After Joint Debt, EU Seeks More Integration With Digital ID Card (bloomberg.com) 117
The European Commission will on Thursday propose the introduction of so-called digital wallets that will offer access to a range of services across the EU for the bloc's 450 million citizens, in a further step toward closer integration in the aftermath of the pandemic. From a report: "Under the new rules, European Digital Identity Wallets will be available to everyone," according to a draft of the proposals seen by Bloomberg. The wallets will allow European Union citizens to digitally identify themselves, and store identity data and official documents such as driving licenses, medical prescriptions or education qualifications. Several member states already provide digital forms of identity, so the proposed new app would interact with existing systems while providing EU citizens with the right to a service that is recognized across the bloc. The wallet wouldn't be obligatory.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:1)
You can always tell when a politician is a loser who can only get elected by suppressing votes. They'll be the ones trying to make voting harder.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:1)
Security isn't a feature. It's a process. Part of that process is modeling attack risks. No one is trying to steal the elections by going around to polling places and pretending to be other people. These laws don't actually have any effect on securing the election.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is trying to steal the elections by going around to polling places and pretending to be other people.
You don't have to go around to polling places. You just have to mail your ballot in. I've been voting by mail in Washington State for years. And one interesting aspect of their system: I've never had to appear in person anywhere to register or vote.
Another thing: Several different government mail in applications absolutely require that they be filled out in black ink. NOT BLUE. So they can be easily photocopied with cheap equipment?
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
If it's so easy, go ahead and do it. Prove to us that the system is broken by getting someone elected. You have all to gain and nothing to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove to us that the system is broken by getting someone elected.
Again?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Because voting's a right, and ID isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what "shall not be infringed" means, I guess....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
yes, and no one's stopping you from exercising that right if you're an adult citizen
requiring standard security and identification is not infringing on your right, it's protecting it
that gives more confidence in the vote and the process while also reducing the risk of your voice being smothered out by fraudulent votes or counting without transparency (trail, filming etc.)
don't be so partisan that you fail to see how insane the Democrat position is and how manipulative the media portrayals are (as they have
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
I personally don't understand why democrats think so low of minorities that they think they're somehow less capable of figuring out how to get a state issued id card.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not minorities in general. It's minorities because those are the people dealing with generational poverty. And if you live in a poor area where you can afford to live, going to get an ID requires taking a full day off work at a minimum. And if you don't have an ID, it probably means you don't have a car either. So you're not only taking an entire day off work and losing that money, but also paying $20 (in my state) or more for the ID itself. And all of that money just for the Constitutional right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
You're creating a pretty contrived scenario that is also extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible.
First off, if they have steady employment to begin with, then they already had to provide proof to their employer that they're eligible to work in the United States, which they also had to provide two forms of ID for.
If they're not steadily employed, as in they do contract work, then why am I not convinced that over a span of two years, they won't have even (let's be very generous towards your argument) 3
Re: (Score:3)
You're creating a pretty contrived scenario that is also extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible.
You mean repeating scenarios that I've heard as examples from people who actually exist?
proof to their employer that they're eligible to work in the United States
You can fill out an I-9 and present a school ID card and a birth certificate. There's no need to get a Driver's license or other state ID for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean repeating scenarios that I've heard as examples from people who actually exist?
Either these people deliberately aren't trying all that hard, or somebody is being ultra selective in holding them up as poster children. Actually, it's probably both.
You can fill out an I-9 and present a school ID card and a birth certificate. There's no need to get a Driver's license or other state ID for that.
There you go, two forms of state issued identification. See? That wasn't so hard...
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:5, Insightful)
46 out of 47 European Democracies REQUIRE ID to vote, and the lone hold-out, the UK, is considering adopting the requirement this year.
Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... [ssrn.com]
Can we all agree that just because one side accuses the other side of something doesn't make the accusation factual? Any serious person that reads the so-called "Jim Crow 2.0" law in Georgia understands that it expands the voting process in GA, for example:
-17 days of early in-person voting
- legalizes drop-boxes (which never existed in GA until 2020 court decree)
- makes it a crime for political operatives (volunteers) to hand out things of value to people waiting to vote
Etc.
Remember, the "Jim Crow 2.0" comes from Gov. Stacy Abraham's, Georgia's Governor-in-exile that refuses to this day to concede her loss in 2018.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Link: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articl... [wsj.com]
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
Because it hasn't been required in the status quo; you are asking to change that. Now, why should we spend the monies to require it for every state?
There are plenty of laws on the books to punish people for voter fraud. What is the risk you are trying to mitigate with this new expense? Will this mitigate the risk? I mean someone willing to commit voter fraud will surely not know about fake IDs.
Will IDs be freely available and easy to get? Will there be a US wide program to put IDs in the hands of every
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
But these people were caught without requiring ID. Voter ID won't help improve security. Why do you think it will?
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:1)
What illegal or fraudulent votes? Those don't really exist. They're all made up in right-wing fantasies. Can you find real world examples?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I am not right wing. I even voted for Biden. Election fraud is very rare. But you can find examples here: https://www.heritage.org/voter... [heritage.org]. Why shouldn't voting require identification?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
we as americans really should want to ensure that does not happen.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Except the new laws proposed are not intended to prevent voter fraud they are intended to reduce the number of people voting against the politicians writing the laws. That is morally fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
are less restrictive than other states current laws
Besides that being mostly opinion, it's also the moral high ground argument of "but they're doing it too so that makes it OK." The people thinking these laws are unjust also believe there are more injustices to fix in other states.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
we as americans really should want to ensure that does not happen.
If "we" is the citizenry, then yes we should do our civic duty and turn anyone who does VF into the authorities.
But if you mean we as in society or government, NO, we should NOT do that. Because it would be a waste of resources. We would be at the top of the curve of diminishing returns.
Even thou it's perfectly legal and not infringing on anyone's rights, we don't have toll booths checking everyone's drivers license, insurance, and eye sight. We have a higher percentage of invalid/lack of licenses, stolen c
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
Umm... you should actually read up on how elections are run. It's not some single behemoth that you must "believe" is headed in the right direction.
It's more like a herd of 3141 cats whose general consensus determines the direction. It's not hard for each of the cats to know when they are being blocked or manipulated; more so when more are. Even if one is unknowingly manipulated, it doesn't really impact the consensual direction.
When people say they don't have faith in the elections; what they are really
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain to me the last time there was an AUDIT (not a recount, which would simply recount any fraudulent votes) has occurred to back up your claim of "no" fraudulent voting?
Democrats argued against voter ID, against signature verification, and for sending ballots to every known address in the voter roll. And let's not forget ballot harvesting (someone knock on your door and offers to take your ballot to the poll) and drop-boxes (trash cans with lids) placed randomly around the city with no supervision or chain of custody.
How does refusing ID make voting more secure?
How does not even verifying signatures on absentee ballots make voting more secure?
How does mailing millions of ballots out indiscriminately make voting more secure?
How does handing your ballot to a stranger make voting more secure?
How does driving past countless mail boxes to put your ballot in a box on a street corner make the vote more secure?
Imagine a Republican candidate sent worker out into his Democrat opponent's strongholds to 'harvest' ballots or install 'drop boxes' and then failed to submit those ballots - are you still in favor of those ideas?
Re: (Score:2)
How does not even verifying signatures on absentee ballots make voting more secure?
Because it prevents people from mucking around with votes who aren't experts at handwriting analysis. Integrity is part of security. You can't match two signatures based simply by looking and seeing if they look the same. If that was how it worked, I would never be able to cast a valid vote.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
So "accept everything without question" is more secure than machine comparison with human backup? Interesting, I'd like to hear more about this "security through a lack of security measures".
