Digital IDs may become central to modern life. This newsletter explores the EU and UK approaches, exposing the legal realities, privacy dilemmas, and power struggles.
I don’t think anything is online is 100% free from cyber attacks. History suggests that breaches are not unusual events. Presumably, the real question may not be whether digital identities can be hacked, but what level of disruption we are prepared to tolerate when they are hacked.
It saddens me that EU has stonger privacy laws than the US. This has been true throughout British-American history. The British already had legal protections against general warrants a century and a half before the Fourth Amendment was ratified in the US. Today I see US users reluctant and careless on the risks of Biometric Authentication. The Fifth Amendment does not protect one's privacy when using them. Now that ICE is sending "illegal" immigrants to detention centers the problems with being traceable online are now more relevant than ever.
You raise valid points. In the first place, the EU treats privacy as a fundamental right , while the US has a more fragmented system built around constitutional interpretation, sector specific laws, and court decisions. Concerns about traceability and digital identity also feel more immediate during periods of heightened immigration enforcement and expanded state monitoring powers. Looking at the political trends, digital IDs rarely exist in isolation. Once they are created, they often become connected to employment, banking, travel, public services, and enforcement mechanisms..
About the US having a more fragmented system: my research tells me the Federalists that wrote the Fourth Amendment wrote it to weaken the Anti-Federalists. It was never really designed to stop all categories of unreasonable search and seizure (The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Meaning: 602-1791). The Amendment also does not do much against surveillance and intrusion that even general warrants were infamous for at the time. It's a problem.
What happens with one’s digital ID inevitably gets hacked?
The governments often describe digital identity as safer than paper documents. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10369/
I don’t think anything is online is 100% free from cyber attacks. History suggests that breaches are not unusual events. Presumably, the real question may not be whether digital identities can be hacked, but what level of disruption we are prepared to tolerate when they are hacked.
I don’t recall identity theft being much of a problem before the digital era.
It will only get worse.
Not only the EU and UK, but also Australia and other countries are already implementing digital ids https://my.gov.au/en/about/help/digital-id
It saddens me that EU has stonger privacy laws than the US. This has been true throughout British-American history. The British already had legal protections against general warrants a century and a half before the Fourth Amendment was ratified in the US. Today I see US users reluctant and careless on the risks of Biometric Authentication. The Fifth Amendment does not protect one's privacy when using them. Now that ICE is sending "illegal" immigrants to detention centers the problems with being traceable online are now more relevant than ever.
You raise valid points. In the first place, the EU treats privacy as a fundamental right , while the US has a more fragmented system built around constitutional interpretation, sector specific laws, and court decisions. Concerns about traceability and digital identity also feel more immediate during periods of heightened immigration enforcement and expanded state monitoring powers. Looking at the political trends, digital IDs rarely exist in isolation. Once they are created, they often become connected to employment, banking, travel, public services, and enforcement mechanisms..
About the US having a more fragmented system: my research tells me the Federalists that wrote the Fourth Amendment wrote it to weaken the Anti-Federalists. It was never really designed to stop all categories of unreasonable search and seizure (The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Meaning: 602-1791). The Amendment also does not do much against surveillance and intrusion that even general warrants were infamous for at the time. It's a problem.