It’s also worth bearing in mind that if the idea of a “nightmarish national identity system” scares legislators into backing off, they are very likely to repackage the policy as one whose goal is age assurance/age verification, and bring it back again. When that happens, the most relevant part of the ACLU analysis is this one:
User control over the release of data. If you have to prove that you’re over 21, you shouldn’t have to share your age, date of birth, name, or any other data. That privacy-preserving capability is possible with digital IDs, and state legislatures should require that IDs allow holders to share the minimum data necessary for a transaction.
Although, if it’s done well, this “granular disclosure” could amount to pseudonymity or anonymity, I personally would add those as explicit requirements.
Plus, as the ACLU rightly say, the requirement to design the system to prevent linkability.
Age verification is a step towards mandatory authentication for online access, no matter how it is dressed up.
Yrs.,
Robin
Robin Wilton, Director - Internet Trust
wilton@isoc.org

internetsociety.org | @internetsociety
> On 10 Oct 2024, at 21:00, Kaliya Identity Woman <kaliya@identitywoman.net> wrote:
>
> There is also a blog post about it.
> https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/state-legislatures-need-to-block-creation-of-nightmarish-national-identity-system
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Kaliya Identity Woman <kaliya@identitywoman.net <mailto:kaliya@identitywoman.net>> wrote:
>> The ACLU has just published Legislative Guidance around Digital IDs
>> https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-digital-id-state-legislative-recommendations
>>
>>
