Re: Pseudonymous ID cards?
analyst@Onramp.NET (Benjamin McLemore) wrote:
digital IDs, insurance cards, credit cards, etc. that protect privacy
I've seen articles about that here and/or sci.crypt and places like that. If you think in terms of cryptographic authentication of smaller pieces of information instead of a card that can reveal all about someone, it isn't too difficult. If a traffic cop wants proof that you have a valid driver's license, all they really need access to is the key to verify the authenticity of something that certifies that you have a valid driver's license. Your card can provide that certificate without revealing any other information about you than the fact that you are licensed to drive. The good thing about this kind of setup is that information can be partitioned so that only people with a reason to be authorized to get that information would have access to it. The bad thing about this is that it still makes it easy for the government to require that we all carry around a card that tells everything about us and makes access to all that only a matter of legal authorization. I don't want a society where my cryptographically secured private information is required to be shown at every police seatbelt/alcohol/immigrant/drug/pedophilia/sedition checkpoint. -- sidney <sidney@apple.com>
I've seen articles about that here and/or sci.crypt and places like that. If you think in terms of cryptographic authentication of smaller pieces of information instead of a card that can reveal all about someone, it isn't
This is mostly David Chaum's work on "blinded credentials." His paper in the Proceedings of the First Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference summarizes this stuff well. Virtually no practical progress has been made. Nor have Cypherpunks worked on this. (That I know of.)
would have access to it. The bad thing about this is that it still makes it easy for the government to require that we all carry around a card that tells everything about us and makes access to all that only a matter of legal authorization. I don't want a society where my cryptographically secured private information is required to be shown at every police seatbelt/alcohol/immigrant/drug/pedophilia/sedition checkpoint.
-- sidney <sidney@apple.com>
Good points. Personally, I see no need for any credentials at all. Too young to watch R-rated movies? Not _my_ problem. Too young to drink? Not _my_ problem. About the only thing I support is a law regarding dangerous driving (whether due to senility, alcohol, or stupidity). If an accident is caused this way, jail the perps right on the spot and, in severe cases of stupidity, give them a trial within a few days and execute or imprison them if they're guilty. Sounds harsh, but if shifts things away from having to carry meaningless "proofs of permission," in the form of various licenses, permits, etc., and toward the direction of deterring and punishing. Ditto for "tax compliance cards," "permitted to see violent movies cards," and so on. No need. And no need to worry about letting immigrants in *if* there are no public programs, no subsidized programs, no handouts (except those individuals and groups want to have). Sure, some lazy slobs will starve. Good riddance. This is why I'm interested in crypto: a technological hammer to smash the State. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (2)
-
sidney＠taurus.apple.com -
tcmay＠netcom.com