[HN Gopher] FOIA requests show Apple's emails pitching state age...
___________________________________________________________________
FOIA requests show Apple's emails pitching state agencies on IDs
and Wallet app
Author : danso
Score : 177 points
Date : 2021-09-28 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.muckrock.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.muckrock.com)
| [deleted]
| nojito wrote:
| Isn't the implementation the same between Android and iOS?
| marcellus23 wrote:
| Yeah, my understanding is that Apple is using a standard:
|
| > Apple's mobile ID implementation supports the ISO 18013-5 mDL
| (mobile driver's license) standard which Apple has played an
| active role in the development of, and which sets clear
| guidelines for the industry around protecting consumers'
| privacy when presenting an ID or driver's license through a
| mobile device.
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/apple-announces-first...
| [deleted]
| literallyaduck wrote:
| "Just unlock your phone so we can ID you."
|
| Edit:
|
| How the technical implementation works is irrelevant to how the
| "boots on the ground" will use it. "We can't accept this until
| the device is unlocked." will be a common refrain. Or "I need the
| device to verify" while they eliminate your video record of the
| encounter.
|
| We just recently saw how Apple bends over for government demands.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| Except that isn't how it works.
|
| > Only after authorizing with Face ID or Touch ID is the
| requested identity information released from their device,
| which ensures that just the required information is shared and
| only the person who added the driver's license or state ID to
| the device can present it. Users do not need to unlock, show,
| or hand over their device to present their ID.
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/apple-announces-first...
| _jal wrote:
| Cops routinely use possession of a target's ID as a detention
| method during traffic stops.
|
| I rather suspect we'll see begin to see stories of
| substituting phone possession if this becomes widespread.
|
| Related... do "I've been pulled over" recorder apps continue
| to run while this is active?
| eli wrote:
| The intent is that you tap the phone on a reader and that
| it doesn't leave your possession.
| [deleted]
| fay59 wrote:
| People need to accept that the moment you're face to face
| with a cop, software isn't going to restore accountability
| on the spot or give you an edge against an adversary that
| has the monopoly of violence. If your threat model is that
| you should be prepared for a cop to seize either your
| physical driver's license or your phone, you should make
| sure you carry the one you care the least about with you.
| dwaite wrote:
| In many locales they will not be able to retain a phone
| legally without court order because of laws/rights around
| search-and-seizure.
|
| Unlike a state-issued ID, the understanding is solidly that
| the phone is the citizen's property.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > legally
|
| There's the problem. Cops do plenty of illegal things all
| the time.
|
| That's before even getting into how civil forfeiture
| exists as a massively profitable and federally-approved
| end-run around the Constitution.
| blitzar wrote:
| Sure makes collecting up ID's quicker if it is just tap and
| go. They should also log the transfer/recipient for the user.
|
| Wonder what kids are going to do for fake ID when you have to
| tap to get into the club...
| rurp wrote:
| Oh I'm sure motivated kids will find hacks and workarounds.
| If anything it might end up being even easier to fake your
| age; especially when dealing with businesses that are
| totally apathetic or unknowledgeable about technology.
| borski wrote:
| I can't tell if you're implying fake IDs are something we
| should try to keep around; I have no problem improving
| security for underage kids.
|
| Signed, someone who definitely did but shouldn't have been
| clubbing at 14.
| blitzar wrote:
| I am implying that kids will find a way, for those of us
| that live in the free world and are adults at 18 it is
| less of a burden. For the poor souls in the US who _come
| of age_ at 21, fake phones for id might be the new
| accessory.
| borski wrote:
| Yes, some kids will find a way. I would have. But I have
| no problem making the barrier to entry higher, at least
| until parents start responsibly introducing their kids to
| alcohol or drugs instead of just _pretending they don 't
| exist_ or worse, arguing they are awful from a religious
| or otherwise zealous perspective.
|
| In a perfect world, parents would teach their kids about
| how to party responsibly, but we don't live in a perfect
| world. At the very least, when kids get older they can
| arguably make slightly better decisions (e.g. think more
| clearly) _sometimes_.
| justahuman1 wrote:
| Hold someone else's phone?
