> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there prohibits a national eID.

It absolutely does, as a national eID creates a chilling effect that can negatively impact my right to free speech and to peacefully assemble. Digital anonymity is not a joke, it is a fundamental human right whether or not you or any state agency recognizes it. It is crucial to a healthy democracy.

You mean if the issuer of the eID violates people's privacy, in violation of the first amendment. That's what you have courts for.

yeah that's worked out fantastically against any hundreds of companies that leak user data every year.

same thing will happen, a leak will occur and the authorities will be thrilled to offer me a 45 cent class action suit -- meanwhile bad actors will have the data and do who-knows-what with it.

if bad internet data is really the problem here then I would suggest more rigorous filtering of results rather than involuntarily signing up the world for a club that every individual may or may not want to be a part of by way of an eID.

> It is crucial to a healthy democracy.

And yet democracies predate the existence of digital anonimity by quite a few centuries (or at the very least decades, depending on how many slaves you accept in your definition of a "healthy democracy").

Digital anonymity is the higher-level concept being discussed, but the underlying issue which it relates to is that of a chilling effect, which is a timeless phenomenon.

> The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation.

> Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overv...

I guess the argument would have to be the admittedly stretchy one of by requiring an eID you are requiring people declare who they are when communicating, which would then be compelled speech.

since this is HN I better clarify - I'm not sure I agree that should pass or would pass, it seems a stretch to me. But if I wanted to make the argument that is where I would go.

Not necessarily.

An eID can also just make a call to the eID issuer, identifying the person, and then a callback to the service indicating that the identified person complies with certain requirements like age.

Think of it as a bouncer at the door that does not divulge any details to the club owner. ;)

The requirement only applies to certain platforms, though, you're still free to communicate what you wish.

How do we decide which platforms it applies to? And once the infrastructure is in place, how do we ensure the list of platforms does not grow at the whim of the administration of the month?

Exactly. Nothing in there prohibits electronic anything. It's talking about people. If you so choose, you can still do everything in person. The fact that computers currently make it easier and it's about to get harder doesn't change the fact that computers are entirely irrelevant.

The key insight is that the government should never be allowed to mediate the interactions I have with other humans on platforms which allow these interactions, and should never be allowed to mandate a platform to adopt policies which prohibit such activity.

If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.

It wouldn't be restricting your freedoms, just your ability to exercise them.