrifying all the time, and it generally happens pretty quickly. Nobody ever seems to see it coming, although it's always obvious in hindsight to armchair analysts.

It hasn't happened in one of the big powers in awhile, but 71 years isn't that long. It wouldn't be paradise the day before an election and hell the day after, but you never know what event will be pivotal. Until armchair time.

Yup. Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur. Four genocides since WWII.

People look up to Germany. Germany setting themselves up for disaster will make other people think they're somehow safe.

Russia being a good example.

When was the transition? I don't remember Russia ever being a peaceable society.

1989. Most of the west expected communism to fall eventually, but nobody expected it to end as it did, when it did.

Probably a decade away, but Turkey is in the process of turning into a nondemocratic state, as is Hungary. Suppose the Syrian civil war spreads to Turkey (which already has its own ongoing conflict against its Kurdish minority). The collapse of Turkey would dump tens of millons more refugees into Germany. A few years of that and the people running on a platform of expelling Turks at gunpoint might start becoming popular.

Comparing Hungary to Turkey is insulting for Hungarians. Just because they oppose some mainstream EU bullshit does not make them less democratic than Germany or France (in fact I would consider Hungary MORE democractic).

It is a little bit difficult to find websites that represent Hungary's point of view in the controversial issues, though I'm pretty sure that the common presentation (that is biased towards the EU one) is not the whole truth...

And? People aren't less manipulatable than their grandparents were. Just look at the recent election successes of the AfD.

This is a cheap smear. If you want to criticise the AfD - fine - but be specific and give your reasons.

I gather they object as I do, to Merkel's arrogant 2015 invitation to migrants which impinges on every person in the EU and particularly in the UK which is a honeypot for EU citizens (which migrants will be in a few years) earning less than the minimum wage.

They are a protest party. Being right-wing is incidental here – they appeared out of nowhere, gained support fast due to unforeseen political circumstances, but they don't exactly have a mature political agenda. They're most likely no new NSDAP, but who says we'll be that lucky every time protest parties sprout up?

The CDU moved more into a more left direction under Merkel, so there are politicians who will try to capture the more right-wing voters who don't feel themself represented by the CDU anymore. Voila - AfD is born. As a German I don't like the AfD but really don't worry about it.

FYI: the TIN is a unique number associated to each person living in Germany. New born babies are getting a TIN faster than most of the congratulation cards... It is issued by the tax authorities and as a foreigner living in Germany you also get one.

Germany is not alone.

In Portugal usually you always need to present you ID card and Tax ID together when some form of identification is required.

To the point that the actual ID cards (Ausweis) have the citizen ID, tax ID and social security ID all together.

Resistance to ID is just an americanism. There are no practical negative consecuences and a lot of good ones.

Identity is a right that government must warrant, not something dirty that should be buried.

> Resistance to ID is just an americanism.

I literally just explained how it's not.

> There are no practical negative consecuences

Assuming an ideal, benevolent government.

(Presumably residing on an infinite frictionless plane, feasting on spherical cows.)

Government will identify citizens anyway. It's not choice between ID and no ID, but between simple ID and ad-hoc scheme (Name/Surname/Birthdate/Residence composite, or issuing separate id for each institution).

While IDs do have negative consequences, I see zero downside in replacing VATIN, passport number (linked list of "previous document" in worst case, down to birth certificate), army id number, employment record book number and "$surname $name $patronymic, born $birth_date at $birth_place, registered $registration_place" official title with single citizen ID.

Centralization and slack are inversely proportional. If everybody is reliably and unambiguously identified from birth by a single government-issued and -maintained key, and that government turns against its citizens (or is overthrown, compromised, et cetera), you're basically hosed.

That data is already centralized and interlinked. There is no 'slack' (ambiguity and leeway) as far as government is concerned.

I am not arguing for using government-issued IDs for non-government services (as in original post), and consider enforcement of such use a direct attack on citizen freedom, but only for having single ID for use in state-person relations.

> That data is already centralized and interlinked.

Not in all countries. Germany used to have explicit laws against combining state and federal record bases, they were only recently eroded to "fight terrorism".