Re: (Score:2)
On what grounds would some random be rejecting a signature? So you have a neural net machine that decides two signatures are not a match. Does a human verify it? How is this better?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a Republican candidate sent worker out into his Democrat opponent's strongholds to 'harvest' ballots or install 'drop boxes' and then failed to submit those ballots - are you still in favor of those ideas?
I don't disagree with your points, but this totally happened [npr.org]. Republicans made some noise by setting up unauthorized drop boxes in CA.
But yes, I don't think I have heard of a major audit, which would be way more useful than a recount.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
Only Democrats can deploy unsupervised, unauthorized drop boxes? Better to have people use the post office mail boxes or supervised boxes at polling stations.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
The NPR link only talks sbout the improper use of the word 'official' and said ballots submitted without required chain-of-custody signatures would still be counted.
After the big dramatic press conference, CA did nothing to frail or suspend the ballot boxes, as doing so would force them to curtail democrat vote harvesting measures.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
EVERY election has an AUDIT... sometimes more than one. Recounts happen as a result of audits. In order to save time and the election, recounts happen before audits if certain criteria is met.
-From "The more you know"
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
No, every election does not have an AUDIT. An audit means you compare ballots to records and prove all ballots are proper/legal - proving that there are 500 ballots in box labeled "500 ballots" is not an audit.
If Arizona audited their election (as you claim), why are politicians fighting the current audit? Why don't they share their audit results publicly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that would be racist.
No, you need to read more carefully. Requiring ID to vote is a reasonable idea.
But it would have the effect of reducing voting rates in poor black areas.
The reason some people are pushing this law is nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with manipulating the election outcome.
Poor blacks overwhelmingly vote for one of your major parties, and so the other party is trying to restrict their access to voting.
Which party is which is not important here; both of them have a long record of gerrymandering
Re: (Score:1)
Digital ID's are just as prone to fraudulent use as any other ID. Many countries have had digital ID for decades, they have been proven about as secure as a regular ID, which means they can be duplicated and stolen.
As far as US voting, I would consider it to be racist if you consistently have to hold up the election results from certain black areas simply because their areas are prone to fraud because they're excluded from voter ID laws. You basically are saying "black voters that are on government assistan
Re: (Score:1)
And this is what racism looks like. "Blacks are so subhuman, they don't even have ability to get an ID, therefore requiring ID would suppress their voting".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
Same way that 3% of drivers do not have a valid drivers license or 12% do not have insurance. Unlicensed are involved in 1/5 accidents.
Do you think you went past a 100 cars every day? Congrats, 3 of them don't have licenses. 12 don't have insurance.
You don't have a right to drive, but you do have a right to vote.
Re:Just don't require that to vote (Score:5, Informative)
Almost all European countries currently require voters to present some form of identity document when they cast their ballot. The UK is the notable exception, for most elections, although some elections currently require ID and there is a push to extend that to all elections.
Re: (Score:2)
That's likely where US got it's weird attitude towards voters identifying themselves prior to casting a vote. Anglosphere culture has its weird historical quirks.
It's infinitely funny to me how such a obvious historic artefact is being sold as "racist/fascist to move to modernity by requiring voter ID as pretty much everyone outside that specific cultural tradition now requires". It's a historic artefact of old English culture. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
I'd believe Republican sponsored voter ID laws weren't calculated to reduce the total number of voters that don't benefit them if they also supported automatic registration or getting rid of registration. They obviously don't because that runs counter to the real goal.
I agree that voter ID laws aren't racist, it just happens that large swaths of voters that don't benefit republicans are black. Also in their crosshairs are young people, students, urbanites, anyone on social security benefits, etc.
If I show
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point I make elsewhere. Imagine just how deeply racist you must be to think that "blacks are so utterly inferiour as humans, that they don't know how to get an ID".
I remember being introduced to this idea a few years ago and genuinely not understanding how one lead to other. Then I remember watching a viral video on youtube where some US right wing pundit just went around a black neighbourhood asking people "do you have a picture ID" and "where can I get one".