| DigitallyFidget wrote:
| That's what concerns me. It wouldn't be unreasonable or
| impossible for this to happen. The physical IDs have a
| ton of security features to them. And that's actually not
| even required. It's NFC based tap, someone will find a
| way to exploit and spoof a valid ID.
| dwaite wrote:
| Typically if presenting in person (such as airport
| security) you would need to also release your picture,
| which would show up on the TSA agent's terminal next to a
| big green checkmark for the valid cryptographic
| signature.
|
| Without the picture? My understanding is that release
| does require authentication, and the message could
| disclose whether that was done with say the fingerprint
| used when the license was added to the phone.
|
| The use of cryptographic signatures means the weakest
| link would likely be the identity verification process of
| the issuing DMV (or their app).
| judge2020 wrote:
| If it's in any way reliant on a central database, or even
| PGP, I fail to see how you could fake an ID besides
| finding someone that looks like you and sending that in
| your place.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It would be interesting if the tap just sent over an ID
| number and then the receiver downloads the data including
| photo on file.
| Bud wrote:
| Good! Apple _should_ be pitching beneficial technologies like
| this.
| Lamad123 wrote:
| This company wants to shipify the rest of society at all cost!!
| PerkinWarwick wrote:
| Hey, at least they're not requiring a chip implant.
|
| Of course the phone OS people are going to do this. Judging from
| a few years of Live PD, every single person getting pulled over
| never ever has a valid ID, but always always has a cell phone
| that they clutch like their life depended on it.
|
| Anything in the article is just a detail that is being hashed
| out.
| rastafang wrote:
| > Hey, at least they're not requiring a chip implant.
|
| Baby steps...
| jasonpbecker wrote:
| The tone of this article is bizarre, ignoring the fact that Apple
| is implementing an ISO standard. It's interesting that states
| interpreted this conversation as a procurement conversation,
| since it's not clear the government is being asked to buy
| anything but instead to see where they are on the mDL standard
| and whether they'd be interested in participating in Apple's
| early phase release of support for that standard.
|
| The information is useful, but the whole framing is very strange
| and conspiratorial that's not supported by the emails or the
| facts.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| One formula for low hanging clickbait is <large organization> +
| <conspiratorial topic> = plausible deniability for exploring
| option of malicious intent regardless of lack of evidence. And
| due to their success, tech companies make for great candidates
| for <large organization>.
| jonas21 wrote:
| This is also important to keep in mind when reading articles
| about less well-liked companies, e.g. Facebook, Amazon, etc.
| fsflover wrote:
| So Apple joined them now it seems.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Who invented "clickbait". What is the purpose of "clickbait".
|
| Non-profits like MuckRock are to blame. They are not selling
| advertising, but clickbait has nothing to do with
| advertising.
|
| Moreover, tech companies have nothing to do with clickbait
| nor advertising. They are not spreading clickbait like non-
| profits that submit FOIA requests. Tech companies do not
| profit from clickbait. Tech companies have sources of non-
| advertising revenue and legitimate business purposes that
| benefit society. Unlike non-profits making FOIA requests that
| spread clickbait.
|
| In 2012, EFF filed over 200 FOIA requests through MuckRock,
| for information about drone usage. EFF should stop
| participating in these clickbait campaigns.
|
| We should be thanking tech companies not scrutinising them.
| Tech companies mind their own business, they do not try to
| learn what their users/customers are doing. Tech companies
| respect our privacy. These non-profits submitting FOIA
| requests are a nuisance. They do not respect the privacy of
| Apple and governments. Both deserve to be left alone, to do
| their work in private.
|
| Why don't people trust tech companies. They have done nothing
| wrong.
|
| A conspiracy requires two or more actors. Thus, if the topic
| must be "conspiratorial", then the formula should be
|
| <large organisation> + <co-conspirator> [+ <conspirator> ..]
| + <conspiratorial topic> = plausible deniability for
| exploring option of malicious intent regardless of lack of
| evidence
|
| Apple is the large organisation. The states are the co-
| conspirators. A non-profit submitting FOIA requests.
| Definitely clickbait.
| joekrill wrote:
| Did you read the emails, though? They certainly don't sound
| like simply asking about "where they are on the mDL standard".
