Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut To Store Biometric Information
AugstWest writes: "I just got word that when I renew my driver's license, I will have to submit to allowing the CT DMV to store biometric information, as well as smile for facial recognition software from Viisage to be able to continue driving. I am so appalled, I don't even know where to begin. With all of the national law enforcement agencies opening up their databases to each other, is this the first step in taking a surveillance society to a tracking society?"
...I live outside the US. I guess you folks can look forward to this disease becoming widespread.
So much for freedom and privacy. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Just curious - what happens if you refuse? I guess they would prohibit you from getting a driver's license, but isn't there some law that prohibits the states from putting undue restrictions on basic priviliges (driving is a privilege).
Next question would be if anybody would challenge this in a court of law.
In all reality, a drivers license is the most common means used to prove identity in the US. It seems desireable to me to have such a document contain a good deal of information so that upon inspection it can be used to prove the identity of the holder. It seems to me that there is a good deal of value in having the driver's license identification information be as secure and comprehensive as possible.
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
If you really think anything the Connecticut DMV is asking for is something no one else in government already knows, well, that's cute.
Whether or not I am doing anything wrong, I don't want the government to be able to follow me and recognize me wherever I go. A certain degree of anonymity is nice, criminal or not.
Oh, this is only the beginning :/ I can see this becoming the norm in all states by the end of the year, maybe DNA Archives in a year or two, until there is no such thing as privacy, all under the guise of "Safety". Oh well, things hapen and hopefully things will change.
If I wasn't so lazy, I'd have a sig.
here's the specifics of what I wanna know both from Visage and from the State:
I know of at least two people who have had major amounts of facial damage dealt to them, one in a car accident and one on the football field. What safeguards are in place to assure these two people that they won't suddenly be denied their identity by facial scanners?
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
I'd just gurn when they took the picture - then they'd never recognise me again!
Video Game cheats, hints a
If that's the case, try getting rid of that "Social Security number" associated with your name, credit, job, accounts, etc.
From the article:
The state also has also exercised the option to utilize biometric features with the new Digitized Driver License system given the need for greater security since September 11. It has become evident that the driver's license is now a critical identification document.
Thats all well and good, but unless someone checking the ID (ticket counter at the airport) has some means of utilizing the new features to positively identify someone the features become usless. The person checking the ID must then (as always) check photo ID.
You can implement all the new features you want, but unless everyone has access to card readers, scanners or whatever gadget is used to utilize biometric information the features don't amount to squat.
grow a very thick beard in the few years before your license expires, wear normal glasses and say they are prescription (make sure the restriction doesn't go on the license itself though), and wear something you would rather burn later (like a .NET shirt you got at a trade show). Then shave, never wear glasses, and wear lots of Linux stuff from Thinkgeek and it'll never come up with a match. Let acne go for a few weeks too before the picture. And make sure to smile lopsidedly.
I have no idea how well this will all actually work, but I have a friend who has a drivers license picture where her hair is all put up funny, she is making a face, and wearing something very very ugly. When presented for drinks or ciggarettes, she is repeatedly told its fake. So, it might work...
There is still the old argument that if you didn't do anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?
of course. that's why nobody ever complained about having to carry national ID or internal passports in the old soviet union or south africa.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
Loss of freedom and privacy is not the only issue.
Think about it... your biometric features are very unique to you. Now, what if the DMV biometric database gets stolen? Part of you would have been stolen forever. There's no way to replace it.
While I think that biometric authentication and identification in tight security environments (like military bases) are okay, deploying it on a wide scale like this is extremely dangerous. It may all backfire one day.
Like, for example, here in south carolina. Except, here, they don't tell you that they are doing it. At least you in conneticut have the privelege of knowing what rights you are losing; here, they never mentioned it. PS: new system has been in place for several months.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Look at it the bright way! It'll be easier to find a look-alike in your home state or, if the database is shared by every state, in the whole USA! That way, you can get in touch with him and both of you can have great alibis :"I was in CA. I have witnesses." when they come after you for something in CT.
The other guy can do exactly the same.
Of course, then there's always the possibility that your lookalike is a criminal and you are mistaken for him...
Your picture is taken so that human beings can recognize your face. The main difference I see here is that computer software is used to recognize your face rather than humans. There are still some potential problems, such as the Connecticut DMV thinking the software is more reliable that it is, but I don't think it's quite the coming of Big Brother yet.
Simply put, avoiding the potential for abuse is always a good idea.
The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?
Let's look at this another way. I don't worry about the government knowing that I exist, how tall I am, what color my eyes are, or how many whirls and whorls my thumbprint has. I'm not a criminal. I don't plan on being one.
However, for those that do enjoy the occasional snatch & grab, if the police really had everyones fingerprints and pictures in a big database, don't you think that would reduce a lot of crime? And I don't mean just because they'd catch a lot more people - it would serve as an effective deterrent to crime, which seems to be in short supply nowadays.
So go ahead, fingerprint everybody. Take a DNA sample. If it means that 20 years from now, my children will be growing up in a society free of random murders, pedophilia, assault, and all the rest, I'm for it. That's idealistic, but I'll take just 20%.
When I was in a boarding high school in Massachusetts, taking driver's ed., there was no problem with any of us getting a license in Mass. and then going back to our home states. I lived in New Hampshire at the time, so I ended up getting my license at home anyhow, but as far as I know, can't Connecticut drivers can get licenses in other states? You're not supposed to register the car outside of your residence, but I think it's alright with the actual license.
I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I think it would be permissible to get the license in another state. It's what I might try anyways, if I lived in CT.
We're on a mission from God.
They do most of this so that doctors can put your face back together after you've been crushed by an SUV.
God sucks at running this place. Impeach God at
we still have the old picture-less licenses. blows their mind at the out of state car rental counters. just renewed mine and it expires in 2006, so i guess i am hopefully good until then.
For example, I live in a small (sub)urban area in Michigan. One of my roommates is just getting her life together (mental/emotional issues), and is starting to look for volunteer work in order to build up her resume to find a sustainable job. (She currently doesn't know how to drive, or have a drivers license). There are several volunteer jobs through the local Red Cross that would be perfect for her skills and abilities, but they are well beyond walking distance and the bus either does not go to those areas at all, or does not go often enough (once an hour or less) to make it possible for her to use. Thus, she is stuck with what she can walk to/ride the bus to.
Because of the situation, my other roommate and I have been trying to help her get a vehicle. But it's all a big catch-22. She can't (legally) drive a car until she gets her license and regristration, but she can't get a license and registration until she passes both a written and a road test, which requires her practing by driving a car.
So, she can't buy a car to practice, and she can't practice without a car. It's a big mess. The only forseeable way around it is to let her drive one of our cars illegally until she gets good enough to pass the road test.
While this doesn't have anything specifically to do with biometrics, it's the same catch-22. You can't work without a car, you can't have a car without a license, and you can't have a license without submitting to whatever they tell you to. Move to another state, I guess, but then what if more states pick up this idea?
The whole thing scares me on multiple levels. It has that nasty big-brotherish feel to it, plus making life very difficult for those concerned about personal privacy (myself included). Hopefully, it will get struck down in the courts, but I doubt it. Driving has been held as a privilage, and thus open to (almost) any restrictions the state likes. [sigh] Another restriction on our freedoms. What's new?
As licenses get used increasingly for proof of identity we can only expect this kind of increase in the security of the id cards.
Up here in Ontario we've been doing this for years for drivers licenses and government health cards. So far there hasn't been any use of the data (that I know of) for anything other than printing the photo id cards.
The battle to be fought here is not to prevent these cards from existing, it's going to happen. Work on ensuring that the cards are only proof of identity and are not connected in every which way to every database in existance. Fight for an internally consistent card that only proves you are who you claim to be, then every other database can just look you up. Fight against the shared databases not against the cards themselves.
For instance the Canadian Federal government put together a big database tracking all sorts of personal information about every Canadian tax payer -- they can do this with out without id cards.
The war for anonymity was lost on September 11th. Those of us concerned about privacy didn't get to the field. Fall back and fight for real privacy.
And remember folks, nobody listens to the people wearing the tin foil hats!
