[The] Secretary of Commerce [...] shall establish a pilot program [...] for providing a secure digital identification credential to individuals who are citizens and lawful residents of the United States at no cost to the individual.
[By] uploading copies of government-issued and other forms of identification (such as records issued by an educational institution), or by validating the authenticity of identity information provided by the individual using electronic records of State departments of motor vehicles, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, State agencies responsible for vital records, or other governmental or professional records providers that the Secretary determines are able to reliably assist in the verification of identity information.
On the other hand, it has some provisions that I'm surprised and pleased to see, since I was expecting something a lot worse:
7.(B)(3)(B) [Allow users to] control what data they choose to allow the pilot program to share with a social media platform, without sharing copies of the underlying verification documents or any information that the user does not affirmatively agree to share with those social media platforms.
7.(B)(4) Not retain copies of underlying governmental records after verifying the information provided by the user.
7.(B)(5) Provide users with the ability to disable or delete their secure digital identification credential and any associated records kept by the Pilot Program at any time.
7.(B)(5) Keep no records of the social media platforms where users have verified their identity using a secure digital identification credential, other than aggregate data that is anonymized so that it cannot be linked to individual users.
Chipping away at anonymity and privacy. Soon this verification process will become normalized in unexpected places. What’s with the name though? “Responsible Dialogue” immediately makes it seem unconstitutional, if it’s intentional is to manipulate speech. But I don’t see the words “responsible” or “dialogue” appearing elsewhere in the PDF.
This would effectively ban software that lets you run AI locally, or to access it anonymously.
I don’t see how it would be possible to provide AI services in educational contexts, or to teach kids how to use AI-based tools.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6149...
On the other hand, it has some provisions that I'm surprised and pleased to see, since I was expecting something a lot worse:
Chipping away at anonymity and privacy. Soon this verification process will become normalized in unexpected places. What’s with the name though? “Responsible Dialogue” immediately makes it seem unconstitutional, if it’s intentional is to manipulate speech. But I don’t see the words “responsible” or “dialogue” appearing elsewhere in the PDF.