| They are asking for NDAs to be signed - why is that necessary
| if this is just about the progress of implementing an ISO
| standard?
|
| And there's this from CA:
|
| > The agreement I've been provided goes beyond a POC and
| appears to create more of a long term relationship.
| kelnos wrote:
| I agree that it's interesting and useful, but the article
| also tries to spread some FUD about this being "Apple's
| standard" when it's not (with some fearmongering rhetoric
| around "what about Android?", "what about other competing
| systems we haven't heard of yet?"); it's an ISO standard for
| mobile driver's licenses. I'm actually surprised and pleased
| that Apple has decided to go with a standard instead of doing
| their own thing, as usual.
|
| But the author of the article either a) can't be bothered to
| do some basic research about the topic she's writing about,
| or b) is deliberately stirring up (fake) controversy to
| increase engagement. Either thing is pretty bad.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > They are asking for NDAs to be signed - why is that
| necessary if this is just about the progress of implementing
| an ISO standard?
|
| I'd assume there's something in there about Apple sharing
| their product roadmap and planning, so they can get all the
| ducks in a row for a unified launch rather than support
| coming in piecemeal.
| tester89 wrote:
| Sorry, which ISO standard?
| CalChris wrote:
| ISO 18013-5 mDL mobile driver's license standard
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/apple-announces-
| first...
| judge2020 wrote:
| Would be nice if these standards were open. Can't audit it
| until it's introduced in iOS 15.x, I guess.
|
| Edit for reference:
| https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-
| iec:18013:-5:dis:ed-...
| skissane wrote:
| Having a look at your link, I see section A.3.10 is
| proposing the use case "Vote or register to vote".
|
| Given how politically controversial the issue of voter ID
| is in some places (especially the US), I'm wondering if
| this this ISO standard is going to get mixed up in that
| political controversy.
| lscotte wrote:
| As predicted. say anything that casts Apple in a negative light
| here on HN and get instantly modded down. It's OK, I expected
| it.
| user-the-name wrote:
| You talk about a "reality distortion field", but you are the
| one here who is just making things up.
| Lamad123 wrote:
| These sheeple become wolves with sharp teeth when defending
| their. "Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted! Bottle
| of mine, why was I ever decanted?"
| blitzar wrote:
| I am no fan of digital ID's but did he really need a FOIA request
| to break open the idea that Apple were thinking of adding drivers
| license to their native app and talking to the DVLA in various
| states about it?
|
| _> "How did it happen? Why had I or no one ever heard of it,
| given I know a lot of folks in the government tech space?"_
|
| Apparently this guy doesnt know much ... but enough to waste some
| peoples time with useless FOIA requests.
|
| _UK shows off prototype of digital iPhone driving license using
| Apple's Wallet app - May. 13th 2016 11:06 am PT [1]_
|
| _Louisiana, where I live, was the first state to roll out a
| digital driver 's license on July 3, 2018, and a few other states
| are working on similar initiatives. The app that you use in
| Louisiana is called LA Wallet. [2]_
|
| [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/13/uk-digital-driving-
| lice... [2] https://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2018/07/review-la-
| wallet....
| johnm212 wrote:
| > Apparently this guy doesnt know much ... but enough to waste
| some peoples time with useless FOIA requests.
|
| I think this is really useful.
|
| Apple and Microsoft have some of the most sophisticated
| BD/partnership teams in the world.
|
| Many companies who partner with Apple use an internal codeword
| and don't let others within the company know the client, terms
| of the deal, or the scope of the work.
|
| Being able to see how Apple is approaching these deals is
| really interesting and valuable. They are going into 50 states
| and dealing with the DMV. The DMV has a reputation of being
| disorganized and not very technical. Apple has the opposite
| reputation. We are getting a front-row seat into how
| "disruption" happens.
|
| Even if partnership deals don't get you excited, having
| transparency into how private companies do business with the
| government is almost always a good thing.
| azinman2 wrote:
| And what did we learn? Not a whole lot. Just a pretty regular
| plain process asking for meeting and setting up some articles
| of understanding to implement an ISO standard, with the
| expected twist that it was under NDA until the public
| announcement.
