Well for one thing the first is not a great business model compared to the second. (And I suspect that's the primary consideration)
But, you probably mean from a user's privacy perspective- and then I'd still say the answer is yes. The companies buying ad exposure in the second can't easily re-sell your data to another third party, and they can be constrained from what they learn about you. The first example basically means you have to trust the whole world and the second example means you have to trust the primary data holder (a lot).
This seems appropriate to me and the contracts actually seem better than I expected. Had the states wanted to roll out their own digital id programs, they would need to pay for the design and infrastructure that Apple created.
I think it’s also just using wallet so the expenses of creating the item and distributing it on the state issuing the ids. Just like the ticket vendor is responsible for the costs of getting the ticket into wallet.
Although that cost seems low.
It’s surprising that the verge’s reporting is so unaware and oblivious to the
realities of the situation. It seems more like uninformed/incompetent writer than just apple negativity.
I don't get it. Why would we expect -- or want -- a private company to bankroll the implementation of state IDs or take responsibility for ongoing support? Quotes from the article:
> And if that isn’t enough, Apple is holding states accountable for the authenticity of the program’s identity verification.
Good!!!
I don't want Apple Support deciding whether or not my driver's license is valid. That's a decision that should be made by the state. Why? Because the state has far more obligations to citizens than Apple has to its customers.
(Secondarily, because the state's purpose is to provide the best service it can with available revenue, not to maximize profit.)
> Despite being an Apple-led program, taxpayers are footing the bill to roll out this single-platform digital ID program in their states — even if they don’t have an iPhone. The contract clearly says “except as otherwise agreed upon between the Parties, neither Party shall owe the other Party any fees under this Agreement,” meaning that the participating states will be funding its promotion and adoption using taxpayer’s tender.
Good. I don't want my State Digital ID paid for with targeted advertising dollars. (Wait... did you think the alternative here was for some benevolent company to do government IT contracting for free?)
> Having a digital ID program — especially one paid for by states — raises a number of concerns
Again, this sentence is totally backwards. A Digital ID program not paid for by states would be horrendously concerning.
The article would've been much better if it made a coherent case against Digital ID itself. But that's not what the article argues. Instead, it makes a wildly emotional but rationally/legally incoherent complaint about some pretty bog standard contract language.
FWIW, I have no problem with Digital IDs. What do we have to fear? That the government will now have a copy of an ID that was issued by... the government? I don't get it.
My only real critique is that "Digital ID" should not be some whizz-bang virtual wallet bullshit. It should be implemented in a stupidest-simplest way: "anywhere you need to present ID card, especially in interactions with the government, you can instead present a high-res picture of the same ID card". This is already how things work in sane states with eg insurance cards.
But if, in addition that stupidest-simplest solution, state governments want to also offer inter-op with Apple Wallet / Android Pay (?), what's the harm?
The thing that occurs to me is that insurance cards are usually verified with the insurance company immediately after being presented, so there is little incentive to try to fake an insurance card.
But drivers licenses are frequently verified offline by someone standing at a door, and all they get is a couple seconds glance at it to see if they think it’s authentic. And there are many things that are gated by age, and presenting your drivers license is the common way to prove your age. They’re also used to prove your identity.
So, drivers licenses need a much higher standard of robust offline verification, if they’re going to be digitized. That requires a lot more work, and the most critical parts of that work can only be done by the state that issues the drivers license.
For Apple. The critical thing is that they are going to be the ones who get blamed if this thing goes sideways (like they’re already being blamed now), so they need to make sure that the states are really doing their due diligence to a high standard. The contract is the main thing that what will help enforce that.
Yes, this makes sense, and is a coherent case against Digital ID itself. Much more sensible than the article.
But in interactions with the government -- e.g., traffic stops, government offices, perhaps voting -- the same method that's used to verify insurance should also suffice.
Bars and stores that sell controlled substances can still insist on a physical ID. Just because there's a digital ID doesn't mean it has to be accepted everything a physical ID might be. It's still a huge convenience boost if it's only accepted during government interactions.
I am getting sick of all these behemoth corporations controlling my life. It's becoming harder to do anything without interacting with them at some point. They're completely inside you, and they know more about you than you do about yourself. Imagine Google simply as a search engine + email + office apps + youtube + maps. No login accounts besides GMail - kinda like how things were in circa 2005. Accounts used to be for the end customer, not for the ad client. Sell me dumb ads please.
