3 hours ago, KJW said:

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

The printing press is part of the technology, you're suggesting is encroaching on your freedom and control.

The digital audit trail, I would argue, is harder to fake, or destroy, than a printed document; I acknowledge that no system is perfect or free of fakery.

Any dictatorship worth it's salt, will be the sole arbiter of reality.

Technology is never the problem, it's the insidious nature of an ageing demography and the rose tinted nature of their vision.

4 hours ago, KJW said:

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

I presume that even with a digital ID system you could always print out documents confirming your identity and keep a copy somewhere safe in case of problems.

Estonia adopted digital ID some year ago. There is a review of how this went here: https://www.publictechnology.net/2025/11/13/society-and-welfare/how-estonia-made-digital-id-work-through-choice-transparency-and-trust/

There is a discussion in the UK about introducing digital ID, partly to combat crime and illegal immigration. But it would also replace the various tiresome requests from different sorts of proof of ID required by banks, the legal system and government departments. I don't really see the problem.

5 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism.

Bear in mind that humanity is just as scared of the shadow's, as is 'Ozymandias' the greatest of Kings. 😉

It's like Batman v Superman, a hidden joke by Spiderwoman...

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by dimreepr

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I presume that even with a digital ID system you could always print out documents confirming your identity and keep a copy somewhere safe in case of problems.

Estonia adopted digital ID some year ago. There is a review of how this went here: https://www.publictechnology.net/2025/11/13/society-and-welfare/how-estonia-made-digital-id-work-through-choice-transparency-and-trust/

There is a discussion in the UK about introducing digital ID, partly to combat crime and illegal immigration. But it would also replace the various tiresome requests from different sorts of proof of ID required by banks, the legal system and government departments. I don't really see the problem.

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

That is my broader point though, hidden authoritarianism can be exemplified by arbitrary application of rules to certain people. That is what we are seeing in the US, where ICE and border control seemingly arbitrarily accept or reject various levels of proof of citizenship. In a broader sense, this arbitrariness has always existed at borders as the agents there can legally deny you entry except when you are a citizen, I believe.

I.e. you do not need a full-on gestapo moment, but there built-in vulnerabilities, even in not fully autocratic systems. The main difference in my mind is how these vulnerabilities are being exploited. After all, in the US in theory you always had to prove your legal status if you are not a citizen. But generally you wouldn't be stopped on a random basis. But it was always fully in their power to do so in public places.

Edit: with regard to OP and this point here specifically, the broader issue is that authoritarianism is not binary. Even in an otherwise liberal (as in free) system, there are necessary restrictions as well as vulnerabilities. How free a given society is depends not only on whether the whole structure is authoritarian or not, but rather on how the many individual components, ranging from the bureaucracy, law enforcement, judiciary, but also voter decisions decide to run things and what restrictions and safeguards we put into place and how we decided to enforce those.

The slide in authoritarianism in Weimar, but also many other countries in recent times was often not after a coup and a massive restructuring of the system. Instead, they are characterized by continuous undermining of safeguards on all levels. In the given example, offline paperwork would only provide benefits, if they are robust safeguards forcing for example law enforcement to accept them. Yet much of it still lies in the discretion of the officer. And again, in the US we can see how fast the discretion can change.

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

Yes you could get one at the town hall or something, with anti-counterfeit markings like a passport.