Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I am never handing my phone to a cop.


> I am never handing my phone to a cop.

The point is that you don't have to:

> To present a Digital ID in person, users can double-click the side button or Home button to access Apple Wallet and select Digital ID. From there, they can hold their iPhone or Apple Watch near an identity reader, review the specific information being requested, and use Face ID or Touch ID to authenticate.

"hold … near … review"

If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific information" would be your birthday, and that is all that would be sent over. With a regular ID, verifying your age would mean handing over your physical card which would have all sorts of other non-relevant information to the task at hand.

Further:

> Only the information needed for a transaction is presented, and the user has the opportunity to review and authorize the information being requested with Face ID or Touch ID before it is shared. Users do not need to unlock, show, or hand over their device to present their ID.

AIUI, cops would have a verifying device or app and the information requested—which you authorize—is sent over wirelessly. Kind of like how you no longer have to hand over your credit/debit cards to (possibly malicious) cashiers, and just keep it in your hand and tap. (Older people may remember the carbon copy 'ka-chunk' machines.)

With a physical ID you have to hand that over because that is the only way the information can be read off of it. With a digital ID you can send a copy of your ID without physical exchange / handover.


When buying alcohol in a physical store, in the UK we have the "Challenge 21/25" schemes https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-alcohol... such that yes if you look very young the cashier/automated checkout assistant will ask for your ID but in most cases, they will approve without checking anything. I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.


> I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.

It is not about requiring ID for all transactions, it is about when ID is actually asked for (which may not be every time), the information can be provided in a more privacy-friendly way.


The Netherlands is quite similar. You need to be 18 to buy alcohol, but only need to show an ID if you’re under 25.

It’s pointless to ask someone who’s clearly in their fourties for an ID in this case.


The cashier wouldn't need to ask your ID at all?

Since the phone would authenticate your age as well as give the payment information.


For buying alcohol, I wonder if faceID will also somehow be required to verify the holder of the phone corresponds to the digital id


Data point: Albertsons/Safeway/etc. is rolling out new card readers that have a camera in them. Software support likely isn't in place yet, but that's definitely something they are thinking about long term.


> If you're (e.g.) buying alcohol, then the "specific information" would be your birthday, and that is all that would be sent over.

Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol nope. Big stores will request as much as they can to target you with ads.


You could then decide not to buy the alcohol. Unless you are severely addicted, you will not die if you don't purchase alcohol.


Following the same reasoning, one could decide not to open any website, their TV, their phone and even their fridge. None of these will kill you

While should companies tracking us to make more money affect our habits?


Yes, but the point is that we already know (app permissions, cookie tracking consents) that "ask only what you need to function" isn't how sellers operate.

Also, you need an ID to buy some OTC medicine and to pick up some prescribed medicine. As well some other cases when ID needs to be presented, but those probably require more than just DOB anyway.


The irony is that most of the ID-to-buy-medicine rules people cite were created by the same GOP lawmakers who push voter ID. The Sudafed restrictions came from the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, introduced by a Republican sponsor and signed by a Republican president. If you are worried about creeping ID requirements, look at who actually writes these laws.


Again, citing the UK here, if you go to your doctor and get a prescription, all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed. I do not have statistics for the false pickup rates but I very much doubt it is anything to worry about.


In the US lots of prescriptions work the same. But some prescriptions and some over the counter (OTC) medicine requires presenting a legal ID to purchase because of a variety of laws.

Blood pressure prescriptions, no ID lots of times. OTC meds which are ingredients to make meth, need an ID.


> all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed.

Does it include controlled substances? Sure, I can pick up ibuprofen 800mg with just my name and DOB said verbally, but whatever is on schedule II (US term, but think Adderall) I required to show my ID.


If anything, digitalisation will make it easier.

Currently if you hand your id, the cashier could theoretically take a photo of it but it's an extra (and awkward) step, and then someone would have to figure out how to extract the data and make it usable.


> Unless there is a very tight control over this - lol nope. Big stores will request as much as they can to target you with ads.

And you will now be informed about what is being asked for, as opposed to the current situation where if you are handing over your physical ID you may have no way of knowing what is being gleaned from it.

And being informed, you can choose to accept or decline. You can also question the need for it (the cashier won't be of much help, but inquiries can be done to head office).


So assuming your goal is to buy something that requires you to show an ID (don't move the goalpost with "you can just not buy it"), my options will be:

1) show a digital ID where I can see that they are asking for much more

2) show my physical ID where they can see much more, they need

I mean, I'd pick #1 because at least it will be used just for marketing and not noting my address as I buy a lot of travel supplies.


That is usually not something you choose.


Only if you're being arrested. If you're at a traffic stop or tons of other scenarios would never need to.


It's normal for police at a traffic stop to take your license back to their car while they write a ticket or whatever. Until laws change, having your only license on your phone means handing your phone to an officer until they are satisfied they no longer need it.


States that have implemented mobile drivers licenses are starting to issue handheld readers to police officers, precisely so what you describe doesn't happen.

The people building this know nobody wants to hand their phone over to the police.


Police sometimes confiscate licenses (rightly or wrongly).

Having your license confiscated when it doubles as your wallet, MFA device for work, and primary communications device sounds like a disaster.


You make a good point.

In principle the police Wallet reader could have a function to virtually suspend the license, instead of physically confiscating your phone.

I wonder if they thought of that, and I wonder if police would use the option or confiscate the phone anyway.


Surely police would never say their reader is broken and never make it your problem


Yeah that’s why OP said he wouldn’t hand his phone over. Implying he prefers a physical one.


I get what you're saying, but if you think of it what we're doing today - handing over the one and only official piece of document to a) cop b) club bouncer etc.

They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface it. All of that is a possibilty.

You could argue, a sufficiently locked down phone is a better alternative. If they do something, you'll only lose $$


Exactly this. If your only license is on your phone, and the police officer decides to confiscate your license, now you have a lot more problems beyond not being able to legally drive.


> They can hold onto it, and never return it. They can deface it. All of that is a possibility.

But they can't potentially look at your banking app, read private notes, messages and emails, operate your home automation, look at your calendar, etc. if all they have is a plastic card.


They can't do that either with Wallet items. That's kind of the point: you can hand over your phone with a wallet item "unlocked" and visible on the screen, and that's all they'll have access to.


Sure but then you've already given them your phone after which you don't know what happens. Plus it's a lot of leverage for them to have it, e.g. "unlock or you won't get it back".


Until they covertly plug it in to the Cellebrite unit back in the patrol car.


If I lose a piece of ID, I've lost a piece of paper/plastic. I'm inconvenienced, but can easily get a replacement and have the original invalidated.


> have the original invalidated.

Only for it's "original" use case - traffic laws enforcement. I don't think any other entity can validate if this piece of plastic is invalidated or not. Also, it's not like information on lost ID gets erased when you get a new one: still has your address, DOB and other info that can be misused.


> have the original invalidated.

I once had three valid drivers' licenses, because my wallet was stolen (later returned), and I left my ID at a bar. All three were valid for use at the same time despite being reported lost/stolen - they had identical barcodes, etc.


I feel exactly the opposite about what you said. The ID is just an ID, my phone is my phone with other stuff in it.


... and if they hold the document upside down they can see your browser history and with a UV flashlight they can quick scan your app list for intel.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: