How do you plan to insure that your digital identity system can be used for illegal/criminal purposes, such as aiding Jews and other undesirables in evading lawfully authorized detention and relocation (or by said undesirables for said evasion)?
(I don't mean to single you out specifically; this is something that any digital identity system needs to deal with. And most of them enthusiastically don't.)
Why have you chosen to express this point in such a trollish way? We've already received complaints about it.
It sounds like you're trying to say something about the danger of such systems being abused by the state in holocaust-like situations, but the wording is so odd that it's unclear what your real intent is.
FWIW, I didn't read that comment as trollish at all. It's quite awkwardly written, and it could do with scare quotes around "undesirables" to make it clear that it refers to the view of authorities in their scenario rather than the view of the comment author, but which part of it is trollish?
My understanding of the comment was expressing a concern that some kind of universal identity system would undoubtedly become an agent of the state, which is fine most of the time but in various situations (including holocaust-like ones) means that it could be used as an instrument of oppression, since it would likely be unable to be used by those who wanted to hide some aspect of their identity for safety reasons.
This seems like a legitimate concern for something that has a goal of becoming a global universal identity system. I would hope that something like that would look more like cash - usable by anyone, whether the state likes it or not, with fundamental privacy aspects - rather than like VISA with some privacy bolted on.
You didn't read as trollish but others did, and unfortunately there's a problem with comments sometimes being written deliberately to straddle the line. That's why I wrote my reply as a question.
I actually specifically omitted the scare quotes since, in such a situation, from the perspective of the identity system creator, the victims would in fact be undesirables.
It's hard to give a reader a example of someone who they actually believe is a Evil Mutant(TM) who clearly (to that same reader) is a innocent victim, and I didn't bother to try in favor of "well obviouly a non-negligible portion of 1930s Germans agreed with the Nazis".
> Why have you chosen to express this point in such a trollish way?
I am legitimately confused by this question, since it does not appear trollish to me.
I chose to express it that way to emphasize that (some) abuses of a digital identity system would present as lawful actions by authorized law enforcement personnel, and (apparently too tacitly) that "holocaust-like situations" are not a qualitatively different operating regime that system can assume it is not in during 'normal' operation.
I was a bit worried that it would be percieved as overly confrontational (hence the second paragraph attempting to disclaim that), but I assume that's not what you mean by "trollish".
(I don't mean to single you out specifically; this is something that any digital identity system needs to deal with. And most of them enthusiastically don't.)