Believe me if you have the first thing the latter things will eventually follow. At least in the EU "universally mandated" has been a reality for a very long time.

Then why haven't they done that already? "Hold your encryption key in escrow" is perfectly feasible without a national ID system.

There are many places with mandated ID. Can you mention one in which any of the others on the list have "eventually followed"? You are presenting speculation as unavoidable fact.

That's the definition of the slippery slope fallacy. Those things need not necessarily follow, that's the point.

Yet. It's not slippery slope, it's looking ahead. Is the ice on the lake cracked? No. Therefore there is no chance of it cracking? Setup, then execute, not necessarily immediately.

It's literally the definition of a slippery slope argument.

> A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

Small first step => significant negative effect

"centrally managed, and cryptographically-backed state identification cards, complete with RFID" => everything the parent commenter said, basically

A slippery slope argument is not fallacious if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Additionally, “centrally managed, and cryptographically-backed state identification cards, complete with RFID” is not a “small first step”.

That’s a huge step that centralizes a great deal of power that can be readily leveraged through small subsequent steps.

Except it is. The slope is always slippery. Nobody can predict with 100% certainty what the future holds and if you believe otherwise, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Also, you clearly don’t understand what it means if you are nitpicking about the size of the first step. The whole point is that it builds up, and nobody can truly predict how it would shape up.

Trying to do so to fit a doom and gloom narrative is, once again, the literal definition. Just because you’d not like it doesn’t suddenly make it not so.

I’m not a Lawyer, but between the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments it seems pretty clear that it’s not a slippery slope, more like a craggily rocky one. Necessitating searchable papers to use the public commons is going to be a pretty difficult argument, between the protection against unreasonable search, guarantee of due process, necessity for search warrants and extention of these rights under state law, it seems pretty far fetched.

The opening of the 4th seems just about tailor made for this(because it was I believe?)

Emphasis mine, obviously.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.