Just make the goofiest face you can when they take the pic.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
A driver's license wasn't always required. The first states to require a driver's license were Massachusetts and Missouri in 1903. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that all states required road test and/or examination in order to get a license (reference). Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.
Most people don't have any inkling as to how how much the world has changed in the last 50 years (or 100 years for those of you over 50). Politicians today can get elected on platforms that would have had them run out of town on a rail only 30 years ago.
In the future people watching old movies won't understand the terror implicit in the phrase "ver are your paperz!". They won't recognize that phrase as being fundamentally un-American.
Revisionist history will make sure they aren't even taught that things were ever any different. Revisionist history may not even include a mention of Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin.
If some people get their way you won't even be able to teach yourself history. All that you will know are the "facts" The State has approved for your consumption.
The sad thing is that already anyone who points these things out is derided as a nut.
Those who have power will abuse it. Can you name one government that has never wrongly imprisoned one of their citizens?
We should only entrust the state with the bare minimum of power necessary to perform it's tasks.
Remember: in this country *we* employ *them*--not the other way around.
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
There's no doubt of that, but the real question is whether we have a right to expect it. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution really had no way to anticipate the technology that we'd have today -- so the question is where we draw the lines.
And, paranoia aside, do the benefits of more accurate identification outweigh the inconveniences or intrusions? I can see beneficial uses of this technology -- what are the possible harmful effects? (Realistic, not "black helicopter" fantasies about being tracked down by super-secret government agents...) What are the possible benefits?
It's a shame that changes like this don't need to be ratified by the citizens of Connecticut -- maybe it's time for a new Amendment to the Constitution:
Basically, it would need to be re-written and tightened up, but the idea would be to convey:
1. All people have a presumptive right to refrain from giving personal information beyond what is absolutely necessary for a government institution to operate.
2. No government entity could collect information for the purpose of solving crimes that have not yet been committed.
3. Any information given to the government must remain in "trust" and cannot be shared with non-governmental entities.
I'd probably add a clause that requires governmental entities to provide a copy of any and all information being stored about them, and the ability to expunge data (fingerprints, mug shots) gathered that do not result in successful charges. So, if you're arrested or charged for burglary, but are found innocent (or never go to trial at all) you can have your mug shot and fingerprints removed from their databases.
this post's mod drops like a plane with an afghani pilot.
There are serious issues surrounding the legalities of a drivers license. There is a strong relationship to between the drivers license and the SSN (social securit number), the latter of which is not required of you to possess (but good luck trying to live without one).
It comes down to definitions. Words like "travel", "automobile", "motor vehicle", and amoung the most important, "driver". IANAL, but you have to understand that when you enter into the realm of law, you dont just have "general meanings" for words. They are each defined very strictly, and are often redefined in various sections so as not to have any confusion as to where or to whom the law applies.
"Motor Vehicle" is an important one. Definition in Title 18 USC 31 - "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."
"Driver" is another one, definition from Bovier's Law Dictionary - "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
You'll notice that both of these definitions include mention of the thing in question (a Motor Vehicle or a Driver) involved in some form of commericial business. The argument exists, in what may people think as extremists circles, that licensing, by law, is only required for those who wish to use the public roads for commercial use.
So notice you are getting a "Driver's License" at the "Motor Vehicle Division", and you are not getting a "Traveler's License" at the "Automobile Division". Traveler and Automobile.. very different defintions on those 2 words than on the previous 2.
So you have "extremist" views and you have people who try to debunk them (cant find a legitimate link right now, but they most definitely exist). The difference seems to be one group is actively reading the laws and applying them (how dare they), and one group is saying "these guys are idiots, OF COURSE everyone has to have licenses, thats how we've done it for YEARS, so it MUST BE RIGHT!!!"
So again, there are lots of issues surrounding the driver's license. As one previous poster put it, if you dont like the requirements to get one, dont get one. But then life actually becomes hard, and no one wants life to be hard...
--- Check out this guy who lives a (semi)normal life without a Social Security Number.
Joe Lieberman.
why do i think he's responsible for this?
Runnin' On Empty
Quimby:"They want the bear patrol but they won't pay taxes for it."
Quimby thinks of a novel solution. He announces that taxes are high because of illegal immigrants and that they should be disposed of.
Moe:Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?
Assistant: [checks his clipboard] Dumber, sir.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
This system of moderation is almost completely useless.
One mans humor is another mans flamebait. One mans insightfullness is another mans troll post.
The only thing this moderation system is good for is getting rid of first posts.. which rather than wasting space in some database as a -1 should just be deleted anyway.
Just squinch your face up. Sure you'll have a wacky license picture, but you'll stay anonymous on the cameras...
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Yet...
The difference is that they are now not only storing all of this new info in a database, but they are also using the database to do realtime verification of your identity. The card is no longer the end-all be-all. If the database gets corrupted, hacked, stolen, modified, you are screwed and can look forward to possibly being incarcerated while they sort it all out.
from the article:
"To provide a complete end-to-end security process, DMV has adopted Viisage's face recognition matching technology to verify that the applicant's image matches a stored image in the database for that applicant."
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
you're all a bunch of whiners... Out here, in the middle of the Caribbean we got a unique ID (that is the same all across our country, unlike your ID systems), It's got our fingerprints on it, and it's got plenty of security features, unlike most of your ID systems. Let's face it: with your systems (driver's licence, and library card! what a joke...) anybody can become someone else by either forging his ID, or leaving the state. And that's great for felons on the run. Are any of you complaining on /. about single ID's, and biometric info felons? Murderers? Dope-pushers? Con-artists? Do you need to assume a new identity in a flash? Nope? I thought so. Why whine then? We have no problems with "big brother" in my country, but it is easier to track a felon in my country than in the US. That's what it's all about.
Note to conspiracy theorists: shut the hell up. Don't even reply to this. Go get a life.
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
Hi folks. Subject line is *fact*. I developed the central image server and was the lead engineer on Polaroid's implementation of the WV DMV DL/ID system. WV uses *both* fingerprint *and* facial image recognition. Fingerprints are optional, but the facial image recognition is used on *all* applicants. The FIR system can be *tuned* to reduce both "false negative" and "false positive" results. The facial image is stored - it's needed to print the license and verify the user for the next issuance. I'm willing to write an article on the subject, if there's any interest. Email me at bjanz@bit-net.com. And, if you're interested, I can provide names who will verify that I did indeed run the WV and Indiana projects. \burt
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Line up for your tattoos, workers. Time to brand some cattle. Shut up and don't complain, or we'll ship your jobs to those former communist states where labor is real cheap.
Well, we're going to do that anyway, but no need to tell you now.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Think about Australia. A while ago they had to register a handgun with the country. People were upset, but the other side said "as long as you don't do anything wrong with the gun, why does it matter whether or not we have your registration?"
So, everyone registered.
Then, years later, the government used those registrations to go door to door and collect all the guns because they thought it would help decrease crime.
See, it's just the little things at first; the little pieces that eventually lead to something major. You're right, it's no big deal if we don't do anything illegal *now*, but how can we keep the government in check if they keep taking away our liberties?
P.S. - Crimes went up an amazing amount in Australia just the next year. Especially home breakins because the thiefs knew the homeowners wouldn't have a gun.
--- witty signature
But my question is, what is new here?
For example, in every state that I've lived and gotten a driver's license in, I was required to submit all of this information. I had to give biometric information, my NY state driver's licence has my height and eye-color, and other states have required my weight, and so on. Also, every driver's license I've ever had has a picture on it, which was digitized and entered into a database.
I can understand your position if you think that it's a violation of privacy for you to have to submit to a picture, and to give basic biometric information. I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from... But, if this is your position, then it must be true that the current situation was intolerable to you. Anyone who thinks that this new development is somehow different than the current situation is just having a knee-jerk reaction.
Come on, give it up, that's
They AREN'T tracking you where ever you go. They are just making sure whoever is holding your license is actually YOU!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I will be able to sleep much more soundly now knowing that I'll never have to worry about those damn Conneticut terrorists hijacking airplanes ever again!
Seriously folks, we already know that this face-recognition garbage doesn't work anyway...
You're using her as bait, Master!
