> If you want good online validation for the public, you need a third party right now.
In all reality, this is fine. I have no particular problem with using facial recognition, but I want it regulated and I want recourse.
Fine, outsource it to ID.me. But the terms of service better be a page, maximum, and include the ability for me to appeal a decision that says I am not who I say I am and to use other forms of validation that may be slower or more procedural (such as presenting myself to a Post Office). I want no binding arbitration clause in the agreement, and if that means the Federal government has to indemnify ID.me, then so be it. I want it in the TOS that the data ID.me uses for this will be segregated and kept for a very limited time and that I have the right to review and correct it.
Use the third party for what they are good for but enforce suitable rights for the rest. This is doable, it just wasn't fully done here.
ID.me does have the ability to appeal the decision by hopping on a video call to complete the registration. They also do have the ability to close your account and through that delete all your data.
In all reality, this is fine. I have no particular problem with using facial recognition, but I want it regulated and I want recourse.
Fine, outsource it to ID.me. But the terms of service better be a page, maximum, and include the ability for me to appeal a decision that says I am not who I say I am and to use other forms of validation that may be slower or more procedural (such as presenting myself to a Post Office). I want no binding arbitration clause in the agreement, and if that means the Federal government has to indemnify ID.me, then so be it. I want it in the TOS that the data ID.me uses for this will be segregated and kept for a very limited time and that I have the right to review and correct it.
Use the third party for what they are good for but enforce suitable rights for the rest. This is doable, it just wasn't fully done here.