You need to assume nothing. Your government is spying on everybody without an ID. Your explanation just doesn't qualify, sorry.

So why you create temporary accounts to comment?

Because this lovely customer I'm working in MITMs the HTTPS. You know, it's so cool to read gmail on the phone.

BTW, shame on Chrome for allowing it without a warning :-/ Firefox totally refused to connect.

> Germany is a bit touchy when it comes to measures like this. After the experiences of the Nazi regime, even things like a census or introduction of a TIN met massive, years long resistance.

Rather because of the experience with the Stasi in the former GDR.

The Gestapo used the same – and worse – methods as the Stasi did, and in the 1980s, when the general census was planned, the Stasi's exact methods weren't well-studied in the west. The 1983 census decision mainly evolved around theoretical threats (panopticon effect) and the provisions of the German constitution (basic law), which was made in the immediate aftermath of WW2 and grounded on the concept of inalienable human dignity.

For the census (in the 80th) you are right, but today the political activists rather use comparisons with the Stasi. For example when Wolfgang Schäuble was Interior Minister activists against the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz (Access Impediment Act) often used the slogan "Stasi 2.0" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_2.0). The same slogan is used by activists against Vorratsdatenspeicherung (data retention).

"SSchäuble" was also used when referring to him in general.

Correct, but SSchäuble was a slogan of rather low level (in my opinion), just as "Rollstuhl-Nazi" (wheelchair nazi).

> One election gone wrong is all it takes and all those data will be used for genocide. Again.

Because first they'll come for the contractless?

Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?

> Because first they'll come for the contractless?

No, but census data were extremely useful in organizing the holocaust.

> Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?

Because in these cases that's how the political discussion in Germany in the 1980s/2000s went when the above-mentioned measures were discussed. It's simply the benchmark our governments are judged by. The Nazis are not some boogeymen that you use whenever you need a politically correct movie villain, they were the democratically elected government of a first world nation, and should be treated as such.

More generally: Governments should not operate as efficiently as possible. They should be easy to keep in check by the population.

This is not about collecting census data, is it?

So, sticking to what it is about, if you think your invoking of the Nazis and the Holocaust was even remotely appropriate in this thread, explain how banning anonymous SIM cards aids a future genocide.

Banning anonymity in any form infringes on your right of expression, as it results in the panopticon effect. The BVerfG put it far more eloquently than I could: https://web.archive.org/web/20101116085553/http://zensus2011...

Great. Now explain how banning anonymous SIM cards causes genocide.

> Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?

I know, right? You'd think slaughtering a few million people in half a decade or so was some kind of big deal, or something.

To be honest, studies have shown that we're all capable of that. But, no harm no foul, so its all on the Germans at present.

What happened to Native Americans was "kind of a big deal" too. So was slavery. Should people therefore bring them up every time there's a completely unrelated discussion about the USA?

Completely unrelated? A German government legislates the use of technology to make identifying and tracking its citizens easier, and you can't see how people draw the comparison?

As for your invidious attempt to distract from said comparison by slinging mud, I'll just point out that you're severely underplaying your hand here - a goodly fraction of what went into Hitlerism, not least the theory and practice of eugenics, originated with Progressive Era luminaries of the United States. Indeed, our nation might've gone much the same way as yours, were it not for the benefit of Germany's salutary, if horrible, example.

> and you can't see how people draw the comparison?

Between collecting data on SIM card ownership and the Holocaust? No, I can't see how any level-headed person can draw such a comparison.

> As for your invidious attempt to distract from said comparison by slinging mud

WTH are you talking about?

In a "completely unrelated" discussion? No. But bringing up past German government failures in a discussion about a German government tightening up blanket surveillance of all their citizens is not "completely unrelated".

Let's hear it, then, what's the relationship between banning anonymous SIM cards and genocide.

Being able to map SIM cards to persons + phone location tracking = ?

I'll let you work out the rest yourself.

Do I take it from this that you're unable to explain the connection you made between this subject and the Holocaust?

Why is it some ppl always have to complain about that?

Perhaps they hope the people doing it will gather some other point of reference about the country.

Please do tell me what points of reference I need to gather about my own home country.

Ones that are actually appropriate to the discussion.