You know, I think everyone who takes the stance that "driving is a privaledge, not a right" is flat out wrong. I belive that driving is a right. I believe that it is just as important as the right to bear arms. The only reason that it isn't explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution is because the technology just didn't exist. The forefathers couldn't have conceived of a world where the government could somehow prevented them from using a horse.
But ask yourself...what would happen if the procedures that applied to cars were applied to cars? You want a gun? First take a mandatory training class. Now get a practice gun that says you can only use a gun within a shooting range for a year. Now fork over your complete life's history, DNA, fingerprint, whatever to become a registered gun owner. Now be required to get gun insurance in order to purchase a gun. Now get a ticket for not keeping your gun stored in the proper location. Now have your gun impounded and lose your gun license for getting too many tickets.
That's what we would have if guns were given the same treatment under the law as cars. Yet you won't see that happen. Even thought a lot of those things are probably a sensible idea! They are adding to the burden of gun ownership which directly violates the second ammendmant.
Now I ask you, which is more important, a gun or a car? Back in the 1700's, you have to pretty much to with gun. A gun could provide food for your family. A gun could protect you from robbers and highwaymen. A gun could protect you from wild animals. A gun could make sure that your newly formed government didn't decide to come and oppress you (or at least do so over your dead body). A gun put you on equal terms with the lawmakers...as long as the numbers of you outnumbered the numbers of them.
Today in the year 2002...which is more important, a gun or a car? A car provides me with a means to earn a living at a job that might be otherwise out of my range of trave...a car provides food for my family. A car gives me the ability to flee danger should I live in a remote area...a car protects me from robber. A car gives me a secure mode of transportation through dark and troublesome terrain...it afford me protection from wild animals I wouldn't have walking. A car allows me to escape from a situation where I am being persecuted...a car protects me from n oppressive government. A car puts me on equal terms with those in authority...as long as I keep driving until they stop following.
Everyone is fooling themselves into believing you don't need a car in today's society. Walk, ride a bike, take a bus. But if push came to shove, what of those options will save you from any of the terrors I mentioned above? Would we all sleep easy if cars were outlawed entirely and we were forced to use a public transportation system? Go only when and where they allow us to go? Allow our movements to be tracked from start to finish? This is the future that "driving is a privaledge" is heading us towards.
Stop it people, for the love of god, stop it. A car and a gun are both useful tools, that happen to have the side effect of being capable of causing damage and carnage. But there is no deny the benefit they both provide to our society. The tables have turned...I can pretty much get along without a gun in the yer 2000...the same way someone who carefully arranges their life can get along without a car. But I'm sure glad that if the situation were to change...if my wife were being stalked, or some hoodlums were hanging around my neighborhood...I can count on the fact that I can be guaranteed a means of protecting myself. Why on earth shouldn't the same be true for a car?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
As far as you being fingered by the facial recogniton programs from your data the failure rate of the software is really high. They will get hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of false matches from the software. If they are looking for 1 person in 10,000 in the population and there is a 10% failure rate they will have 1,000 false positives per 10,000. for for a database of 5 million they might have 500,000 false positives. If they tweak the application to only report the very most likely they then up the risk of missing the person they are looking for.
It makes it look as if they are doing something and provides moves public money to the companies that provide the equipment, databases, and software.
Nate
Nate
We already have photo's, signatures etc on our licences, they change nearly every year. We use a european model licence (and passport) for every member state. Soon it will include (if not already) a chip on it. So what. It makes my live easier when travelling around europe having this single model. To get this kind of technology accepted, they are marketing it using the FAST TRACK approach. i.e., you get through checks faster at airports etc if you have this that or the other kind of ID.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
I wonder how long it will be before American Indian style war paint becomes both a fashion statement, a count measure and a act of defiance.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
So in other words, you just said that you were willing to help others with unjust things for money. Is that not the definition of whore? I would not be proudly proclaiming this fact, its rather disgusting. And I like many other geeks chose to work for business that don't conflict with our ideals (no matter how stupid that seems).
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
Issue: should parents search the rooms of their children? If the child has nothing to hide, he will consent, right?
I don't smoke but some of my friends do. One day while hanging out in my room a friend's pack of cig's fell out of his pocket. My mom found them in my room. I was grounded for 3 months!
Now who will consent to search if he has nothing to hide?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
A question which I don't think has been asked enough is "Do we have a right to know what is being done with our information?". When medical surveys are conducted, they survey-takers are required by law to disclose what information is being taken and for what purpose the information will be used. Shouldn't government be held to the same standard? I'd feel better about handing my info over if I knew that it wasn't going to be used to track my movements, or in some other underhanded way.
Are there any medical professionals out there who know the details of what is required of medical research in terms of informed consent of the subjects? Also, why that consent is required, and can that be applied in this case?
Just curious...
The reason Castro took over so easily in Cuba and squashed resistance is because all guns were registered. When he wanted to ensure that only the military had guns after the revolution, he just had soldiers go door to door. You'd better hope that you could cough up all the guns that you had listed as registered to you.
May we never see th
"memes are what scare me"
Suppress ideas!
May we never see th
I know that its a qoute from a movie (if you don't know which, you are not a GEEK), and it illustrates the point quite effectively.
Now all you have to do is substute a particular group (ie "terrorist", "Pedofiles", "Jewish", "Palastian","Gay", "Cristian", "Satanist", "White", "Black", "Alien", or whatever group is out of favor with the current admistration/world) for the word "mutant".
This is why its a bad idea. We may have to have some kind of national id, but without the proper laws to stop people (by people I do mean everyone, including me) from using the data improperly, we will all be going to communist hell in a handbasket!
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
Wow, I just commented on that.
WV sucks -- the mandantory facial recognition. The Microsoft grant to the state board of education that's made IE mandantory, a Microsoft-chosen person responsible for determining tech education in schools, and student surveys on owned products in the home (which go to MS marketing research) mandantory in public schools. WV has the lowest literacy levels, the highest cancer rate, the lowest average income, and almost the highest age of any state in the United States.
May we never see th
The difference is that the authorities can't use a computer to see into your pocket and get all your personal information (name, address, SS#, etc), however they can set up video cameras everywhere, even in public. and scan your face and have all that info and more.
Do you think the government should know where you are at all times? That's what they're shooting for.
I agree. There's no consequential difference between computer technology and old analog equivalents.
I mean, can you believe some people bother with all this digital stuff, much less argue -- and I'm not making this up -- they argue over which operating system to use? Why doesn't Malda just make Slashdot a dry erase board on his front door?
Seriously, this argument comes up all the time. Slashdot users actually argue that technological change doesn't matter? Hey, why don't we legalize machine guns? I don't see how this is much different than other weapons, which have been legal for thousands of years.
end of rant.
I don't know much about them, but maybe you can get one of those.
A lot of these arguments I see here are wonderfully coherent arguments pre-September 11th. But unfortunately, they are all rather knee-jerk reactions after September 11th, because they are spoken in a vacuum that ignores the reality we live in today.
A show of hands for how many people think we have eliminated the networks that planned September 11th? Am I scare-mogering? By invoking September 11th am I calling upon Fear, Uncertainty, Denial to serve the interests of those who wish to destroy our freedoms? Am I an apologist for the future Stalin/ Hitler/ Pol Pot in our midst? By my arguments am I destroying our freedoms in order to protect them? Knee-jerk territory my friends, knee-jerk reaction. It is almost eight months, no more (!), since September 11th, and y'all are going about your thought processes in complete denial, aren't you?
There is a difference between explaining a situation and excusing a situation, so those of you who tend toward paranoid schizophrenia, please don't attack me personally if you reply, try to keep it above the belt and reply to the substance of what I am trying to say, and here it is:
The West has a problem. A huge one. Our current state of national existence is living under a threat to our security that has never existed beforehand in our history. Before September 11th, George Bush was seen as a buffoon. Now he enjoys wonderful ratings and is seen as a hero. Why? Human psychology, my friends. The USA, en masse, is rallying around the commander in chief. It is circling the wagons. You don't attack those who would defend you. The US Government was an overtaxing bloated bureaucratic anachronism before September 11th. Now, they are our saviors.
