There is a massive push for the adoption of digital ID programs in which Americans can use their smartphones to identify themselves. Folks using this system will no longer have to dig in the wallets to find their identification when they are purchasing a six-pack of Bud Light Modelo.

It sounds pretty convenient, doesn’t it? But perhaps if we don our tinfoil hats, we might end up thinking differently:

In many states, Americans can now ditch their physical wallet and verify their identity simply by tapping their device on a scanner. And just as digital wallets from Apple and Google have made commerce more convenient, digital ID systems could potentially make government interactions faster and more efficient. But they also raise the ominous specter of government surveillance. Can we have the efficiency of a digital ID without letting government track our every move?

Yes, but that’s not the path we’re on.

Take Colorado. Since 2019, Coloradans have been able to use a digital ID as a legal form of personal identification throughout the state. Users download an application to their smartphone, enroll in the service, and have their identity authenticated by taking photos or videos of a valid ID card or other government issued documents to prove that they are who they claim to be. Then that information is encrypted, and the user is granted a digital ID and an associated key or code that serves as an identifier.

Coloradans can simply show their digital ID to verify their identity in much the same way as you would show your driver’s license to a bartender to prove you are over 21. That means of verifying identity is relatively private. However, many services, both public and private, are increasingly turning to electronic verification, which requires pinging a government server. This ping creates a data record outlining who, what, when, and where. Over time, these records create a government-controlled ledger of information about its citizens.

Those supporting the program might argue that it would streamline government services by using a easier way to provide identification. People would use digital ID to apply for permits, process transactions, and reduce the need for cumbersome paperwork. It would help users save time – and who doesn’t want more time in our hustle and bustle society?

Using digital ID systems could also lower costs for the government. This means that the state will use less of the money it steals from us to process paperwork and pay administrative costs. If they are going to take our hard-earned cash, they might as well be decent stewards of it, right?

Despite the potential benefits, there are some risks showing that letting this happen would be about as wise as strolling through a minefield while sporting a new pair of tap shoes.

At the outset, there is the glaring issue of privacy. Implementing a centralized digital ID program means collecting and storing oodles of personal data. Imagine what would happen if this information ended up in the wrong hands. In fact, some, like myself, would argue that the state possessing the data means it’s already in the wrong hands. But criminals who happen not to work for the government could also gain access through hacking and other methods. Is a streamlined process worth this possibility?

Then, we have the surveillance issue. There have been a series of developments exposing warrantless FBI surveillance illustrating how little our federal government cares about our rights. The agency has abused Section 702 like Hunter Biden with a crack pipe. With this in mind, one would have to be under a tremendous delusion to assume that the government would not use the information gathered by this program to spy on Americans, as it has so many times in the past.

Lastly, such a program might create inequity. I bet you didn’t think I would use a word like that, did you? Just stay with me for a second – I promise I have not turned into the black libertarian, handsome male version of Robin DiAngelo. But what of folks who cannot afford to buy smartphones? They would not be able to participate in the program, right?

So, what would the government do? You guessed it: More Obamaphones! The state will kindly use the money it extorts from folks like you and me to ensure that all Americans have smartphones so that the FBI can surveil them and invade their privacy. After all, wouldn’t an equitable society spy on all of its citizens regardless of race or economic class? Moreover, it would get more folks dependent on the state’s largesse. What more could a statist want?

Of course, there are more possible risks of implementing such a program – especially without safeguards that could prevent some of the eventualities I laid out here. But it seems obvious that if people are arguing for such a program, they better concoct ways to mitigate the government abuses that would inevitably follow if the state is not kept in check.