Pay Dirt in Scanned Driver's Licenses

The New York Times has a good article explaining why handing over your national ID card to be scanned may not be such a good idea.

Comments

identity theft versus tracking

[peter303]

I would be more concerned if there is enough info on the stripe to impersonate someone and drain their finances. As for tracking ones movements, I feel that that will become inevitable through a multitude of security devices. That becomes like surfing the net- white noise save all for the most determined voyeurs.

Defacto Privacy

[rev_icon]

One of the points the proponents of these scanning machines said in the article that these machines don't violate privacy because they're just reading out the same information that is on the front of the drivers license. Of course, technically this is true, and it is just the same as if someone was photocopying every license that is shown at the door, but it's also alot different.

Think about this... if you were walking in the park with someone, and you were talking about your girlfriend and some new car that she just bought, and someone walks by and happens to overhear you talking about this, it's not an invasion of privacy. You're in the park, it's a public place. Now think of the same situation, but someone is following you around with a microphone recording everything you say. Technically it's still not an invasion of privacy because you're in a public place, and because you're saying it in public, it's public information, but it's still a Completely Different thing.

-Matt
Free Your Mind

From the nation who...

[Anonymous Coward]

• pays their phone bills with credit cards
• buys food with credit cards
• buys gas with credit card
• buys bus/train/airplane tickets with credit cards

You see the pattern? What's an ID card going to do? All your purchasing data and aggregate information already belong to some shady corporation.

If you don't trust your government, then fine. Why do you trust the corporations then?

Re:From the nation who...

[daoine]

The interesting thing is that it's a choice to purchase things with credit/debit cards. Granted, I'll generally have a paper trail with my bills, but if I'm in the supermarket or the drugstore buying stuff I don't want the world to know I have - I skip the little saver card thing and I pay cash.

The reason this is a little sketchy (and maybe different) is that I _don't_ know where scanned license information is going.

I know exactly what happens to my information when I buy something on a credit/debit card with a little saver thing(it gets sold to anyone who might give a rats ass) and I can judge accordingly.

But the article pointed out itself -- that the information for that particular system was stored locally. It's a little scarier (maybe it's just a girl thing) to think that the sketchy bartender now has access to stuff without my noticing. All he's gotta do now is remember my name, instead of name, address, and everything else on my license.

/mildly paranoid

Here's why it's so nefarious...

[Squirrel Killer]

From the story:

"It's the same information as the front of the license," said Frank Mandelbaum, chairman and chief executive of Intelli- Check, a manufacturer of license-scanning equipment based in Woodbury, N.Y. "If I were to go into a bar and they had a photocopier, they could photocopy the license or they could write it down. They are not giving us any information that violates privacy."

If I went to a bar that tried to photocopy my driver's license, I'd damn sure turn around and go elsewhere. By making the privacy invasion so subtle, they've muted reasonable objections.

-sk

Re:Here's why it's so nefarious...

[Jordy]

The debate against National ID cards still confuses me. It seems to me that if they built a national ID card where everything was contained electronically and there was little to no information on the front, you could do *more* to protect privacy than the current standard of relying on driver's licenses.

The real trick would be developing a method whereby only the information you want to give out is accessible.

My first thought would be to encrypt each peice of information with a different key, but then the government would need to distribute private keys to each business which takes the control out of your hands. On the other hand, if done correctly, they could give access to a liquor store to only be able to decrypt a photograph and if a person is over 21 or not (not even age.)

A better solution of course would be a method of allowing each person to control what information a particular vendor retrieves, but practically speaking, is much more difficult than the above solution.

If the above described card was issued as a national ID card, we'd all be a lot better off. Of course then every club would need a little scanner to read the information instead of being able to just look at the front... but that's not my problem now is it? :)

reply to AC

[Srin Tuar]

Nice idea, but the club uses the strip as a counterfeit-prevention device, and likely would refuse service to anyone with a mangled bar code because they couldn't be sure it wasn't a fake id.

Maybe if youre the only one with a blanked license they could single you out, but its not uncommon for a licence a few years old to be unreadable. I worked as a grocery clerk for several years, and I can tell you that about 5%-10% of all credit cards are unreadable, and they are replaced much more frequently that driver's licenses. (probably because they are used that much more often)

Also there is the fact that they are in business to make money- they wont woo many customers by turning away obvious adults with valid licenses.

And cmon- The hologram, micro print, state seal, and all that other stuff have to count for something...

Re:it seems..