Again don't attack me, I am explaining the psychology in the US to those of you chronically out of touch with the reality we live in today- I am not excusing it, get it? Because a herd of buffalo, once it starts charging, has no intelligence, and will trample the fields that feed it just because somebody fired a few rounds by their flanks. Many decades hence, if we remove a lot of our own rights, there may be a lot of regret about our reaction to September 11th, but right now, we are in the thick of it. People are afraid.
So what am I saying? Y'all sound rather hollow, ok? Because you offer no protection from the kind of folks who committed September 11th. You invoke theories and possibilities of a police state, but the democratic tradition in this country is strong and deep, and the terrorists are REAL and in our midst, plotting our doom. You stand in the way of a herd of trampling buffalo, and you shout slogans that mean nothing to the mob before you, running over their own rights.
Folks, if you want to protect our freedoms, you have to find new arguments, that is all I am saying, and here is the kicker- you have to invoke those arguments that address the real problem: not our freedom, but our safety! I am with y'all, but I'm just saying: NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. YOU SOUND TIRED AND SHRILL. I agree with you that our rights are in jeopardy, and they need to be saved, but you are doing nothing to appease the approaching mob who will trample our freedom in the name of our safety, get it? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR FREEDOM THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Gee what a wonderful quote. Any volunteers to write this on a big banner and hold it up in front of a herd of charging buffalo? I didn't think so.
People are scared. They are covering their asses, they are not listening with their ears wide open and their minds in full-tilt. They are scared. You must invoke arguments that include their safety, because none of you do, and safety is what the herd of buffalo is worried most about.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
On that point - in Australia it is illegal to have a loaded handgun at any location other than the firing line of an approved shooting range ... so yes, if someone breaks into your house and you pull your handgun out of the safe, load it and shoot the home invader/terrorist, you will quite likely lose your shooter's license, be heavily fined and probably go to jail for murder/manslaughter if you're a good shot.
To show you how warped the law is, you may have a loaded rifle or shotgun at home, and you could get away with blowing away the bad guy in that situation. I love Australia.
/* Linus is The One
Stuff like the following story happens even in cases where the authorities don't have much to gain (other than perhaps a closed investigation). Think of what happens when you start to piss off somebody with real juice.
. html
What terrorist act would the additional DMV information be likely to stop?
While I don't promote violence of any kind, I believe I'm far more likely to suffer at the hands of my own government than at the hands of terrorists. Rather than hope unpleasant stuff won't happen, or hope that someone else will act so I don't have to, I'm finally willing to do something about it.
Perhaps that starts by simply saying what I believe.
"What?! You don't support them communists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists, do you?"
- I love my country, but not always my country's government
http://www.courttv.com/news/2002/0411/innocent_ap
BALTIMORE (AP) -- Henry Roberts was arrested, charged and convicted of murdering his nephew in 1991. Like many defendants, he professed his innocence each step of the way.
This time, though, the defendant was right.
Police reopened the case two years ago after two witnesses told them that Robert Tomczewski, 29, had admitted to shooting Henry Harrison, 21. Roberts, they said, was innocent.
Tomczewski, who has been in and out of prison since 1992, was arrested for the crime in May 2000, a day before he was to be released from prison for an unrelated crime.
Tomczewski admitted to the killing in a plea deal on Monday.
Once they believed they had the right man, prosecutors went to try and release Roberts. They were too late: The 66-year-old had died behind bars in 1996.
"I think that everybody was acting on the information that they had before them, doing the job to the best of their ability," Patricia Jessamy, Baltimore's state's attorney, said Wednesday.
Roberts, a retired steel worker, had no criminal record and was critically wounded when Harrison, 21, was murdered in front of him in his East Baltimore home on May 11, 1991.
- article continues at courttv.com -
The government could make us all shave our heads and wear uniforms, and it still wouldn't make us incapable of living our lives exactly as we are now. The point is, who would want to live their lives that way?
The future isn't what it used to be.
These "it's OK, it's not big brother yet" people burn me up too.
I guess there are no consequential differences between e-mail and paper mail?
No consequential differences between placing an order online, and one on the phone?
No consequential differences between doing math on paper, and programming a computer to do it for you?
In all these examples, the difference is speed, and added capabilities that are allowed by high speed digitally stored programs. It sure would be a bitch to hire 100 people to watch 100 video screens and compare those to 10,000 pictures of known political dissenters, but a single computer could handle that in the not so far future.
Like you, I don't understand why these retards don't get it either. I think it's more because they are apathetic about politics, and they use these silly arguments to rationalize their lack of action while the police state slowly solidifies.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
a) Paper ID's are a necessary evil
I don't know if it happens much nowadays, but i've heard of lots of cases from all over the world of "living-dead" people... people wrongly considered dead by the coroner, striped of it's ids by the state and then appear in flesh.
Solution: you can make provisions to reinstate the ids and have fail overs in the system. Easy to implement even if almost nothing can be done regarding to lost propertie in the between. At least is easy to recover the ID.
b) Electronic IDs are more or less problematic
Can be duplicated easely, but also can be replaced as easely.
c) Biometrics
Can't be replaced or reinstated. Prone to ID theaft and NO SOLUTION if that happens! Actually you end up to 2 personnes equal (even if one is only digital and another is flesh and blood).
Placing a chip inside the skin isn't a solution because that can eventually be dublicatable and if not it will be robed! (yup chop chop nasty but will happen!)
cheers...
Maybe we need to take a cue from the open source community. Why not create an alternative, free licence? One you could pass on to your friends and they would have the right to use it and copy it and pass it on (-;
At what point is enough enough ? As previous poster have said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Once a right is given up it is NEVER regained. Sure, If we had a system where every person was required to register their DNA/fingerprints, etc, sure it WOULD lead to a reduction in the crime rate, but surely that is something for the people to decide, not politicians. My point is where do you draw the line ? We could use statistical analysis to determine that as a individual there is a 80% chance that you will commint a criminal offence of some nature. By the logic of this arguement it would make sense to detain you BEFORE any offence was commited 'in the public good'.
Each step SEEMS sensible, but the end result is unpalitable. If we start down this route where do we stop ?
There's no consequential difference between computer technology and old analog equivalents.
On the off chance that your post isn't some kind of subtle, ironic humor that has eluded me, there's a huge differences between computer technology and analog in the situation: economy, obedience, and networking.
Now that you've got a network of surveillance cameras, is it cheaper to have humans watch them or computers? Computers can do the work 24 hours a day, do the work faster, and do the work without distraction.
Ask a computer to do something that is morally questionable, like restroom surveillance, and it'll do what you tell it. Try getting human operators to do that.
If a human operator spots someone suspicious on camera, they probably don't know who they are to look up further details. If they do know the suspect, they still need to interface with a computer to access additional information (e.g., any outstanding warrants). A computer can handle all these things automatically:
1. Camera gives computer location and face.
2. Face matches DMV record, gives address, SS#, etc.
3. Records from DMV connect to law enforcement, warrants found, law enforcement dispatched.
All that while suspect is still in front of same camera. Try expecting that performance from analog face recognition. No consequential difference, indeed!
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Different treatment of handguns versus long guns isn't exactly unusual; it happens in the States, as well. As far as I can tell, the two main rationales are that a) handguns are more readily concealed -- thus, it's easier for a criminal to move around armed without alarming his potential victims, and b) long guns are considered more justifiable as hunting weapons.
Quite a few US gun-control advocates seemingly prefer to pretend that the Second Amendment is about hunting, and not about providing a means of last resort versus dictatorship.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Its going to be YOUR licence for REAL. Nobody will EVER be able to steal your wallet or car and get into some form of legal shit and stick YOU in it.
Biometrics is security based on what you ARE not what you (and anybody else can) know.
I'm a shit-load more paranoid about 'em NOT using biometrics and making all kinds of (in)human errors.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
a fender bender with some idiot who was DWI.
Driving is a privilege and a responsability. Too many people kill and maim too many other people because they can't behave responsably.
You want to rant. I've got a cemetery full of ranters for you and hospital wards and prosthetic companies solely filled and supported by morons who think they can handle a few tons of hurtling metal when they are so mentally deficient they shouldn't be allowed to walk home alone at night.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yet another reason we need a better mass transit and long-distance-train system in the U.S.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
in the sixties and early seventies called "The Price for Security if Freedom."
Fact is that in the 'States, you have the perfect to privacy on your OWN property. In most other places in this world, you don't even have that. If somebody can see in, they can see in. That's IT.
You DON'T have ANY rights anywhere else.
You NEVER DID. Specially on some public commons.
Yes... You ARE being watched so don't be ashamed of anything you do and don't do anything you'd be ashamed of because you ARE being watched.
At least the system in the 'States is not preemptive. You CAN go out to rob a liquor store or murder the neighbor's kids. Its just that you can never again expect to get away with it. You WILL be caught.
An entire genre of crime fiction will become "passé." The rationale for the cerebration and observation of Sherlock Holmes will disappear when we can all go to the instant replay.
And surveillance cuts both ways.
Your rights will never again be blithely ignored by some bully with a badge who tries to re-arange your facial features with a door frame. (But then again YOU'll never again be able to blame somebody ELSE for your own stupidity.)
Get over it. There a 1.2 trillion dollar hole in the economy, a hole in the New York skyline and in downtown New York filled with damn near three thousand people killed there. And I was almost one of 'em.
I feel your pain.
Now smile for the camera and shut the fuck up.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This can work in most states. Most of the time the legislatures did in fact pass laws requiring that photos be on licenses. (New York is an exception, a photo is not required on a license, but the commissioner of motor vehicles can require a photo if s/he wants. And of course Vermont doesn't require a photo at all.)
:-( Better yet, here in Ohio, the legislature did require that photos from commercial licenses be archived...but not those from regular operator licenses. So here's it's even easier to argue that if the legislature did not authorize the collection, and the bmv survived fine without doing it, then it is not necessary to carry out their duties, and is a violation of Ohio privacy law.
:-)
Anyway, state legislatures however have generally not passed laws authorizing their DMV's to keep the photos in archive. (NJ and CO are however exceptions--the only ones so far I've found.)Most states have privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute.
I just took a gander through CT law, and I see the requirement for a photo license, but no requirement for digitally archiving the photo.
So here is the crux:
*a photo is required on a license by CT law
*no statute exists that says that the photo has to be archived
*since CT issued non digital licenses without archiving photos for many years, your argument can be that the DMV can carry out their duties without archiving all the photographs--in particular, yours
*i bet CT does have some privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute, nor collecting data which is necessary to carry out duties required by statute
*with all the above, go file a mandamus action ordering the dmv commissioner to remove your photo from the database
If all the above is the case, I would ask you put some money into it and get a lawyer--to set up good precedence.
Here in Ohio, the same thing can be done (no money for lawyer right now though.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on television, but I like to think that I know something about this topic.
Can you show how mis-identified drivers licenses are somhow of such important to impose statewide image recognition and other biometrics?
I doubt it.
A driver's license is a *license to drive*. Period. Anything else is auxilliary.
If they want to issue state ID that is required for certain transactions with the state, then that is another issue.
Let's see how that goes over.
But what about a learner's license? Do they not have such a thing? You know.. a license with terms and conditions requiring, among other things that you must have a licensed driver over a certain age in the car with you, and must drive during daylight hours, and perhaps not over certain speeds or on certain roads? That is how most places do it.
What about something like, say, driving school?
Like you, the only problem I can see is that the state might be too trusting of the technology. However, I see nothing inherently big-brotherish about the technology. It neither increases nor decreases the privacy issues associated with drivers licenses.
People who go ballistic over this, but don't see a problem with the old system, are just Luddites at heart.
mass immigration of Third worlders
Either you're a Native American, or you're talking out of your ass.
Americans don't want those crap jobs you talk about. Well, the underclass who didn't graduate high school might want them, but the average american can make $6/hr as a hotel maid or $8/hr folding t-shirts at The Gap with their other high school friends. Which would you pick?
You seem concerned that the Great Unwashed are going to breed us White Folk right out of America. (Extrapolating from your steinreport web page.) Let me ask you, what was your response when President Bush barred U.S. aid to international groups that advocate abortion rights? Because if you don't want to be overrun by a horde of non-White Americans, you should support that kind of thing.
Did you ever think that maybe H1-B visas are a clever trick to skim the cream off of other countries' vat of talent, making sure that American Comanies remain dominant since all the clever Indians move to The States? So while it may fill our country up with Undesirables, it strengthens our strongest asset, the American economy.
When I got my Georgia drivers license ab out 5 years ago I had to have my thumbprint encoded on the back of the card.
I think this is a good thing, it's not like the government has planted a tracking device in it. If anything it has the potential to reduce identity theft, which is a big problem in the US
85% of Americans think this signature sucks
The police and goverment already do...thou not in an offical capacity.
Om, nomnomnom...
Were you giving him money so he could eat and make house payments, or was Polariod doing that?
Thought so, now STFU, he has to eat somehow.
1 tequila 2 tequila 3 tequila floor
To those who are saying you don't have anything to worry about if you aren't guilty of something, I ask you to look at the number of times the police or the government have busted down the wrong door, and killed some unsuspecting person. It happens all the time, especially with drug raids during the so called "war on drugs". What makes you think it won't happen to you?
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
to get one of those international driver's licenses that we get all the spam about. (Just get it from someone other than the spammer)
Submitting this type of information should not be a requirement for living. Here you must travel long distances to do basic tasks. Without 24/7 affordable public transportation, there is no equivalent so you basically cannot perform life tasks during off hours. This means on a daily basis and not outrageous pricing such as taxi cabs which aren't feasible for the masses anyhow. Either we require data from all U.S. citizens worldwide, or we make it on a volunteer basis. It is unfair to require driving people in particular regions to live like 1984 while the others maintain their individual privacy. Video scanning in particular is too easy to abuse. You don't see fingerprint scanners built into door handles yet facial image scanners (video cameras connected to computers) have been used in many public locations recently. This means that at any time you could be tracked and logged. Such information is of the type private investigators and others use for monetary or personal gain. Humans run these systems and humans have a long history of abusing great power. This power is too great for most humans to use and those that would are always subject to making mistakes and the chaos factor. Accidental or unintended leaking of this data en mass could be a serious catastrophe. The list of things I could do to you if I had access to this information is too long to even begin here. Sort of like a mini FBI database, but with pictures and information on basically everyone (most people drive with proper licenses).
In short, don't create something you can't control out of fear or inadequacy. Spend time on a proper solution that treats people fairly and doesn't jeopardize their quality of living.
Do you really think the DMV here in CT will inform us of the facial recognition and other biometric data collection when they start collecting it? Probably not. I'm willing to bet they'll just tout it as a newer, updated, and more secure license format, and make some huge hoopla over the verical format for minors, just to make sure everything else gets looked over by the media. (on a related note: Thank God my license doesn't expire 'till my 22nd birthday. I've seen a few vertical-format licences from surrounding states and think they're ugly as sin. Having "Under 21 Until..." in huge red letters is ugly enough but still gets the job done. Vertical is overkill.)
sharkyfour.com
So yes, I get a bit nervous when you say "but all we've done is digitize it". I don't like the idea that if I get pulled over and my physical drivers license doesn't match the almighty database, I'll inevitably be the one who's wrong. Or should I say a dangerous terrorist whose papers don't match because he has something to hide?
If you buy one of these recievers, I'd imagine the most likely thing to happen is that the only channel available would be the Fat Albert bathroom channel.
My Weblog
why fear being tracked? sure theres corrupt law enforcement but most arent.
I dont mind being tracked if it will keep the USA from turning into another isreal.
When things get so bad you cant walk out your house anymore, you'll be wishing there was surviellance.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Isnt that why people buy houses and own land? Build yourself a gate and you'll have privacy.
But why do idiots demand privacy in public places?
How else can you stop terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals if you dont have law enforcenment which keeps up with the technology the criminals have?
I mean if criminals use cellphones and computers, shouldnt our government be able to track everyone by their cellphone? shouldnt stuff like carnivore exsist?
I dont mind it exsisting.
The way i see it, the only way to control crime, is to have good law enforcement, and the only way to have good law enforcement is survailance.
