this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
371 points (91.7% liked)
Technology
59594 readers
3118 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But at the same time, all they care about is date of birth. Theyre not looking for name, hair color, eye color, address, weight, organ donor status, etc.
Well, DoB and the picture. Are those other data fields considered private?
Many of the scanning apps allow for customer and patron lists be built off the scans, even without that feature they usually store everything contained in a scan. That barcode on the back of American Licenses will often have more information than even the front. I don’t know about current standards, but at least one American state had your ssn as your id# and a few others would include it in the barcode scan. It really depends state by state how much info is in a code but it almost always more than whats on the front.
I can't speak definitely, but I'm pretty sure it's been made illegal to have your driver's license ID be a derivative of your SSN. That was a thing that happened though.
But I can't tell if you're pointing this out to strengthen my stance, or weaken it. It's still something that gets scanned to get into a bar or buy alcohol, and that's effectively the public, right?
Its more towards the comment that only date of birth is seen, and that every scan is way more invasive than it seems. Overall I am not sure if I think its the best state, but the cat is so far out of the bag on this one its hard to consider it private. Almost every hotel has photocopied my license, and in many downtown areas, for a few years at least now, you have to scan your license to get a badge to enter the building to attend a meeting or appointment. Somehow the folder of license photocopies at the perpetually empty front desk inspire no confidence in privacy, hopefully the desk is locked?
You may be right, in person, you could probably figure most of that stuff out at a glance, but at the same time they dont also have access t one of my internet handles and access to my likes and dislikes. Well i defintely wouldnt want any of them to be associated with my twitter account
I think this may be closer to the reality of the situation. It's not so much that IDs are private, it's that people want their Twitter (X?) account to be anonymous.
I get that. My username on Twitter was my real name so I kinda messed that up right away. I didn't really use it though.
Can you refuse to produce ID to law enforcement in the U.S. without probable cause? Yes? Then it's private.
You give your ID info to whomever you want, including the minimum wage worker. But you don't have to if you don't want to.
That's not any working definition of private information I've ever seen.
We're talking about privacy in the context of information security.
Edit: for context, I'm not questioning whether people must give their ID to Twitter.
Well, in that context, again, it still works.
Show the ID to the minimum wage worker so they can prove identify; put it back into your wallet. Don't want to show it? Well, don't show it. Can someone snatch your wallet and see it without your consent? Sure, just like it happens on systems with weak security.
I'm sorry but I'm not following your point. I'm questioning whether the info on a license is really "private info". I am not suggesting that people be forced to give Twitter their ID