| tw600040 wrote:
| //I am no fan of digital ID's
|
| Why not? What's not to like about it? if it can be implemented
| in a reasonably foolproof way? Isn't being able to ditch the
| wallet a huge win?
| zentiggr wrote:
| Hit the nail on the head: "if it can be implemented...?"
|
| We're talking 50 individual state governments here. We all
| know that federal, state, and local govt IT practices are
| basically troubled at best, disastrously shoddy at worst, the
| only way I would accept this idea is if it was a completely
| optional, user-chosen, option for an ID.
|
| I would want at least ten years of first adopters getting
| their lives shafted and/or stolen and/or stalked and/or
| breached before I'd ever think of even using the optional
| service.
|
| Yes, little trust.
| gumby wrote:
| It's an ISO standard.
|
| As the experience of Estonia shows, a digital ID can be
| very useful and effective, but does take some work (they
| had a big revocation effort to manage, which they were able
| to do so because their country is so small).
|
| Bigger countries such a Germany have basically punted on
| this issue.
|
| I'm a big fan and disappointed that California isn't in the
| vanguard.
| Karunamon wrote:
| And as we all know, standards are implemented faithfully
| and to-the-letter in real life. /s
|
| What's the problem this actually solves for the average
| person? Obviating a physical card?
| notJim wrote:
| It's so funny to me that HN is so skeptical of technology
| sometimes. Why build the internet when you get all the
| information you need at the local library? Why have cars
| when my horse provides companionship and transportation
| at the same time?
|
| To answer the question though, since Apple Pay now works
| almost everywhere, my ID is one of the only cards I still
| need to carry. If I had a digital ID, I don't think I'd
| need to carry a wallet anymore.
| gumby wrote:
| I don't think of HN as a "technology fan site" but people
| who have to deal with this stuff every day. Some caution,
| especially based on experience, is warranted.
|
| > To answer the question though, since Apple Pay now
| works almost everywhere, my ID is one of the only cards I
| still need to carry. If I had a digital ID, I don't think
| I'd need to carry a wallet anymore.
|
| Where do you live? I currently live in California so only
| carry ID when driving or (more recently) when planning to
| enter certain buildings, like federal buildings or
| airports. Otherwise I don't bother and it hasn't been a
| problem for me.
|
| Sometimes people do ask for ID (or an SSN) but when I
| politely say "I'm sorry I don't have one" they typically
| want to do business with me so magically don't need any
| info.
|
| I'm clearly over drinking age and don't need controlled
| prescriptions.
| kelnos wrote:
| As someone who has been building software for 20+ years
| now, I know how it fails and how it can make people's
| lives miserable. I know how developers cut corners and
| how quality always takes a back seat to other business
| concerns. I know how technology can erode privacy, or be
| used as a tool for governments to exact more control on
| their citizens.
|
| I'm probably more skeptical of technology in everyday
| life than your average non-technical person.
|
| > _Apple Pay now works almost everywhere_
|
| I live in a city, and Apple/Google Pay definitely does
| not work anywhere near everywhere (even after more
| businesses went contactless due to COVID). I wouldn't
| think of leaving home without physical credit cards.
|
| (I was at a bar this weekend. Ironically I could not pay
| my tab with my phone, but their photobooth took Apple &
| Google Pay.)
| gumby wrote:
| Yes, I leave my DL my gf's car (which annoys her no end)
| as that's the only place I would need it. I don't carry a
| wallet any more.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yes, and also enabling not-physical validation (e.g. you
| could open a bank account or w/e similarly strict thing
| online, with your identity being verified automatically).
| It's convenient and saves time.
| beambot wrote:
| The US still doesn't have wide-spread use of chip & pin
| on credit cards. Innovation & adoption of digital
| identity in this country is unlikely to be rapid.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| > The US still doesn't have wide-spread use of chip & pin
| on credit cards
|
| That's not really the case anymore. The new struggle is
| contactless. I can count on my hands how many times I've
| had my current debit card swiped (which is good since its
| stripe is looking like shit by now).
|
| Gas stations are finally implementing chip transactions
| (the deadline is Oct 2021 iirc), which fortunately
| generally includes a contactless reader.