Think of it this way, 911 wouldnt have happened if we had better security, right now we have next to none because everyone wants their privacy at the superbowl, or the movie theather, or on a highway on route 46.
Honestly, survival comes first, unless we want to end up like isreal with suicide bombers bombing people on their way to work, I think we need to build some kinda security.
Hell I dont think we have anywhere near what we should have, We should have elaberate bomb shelters, we should have cameras in all of the subways and places where alot of people will be, and we should use facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, etc etc
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Drivers licenses arent meant to be ID, but we need some incentive to make everyone get ID.
I actually support a national ID card, terrorists wouldnt be able to get the card, and it would be easier to hunt them down.
Also we wouldnt have illegal immagrants in our country working illegally, robbing people, starting organized crime, and other bad stuff because it would be very easy to track them
The guy who never has his ID card, gets questioned, police arrive, ask for his fingerprint and other information and check their database, if hes not in it, he gets deported
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Surviellance in certain Zones in the city should be allowed, hell Surviallance based on civilian request should be allowed.
Meaning if you live in an area of high crime, or you live in new york, you can request this security.
When you mention security vs freedom, you forget to mention democracy!
People should choose how much security they want, where they want it, and how much freedom they want and where.
But the fact is, we need more security if we are to survival PERIOD, as far as freedom, we need freedom, but its a matter of where this freedom should be, not a matter of destroying freedom in exchange for security.
Alot of people in the south, or outside of big cities dont like, need or want surviellance, they dont want security, they have shotguns and will defend themselves to protect their freedom.
But ask someone from new york city what they want, see what THEY say, or ask someone living in harlem or south central LA what they want, and see what they say.
I think, what we need honestly, is high security in certain cities, or certain parts of cities which are high risk.
New york should be completely locked down, especially the economic sectors. The economic sectors of LA must be locked down, the inner cities must be locked down.
Its simple, when you want to work in new york, or live in new york city, you deal with the extra security.
This is fair, because the people in new york and other big cities have to worry about terrorism, and crime all the time. It should be a vote, new yorkers should use their tax dollars to pay for the security if they vote for more security. I do not believe we should federalize security.
The situation here seems like one state introducing more security, perhaps the people who live there wanted this? Perhaps they dont want to have to deal with a 911 situation.
If I were in new york, or washington i'd be scared and i'd definately want a national ID card, the fact that I do live in a city means I wouldnt mind a national ID card and surviellance.
Security = Survival, Freedom = Enhanced Survival but you cannot have Freedom without Security to protect that Freedom and you cannot have survival without Security to ensure your survival.
So Lets do it by a state by state basis, if a state is too secure for your liking and you dont feel you have enough freedom, move somewhere else.
Think about it in the way of a democracy, lets allow the people in their seperate states decide what they want.
I'd like to see someone from New York near the trade towers claiming they dont like security, so far i see a bunch of slashdotters who most likely dont live in Washington, or NewYork.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I don't think your argument holds up. As you said, there's not an article of the Constitution granting rights to auto-owners: the technology wasn't there and the issue couldn't be addressed. Likewise, 'gun' in 1787 meant something *very* different than it does in 2002. You couldn't hope to fire off multiple shots back then nearly as quick as you can now, and the guns didn't have anything *close* to the same stopping power. And even if they did, or the Founding Fathers were somehow clarvoiant enough to see the future of weaponry, maybe they were just wrong.
Part of the idea of the Constitution is the flexibility of it. Knowing they *didn't* know everything, the Founding Fathers left the ability to 'tweak' it. It's the ultimate Open Source government, if you will: always being tweaked, never 'finished', bug updates constantly required (and usually late), and always under review.
The idea anyone should be able to have a gun becuase 'it's in the Constitution' is hogwash. You heard me: hogwash. Times have changed from the late 1700s and the same rules should no longer apply. Which is why the Second Ammendment needs updating. Oh, I fully realize it won't happen: too many people enjoy the 'freedom' it grants. But it's a danger. I'm not suggesting no one be allowed guns. But stronger gun restrictions would make things that much safer. I would argue arming one's self is a right, but not with guns. You can learn *hundreds* of forms of self-defence. Or carry nunchucks, if you like. Just as it isn't a 'right' to drive a fully-armed tank around, carrying a gun is not a right either.
Carrying this over to cars: how is driving a right? If it's a right, isn't everyone equally entitled to it? Okay! Which one of you is paying for my next car? Come on! Don't all jump in at once...
Saying something is a 'right' and, taking it a step further, that everyone should be able to do whatever they want is silly. It doesn't work when applied to guns, and works even *less* when applied to cars.
___The above has been deemed flaimbait, and the author eagerly awaits being drawn and quartered___
I agree with you 100%. Really. Security ZOnes In high population centers, no gun controls or anything in Montana. I hate guns. But I'm never going to Montana. But what does a guy in Manhattan need a shotgun for?
;-P
You should move where your outlook on the world reflects your worldview. Rural ideals in the countryside. Urban views in the cities. I worked at 5 World Trade Center until September 11th and I live in TImes Square. I probably can't take a shit in my bathroom without 2 cameras recording the whole event in ultrasound and infrared.
And you know what? Fine by me. For some guy in rural Alabama, maybe not. Keep your shotgun, honey. Just don't visit NYC with it in your pickup. And we're all happy.
Bravo! Really! Good Post! Somebody mod this guy to 5!!! 8-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
AC not i never said that
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
why do we need civilians using guns anyhow? stun guns and tasers should be the only legal self defense, i mean swords are illegal but you can have a gun for self defense?!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
CT is a weird state.
Although it has been repealed, CT was one of very few states with a no-radar-detector law. They also have some of the nastiest and sneakiest gestapo^h^h^h^h^h^h^h troopers to be found on u.s. highways. It's like a northern version of VA.
Self defense is not a valid claim, hunting can be a valid claim but really why do need a machine gun to hunt with? or a 22, or a 357, etc
The real reason guns are sold, are to give law enforcements a job.
If there were no guns, there would be alot less crime, sure there would still be crime, but it would be mafia hitman type crime, not random kids shooting each other, or people getting robbed in the inner city at gunpoint
Kids and inner city thugs are GIVEN guns, usually by the mafia and others who buy them in the south at gunshows, its a whole market.
But I'm not going to argue about gun control, I dont see a point to guns and if we do sell guns it should be strict in all areas, the only people who should be able to buy guns are licensed hunters.
But no, you can buy a gun at walmart in some places.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sorry about that. Your criticism is taken to heart. I will try to stand closer to what I say and not misrepresent myself. I mean, if I believe in what I say, there is no reason to hide, right? So sorry... Anonymous Coward. (!?) ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This means the right to self defense, guns arent needed for self defense, guns are made to kill.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I agree that security should be a #1 concern for our nations lawmakers and law enforcement agencies but to blindly allow them to enact laws allow systems that violate civil liberties would be foolish. With bills like the newly passed "Patriot Act" the public needs to be more alert than ever for covert actions from the government in the name of national security. Security is vital but we cannot allow law enforement to exclude itself from out countries system of checks and balances but circumventing the courts for things like wiretapping. These agencies don't stay honest with thier already extensive survalience powers out of the goodness of thier hearts it is public knowlage and judicial review that keep them in check. Surely there is nothing wrong with the public closely examining the laws and systems that effect each and every one of us. We cannot give up the rights and way of life that we are fighiting so hard to protect.
Most people don't drive.
- Consult the dictionary frequently to avoid mispelling
Hows a terrorist going to get your DNA? your retina scan info, your birth mother and fathers name, finger print, social security number, bank account, employer, and credit card + medical info.
All of this could be stored on a card via a chip. IT would be too expensive for terrorists to afford to forge cards on a mass scale. I'm talking hundreds of thousands each card, and if its good enough maybe even millions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No. I think you are confused. That won't work. It'll probably work for someone who gets arrested and the cops try to take his thumbprint.
However for the drivers license, the first time someone compares the print on record with the person's actual fingers, a whole bunch of red flags will go up. I can just hear the accusations of "Terrorist" "Drug Dealer" "Wanted Criminal" starting to fly. You could end up going to jail for doing nothing that is really wrong! They certainly don't have the right to fingerprint (or get a facial scan of) an innocent citizen, but that won't protect you.
