California DMV Digital ID Pilot Program(dmv.ca.gov) |
California DMV Digital ID Pilot Program(dmv.ca.gov) |
Replacing driver's licenses with QR codes for physical interactions, on the other hand, doesn't seem to solve for much. We have a similar system in Colorado and I've never found any value in it; bars and liquor stores are under no obligation to accept it, so they don't.
Right now, bars/clubs will scan my ID and have all my information (name, birthdate, etc). They don't need that. all they need is a yes/no that I'm over 21.
Not saying I agree with it but in many cases we're beyond the binary check.
We’re quite close as a society to not needing a wallet at all and instead it’s sufficient to have your phone or smart watch with you. Modern iPhones conceivably can even have a dead battery and still provide your ID information.
Btw this is an ISO standard that has good participation from relevant regulatory bodies for some of the largest countries so this will be the standard everyone adopts.
Anyway, for anything to work in the US, there needs to be an incentive for businesses to use this system, and right now, there isn't one for point-of-sale driver's license use, in my opinion. It's technology (perceived as unreliable, slow, expensive) that can break, vs. looking at an ID, which isn't without its faults but is a simple system everyone understands.
If there were a really fast, simple, cheap, readily available system for age verification which was pushed to bars, I could see this system catching on, but "limited private pilot programs" aren't it.
And that's pretty much my point - starting with places where technology is already required (banking etc.) makes more sense in many ways than starting with driver's license replacement. The issue here is that the horribly broken identity system in the US is Federal (Social Security) while these electronic systems are State.
With the way the US works, there needs to be an incentive for businesses to use these systems, and I haven't seen an implementation with this focus yet.
Bars would probably like to spend less resource teaching their bouncers and staff to read fake ID tea leaves, but they also can't afford a system that breaks, or is slow or expensive. On paper, these systems should allow for fast, reliable offline verification with a good scanning device. States could partner with someone to make cheap, reliable, phone/tablet-attached scanning devices available widely off the shelf, rather than running "private pilot programs" that fizzle out, or handwaving.
Since mDL is an ISO standard, maybe there's room for someone to make a cheap mDL reader system for bars and restaurants, even if state programs seem overly shortsighted in funding this kind of development.
https://francozappa.github.io/post/2023/bluffs-ccs23/ and a related but slightly different threat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 are why I have no interest in that end of the convenience---security spectrum. For clarity, I'm not yucking your yum, just hoping the future is not made up entirely of c libraries written by.. security insensitive.. developers protecting my house and car
Probably could go even further and only carry Apple Watch and AirPods in most cases!
18% of those who do not have internet say the reason is they can’t afford home internet service, and another 4% lack internet availability in their area, says https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2022/switched-why-are-one-five-us-... .
I don't know about the other 20%.
However, does this implement the ISO spec for drivers licenses in Apple/google wallet, or is this some home grown thing?
I've been in an accident. They're trying to figure out who I am for whatever reason (i. e. to hopefully tell my family what happened). The paper card still works. The phone may have been damaged, had the battery go flat, or be locked and they can't guess the PIN. I'd rather they just look at the paper card.
Similarly, if I get pulled over, the cop knows what to do with a paper card, and it's not suddenly going to do something like flash a push notification, or lock the phone because he pressed the wrong button, and escalate the situation.
The problems this solves are both questionable:
1. I can load all my stuff onto my phone and don't need to carry a wallet! Good for you, honey. Frankly, retooling government infrastructure to satisfy an aesthetic pet peeve is sort of a waste of money. Worst case, get one of those fold-open cases with slots for cards, because you're going to have some card that can't be digitized anyway, even if it's the "collect 12 punches and get a free taco" card.
2. It might allow us to generate some "yes this person is over 18" display without leaking the home address. That's assuming that it gets built properly, and consumed properly. We've seen, well, every app in the world. Nobody is going to be selective with permissions when they can ask the moon, and people are generally not in a situation to negotiate over it.
I rarely carry a wallet anymore… Apple Pay, Colorado state app and my insurance company’s website (or pdf of my card) has all of the info I ever need.
But I agree that it should be off-device. It should be a smartcard.
There is a kiosk at SFO, but every time I’ve visited, it was out of order.
Another annoyance is that it’s not integrated with Apple Wallet.
Knowing how the government in California operates, this will likely become a money pit. They will probably abandon the project, sue IDEMIA for breach of contract (or similar reasons), and then start over.
Until then, i'll personally won't have any kind of online/digital ID
https://www.iso.org/standard/69084.html
Or is this something different?