|
| But alas, we'll likely see the same problems with digital
| ID that we have with REAL ID.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _if it can be implemented in a reasonably foolproof way?_
|
| With my wallet, I run the risk of losing my ID or having it
| get stolen.
|
| With an ID on my phone, I still have those risks, but now I
| also have the risk of dropping the phone and breaking it, as
| well as the battery dying. Not to mention just some random
| software glitch breaking things.
|
| > _Isn 't being able to ditch the wallet a huge win?_
|
| For all but the most trivial of trips outside my home (where
| I expect to need ID), I doubt I would leave my physical ID at
| home, ever. And if I have to carry it as a backup, why have
| the digital ID at all?
| colordrops wrote:
| What an odd idea that FOIA requests are a waste of some
| employee's time, considering the vast amount of waste in the
| system already. Anything that can be released with an FOIA
| request should never have been locked behind closed doors in
| the first place. Locking public information up is shady and is
| the true reason that is wasting everyone's time.
| throaway46546 wrote:
| Doesn't the FOIA requester have to pay for those employee's
| time anyways?
| dhosek wrote:
| It varies depending on the agency, the scope of the request
| and the purpose of the request. For just one example,
| here's the State of Illinois FOIA FAQ:
|
| https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/FOIA/Documents/FOIA_Frequentl
| y...
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Taxpayers already do with their contribution to the country
| budgets, in EU you can submit FOIA for free to governments
| entity and to any private company who received government
| funding, it's a matter of public interest and if you
| receive my money (as taxpayer) then you put into account
| the fact that as a citizen I might request some answers
| siruncledrew wrote:
| >"How did it happen? Why had I or no one ever heard of it,
| given I know a lot of folks in the government tech space?"
|
| I had a good LOL at that too. I remember people in uni were
| even talking about this in a business course like 10 years ago.
| This is not like a groundbreaking idea to digitize an ID.
| sumthinprofound wrote:
| > I am no fan of digital ID's but did he really need a FOIA
| request to break open the idea that Apple were thinking of
| adding drivers license to their native app and talking to the
| DVLA in various states about it?
|
| He would need an FOIA request to each state DMV for
| documentation on the agencys' responses to Apple and any
| internal deliberation on the matter.
| clairity wrote:
| state/federal agencies should never use any third-party software
| that exfiltrates any personal data of residents (especially
| google, which already infests governments & schools). it should
| be self-evident that this creates an irresistable incentive for
| the state and corporations to consolidate power, capital and
| influence against the populace.
| Loughla wrote:
| >especially google, which already infests governments & schools
|
| Working in schools, I can assure you, google classroom and all
| the accompanying apps are not some cabal from the schools.
| They're free. That's the incentive.
|
| Also, I would ask, what is the other option? That the
| government builds and maintains specific programs for every
| function? How okay are you with taxes going up quite a bit?
| Because they will need to in order for the public sector to
| compete for talent with the private sector.
|
| My opinion is that these sorts of things don't need to be
| electronic, as paper is more secure anyway. But maybe I'm a
| Luddite. At the very least, I am privileged enough to have a
| career that allows me the flexibility to interact with
| government agencies if I need to. If I was still working
| retail, I could see how online services would definitely be a
| plus in time saved.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, the government should generally build the software they
| need to support essential functions for the populace, which
| certainly can include open-source/collaboratively-developed
| software, even the paid kind. we shouldn't allow government
| to decide to pay for software by gutting individual privacy
| and liberty. that goes counter to the spirit of our
| inalienable rights.
|
| also, "taxes will go up" arguments are at best naive. taxes
| (amounts/rates) have little correlation with supporting the
| essential needs of government. they're primarily employed to
| generate leverage, (unfair) economic gain, and power. public
| sector pay is uncompetitive because politicians and
| bureaucrats don't find competitive pay to serve those
| purposes.
|
| but yes, paper is perfectly fine technology for most
| educational purposes, relatively secure and private
| intrinsically.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Due to how education authority is distributed and
| entrenched in the US, it is exceptionally unlikely they
| have the competency to build the software tooling they need
| for essential functions. Khan Academy tried to provide this
| service, but it appears there's been very little uptake.
| It's even worse if you're a startup, with horrendously long
| and tortured sales cycles and your contract at the whim of
| career admins and politicians.
|
| Charter schools as the developers or consumers of such
| software, as well as homeschoolers, would see better
| outcomes imho. Retooling public schooling apparatus is a
| lost cause (although there is likely some small impact to
| be realized if you're a technologist in a position where
| you can deliver disproportionate impact to your local
| institution).
| clairity wrote:
| yes, no doubt the challenges are significant, given the
| centrality of public education in local, state, and even
| national politics, but policy (slowly, piecemeal) got us
| into this problem, and perhaps only policy (after a long
| cycle of learning & debate) can get us out.
|
| the main point is that a key (hopefully self-evident)
| principle is that our liberties shouldn't be for sale at
| any price. if that means states/localities need to
| develop software (and software development as a
| competency), so be it. political winds can change.
|
| but as has been pointed out, it's not even clear that we
| really need much new technology, when existing tech seems
| to be perfectly satisfactory, if unexciting. the mass
| distance-learning experiment we just experienced seems
| largely a failure. turns out learning, while central, is
| only one of many educational concerns, and computer-based
| learning is at best augmentative, not primary (unlike,
| say, school administration systems).
| monksy wrote:
| Good to see the IL was direct in rejecting the idea of an NDA.
| Meetings like this should not be hidden from public view since it
| involves decisions that affect the constituents.
|
| Also, Apple seems to have this backwards: The states don't
| operate on their product schedule. Nor should they.
| [deleted]
| perf1 wrote:
| Is the end Goal to make the internet only accessible via Digital
| ID and kill of the anonymity?
| tw600040 wrote:
| I don't think that is the end goal. But obviously we need
| protections to make sure this doesn't lead to that case.
| ezfe wrote:
| You could ask the same about Apple Pay: "Is the end Goal to
| make Apple Pay the only payment method supported on the
| internet and kill credit card numbers"
|
| Not only is there nothing to support your claim, there's no
| reason to believe this would be the next step if your claim was
| accurate. Instead, they'd just...require ID on the internet,
| it's not like that's not currently possible.
| leecb wrote:
| Is the end Goal to make conversation only accessible via the
| telephone and kill off in-person conversation?
| sneak wrote:
| There's lots to support his claim. You can't use Homepods
| without an iCloud account, you can't get an iCloud account
| without an Apple ID, and you can't get an Apple ID without
| providing a phone number and email address.
| [deleted]
| dwaite wrote:
| The (eventual) goal is not to kill off anonymity, but to better
| support user control of data and thereby give more anonymity.
|
| You should be able to prove your age to buy liquor, without
| disclosing any other information (including your name or birth
| date). That should work without the government or any other
| party knowing you. But we are still on the road to get there.
|
| There are numerous other efforts for decentralized identity
| systems where the user 'holds' digitally signed credentials and
| presents them under consent. While most parties realize that
| reducing data release and supporting anonymity are important
| objectives, the different efforts (and participants) have
| different priorities.
|
| Some efforts, like Smart Health Cards, do not support selective
| disclosure of information, instead just supporting digital
| medical documents as signed data. This was a scope reduction to
| get a system out more quickly for COVID vaccination
| credentials.
|
| Mobile drivers licenses support selective disclosure, but many
| privacy controls are really being implemented via
| certification, where compatible reader devices are being
| limited to those who certify that they discard data after use.
|
| There are stronger primitives like Anonymous Credentials [1] ,
| which also make the cryptography itself unlinkable, and
| predicate proofs which let you present answers to questions
| without presenting the underlying information. However,
| standardizing and deploying such crypto at scale takes years.
|
| [1] http://cs.brown.edu/people/alysyans/papers/cl01a.pdf
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| This makes sense to me. Apple wants to have their wallet app hold
| some state IDs so they reach out to states to talk about how it
| might work or not work with them.
|
| The quotes from the technologist in the article just seem kinda
| random. I feel like those would be the basis for an article ...
| once you know them, but nothing in that article answers any of
| them or tell me that any of them are a problem.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Well yeah, you can put your driver's license in your apple wallet
| in some states now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-28 23:00 UTC)