Responses were hilarious. Pretty much
Re: (Score:1)
To be honest in Italy you could be allowed to vote even if you don't have a valid ID with you. In order to do so there must be AT LEAST ONE of the poll workers that, trough direct knowledge, officially declares that you are who you are supposed to be. This is under his/her responsibility. But you can be assured that everybody here bring at least one valid ID and people have no problem showing it if required to do so. If you have no ID and nobody can certify your identity you are not allowed to vote.
Said so
Re: (Score:2)
I am maybe not the best person to explain this because I am strongly in favor of requiring photo IDs when voting, but my understanding is: Some people are too poor or disadvantaged to have government-issued photo IDs. They might not have a car, so no need for a driver's license. Or they might be too busy working to take the time to get one -- especially if they live in the countryside, where government offices are farther apart. Or they might have other disadvantages, like homelessness, that makes it har
Re:requiring voter ID is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Requiring citizens to provide proof they are legally entitled to vote is not the issue. Other western countries like Canada and Australia already do this.
However, governments that establish this requirement also need to ensure they make it easy for citizens to meet the requirement. If the government establishes a requirement like voter ID and also makes it difficult for certain of its citizens to comply, that is voter suppression.
You can 't have one without the other.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was a funny video where one of the right wing pundits went into a typical black neighbourhood on the street, and started asking people "do you have a photo ID on you" and "where can I get one" from passers by.
Almost everyone looked at him a bit funny, like you would look at a village idiot asking something obvious, state that "of course I have a photo ID, and you can get it at nearest DMV, let me give you directions".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring citizens to provide proof they are legally entitled to vote is not the issue. Other western countries like Canada and Australia already do this.
However, governments that establish this requirement also need to ensure they make it easy for citizens to meet the requirement. If the government establishes a requirement like voter ID and also makes it difficult for certain of its citizens to comply, that is voter suppression.
You can 't have one without the other.
After voting over 12 times in Australia... I have never been asked for ID, nor have I in the UK. That is what we, in Australia, call "bullshit".
Australia also has mandatory voting.
As for your second point, they've never found any evidence of non-citizens voting, even given how hard they looked after Trumps defeat. It doesn't seem to be a problem they need to solve.
The problem isn't that people who aren't meant to be voting are voting... the problem is that people who are meant to be voting are voti
Re: (Score:2)
For one, the cost of a government-issued ID that they will probably only ever use for voting if they don't have one now. Plus the cost of taking more time off work to go get / renew it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Almost all EU nations require identification of each voter to be able to cast a vote. We're extremely confused as to how you can even argue that basic voter fraud prevention is not important in any democratic election system.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine being so desperate to justify your racism, that you intentionally confuse freedom of movement within your state with need to identify voters to prevent voter fraud.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
The better question is... why do you have so much voter fraud that it needs such suppression? Isn't your voting local enough that basically your community decides their votes?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how did this compute in your head in face of modern city life? Do you know everyone living in your multi-million people city? Do you agree with all of them as a community on most issues? Do you living in your multi-million people city leave your doors open because surely, it's a community?
Or are you trying to desperately justify why basic security, like having a lock on the door between your house and the outside, or identifying unknown people stepping into a polling station.
Because it's really eas
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
What are you talking about?!? Please read up how voting works in the US. Your local voting precinct is run by your community volunteers and monitored by your community members who trust you and by your community members who do not trust you and by your community members that are neutral.
To give an example, the City of Atlanta has 12 precincts and each has 10-14 voting places. Each has trained paid poll workers and volunteers. There are over 200,000 polling places and over 600,000 workers in the US when e
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, same thing across most of European nations.
You must be truly deranged if you think that "local" means "knows everyone" or even "most people" in their district. Or you come from a village of fifty people and below and never left it in your life.
