Just for the record, Trump can’t do this. The Constitution is very clear that the “times, places, and manner“ of elections for federal office are determined by individual states (though can be altered by Congress).

The president simply has no role in US elections (except to sign into law or veto whatever election-related bills that congress might pass).

@mattblaze Throw into the brew the situation a few years ago when states tried to require that presidential candidates publish tax returns and were shot down by courts saying that states can not modify the requirements to hold office.

Although that is not directly germane to the voter ID situation, it does reflect a policy that when it comes to election stuff, the Constitution occupies almost the entire space leaving little room for additional Federal or state regulation.

With regard to voter ID - that is an issue that is hard to oppose because it is not irrational. I believe the D's would be better off not opposing voter ID but, instead, using those resources to make sure that every likely D voter has a proper voter ID.

@karlauerbach @mattblaze Providing IDs to every voter is a really hard problem. But the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to require it.

@SteveBellovin @mattblaze I am far from having expertise in the art of issuing IDs. So I do not understand when you say "Providing IDs to every voter is a really hard problem."

??

(I do remember back when Dave Kaufman and I were trying to figure out operating system access control matrices that we always seemed to back into the question of "how do we know who the actor is?" [Especially when a person or thing was acting as an agent with delegated authorities from another.])

I also keep bumping into the old national ID card issue - and the fears that a person could be "vanished" by a government agency. But then again, we seem to be moving pretty close to a national ID card with things like SecureID driver's licenses.

@karlauerbach @SteveBellovin @mattblaze Are you assuming everyone has a driving license? That's not a sensible assumption.

@oclsc @SteveBellovin @mattblaze I am not making that assumption. My comment about SecureID is intended to reflect that national ID cards are sneaking up on us.

BTW, as far as I know, many (perhaps most?) will issue ID cards to those who can't get (or do not want) a driver's license. I'm not sure whether there is a SecureID version of those.

@karlauerbach @SteveBellovin @mattblaze In my salad days, when I lived in the States and the President was a B-list actor with dementia, it was a real nuisance not to have a photo ID, eg when paying by cheque (remember that?). I had a non-driver ID from California DMV for a while, but that seemed stupid. Then I attended a conference in Toronto so I got a passport, and thereafter carried that.

But in recent decades I can hardly remember being asked for ID except when crossing borders or checking into US hotels. (The latter seems new since the Reagan years--maybe it started after 9/11?)

One exception is when voting in Canada but the requirements are quite loose--provincial health card and a utility bill will do. Another recent one: when I signed my will, lawyer wanted to see ID for obvious reasons. I still had my decades-old, rather ratty Canadian citizenship card in my wallet, and that was enough. If I'd known she was going to ask I'd have brought my passport.

But the need now is annual or less, not daily.

@oclsc @SteveBellovin @mattblaze Some states in the US are allowing drivers licenses to be inserted into the Apple iPhone Wallet. I've done it. So far I have not used it.

Some stores (such as cannabis stores) around here want (or rather, require) a scan of the barcode on the back of the California driver's license.

@karlauerbach @oclsc @mattblaze There are interesting Fourth Amendment issues about how much access you've granted a police officer to whom you show your phone-resident license…
@SteveBellovin @karlauerbach @oclsc @mattblaze With an iPhone you don’t have to show them anything. All the drivers license info (and only drivers license info) can be read via NFC using a device law enforcement possesses. You don’t even have to unlock your phone. Of course if the officer insists that you unlock it anyway, you have a choice to make
@stephen_thomas @SteveBellovin @karlauerbach @oclsc @mattblaze Can you clarify what the authentication mechanism is for “a device law enforcement possesses “? Is there a “law enforcement pki” that issues authorization keys? How are those managed if a device is stolen?
@adamshostack @stephen_thomas I know nothing about the Apple implementation of this feature, but I imagine from the law enforcement perspective, they probably didn't think about the security of the phone-owner at all and figured if they could paw through your wallet to extract your ID then having your ID shared in the clear over NFC, or with very minimal auth using PKI without any serious CRL, is probably also fine. Isn't there also RFID in passports with the same kind of data, which I believe can be read from a longer range with minimal equipment, and definitely doesn't have auth.
@raven667 @adamshostack An advantage of the phone (over a passport) is that the phone’s owner has control over when the NFC is active. The owner has to double click the side button and then biometricly authenticate themselves before the NFC data can be read.
@raven667 @adamshostack @stephen_thomas There is no auth to read data off of passports, but it does require knowing the date of birth, expiration date, and passport number on the passport (which is on the MRZ of the passport and why automated passport scanners also have cameras to read the MRZ). The combination of all of these for a American passport is roughly 60 bits, which is a questionable amount of security but is 'enough'. For some other countries (like Dutch passports), there have been attacks in the past because of predictable passport numbers