Well now I feel like an idiot for signing up. Is there any way to have ID.me delete all of my records? Or is that a lost cause?
We really need our own version of the EU's right to be forgotten.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
71–80 of 181 posts
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#72What I would like to see next is an investigation into why this process was considered at all and how the vendor was selected. I find this entire situation deeply suspicious, since MOST online services (including financial services) do not need this kind of invasive verification process and do not require interfacing with a random third-party. My cynical guess is that id.me has some connection (like via political don…
It is even more suspicious why ID.me would even be thought of when login.gov exists. Let us also find out why a non governmental entity is handling security screenings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Secure
>Let us also find out why a non governmental entity is handling *
Ex-gov here. It is baked into gov thinking that the most desirable solution to difficult problems is to give it to the commercial sector. To a degree, it recognizes that a core responsibility of US gov is to support US commerce. One may argue how that philosophy encourages certain forms of corruption (swinging door, price abominations etc) but it's an accepted cost of doing business. What's good for GM is still, in those corridors, felt to be good for America.
I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. But it's how US gov thinks. That is why these problems are farmed out to the commercial sector. And as ex-gov, I can tell you that the government is a cash cow. And that's how they like it. And business. They like that too.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#73“Login.gov is already used to access 200 websites run by 28 Federal agencies and over 40 million Americans have accounts,” Wyden wrote in a letter to the IRS today. “Unfortunately, login.gov has not yet reached its full potential, in part because many agencies have flouted the Congressional mandate that they use it, and because successive Administrations have failed to prioritize digital identity. The cost of this in…
I have used login.gov for my global entry application and I'm actually impressed. The only complaints I have with it are:
1. It doesn't make it obvious on how to add additional u2f keys (you have to go to login.gov explicitly to do that)
2. I still can't find a way to remove u2f keys
But then when I used id.me with CA DMV I'm also impressed by it (granted CA DMV does not require any crazy biometric stuff there like IRS planned to do).
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government cannot build a competent identity solution because a majority of voters believe that to do so presages something from genocide ("Papiere, bitte!") to the literal end of the world (“Mark of the Beast”).
We are still in the same universe where the OPM breach happened, right? Like no, I don't trust the government to protect the big bucket of PII on everyone in digital form. Not because of lizard people but because the government can barely keep it's own sites secure. Giving them more dangerous data in the form of bulk PII is the wrong move. Login.gov was the first thing, in a long time, that was well executed. I need…
With a remotely sane identity system, knowing someone’s identifiers and basic biographical facts would not help you to impersonate them. PII has the sensitivity that it does in today’s world only because we abuse knowledge of PII as a poor man’s authentication mechanism.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
You continue to make some good points, but at the end of the day, this is a government function and responsibility, not that of a private company. Login.gov can use the same AWS services in GovCloud as ID.me uses (Rekognition, available since 2017 in GovCloud). With USDS and 18F, it cannot be argued GSA (which Login.gov falls under) doesn’t have the skills available to build this capability. This is a call to enhance…
> You continue to make some good points, but at the end of the day, this is a government function and responsibility, not that of a private company. I 100% agree. Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number. Those opposed to it don't have any good solution…
> Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number.
I wonder if this mightn't change with states increasingly requiring voter ID.
After all, it'd be pretty dumb to on one hand mandate that every voter have government-issued ID, and on the other to oppose it.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the IRS (or Sen. Wyden) is looking for a "core government service" which has been inappropriately commercialized, they might start with tax preparation.
lol, the arrogance to call out someone for something they actual are a champion in fighting.
HN has a lot of "both sides are the same" centrists and libertarians. They don't realize there there is still a tiny thread of pro-worker pro-middle-class democratic action in the US government. I have no idea how much longer it can survive, but people like Wyden, AOC, Bernie, etc fight the good fight and that goes against everything centrists and 3rd party types believe. Everyone is a republican to them and when shown otherwise, they either nitpick with whataboutisms or just clam up.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You continue to make some good points, but at the end of the day, this is a government function and responsibility, not that of a private company. I 100% agree. Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number. Those opposed to it don't have any good solution…
> Problem is, the federal government (and the state governments and to a large extent big chunks of the citizenry) are fundamentally opposed to the issuance of a non-passport general citizen's ID and/or number. I wonder if this mightn't change with states increasingly requiring voter ID. After all, it'd be pretty dumb to on one hand mandate that every voter have government-issued ID, and on the other to oppose it.
The bulk of those who are pushing for more voter ID are from the most political alliance most vocal about both (a) insisting the voting is a state matter (b) federal government issuing ID is not OK.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the IRS (or Sen. Wyden) is looking for a "core government service" which has been inappropriately commercialized, they might start with tax preparation.
This article[1] has more details. Sen. Wyden[2] has been pushing for more funding to IRS to develop its free file program, but Turbotax has been successful via their lobbying of Republican politicians and some Democratic politicians in preventing it from happening. 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f... 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/opinion/intuit-turbotax-f...
Lol. Its always the Republicans. If it was priority for the Dems, they'd have done it. They have gotten through several other things the Republicans opposed.
Anyhow, the better alternative is to return to lower the rates and remove deductions (aside from the standard deduction). Even simpler yet would be to go to a flat tax with an extremely high standard deduction (e.g. ~$50k with ~10% after that).
I can't think of many good reasons to continue complicating the IRS code aside from political targeting and giving Congress more kickbacks.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
No third party/private solution is appropriate here. The government that oversees the issuing of these IDs and attests that they are sufficient for government use (Real ID) cannot themselves validate said ID? Corruption or incompetence are the only paths that lead to outsourcing federal identity verification.
The only IDs issued widely by the US government are military credentials, immigration credentials, and passports. Driver’s licenses are issued by states and other entities. They are also fraught with problems as millions of people do not have REAL IDs, yet need to interact with government. The problem is that any bartender who has scanned your drivers license has the information required to scam an online validation…
The government issues HSPD-12's, of which CAC/military PIV cards qualify as. In theory both federal staff and contractors need an HSPD-12 compliant ID/"smart credential" to access facilities and networks.
Just wanted to point out that there are lots and lots of federal IDs that are not military, immigration, or passports.
Re: IRS to ditch biometric requirement for online access
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article[1] has more details. Sen. Wyden[2] has been pushing for more funding to IRS to develop its free file program, but Turbotax has been successful via their lobbying of Republican politicians and some Democratic politicians in preventing it from happening. 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f... 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/opinion/intuit-turbotax-f...
Lol. Its always the Republicans. If it was priority for the Dems, they'd have done it. They have gotten through several other things the Republicans opposed. Anyhow, the better alternative is to return to lower the rates and remove deductions (aside from the standard deduction). Even simpler yet would be to go to a flat tax with an extremely high standard deduction (e.g. ~$50k with ~10% after that). I can't think of…
This is a really good point - if the tax code were a few dozen pages for the common case instead of a few hundred, then you might not even need tax-prep software in the first place. "The best program is the one that doesn't exist", to quote a popular refrain.
Ongoing software projects require periodic refactoring to reduce complexity and increase comprehension - why would the law be any different?