Re: (Score:1)
When you deliberately tailor a law to target a particular demographic then yes it probably is racist. Writing laws to ensure less people can vote is scummy and very literally undemocratic. I hope the good guys have success in adding people's right to vote unhindered to the US constitution.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
In Georgia, absentee voters can use the last 4 digits of their SS# as ID. Somehow Jim Crow 2.0 advocates forget to mention that part of the law - I wonder why?
Voting with your wallet (Score:2)
Re: Voting with your wallet (Score:2)
We do every day, it's called capitalism.
Re: Just don't require that to vote (Score:2)
Polls in GA open at 1:00 PM on Sunday under the new law, the issue is "pews to polls" where pastors tell congregants how to vote, then they March (not really) to the polls and vote.
Apparently it's racist if the polls aren't open while the voters sit in the pews getting their instructions from their pastor.
Perhaps opening the polls after church on Sunday is to allow poll workers to go to church before working on the sabbath?
tinfoil hat endtimes doomers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. They burned themselves out on that story years ago about the company that was implanting RFIDs in their employees hands so they could access the building without a FOB or card and pay for their sodas with a wave of their hand and shit. A digital ID ain't gonna trigger 666ers until it's forced under the skin.
Doesn't this already exist? (Score:2)
Obligitory (Score:5, Insightful)
The wallet wouldn't be obligatory.
For now.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm putting this into my diary to review in 15 years time. Of course 'obligatory' is a slippery concept; if it's the only way to identify yourself for certain services - airlines, medical, voting, then it's not being 'obligatory' is meaningless.
Re: Obligitory (Score:3, Interesting)
Germany already requires people in its jurisdiction to provide identification to play video games. Not just to buy them, but to actually play them you have to provide identification to services like Steam, and even then they still require heavy censorship. Seems a bit fascist but whatever. Watch this become the only accepted form of ID for that. If in 20 years this becomes required in order to post anything online china style under the pretext of policing hate speech, I won't be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK driving license and passport aren't obligatory but good luck opening a bank account or getting a job without one. And of course it is gov't legislation against illegal immigrant and terrorism that dictates banks need to ask for very strong ID and employers need to ask for very strong ID which just happens to be passport or driving license.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK driving license and passport aren't obligatory but good luck opening a bank account or getting a job without one. And of course it is gov't legislation against illegal immigrant and terrorism that dictates banks need to ask for very strong ID and employers need to ask for very strong ID which just happens to be passport or driving license.
All you need to get a job in the UK is a national insurance number. That also gives you access to universal (read "free") healthcare. Yeah, compared to the USA, we're a bunch of commie socialists. But the UK's too right-wing for me. That's why I live in Europe now. Large parts of our economies are state-owned! :P
Re: (Score:2)
Not it's not all you need, strong rules changed recently meaning any employer who takes on an illegal can get large fines or prison. Do you think illegals can't get a NI, how do you think legals from abroad work in the UK? Having a NI doesn't mean you have permanent legal residency. Good luck getting a job without a passport and proof of right to stay and work now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these people will either be self-employed, retired or working for long enough that the registration was different when they gained employment.
If they don't insist on strong ID then they risk large fines and prison sentences, that is their prerogative.
Re: (Score:2)
Ps, they only reason I have a renewed passport right now is so that I could easily change employer or contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
surveillance is being finalized with their crypto (Score:1)
https://www.reddit.com/r/consp... [reddit.com]
Great, A fucking paywall (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems familiar (Score:2)
Slashdot, still on the front page. [slashdot.org].
Doesn't have to be a card (Score:2)
Paywalled article so I did not read. Saw "card" in the title.
Some people like the idea of making an app into a card, so everything is as easy as waving a card. The thing is, the card is purpose-built to do only one thing. It might end up as one of N smartcards. Horrifying ti think of millions of people with physical devices that die in maybe 10 years and you use only 2-3 times for voting or something and then end up as e-waste in the dump.
ID can be just another app on a smartphone. Sign and spend operations
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem. There's no way these apps are going to be open source. And I'm not installing a proprietary app on my phone.
Already got it in Spain (Score:2)