How can people who don't have mobile phones have digital id

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a significant gap in current digital ID implementation regarding accessibility for people without mobile phones. Most digital ID systems are fundamentally designed around smartphone technology, with sources confirming that digital IDs are primarily stored on smartphones ^[1]. The Transportation Security Administration's digital ID program, for example, focuses on mobile wallet integration and smartphone-based verification systems ^[2].

Current digital ID infrastructure appears to create a digital divide that excludes non-smartphone users. The analyses show that digital ID systems face multiple implementation challenges beyond just mobile phone access, including inconsistent state standards, limited venue infrastructure for verification, and fragmented identity verification landscapes across different government services ^{[1] [3]}. The federal approach involves platforms like Login.gov and ID.me, but these solutions don't address the fundamental accessibility issue for those without mobile devices ^[3].

Privacy and accessibility concerns are being raised by civil liberties organizations, with the ACLU specifically warning states against rushing digital ID implementation due to these unresolved issues ^[4]. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has highlighted that trust verification in digital ID systems remains incomplete, suggesting that the technology itself is still evolving ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question highlights a critical accessibility gap that the current digital ID discourse largely overlooks. Several important contexts are missing from mainstream digital ID discussions:

Alternative access methods are being explored in some regions, particularly in developing countries. The Upanzi Network's work in Africa suggests that digital ID accessibility solutions are being developed for underserved populations, though specific technical details for non-mobile users aren't provided ^[6]. This indicates that innovative approaches may exist but aren't widely documented or implemented.

The analyses reveal that inclusivity should be a fundamental design principle for digital ID systems. The United Nations Development Programme emphasizes the need for proactive steps to ensure digital ID systems reach all populations, including those without mobile phones, though concrete solutions aren't specified ^[7]. This suggests that policy frameworks exist but implementation strategies are lacking.

Government responsibility for ensuring universal access is highlighted across multiple sources. The Atlantic Council's analysis of global digital ID landscapes emphasizes the importance of accessibility and inclusivity, suggesting that governments should prioritize reaching underserved communities ^[8]. However, there's a disconnect between policy intentions and practical implementation.

Alternative technologies that could serve non-mobile users aren't adequately explored in current discussions. These might include physical cards with digital chips, computer-based access through public terminals, or proxy systems where trusted intermediaries can assist with digital ID functions.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question doesn't contain explicit misinformation but reveals an important assumption gap in digital ID policy discussions. The question implicitly challenges the premise that digital IDs are universally accessible, which current implementation strategies seem to assume.

There's a potential bias in digital ID advocacy that assumes universal smartphone adoption. The analyses show that digital ID proponents often focus on convenience and security benefits without adequately addressing accessibility barriers ^{[2] [1]}. This creates a technological determinism bias where solutions are designed around existing technology rather than universal needs.

The rush to implement digital IDs may be creating systemic exclusion. The ACLU's warnings about hasty implementation suggest that convenience for the majority is being prioritized over accessibility for all ^[4]. This represents a form of digital ableism where policy makers assume technological access that doesn't exist for all citizens.

Government agencies appear to be developing digital ID systems without comprehensive accessibility strategies. The fragmented approach described in federal identity management suggests that bureaucratic efficiency is being prioritized over inclusive design ^{[9] [3]}.

The question ultimately exposes a fundamental flaw in current digital ID implementation: the assumption that digital necessarily means mobile-based. This reveals policy blind spots where technological solutions are being deployed without adequate consideration for digital equity and universal access principles.