National Biometric IDs

Jester998 writes "I just came across this article about how two U.S. congressmen want biometric identification. They're trying to avoid the controversial 'national ID' issue by creating what would be new drivers licenses with biometric information embedded. What does the Slashdot community think about having your retinal pattern embedded on a smart card?"

Comments

Re:Stop thief!

[Fredge]

Any decent biometric reader out today has the ability to determine if the finger/hand or eyeball being scanned is alive or not.

Re:Hand and forehead

[Iguanaphobic]

[16] And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads.
[17] And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Revelation 13:16-17

Re:Not just biometrics-- corporations too

[Nautilus]

California already requires a thumbprint when getting a driver's license. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if you don't want to give them your thumb print, you don't get your driver's license.

It may be too late in some ways in some places.

Re:Biometric ID can fight identity theft.

[Moonshadow]

DMV security is a joke. I have a friend who is 19. At 17, she went down to the DMV, told them that she was her 23 year-old cousin (Who looks nothing like her), and she got a nice 23-year old's license with her picture on it. The DMV essentially created her bar-hopping fake for her.

What's scary is how little checking the DMV does on who you really are. Biometrics would definately prevent this kind of thing. What scares me is that anyone could, upon procuring my SSN, walk into the DMV, say they're me, get a license, proceed to get points on said license, and get me arrested next time I get pulled over because according to my record, I have 4 DUIs, a slew of speeding tickets, etc.

And then there's the issue of using said ID for loans, cars, various purchases, etc. Scary.

Yeah, it makes you more identifiable. This is a Good Thing (tm) as far as I can see. It's not like the card is transmitting your stats to anyone within 15 feet - it just provides an extra layer of security.

Retinal problems...

[Kirkoff]

Not that this'll really get read (it's too late in the story really), but what about people like me with retinal problems. I can still hold a valid driver's license, and drive safely. As time goes on however, my retina will degrade, and that will change. In the intum, my retinal print will look different all the time. In my case, I have large pigmented areas on my retina. The same will be true of other people with simular diseases.

The people behind the desks at places like the DMV are rather feckless. They won't understand what that is. I will never scan out to be me, I'll always be an "unknown user." Oh, unknown user would probably be constude as not a citizen or, oh say, enemy of the state.

Blah!

--Josh

Re:Driving is a privilege

[bobv-pillars-net]

Tongue-in-cheek summary of the parent post:

Travelling is a privilege; it may be extended or revoked by any official representative of the government.

"Papers, citizen?"

Seriously, though, you seem to think that the government is authorized to regulate any potentially dangerous activity, simply because there is potential for wrongdoing. This viewpoint is called "marital law", or "maritime law", or "the law of the sea." There was a time in the history of this country when such a mindset was considered perfectly suitable for the administration of a seagoing vessel (hence the name, "maritime law") but outrageously inappropriate for governing a free people on their own lands.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between "rights" with "privileges." Allow me to step on my soapbox for a moment:

• Rights are inherently yours, by virtue of your existence as a human being with independent volition (a.k.a. self-will, or freedom). Some rights are alienable. You have the right to procreate. You can give up that right by getting an operation, such as a vasectomy or a hysterectomy. But people who have done so can remain independent, self-willed, self-directed people. That is, they can remain free. Other rights are inalienable. You have the right to travel. If you are refused that right (by being placed under house arrest, for instance) it changes the nature of your being. You would no longer be an independent, self-willed, self-directed (free) person. You would then become a prisoner or a slave.
• Privileges, on the other hand, are granted (usually selectively) by an authoritative body. They are gifts from that authority which you could not have acquired on your own. For instance, you have the right to learn, (by virtue of being a thinking human being), but if you live in certain states, you have the privilege of attending a state college, free of charge, funded by state taxes.

Some people argue that since roads are (usually) built by a government, and driving (on those roads) would not be possible without that government, therefore driving is a privilege extended by that government.

Others counter that any roadways paid for by public funds belong to the common trust, and no government has the right to selectively refuse access to them.

Whatever the viewpoint, there are certainly many places in the United States where, if you limit yourself to walking, you won't be able to travel very far without either trespassing or violating some ordinance. Most highways, bridges, and tunnels have signs specifically forbidding pedestrians.

Realistically, if you can't legally drive, (or hire somebody to drive for you), then you are effectively forbidden to travel beyond a certain range. In that sense, you would arguably become a prisoner of the state, under a limited form of "house arrest."