W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2022

Re: "Apple launches the first driver’s license and state ID in Wallet with Arizona”

From: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:38:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFmmOzfA=FCgOLrJRC+z=Vuo=Ksu5QnwQh8=jfgZADDO4TZWpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kaliya Identity Woman <kaliya@identitywoman.net>
Cc: Liam McCarty <liam@unumid.co>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Other articles describing the risks of this rollout:

   - https://www.wired.com/story/apple-wallet-drivers-license-digital-id/
   -
   https://fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/p/what-apples-secret-dmv-contracts?s=r

Hoo boy

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:03 PM Kaliya Identity Woman <
kaliya@identitywoman.net> wrote:

> Yep
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 23, 2022, at 7:32 PM, Liam McCarty <liam@unumid.co> wrote:
>
> 
> *From Apple Newsroom: "Apple launches the first driver’s license and state
> ID in Wallet with Arizona”
> <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-launches-the-first-drivers-license-and-state-id-in-wallet-with-arizona/>*
> "Additional states to follow, including Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi,
> Ohio, and the territory of Puerto Rico"
>
> It’s sad and frustrating that this isn’t based on verifiable credentials…
> it appears vendor lock in is going to be hard to prevent.
>
> For anyone who missed the November coverage about this, here’s a pretty
> outrageous CNBC article: "Apple is sticking taxpayers with part of the
> bill for rollout of tech giant's digital ID card”
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/14/apple-sticking-taxpayers-with-part-of-the-bill-for-digital-id-rollout.html>.
> Some choice quotes:
>
>    - *Apple has “sole discretion” for key aspects of the program,
>    including what types of devices will be compatible with the digital IDs,
>    how states are required to report on the performance of the effort, and
>    when the program is launched, according to the documents. Apple even gets
>    to review and approve the marketing that states are required to do.*
>    - *The dynamic is similar to the way Apple typically deals with
>    vendors, although instead of getting paid by Apple, the states have to
>    shoulder the financial burden of administering the programs*
>    - *All these efforts are paid for by states. The contract says that
>    “except as otherwise agreed upon between the Parties, neither Party shall
>    owe the other Party any fees under this Agreement.”*
>    - *The agreements are also notable for what is missing, in terms of
>    constraints or guard rails on how Apple can use the powerful capability of
>    identity verification, according to Mikula. That raises questions about
>    whether the company can restrict access to the new capability for
>    competitors’ products.*
>
>
> This strikes me as the exact opposite of what we in this community are
> trying to achieve. Do others agree? What, if anything, can we do about this?
>
> *Liam McCarty*
> CEO, Founder of Unum ID <https://www.unumid.co/>
> Forbes 30 Under 30 ||| Stanford Physics
> www.LiamHaleMcCarty.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2022 03:39:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:29 UTC