This isn't a US Government problem though, it's an "average voter" problem. The US Government implementing an actual form of secure ID for government use would be treated a gigantic conspiracy to do <insert already possible thing here>.
But they still actually need to be able to securely identify residents, so here we are (well, and there is the victims of identity fraud due to the use of social security numbers as unique resident identifiers, a role they were never intended for).
That’s a federated IDP which can be used to access your identity instead of using your social security number. It doesn’t replace the fact that your social security number is still your username and password in the canonical identity system, which is the problem GP is talking about.
Edit: or if you prefer, your SSN is both your user record locator and user secret.
The cause of identity fraud is lack of authentication, not existence of SSN. It's equivalent to going to a bank and telling "I'm Elon Musk, give me my money" and then complain that we must eliminate names to prevent this kind of fraud.
But does the *Federal* gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corruptable Fed gov is the only option. It's not.
We're getting what we're getting becuase we're keep buying the ruse, the status quo, instead of insisting on a system that protects us in the way the founding documents intend.
I've never understood the US belief that the states are less corruptible than the Federal government when the opposite seems to prevail in many places, and local government seems to be even worse.
It's a lot easier to escape state corruption than federal corruption.
If I don't like how my state maintains its affairs, I can move to one of the other 49 states (or territories) with relative ease. If I don't like how the US maintains its affairs, I have to convince another country to accept me, and as a US citizen, I've still got a US paperwork burden unless I renounce citizenship (which isn't easy either).
We certainly could run Federal taxes through States (mandate states to assess and tax income, use the Feds only to investigate states, not investigate individuals), but that requires an attitude of anti-Federalism that is too pedantic for the average government official or citizen who only has headspace for or "government", and is opposed by the modern Federalists who favor a stronger union (intentional power, less civil war) over general independence and local control.
anti-Federalists lose because the governments they build are structurally weaker than Federalist. Similar to how the extreme end of Anti-Federalism, "we don't need laws; everyone should just be nice" is a failed model for practical government.
Yes. It does. It can choose to outsource some of the verification pieces to the several states (e.g the REAL ID act) but the government needs a way to uniquely identify residents that it interacts with.
The founding documents make this very clear, I recommend giving them a read.
> Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states?
Why not the other way around? Abolish states. This is one country.
Considering I can drive from San Francisco to New York without passport checks, I shouldn't have to pay different taxes depending on where along that route I decide to set up a home.
But they still actually need to be able to securely identify residents, so here we are (well, and there is the victims of identity fraud due to the use of social security numbers as unique resident identifiers, a role they were never intended for).