If anyone should be tracked with fingerprints, DNA, or biometrics, then it should only be the criminals out on parole or with a warrant for their arrest. I can't think of any valid arguments for tracking law abiding citizens in these matters. A picture should be enough for identification.
Anyone who is considered legally blind can't drive and we get around just fine. Why do you need a drivers licence anyway? If you are just going back and forth to work or the store, take a bus or train, find a car pool (help pay for gas) and your life will be much simpler. You will have many less expences in your life also, no car insurance ($2000 a year) no car payments ($20,000 over 5 to 10 years) no vehicle taxes (amount unknown). It just makes life easier to deal with. Especially in large cities, no wondering if your car will be stolen, or if that is your alarm going off at 3:00 am waking the neiborhood.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong!
If you object then change the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The process for doing so is readily available to anyone who wants to make the attempt.
Go on, get off your fat ass and start the process. Please. Enough yammering about the evils of guns; do something about it!
Or are you afraid your call to repeal the 2nd Amendment would never pass muster?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
My FAA license has no photo and there is really no need for one since police aren't actually stopping me in the sky asking for it. In any situation where I would be asked to provide the license, there is plenty of time for verification through other means.
The photo on a drivers license is used by a police officer on the street to determine whether the license you provide is actually yours. Since this is done in enormous volume, it makes sense that there is a fast and efficient way to authenticate it.
But I don't understand how facial recognition data is going to add anything to the verification process. And I'm not sure that the photo verification process even has any serious flaws as it is. The ONLY real use for this information is if it's shared among other agencies for uses unrelated to driving.
So all this "driving is a priviledge" stuff is pretty off base. What we are talking about here really has nothing at all to do with driving.
Devon
The issue with biometric data storage is not necessarily its use for identifying people as they move about country. If they wanted to track you, they could do it well before they started developing useful facial recognition software. The problem is truely with the storage medium, and the auditing and security placed on this data. If this data were stored on chips on the ID cards, possessed only by the actual card owner, we would have few problems. Sure, there would be theft potentially, but people steal Social Security Cards still. A central database designed for access by any DMV or law enforcement personel leaves many potential holes. It has been proven many times over that it is only a matter of money that can drive an employee like that to corruption -- especially in jobs which are so seriously underpaid. In the US, there is a man creating masks for people who have been disfigured in fires. These masks are created to nearly mirror the original face. The face is designed based on a collection of pictures of the disfigured person. As facial pictures get better, these new digital images of us could potentially become someone's new face. As facial recognition software does not readily detect well-constructed masks, it would be impossible to differentiate the two based simply based on a picture. Retina and fingerprint scanners have a similar issue, although Retina scanners are significantly more complicated to defeat. As many of these scanners rely on few points of verification, it only takes a minimal amount of work to falsify an image. Even fingerprints have in many cases been falsified. Consider that there are likely a few hundred to a few thousand programmers whom have designed some of these biometric identification software from companies which have since shutdown. These people have been involved in testing many thousands of false fingers and faces. Who's to say that these programmers may not be the next generation of criminal -- one who leaves an exact representation of other people's fingerprints, in perfect digital format, to commit crimes -- ditch the connection to themselves -- and have the ability to target this attack to anyone whom they wish. This applies simply to faces too -- given a sufficient digital image, one could construct a mask that could easily fool current facial-recognition software. This is my true fear of this consolidation of information. When this was stored in 285,000,000 5"x7" cards in a huge warehouse protected by armed guards and requiring security clearance to enter, I was not concerned. Now, there is nothing complicated involved in pulling up any information they wish. gov1# Download complete. 100% of 542 megabytes. Elapsed Time: 00:40s allstates.tgz gov1#
made the following remark: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" We, the United States, are slowly but surely becoming a police state. Do we truly want the actions of less than 20 men to forever forfeit our liberties? I served my country to perserve those liberties not to surrender them. The person's right to privacy is essential to maintain a true democracy. The government must not be able to know it's peoples every move lest it desire to control said people. Control is what this is all about. Events like those happening in Conneticut will only serve as the foundation upon which "Fortress America" will be built. Unfortunately, WE THE PEOPLE, will be it's prisoners.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
If anyone should be tracked with fingerprints, DNA, or biometrics, then it should only be the criminals out on parole or with a warrant for their arrest. I can't think of any valid arguments for tracking law abiding citizens in these matters.
If you try to get a job as a schoolteacher in the great Commonwealth of Virginia, your friendly local constabulary will print you before you even see your contract. Your prints go on file with the FBI. I'm a law-abiding citizen, sure enough, but J. Edgar has my "biometrics."
I lived in a large city and did not need a car at all. Buses, streetcars & subway were all too convenient.
Then I moved to suburbs (because company built its own building there and moved). No subway, of course. Buses were available on schedule (every 30 minutes or so), unless it was snowing - then no buses until the morning. If I had to work late then the transportation problem was all on my own shoulders - last bus departed at something like 9:30pm, and after that good luck walking. BTW, there were no good sidewalks, and several times I had to make my way through piles of construction materials, steel rods and other hazards. In the winter there were no sidewalks at all (too much snow), and then one has to walk on the road - did I mention that the road was icy and slippery? I am not sure how I survived that period.
Then I bought a car, and since then I never had to worry about a bus or snow or cold. True, the car needs repairs on occasion, but that is a scheduled work usually, and is very simple (leave it with the nearby mechanic, then pick it up later).
Why do you need a drivers licence anyway?
How about paying for groceries with a personal cheque? There are more examples, of course.
find a car pool
This is a good idea - if you work from 9:00:00am to 5:00:00pm. But if your schedule is flexible, as most engineers know, you'll never catch that carpool. The life of an assembly line worker or a government's clerk is indeed simpler. Life of an ant is even simpler, but do we need to go there?
You will have many less expences in your life also, no car insurance ($2000 a year)
This $2000 figure is ridiculous. Even in Canada a good driver gets away with CDN$ 600-800 per year. In USA $300/yr is all it takes.
no car payments ($20,000 over 5 to 10 years)
I don't understand what "payments" you are talking about. I bought my last car - Mercedes 190E - for $5000, paid in full right there, and that's it. The car, BTW, works great.
no vehicle taxes (amount unknown)
USD $50/yr, FYI. Hardly a problem. But do you know how expensive subway and bus is? Dollars per trip, in each direction, and consider yourself lucky if you can use transfer slips. When I used public transportation (TTC) I had to buy a monthly pass, CDN $30 IIRC. This amounted to CDN $360/yr, with no guarantee that a bus will actually arrive.
no wondering if your car will be stolen, or if that is your alarm going off at 3:00 am waking the neiborhood.
That is a non-issue. People with cheap cars (like me) sleep well knowing that nobody will want our cars. People with expensive cars buy theft insurance and sleep well too.
Despite of all that, I would be much happier if I don't need a car. I drive only when I must. Unfortunately, even the nearest grocery store is beyond the walking range (2 miles).
Slight error, the guns that were taken away were all semi-automatics and automatics(No more AK's). The reason was that in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur on the 29th of April 1996 a man named Martin Bryant opened fire on a crowd of people and killed 35 people. The government at the time basically stopped this from happening again by taking away all the guns then putting up major restrictions on purchasing a gun (not just a three day waiting period, gun safety courses and photo id are all required now to own any gun in Tasmania) the down side was the possibility of an increase in break-ins, but its better than having another crowd of people dead in a restraunt somewhere I guess. And even the increase in crime is exagerated in your post, that guns have been banned for almost 5 years now shouldn't affect crime rates now inless criminals have taken a hell of a long time to catch on.
Read Errant Story.
>>You will have many less expences in your life also, no car insurance ($2000 a year)
>This $2000 figure is ridiculous. Even in Canada a good driver gets away with CDN$ 600-800 per year. In USA $300/yr is all it takes.
If you live in NJ that figure might be low. But then again we have the highest insureance rates in the nation on average
-onepoint
if you see me, smile and say hello.
You need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector...
