> Nobody really wants government-run auth, but we need it nonetheless.
We really don't.
The most important thing about authentication over the internet is that it enable people to create multiple separate accounts that aren't tied to each other in any way. You can get more than one email address or even phone number. You only get one social security number. If you're required to use that on the internet, it becomes a universal tracking ID. That must never be allowed to happen.
Meanwhile the US government lacks the competence to do this. All of their existing identification methods are either fully insecure (e.g. social security cards) or no better than anything corporations use (e.g. ID cards that can be lost or stolen or hacked). They don't have some special magic that allows you to prove who you are in a unique way. And trying to centralize everything into a single ID only makes it that much worse if you lose access to it or someone else gains access to it.
The actual solution to identification is redundancy and decentralization. You have e.g. a password, an app and an email for any given service. If you lose one you sign in with another and update the one you lost. If all of that fails, you lose access only to the service where it failed, instead of losing your whole life at once.
I empathize with these concerns but think they're outdated by a decade or two. We already have universal tracking IDs, we just don't see them because they're opaque and proprietary. We already use government identification online, we just do it in the dumbest way possible: "please upload a photo of your driver's license." We've got the worst parts of centralized identity and none of the benefits.
> They don't have some special magic that allows you to prove who you are in a unique way.
Yes they do, the magic is called "losing money." FaceGoogAzonRosoft have done everything related to auth that's profitable, but the one thing they will never do is build an office in your hometown and staff it with a person who can do deal with you as an individual and physically hold your two recent utility bills when corner cases or fraud or whatever require it. The government has already built that office and hired that person, and you've already paid for it, so you might as well get some value out of it.
> We already have universal tracking IDs, we just don't see them because they're opaque and proprietary.
This is simply not true. I can go to a public library, sign up for a free email account, sign up for Google or Twitter without it being tied to my name or face or work email etc.
If signing up for any of that required giving them something tied to your social security number, that wouldn't be possible, and that must not happen.
> We already use government identification online, we just do it in the dumbest way possible: "please upload a photo of your driver's license."
The vast majority of websites don't require this, specifically because it's a pain in the butt. It needs to continue to be a pain in the butt so they continue to not require it. Ideally we should create new ways to make it even more difficult.
> FaceGoogAzonRosoft have done everything related to auth that's profitable, but the one thing they will never do is build an office in your hometown and staff it with a person who can do deal with you as an individual and physically hold your two recent utility bills when corner cases or fraud or whatever require it.
That has just no security value whatsoever. A utility bill is a piece of paper. Anybody with a printer can forge one in five minutes.
On top of that, who still gets a utility bill in the mail?
First, I don't think you're being realistic about how tracking works nowadays. Google will will link your new "anonymous" account to your established tracking profile as soon as you access it from a device or geographical location associated with your existing account. This is true even if you never visit any Google owned domain, through the magic of shared tracking IDs.
Second, your position rests on the assumption that this hypothetical federal ID will be mandatory. How will it be "required"? By whom? If the government makes a federal oauth, and it works well, sure, some webapps might require it, but they can also just require your identity today. I think you haven't wrapped your mind around the idea that any big tech company that doesn't already have your identity doesn't want it. Google doesn't care about your SSN, they care about your browsing and shopping history, but the day they decide they want it, they'll demand it, and you'll comply or go without Google services (and they'll probably get it from data sharing partner anyway). None of that would change due to what I'm proposing.
> Google will will link your new "anonymous" account to your established tracking profile as soon as you access it from a device or geographical location associated with your existing account. This is true even if you never visit any Google owned domain, through the magic of shared tracking IDs.
A separate device is <$50. Local VMs are ~free. VPNs hide "geographical location" and anyway they were never unambiguous because there can be arbitrarily many people in the same place.
> Second, your position rests on the assumption that this hypothetical federal ID will be mandatory. How will it be "required"?
If you make it easy to use and use of it allows you to be tracked more effectively then websites that want to track you more effectively will require its use.
> but they can also just require your identity today.
That is more difficult to do now and so they do it less. Making it easier would allow them to do it more, which is bad.
I mean there are two options. One is nobody would use it, and then it shouldn't exist. The other is that people would use it, which is bad, and so it shouldn't exist.
I’ve read all the subthreads and want to cut to the chase here (because I think you’re being hyperbolic): you need both.
You need a decentralized philosophical and technical concept of identity. Nobody owns who you are except you. Self-sovereign ra ra yay.
But we also need to be able to integrate this self-sovereign identity with organized systems of shared sovereignty (gov’t). It’s silly that in 2023 I can’t oauth against id.gov using webauthn and obtain a signed assertion containing my SSN, or that I don't get a digital certificate alongside my physical drivers license, for instance.
We really don't.
The most important thing about authentication over the internet is that it enable people to create multiple separate accounts that aren't tied to each other in any way. You can get more than one email address or even phone number. You only get one social security number. If you're required to use that on the internet, it becomes a universal tracking ID. That must never be allowed to happen.
Meanwhile the US government lacks the competence to do this. All of their existing identification methods are either fully insecure (e.g. social security cards) or no better than anything corporations use (e.g. ID cards that can be lost or stolen or hacked). They don't have some special magic that allows you to prove who you are in a unique way. And trying to centralize everything into a single ID only makes it that much worse if you lose access to it or someone else gains access to it.
The actual solution to identification is redundancy and decentralization. You have e.g. a password, an app and an email for any given service. If you lose one you sign in with another and update the one you lost. If all of that fails, you lose access only to the service where it failed, instead of losing your whole life at once.
Never centralize identity.