Today, I am feeling pretty claustrophobic. Adobe Illustrator wants to know my date of birth. Your health data is probably processed using Google (Verily). My subway pass is probably validated using an Amazon software service. Microsoft knows your minesweeper highscore. Everything in life revolves around these 4-5 corporations as a write this message on an Apple computer.
19 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] threadThe weird part seems to be that Apple is chipping anything at all in, to me, other than maybe some support.
> Clear considered selling user data in the past, but instead uses that data to promote relevant ads to users.
Is there really a functional difference between these two?
But, you probably mean from a user's privacy perspective- and then I'd still say the answer is yes. The companies buying ad exposure in the second can't easily re-sell your data to another third party, and they can be constrained from what they learn about you. The first example basically means you have to trust the whole world and the second example means you have to trust the primary data holder (a lot).
I think it’s also just using wallet so the expenses of creating the item and distributing it on the state issuing the ids. Just like the ticket vendor is responsible for the costs of getting the ticket into wallet.
Although that cost seems low.
It’s surprising that the verge’s reporting is so unaware and oblivious to the realities of the situation. It seems more like uninformed/incompetent writer than just apple negativity.
> And if that isn’t enough, Apple is holding states accountable for the authenticity of the program’s identity verification.
Good!!!
I don't want Apple Support deciding whether or not my driver's license is valid. That's a decision that should be made by the state. Why? Because the state has far more obligations to citizens than Apple has to its customers.
(Secondarily, because the state's purpose is to provide the best service it can with available revenue, not to maximize profit.)
> Despite being an Apple-led program, taxpayers are footing the bill to roll out this single-platform digital ID program in their states — even if they don’t have an iPhone. The contract clearly says “except as otherwise agreed upon between the Parties, neither Party shall owe the other Party any fees under this Agreement,” meaning that the participating states will be funding its promotion and adoption using taxpayer’s tender.
Good. I don't want my State Digital ID paid for with targeted advertising dollars. (Wait... did you think the alternative here was for some benevolent company to do government IT contracting for free?)
> Having a digital ID program — especially one paid for by states — raises a number of concerns
Again, this sentence is totally backwards. A Digital ID program not paid for by states would be horrendously concerning.
FWIW, I have no problem with Digital IDs. What do we have to fear? That the government will now have a copy of an ID that was issued by... the government? I don't get it.
My only real critique is that "Digital ID" should not be some whizz-bang virtual wallet bullshit. It should be implemented in a stupidest-simplest way: "anywhere you need to present ID card, especially in interactions with the government, you can instead present a high-res picture of the same ID card". This is already how things work in sane states with eg insurance cards.
But if, in addition that stupidest-simplest solution, state governments want to also offer inter-op with Apple Wallet / Android Pay (?), what's the harm?
But drivers licenses are frequently verified offline by someone standing at a door, and all they get is a couple seconds glance at it to see if they think it’s authentic. And there are many things that are gated by age, and presenting your drivers license is the common way to prove your age. They’re also used to prove your identity.
So, drivers licenses need a much higher standard of robust offline verification, if they’re going to be digitized. That requires a lot more work, and the most critical parts of that work can only be done by the state that issues the drivers license.
For Apple. The critical thing is that they are going to be the ones who get blamed if this thing goes sideways (like they’re already being blamed now), so they need to make sure that the states are really doing their due diligence to a high standard. The contract is the main thing that what will help enforce that.
But in interactions with the government -- e.g., traffic stops, government offices, perhaps voting -- the same method that's used to verify insurance should also suffice.
Bars and stores that sell controlled substances can still insist on a physical ID. Just because there's a digital ID doesn't mean it has to be accepted everything a physical ID might be. It's still a huge convenience boost if it's only accepted during government interactions.
These are state governments, not federal. Very few state governments have pay grades high enough to attract even entry-level software engineers.
Well yeah, who else would verify the identity if not the state issuing the id?
Today, I am feeling pretty claustrophobic. Adobe Illustrator wants to know my date of birth. Your health data is probably processed using Google (Verily). My subway pass is probably validated using an Amazon software service. Microsoft knows your minesweeper highscore. Everything in life revolves around these 4-5 corporations as a write this message on an Apple computer.