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?"
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.
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.
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.
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%.
What's all this talk about a national ID card when your driver's license and SSN are already used as such? The only step left is to coordinate all the states' driver databases with the credit bureaus and banks and Big Brother can track you wherever you go.
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!
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.
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?!?
No, you have 30 days to re-license yourself and 60-days to re-tag your vehicles. (or vice versa, I can't remember).
Free Mac Mini
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...
At the NH, Maine, and Vermont boarders you can get into Canada with a birth cert. Even if it doesn't have a picture. I would assume that this is true for most of the boarder.
Free Mac Mini
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
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
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
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 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
How are they profiling you? They asked for a picture ID, you provided one that they thought was fake because you don't look anything like the guy in the picture (because you went out of your way to make it seem like a different person). So they take you in to verify your identity.
It doesn't help you any that you did it on purpose. By your on free will you made your picture look as much like anybody but yourself as possible. You only have yourself to blame for the grief.
Free Mac Mini
There is no law which requires you to carry ID.
You can walk around the streets of any city with no ID what so ever.
If cops can't do what beer and cigarette sellers do everyday then they shouldn't be cops. I go to a bar, they look at the ID and that is it. I don't step into any box and get scanned.
OR. has also paid for services from Viisage - just a note.
Get your Unix fortune now!
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.
That's exactly my point. I'm a trustworthy person and therefore it's valuable to me to be able to prove that I am said trustworthy person and to make it very difficult for anyone who might wish to impersonate me. I'm highly in favor of good ID cards because I have much more to lose by being impersonated than I have to lose by some nubulous conspiracy of the government, evil corporations and the UN being able to track me by a piece of plastic in my wallet.
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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).
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."
So find someone who's over 21 (perhaps a driving school instructor?), get the parents to sign off on him/her, and your friend is good to go.
"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
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.
It wouldn't even have prevented the 9/11 tragedy. The people who committed it weren't on anyone's list of possible criminals.
Some of them were using stolen identities of people thousands of miles away. Goodness knows who they really were.
It also makes it that much easier to screw with people. If you can crack the database, you could potentially exchange your neighbor's biometric info with a known felon and watch with glee as your neighbor is arrested when you drop him off at the airport and he passes under the computer scanners.
Especially if your neighbour is called "Angela Bennet".
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
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
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