2. https://github.com/sertoID/
3. https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/hyperledger-indy
The government does not want to incentivize that.
Mention of attorneys general and social security numbers in OP's posting put me in a US mindset.
TWO years?
I have had my data pwn3d a couple of times. One was six months', the other was one year, and Experian used that as leverage to unendingly nag me to buy into them.
> It’s time for attorney generals
They are attorneys, so that is the word to pluralize. What type of attorney are they? General
You thank.
LIST OF GENERAL ATTORNEYS FTW!
(SEE HOW EVEN THE ACRONYM AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FITS INTO COBOL SYNTAX, BEING IN UPPERCASE?)
COMPILE IN A FLASH, DEBUG AT LEISURE.
AND DON'T FORGET YOUR COBOL PERIODS.
I do think we should also push back against surveillance capitalism. This has been a disaster. Such data breaches are a result of this system (and clearly it isn't even unique to the western world). I think any government has the power to hold these companies accountable in at least some form or another. Big dogs like US, China, and Germany should be leaders, but clearly they aren't as this stuff keeps happening.
They issue me a single identification number that can be used anywhere at anytime without any verification or notification that it has been used, and it's next to impossible to get a new one issued.
This is madness. A state funded "insurance" system to backstop this mistake is an unworkable hack that seeks to ignore the fundamental problem.
The problem is third parties abused that number for their own purposes.
Imagine if some company somewhere started using phone numbers as identifiers, and criminals started defrauding that company by "stealing" other people's phone numbers. Would you blame the phone company for that? Of course not.
The problem is that banks and anyone else using SSNs need to do more due diligence than checking SSNs, but they don't want to because it would be expensive and add friction to signing up for their "products".
It goes on.. third parties weren't the worst and they didn't start it and some are required by law.
Imagine if Credit Card companies were as blatantly incompetent and as reckless as the government? The reason they aren't is because they hold most of the liability at all times, and there's a lot of good laws that set them up for huge damages if the make a mistake. The reason the government doesn't care is because no one holds them accountable.
If you have an interest bearing account, you need to provide an SSN, and even though the regulation has since been changed, you needed it for any account for 30 years or so. Anyways, if my SSN suddenly starts being used 12 states away from where it has been the last few decades, _nobody_ notices. The government is the only agency that could and they just don't.
The burden of authentication is not on the entity who issued a simple ID number, it is on those who go on to use it as if it is a secret.
I think your trust in credit card companies is misplaced. The only thing that holds them back is consumer protection laws, and they fight those however they can. Jack up rates, check. Grant credit at a sales point of presence with a minimum wage sales clerk doing identification, check. Sell or trade your payment history, check.
In some moral systems, lending money to make money itself is outright wrong. If you maintain a balance on your credit card for day to day expenses, any financial advisor will tell you to stop that.
It was a successful tactic used by banks and credit bureaus to shed their responsibility of proper verification when opening lines of credit or other accounts.
Or it can require ATM, which is not frictionless.
Businesses already ask for phone numbers anyway. Can it become worse?
Pseudonyms don't work for the topic under discussion, issuing credit. And for the general case, since credit issuers would be able to require you to do a non-psuedonym identification, then any other entity can require this as well, unless there were a privacy law.
(no idea what you mean by "ATM")
Because businesses want spammable addresses. That's why they won't ask for properly designed digital identification.
By ATM I mean you use ATM with your card to authenticate yourself. You can't use a smart card with thin air, can you?
I can walk into a shop with a handful of cash, buy an item, and leave without anyone knowing who I was. That should be true of any good or service, including banking, that does not require additional data for direct practical reasons related to the provision of the service, e.g. cleaners need to know where you live. "Prevention of fraud/laundering/terrorism/whatever" is not such a reason.
This is further complicated by US bank accounts including an intrinsic bit of credit from writing checks and other ACH debits.
Banks have notaries of the public. After you have established a relationship with a bank, the notary may have enough evidence to authenticate you for others. If you have continued to use the bank in an anonymous manner, then you should not be authenticated to others.
The idea that someone can lose all your data and then pay for two years of identity monitoring is absurd. The people with the data can see that and can just wait two years to sell it. Social security numbers don’t reset after two years.
If you lose data, you pay a data breach tax forever. Over time, your competitors will be able to run with lower margins if they stay secure. As companies die out, the remaining breaches ones are responsible to keep footing the bill.