I would have thought that this line would have clued you in:
Why doesn't Malda just make Slashdot a dry erase board on his front door?
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
B.S. If people had done their jobs 911 wouldn't have happened. Consider at least 4 of the people who committed the acts were already on a government watch list for terrorism. Given this the problem is obviously not, as you implied, the inability of government to track or keep track of criminals. They already have the ability and the means. Also you propose a military state were government controls everything outside your front door. I for one could not live in a country like this. I think your need to take away the rights of others to satisfy your own fears would best be dealt with by some serious psychotherapy.
Jesus, man. Chill out. Stop being so paranoid.
-------------------------
Stupid people suck.
"On the off chance that your post isn't some kind of subtle, ironic humor that has eluded me"
My apologies; no subtlety intended.
In California, where I got my first license, the way it works is that you take a written test to prove that you know some basic rules of the road, and then get a learner's permit that allows you to drive under the supervision of a licensed driver in the passenger seat. Then you get your practice (I think there may have been a minimum number of hours or something) and you can take the road test. Problem solved.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Let's say I own an arena. I have cameras in all the entrances. I have a copy of some commercial facial recognition system. I have access to the internet, so I have access to "America's Most Wanted"'s web site. I have JPEGs of many, many fugitaves.
I dump these images into a computer, turn it on, and start fishing. I make a hit, and have my police nab the guy. I get lots of publicity, and become famous.
This only needs to happen once, and everyone will be doing it. I'm only looking for bad guys, so this can't be a bad thing, right? Where do we draw the line now? Is is alright to ban anyone seen being thrown out of my stadium before? How about somebody else's stadium? How about scouts from other teams? This could be a slippery slope, and there isn't anything we can do about it.
I live in a high rise apartment building. I have a window facing a park...
-twb
When you understand the limits of the technology, you realize that it can't be used for "police state" purposes.
I would not have been a "whore for the state": the last thing I would have wanted was to help the state do unjust things.
Inventing the A-bomb without regard to how it could be used - that's being a whore.
Understanding how the technology can be used, and INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLING IT to prevent misuse - that's different.
And, before you ask, NO. It is *NOT* possible to "uncripple" this technology.
If you want to fully understand why, I'd be happy to explain... but you have to take your blinders off, first.
\burt
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
quote:
P.S. - Crimes went up an amazing amount in Australia just the next year. Especially home breakins because the thiefs knew the homeowners wouldn't have a gun.
unquote
Not according to the numbers from the Australian Institute of Criminology or the Australian Bureau of Statistics. See http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm for more details of this ridiculous claim. Follow the links there and read the crimestatistics your self
A police state, were the few watch the many, would at the apex of order, quickly slide into chaos. A solution that does a poor job of even addressing the symptom, let alone the disease.
It slides into chaos because the few have "information overload". A classic example would be the German Democratic Republic, who had files on everyone, more hardware in their telephone system dedicated to bugging than actually handling telephone calls, a huge army of informants.
No one has to change anything. Democracy allows FUZZY logic.
This means you can be 60% secure and 40% private, you can bee 90% private and 10% secure.
Privacy will ALWAYS exsist due to the constitution, what we are debating here is, through democracy should the people be able to decide how much of each they want?
Who the hell are you to decide for people
"100 percent privacy and 0 percent security!"
The constitution does not say this, if you know anything about anything you know there are no absolutes, you know nothing is 100 percent anything, if you want to have alot of privacy, then you sacrafice alot of secutiy
Democracy allows us to on a state by state basis decide how much privacy and security we want,
If you dont believe in democracy, and are an absolute follower of the constitution, I suppose you also believe in slavery, minorities cant vote, neither can women
Please give me a break!
Through Democracy we DECIDE how much we want to follow the constitution.
The constitution is to protect rights not take rights away, when you quote the constitution and then say we cant decide how much we wish to follow it, you are taking the one right the US has that afganastan and places like that dont have
The right to VOTE, Democracy, to decide the VALUE of every word on the constitution, some are more valueable than others, some are just morally wrong,
Democracy allows us as a society, in a state by state basis to decide how we want to live. Not all of us want to live as absolutists like you who follow the constitution and bow before the confederate flag
Theres nothing wrong with following the constitution, privacy IS important, but you have no right to tell ME, or anyone else in MY state how important privacy is, some of us may think security is more important and perhaps we dont want to die just so we can have extended privacy.
Let us decide. Be fair. Just like we allow you to decide to live somewhere else if dont like the security in a certain state.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Georgia's DLs have these on the back.
And unfortunately Georgians need to put their right index finger on a scanner to get a license.
But as far as the bar codes go, which in Georgia are printed on the back of the licenses, don't worry. After a few months of taking it in and out of your wallet with the raised numbers of a credit card behind it rubbing on them, it gets completely unintelligible and smeared.
Yes, they (state DMV, and thus likely Fed Gov't computers) already have the biometric info you "voluntarily provided" (digital face scan, finger print, etc), but the vehicle of the DL card itself accurately retaining this is a very short-lived affair.
Andy
This isn't a smaller question of being able to verify the citizenry's identity. CT is collecting biometric data and using facial recognition technology in this process. While the CT DMV may genuinely not be in the business of violating a persons privacy, another government organization MIGHT BE one day. This tecnology, integrated with a network of digital video cameras, can be used to track your every move in public and sometimes private. The question you should be asking is, "Do I want to chance it that one day my government may track my every move?" If you think that is paranoid, then you should read up on the facial recognition that was used at the last two SuperBowls. It wouldn't be a far leap to think a government could and would do this. Great Britain already has nearly every square inch of it's territory under video lookout. It wouldn't take much for them to use facial recognition to track their entire population.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Hm maybe you should have thought about that before voting for bush and asking for task cuts.
Tax cuts dont help them secure the country, securing the country costs money and requires more government.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
BULLSHIT!
- A Canadian.
Using your meager thought process your kids will not be able to ride bikes (might get hurt), drive cars (might kill the kid blaying ball), swimming polls are out (might drown), certainly shooting/archery/anything sharp is out (long live the dull spork). By trying to make life harm free, you really reduce life experiences. Plus, accidents will still kill them :-)
Let me guess, bay area liberal?
> BULLSHIT!
No, it is true. My friend has this insurance, and he lived in Mississauga (now in Richmond Hill). Those are all places around Toronto. I lived there too (before I moved), and I paid a little bit more (with Progressive), but still below CDN $1K. If you pay much more than that, you need to look for another insurance company - or to move to a cheaper place.
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States]
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Read
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the sta
tes respectively, or to the people
Lets take a look at the famous 2 rights.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
The right to a militia. A militia? Militias are known as terrorists, gangs, mobsters, and cults. While not all militias are evil, do you really want to be defended by these people? Or law government law enforcement?
The fact that we have police officers at all is a violation of the constitution is it not? Or at least it is according to you.
The right to free speech, free religion, etc, IF i say my religion is open source, and I claim 1s and 0s copied from an mp3 file are an extention or expression of my speech, what the fuck is copyright?! Copyright is against the constitution which is to protect expression and speech, along with religion. If my religion is a sharing free information based religion, why can i go to jail by sharing information?
So yes, you say everyone always follows the constitution, news flash, they dont, they havent for years, the constitution is more like guidelines which our goverment and states choose to follow when its in their own best interest. They dont follow it when its against the interests of certain big corperations, or when its against the interests of themselves.
Telling me the states dont decide, isnt changing the fact that they do decide.
Gun laws are diffrent in diffrent states, according to the constitution, anyone should be able to buy a gun all the time because its their absolute RIGHT and its essential for security.
Funny how police can carry guns which we cant even buy, police can do the job our militias, gangs, and mafia are supposed to do according to the constitution.
The decision isnt up to me? I think of it this way, the way things are now they arent honoring the constitution, instead of fighting them, I'm going to just go along with it.
They wont let me go buy heavy duty machine guns, wheres my local military with bomb shelters, fort, machine guns, bombs and tanks? Oh yeah, we dont have any militia in the city! Only people in the Idaho and places like that have militias, in the city we have to rely on the police, they dont even let us arm ourselves
So what other option is there in these states? We have to give the police more weapons.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac