The state’s new system could turn bureaucracy into automation, and consent into a checkbox no one really controls.

Alaska is advancing plans for a far-reaching redesign of its myAlaska digital identity system, one that would weave “Agentic Artificial Intelligence” and digital payment functions into a unified platform capable of acting on behalf of residents.

A Request for Information issued by the Department of Administration’s Office of Information Technology describes a system where AI software could automatically handle government transactions, submit applications, and manage personal data, provided the user has granted consent.

What once functioned as a simple login for applying to the Permanent Fund Dividend or signing state forms could soon evolve into a centralized mechanism managing identity, services, and money flows under one digital roof.

The plan imagines AI modules that can read documents, fill out forms, verify eligibility, and even initiate tokenized payments.

That would mean large portions of personal interaction with government agencies could occur through a machine acting as a proxy for the citizen.

While the proposal emphasizes efficiency, it also suggests a major change in how the state and its contractors might handle sensitive data.

The RFI describes an ambitious technical vision but provides a limited public explanation of how deeply such agentic AI systems could access, process, or store personal information once integrated with legacy databases. Even with explicit consent requirements, the architecture could concentrate extraordinary amounts of behavioral and biometric data within a single government-managed platform.

Security standards are invoked throughout the RFI, including compliance with NIST controls, detailed audit trails, adversarial testing, explainability tools, and human override features.

Yet those guardrails depend heavily on policy enforcement and oversight mechanisms that remain undefined.

The inclusion of biometric authentication, such as facial and fingerprint verification, introduces another layer of sensitive data collection, one that historically has proven difficult to keep insulated from breaches and misuse.

A later phase of the program extends the system into digital payments and verifiable credentials, including mobile driver’s licenses, professional certificates, hunting and fishing permits, and tokenized prepaid balances.

Those functions would be based on W3C Verifiable Credentials and ISO 18013-5, the same standards shaping national mobile ID programs.

This alignment suggests Alaska’s move is not isolated but part of a broader US trend toward interoperable digital identity frameworks. Observers concerned with privacy warn that such systems could evolve into a permanent, cross-agency tracking infrastructure.

The state’s document also calls for voice navigation, multi-language interfaces, and a new user experience designed to cover as many as 300 separate government services in one app.

Framed as modernization, the initiative nonetheless highlights an unresolved question: who truly controls a citizen’s digital identity once government and AI systems mediate nearly every transaction?

Once deployed, an AI that can act “on behalf” of a person also becomes capable of learning their patterns, predicting their needs, and operating continuously within government databases.

Once Alaska’s system moves forward, it will join a growing roster of governments weaving digital ID into the core of civic and online life.

Across Europe, Canada, and Australia, digital identity frameworks are increasingly framed as gateways to public and private services, while emerging proposals in the United States hint at a future where identity verification might become routine for accessing even basic online platforms.

These projects often promise efficiency, but their cumulative effect is to normalize constant identification, replacing the open, pseudonymous nature of the early internet with a model where every interaction begins with proving who you are.

The argument for security is persuasive to policymakers, yet it leaves unresolved how citizens can meaningfully opt out.

Once digital identity becomes the default mechanism for accessing financial systems, healthcare, or even social media, “consent” risks turning into a formality rather than a choice.

The result could be a tiered digital environment, one for the verified and another for those excluded, whether by principle or circumstance. That change raises not only data protection concerns but also fundamental questions about freedom of expression and association online and elsewhere.

Linking AI-driven automation to identity infrastructure magnifies these risks. A system that can act “on behalf” of a person is also capable of observing and predicting their decisions.

When that capacity exists inside government networks, the boundary between service provision and behavioral monitoring becomes precariously thin.

Even with audit logs and human override functions, once such systems are embedded, reversing or limiting their reach is exceedingly difficult.

Read More Here