[studerby]

I suspect that some places, particularly bars and banks, will assume that the license is forged and treat you/it differently...

What's private and what's not?

[foobar104]

I think this raises an interesting question. What information about me is legitimately private, and what isn't?

The knee-jerk reaction, of course, is to say that everything is private unless I choose to release it. But that approach doesn't work in practice. There are too many instances in which information about me needs to be publicly available. To pick a silly example, it's important that it be public knowledge that somebody lives in my home, because if the building catches on fire I want people to let me know and help me get out.

So some information really should be explicitly public knowledge, and it's important that everybody accept that, especially privacy advocates. We can then have a reasoned discourse about where to draw that line.

Think about your phone number. The phone company publishes your name and phone number in their directory unless you pay an additional fee for an unlisted number. This has been the status quo for my entire life-- 30 years-- and certainly much longer. So it's got a pretty good precedent going. So is my phone number private information by default? Not really. Should it be? Hmm... maybe. If I express no preference at all, should the phone company publish my name, address, and phone number or not?

The other end of the spectrum is information that's clearly private, and protected by law. My medical records and the contents of my communications with my lawyer are explicitly private. If a court wanted to know what my doctor said to me last week, they couldn't ask. It's private.

Everything else is in the middle. Is my street address private? No, by the phone book argument. What about the number of people who live in my house? Maybe. How about their ages, genders, and sexual preferences? Hmm.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: our society seems to accept as a given that we should each have the right to keep stuff private. The slippery slope argument, though often specious at best, implies that the right to keep stuff private must only be abridged when there's no alternative. But everywhere you look there's ambiguity about this principle. Go back to the phone book example; the phone company assumes you want to publish your name, address, and phone number unless you explicitly tell them-- and pay them!-- not to. Likewise, the bar mentioned in the article assumes that it's okay for them to collect demographic information from you.

Where is the line between stuff that is assumed to be private unless explicitly waived, and stuff that's assumed to be public unless explicitly withheld? Like I said before, in principle the line is all the way over to one side: everything is private unless waived. But in the real world, that line will have to be moved a little bit so that some things are public information by default.

I don't have any answers. Just questions.

It's already worse than you think.

[Matey-O]

While I'm not defending the practice, I'm reminded what I felt when two of the three big chain grocery stores went to a frequent user card.

I went defiantly to the third. NOBODY needs to know when I buy my Milk and Eggs!

When somebody pointed out that Costco, the Chain I love and frequent, and am frankly a cult member of, does the SAME THING, and has done so for YEARS before the Grocery Stores did it really brought me up short.

This is unfortunately a sign of the times. And without turning unibomber and living in a shack in Wyoming, there's not really much you can do about it. It's similar to the emissions and seat belt laws in the 70's. TONS of people didn't like it, but now it's commonplace.

I doubt it's going to turn into the 1984 that the alarmists paint it as, but It's also going to make more than a few people more than a little upset when it's abused. (IT WILL BE ABUSED. And when it does, the public outcry will make it financially unadvisable to abuse it further.)

Re:It's already worse than you think.

[CoreyG]

The only real reason grocery stores have food cards is to make more money. They use various combinations of data mining tools and predictive analytics to figure out what people like to buy, who the best(read most profitable) customers are, and who are the cherry pickers(read most costly). Then they market to their best customers and not the cherry pickers. Or they devise promotions to sell a well-selling item with a poor-selling item. Or a well-selling item with a high-profit item. The list goes on and on. The only reason they do it though, is to make money. The only way the analyses are at all accurate is because of the aggregate amount of data they collect. Performing an analysis on 1 person's data would be useless. Most retail-specific applications don't even provide tools to look at specific customers, only categories of customers that satisfy specific criteria. Retailers don't make money by looking at your purchasing habits. They do it by looking at everyone's purchasing habits together. You alone are not valuable to them.
Now, could all this be abused by selling your information to others? Possibly. Except retailers are most likely making money directly off your information themselves, and prefer to keep it that way. Grocers are usually quite territorial with their shoppers and generally would not risk anyone else getting hold of their customers; they make too much money compared to the amount they'd make by simply selling a list.

so... DEmagentize the freakin card!

[CrudPuppy]

I have been doing this to my licenses ever since
the advent of the stupid magnetic strip.

This way, people who need the info (e.g. police)
can still get it, but dickheads that like to track
the clientele in their bars dont.

It's not like they're not going to let someone old
enough pay the establishment 300% profit on alcohol
just because their license got demagnetized.