The second problem is that even the SFO airport doesn't take them as legitimate IDs.
For the folks who are worried about giving your phone to the cop - I guess I am not worried about it much. The cop has the right to lethal force and probably knows more about the situation when you are stopped than you ever will. So they take a look at your phone? I don't assume they will just take and keep it.
If you need to call your mom, probably best not to call her when the cop is right in front of you. If you need to call your lawyer - you are permitted to do that by law. If you are Googling for what your rights are - you are doing it way too late.
Apple could add an API to wrap apps in guided access automatically … or lock the device on app exit. But that’s not going to happen because they want wallet apps to go though their Apple Wallet APIs
If you’re worried about this keep your id card?
Besides, wariness is wise but assumptions are not.
I hate how police is legally allowed to lie and psychologically trick/pressure people into things they would not normally do. It makes me distrust and question everything they do and say, i.e. being uncooperative to them. Which they then can use as an excuse to escalate and detain or get violent to me.
Interacting with the police is a terrible experience no matter how upright you are because even if you are faultless, they can still make up shit to mess with your day, or life.
The single biggest problem in modern society is a dual rules we have for government agents vs the population at large, this can not stand in a free society. We all either have the same rules or we have tyranny there is no 3rd option
> The mDL offers a quick and secure identity-check at airports, without handing over your phone.Unfortunately, history proves relying on regulatory oversight is likely to fail, be subverted or captured by special interests, possibly catastrophically, or worse, silently. This is especially true in rapidly evolving tech domains.
While I can understand that from a purely technical architecture design perspective standardization and centralization can seem like the correct approach, from a risk analysis perspective the downsides are simply too costly. It's really a case of being a reasonable choice "in a perfect world" but a terrible choice "in the real world."
The data and individual rights at stake are too important and too valuable to centralize into one juicy target certain to attract well-funded, highly motivated adversaries ranging from hostile governments, commercial interests and law enforcement overreach to some DMV clerk using a system design flaw to stalk women. None of those examples are theoretical since all of them (and worse) have already actually happened multiple times in different systems carefully designed with the best intentions and substantial legal, procedural and technical safeguards. Arguing "But this time the system won't fail" isn't persuasive when the risks are so high and track-record so clear. While I agree the current situation is far from optimal, we need to be incredibly cautious about jumping from the pan into the fire.
After all, it's simple, safe and easy!
After pairing it with your physical ID via NFC you can generate digital proofs of identity which are time based and contain the recipient's name and the usage for the proof.
Hint, they almost never increase privacy
If you hand the cop your phone, and then say “hey I need that back to call my lawyer” and they say “Sorry, no, I need to keep this for processing”, what happens?
There are cases every day where cops are just outright wrong about the law, your rights, or their own department’s policies. The law protects them from being either criminally or civilly implicated in most of those cases, because they’re not expected to be experts in the law. For most purposes, to have a case against a law enforcement officer for violating your rights, you’d need to show that their behavior was so egregious that it was crystal clear they should have known their action was a violation of your rights. And courts have looked very favorably on LEOs historically in this context: things that to a lay person would count as “obvious” have not met that bar.
So while you may, after spending a pile of money, time, and energy, find out that yes, the police officer overstepped, you’ve still been severely impacted by their action.
The QR code changes each time you open it. So you can't just screenshot it. I guess that's the same reason why you can't add it to Google wallet.
Given the amount of deference courts give to cops, that they are allowed to lie without consequence, you don’t need/want to give them any more tools.
When used to identify, the app displays a series of QR codes which can be recorded by the 2nd phone through the camera. No need to hand over th e phone. It tranfers identifying information such as name, age and the photo so that the 2nd party can use it to validate on their screen.
Perfect security doesn’t exist, especially as the consumer level. I have more faith in software updates.
BTW likely the reason QR codes were part of the standard in the first place was because at the time Apple wasn’t involved and their APIs were (& remain?) locked down so that a third party wouldn’t be able to implement the standard. Apple did join later & have integrated support for the standard into their wallet so I imagine California will be added to their list of states sooner rather than later. Many countries in Europe have a strong federal motor vehicle authority so rolling out these IDs is faster nationally whereas in the US & Canada it’s a patchwork of states/provinces that cooperate under AAMVA & rollouts happen piecemeal on each state’s timeline (to be fair, US & Canada are quite large and historically each state develops their own infrastructure which means you have to replicate updating the infrastructure & it’s usually done by contractors under very lucrative contracts).
Keep in mind there are US states that already integrate with Apple wallet via NFC and whatnot and MDL is a shorthand name for the standard & nobody is going to implement anything other than the standard (that’s why AAMVA, RDW, DVLA & other relevant government bodies had representatives involved with and engaged with the standard / running the standard body)
[1] IIRC the sample app was built by the folks at the UDL as a PoC for the ISO group. Funded by the good folks at RDW which also allowed it to be open-sourced and shared freely. The Netherlands government’s approach to tech is a hidden gem into how to structure policy around tech (I think Estonia is also well regarded because of their adoption of cryptographic ID cards so early).
Lying to general police while not direct violation of the law, can be (and has been) prosecuted under several laws such as obstruction of justice, also several states have statues making false or misleading statements to police or public officials during in official investigation. Then there are also laws that prohibiting lying in specific context like your name, address, and other details.
Step 1: State adopts digital ID system and mandates that subdivisions and political units of the state are required to accept it for identification purposes in their interactions with the public. Step 2: Step 1 is extended to private actors.
What am I missing? I realize I’m completely handwaving away the details of implementation, as well as assuming that there’s at least one state that would make the political choice to accept a slightly higher baseline of ID misuse compared to a system that verifies that the instrument matches the bearer 99.99999% of the time, but conceptually it seems pretty straightforward. At the bottom of the digital ID, just put 8 pt letters reading “This digital ID constitutes legal identification of the person to which it has been issued for all purposes, public and private.” Boom, done.
I also don’t think there necessarily needs to be an incentive for businesses to invest in expensive card reader systems that phone home to a database and authenticate the QR displayed on the device. Instead, just change the law against selling liquor to kids saying that a good faith effort to validate the authenticity of state issued digital ID is a defense to prosecution under that law. In my state, at least, this is basically how it works now with physical ID cards.
Now, if you’re talking about an ID system operating at the federal and state level simultaneously or across state lines, another poster mentioned the still-not-fully-implemented 2005 Real ID Act and is a fair comment on the difficulties that would exist in coming up with a framework that would work on a many-to-many basis for every purpose for which each type of state ID documents is used.
Or if you’re unwilling to accept the shortcomings of the existing ID card regime (older siblings? doppelgängers?), then sure, you can come up with system requirements that try to eliminate every edge case that exists, and you can have an expensive and administratively burdensome physical AND digital ID system.
But otherwise, I think it would be conceptually pretty simple for a state to create a widely used digital ID ecosystem within that state.
This the part which I believe would be extremely difficult to do by mandate given the current US social and political climate, which is why I think there needs to be some form of market incentive for these private actors.
> I also don’t think there necessarily needs to be an incentive for businesses to invest in expensive card reader systems that phone home to a database and authenticate the QR displayed on the device.
Thankfully nothing needs to phone home anyway, and there is no accessible database. It's all PKI based - the device attests certain facts and the reader verifies these attestations. A reasonably effective system which (for example) corner liquor store owners are going to want needs to exist to perform validation, though.
> Instead, just change the law against selling liquor to kids saying that a good faith effort to validate the authenticity of state issued digital ID is a defense to prosecution under that law. In my state, at least, this is basically how it works now with physical ID cards.
This would be the kind of incentive that I think would help a lot - if! a "good faith" effort to verify a digital ID were easier than a physical one. If using the digital system helps protect liquor vendors from liability and/or police sting operations, that's a huge incentive to use the system.
That said, I still think this is fairly “easy” politically (weird court decisions notwithstanding) because there’s already an existing ID regime in place, and no one is saying that’s not a valid government function (yet). If a state wants to say that anyone can rely on a valid digital ID as proof of identity, that’s fundamentally permissive - if a private entity wants to hold itself to a higher standard, and require that every customer submit fingerprints and a birth certificate, it certainly can - good luck with that. But give everyone else the ability to reasonably rely on a standards-compliant identity app, and I think there will be a lot of voluntary uptake there.
Sounds like we’re probably in violent agreement - a system that makes sense for its users is probably going to be well received. States can lead the way by taking the pretty short step from physical IDs to digital IDs that are really not inferior in any way to the existing regime and potentially quite a bit more secure and convenient.
The US mandated the acceptance of fiat money. That too was controversial at first.
But after the US switched back to specie (thanks to the large silver strikes and government policy which meant silver coins were priced by government fiat, not commodity value) it took nearly a century before the US fully embraced fiat money. It likely helped that the legal issues related to fiat money were resolved in the 1870s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases .
I suspect bri3d was thinking of a timescale in the decade or two range, not 100 years.
The Real ID Act of 2005 still isn't in fully in force, having been extended most recently to May 7, 2025. That should give an idea the likely timescale involved.