Slashdot Mirror


A Look Into National ID Cards

mr.buddylee writes "Last month Slashdot reported a Popular Science story on your privacy. This month the magazine has a couple different articles about the future of security after the attacks on 9/11. Included is a very interesting read on National ID Cards which looks at possible technologies integrated into the card. For instance, how would you like a memory strip containing a digitized image of your fingerprints, your photo, your medical history and flight history stored in your wallet? All secured with what could be a less than secure Smart Card."

259 comments

  1. Lets see... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A chance to have all of my medical history, flight history, biometrics, and banking info all in one place?

    <SARCASM>
    Where do I sign up?
    </SARCASM>

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Lets see... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can sign you up.
      Please email me your name address ssn bank acount numbers, mothers maiden name, a copy of your finger prints.

      Not only will sending me this info get you signed up, it will also increase your penis size.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Lets see... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      Are you a U.S. citizen? Good, you're already signed up.

    3. Re:Lets see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than an ID card, why dont we just have a bar code tattooed on our forehead and outlaw the wearing of hats?

      That way we can be continually scanned ....

  2. Nice name on the card... by WilliamsDA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    2002 is 1984!

    1. Re:Nice name on the card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are mods on crack or do they have to be shot right on the spot?

    2. Re:Nice name on the card... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      At least in 1984 they made no bones about doing it for the good of the citizenry.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  3. as long by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    as there is a federal law that states I dn't have to use it if I don't want to and that its illegal for any non medical person to see any more then my photo, and that anybody who wnats to get my fingure prints needs a search warrant, and there are no repercusions for not using it, and I don't have to use to move around the country, I have no problem with it.
    oh yeah, I also want a pony.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:as long by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      You don't have to use a Social Security card, either. . . but good luck living without one.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:as long by pennsol · · Score: 1

      FYI....It it's against federal law for anyone to ask you for your SSN# other than your employer or the IRS

      --

      Just Limin' Mon

    3. Re:as long by pennsol · · Score: 1

      BTW...if our state issued id card..drivers lics. or what not has your SSN# on it the state you live in just comitted a feloney...ask your local SSN office they will tell you..........

      --

      Just Limin' Mon

    4. Re:as long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no ... there is no such law ...

  4. Incredible by eric6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The identity theft lobbyists must be mighty powerful.

    --

    --
    fight global cooling

    1. Re:Incredible by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      The identity theft lobbyists must be mighty powerful.
      -----

      That, or they're impersonating those who are... :]

  5. Mr Computer. by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Citizen, The Computer thanks you for presenting your national ID card. We find all information valid, please step into the processing chamber.

    Bzzzt! Flash.. smoke

    -GiH

    1. Re:Mr Computer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings Citizen,

      The government is your friend. Trust the government. It is your duty to obey the government. Trust no one. Trust the government.

      Please report for summary execution.

  6. Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Does the term "Homeland Security" creep anyone else out? It is reminiscence of German Nazis / Russian Communists to me.

    Your papers please.

    1. Re:Homeland Security by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      I said that to my wife the other night. It's a scary name for a government organization. She kind of shrugged and went on about her business.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    2. Re:Homeland Security by Demona · · Score: 1
      Sounds far more appropriate in its "native language":
      Abteilung der Vaterlandsicherheit
      (I decided to go with "Fatherland" because it seemed like the closest meaning that its creators were striving for.)
      --
      Fuck Slashdot
    3. Re:Homeland Security by soapvox · · Score: 1

      THAT IS FUNNY! I just was reading that part last nigh in 1984!!!! But seriously, Homeland....Fatherland....Motherland.... creepy!

    4. Re:Homeland Security by ericman31 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just think about this, KGB stands for (translated to English) Committee for State Security. It's forerunner was the NKVD: People's Commissariat For Internal Affairs. In Nazi Germany you had the RSHA, Reich Main Security Office, which was the authority for the Gestapo, SicherHeitsDienst (Security Police), Criminal Police and Foreign Intelligence Service. It's not hard to imagine either of those countries having a Department of Homeland Security, especially when you consider that this Dept. will have authority over any Federal dept involved in protecting the mainland USA (FBI, NSA, Treasury, Justice, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, Customs Service, US Marshals, Secret Service).

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    5. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, indeed. Never in our 225 year history has there ever been such a phrase used in our venacular - I find the eerie 'Homeland' very close to 'Fatherland' more than a coincidence and just downright creepy. Along with this 'Homeland' we are getting everything that was instituted in Nazi Germany, only alarmningly its happening more than twice as fast.

      I find the following quote sadly ironic:

      Two recent political leaders allegedly had this
      nefarious habit (cocaine).

      Both came to power after dubious elections, by
      non-electorial and irregular methods.

      Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous
      public buildings.

      Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had
      any evidence.

      Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

      Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."

      Both put the citizenry under surveillance.

      Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

      Both created a new agency for domestic security - one
      for the Fatherland and the other for the Homeland.

      Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their
      neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html

      Both launched wars against most of the world.

      One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?

    6. Re:Homeland Security by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Would it have been clearer for the nazis to name their organization "Jew-killing Security Office"? Organizations with godd or bad intentions cannot possibly have a name that no one will see as ominous.
      Well, maybe if you named it the "Shiny, Happy People Organization". Nah that sounds really fucked...

    7. Re:Homeland Security by cosmosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, indeed. Never in our 225 year history has there ever been such a phrase used in our venacular - I find the eerie 'Homeland' very close to 'Fatherland' more than a coincidence and just downright creepy. Along with this 'Homeland' we are getting everything that was instituted in Nazi Germany, only alarmningly its happening more than twice as fast.

      I find the following quote sadly ironic:

      Two recent political leaders allegedly had this
      nefarious habit (cocaine).

      Both came to power after dubious elections, by
      non-electorial and irregular methods.

      Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous
      public buildings.

      Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had
      any evidence.

      Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

      Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."

      Both put the citizenry under surveillance.

      Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

      Both created a new agency for domestic security - one
      for the Fatherland and the other for the Homeland.

      Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their
      neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html

      Both launched wars against most of the world.

      One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?

    8. Re:Homeland Security by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 2

      They should call it "Patriot Homeland Security", and then dump food packages on us to make us happy. I could sure go for some pop-tarts right now, mmmmboy.

    9. Re:Homeland Security by ericman31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once upon a time we used to name organizations with a name that told us what the did. For example:

      • War Department
      • The Secret Service (they were secret *g*)
      • Department of Veterans Affairs
      Now we name things to be misleading and politically correct, what George Orwell called double-speak. For example:
      • Department of Defense (still makes war, not defense)
      • Office of Strategic Services (precursor to the CIA)
      • National Security Agency (they eavesdrop on everyone)
      I don't really think that this is an attempt to put Fascist controls on the people. I do think it is an attempt, and a serious one, to gain more control over the citizens of this country and remove more of our freedom. I think that the Dept of Homeland Security is scary and a bad idea and doesn't represent what I want at all. Does no one else think gathering all the federal intelligence agencies and police forces into one organization is a seriously bad idea?
      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    10. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! I have said this to so many people lately, it's not even funny.

      They could have been more formal, rational, etc. about it and referred to it as "domestic" security or something like that.

      The "homeland" thing has this overzealous patriotic feel to it, that feel of forced sappiness. It's just dripping of the irrational policies of the current administration.

      Very very scary.

      And now resident Bush is asking to start a war?

      Absurd. It's all worse than I thought when he hijacked the "election".

    11. Re:Homeland Security by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      Calling it Homeland Security feels like stirring up nationalist fervor. This is the sort of thing that Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin and Tojo did that we find reprehensible when we read about it in history books. Not to suggest that Bush is a secret disciple of Adolf Hitler but rather to point out the hypocrisy, double-speak and thought control of our current political culture.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    12. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      michael jackson?

    13. Re:Homeland Security by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I guessed my civics classes where full of shit when they described our system of governance as a Republic, with a weak central government.

      In the Constitution v1.0 the United States was a federation of smaller contries (States) that United (United) for, amoung other reasons, mutual defense and to promote a common good. Several states (my home state Pennsylvania for instance) is actually a Commonwealth. Our state constitution and legal traditions trump the Federal system when the two do not dovetail.

      The Federal Government was constructed to be weak and fragmented so that the States could decide how best to govern their citizenry. The system has worked, IMHO, quite well for 225 years.

      When we speak of a Homeland, exactly whose home are we referring to? The culture of traditions of Texas are quite different from California, which in turn is radically different that Minnesota, and a far shot from Pennsylvania.

      People complain about how little gets done in congress, and how little the president is actually allowed to do. That is by design.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    14. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the other one has a mustache too. Oops. Wrong guy. I mistook him for someone who is president.

    15. Re:Homeland Security by joshki · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I find it just plain wrong. Point by point rebuttal follows:

      Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit (cocaine).

      Allegedly is a key word here -- I'm glad you added it.

      Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.

      You call the Supreme Court of the United States, the final authority on law and order in this country "irregular means?" When something is as close as the election in Florida was, there's not much choice but to get the Supreme Court involved. Do you have a better solution? They made the right call, and many "recounts" since bear that fact out, whether you like the results of it or not.

      Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.

      So what?

      Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.

      I suspect the NSA and CIA knew who did it within minutes - it wasn't a hard call. They had all the information, and when you know what you're looking for, it's very easy to find it. Their only failing was in not processing all that information prior to September 11th.

      Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

      No - looking for terrorists does not, in my book, qualify as a witch hunt.

      Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."

      So did Abraham Lincoln and others. What's your point? It may not have always been the best thing to do -- but it is a power the executive branch has in war time. I know we don't have a "declared" war -- that's only because there's not a well defined entity to declare war on.

      Both put the citizenry under surveillance.

      We've been under surveillance for the last 60 years. The NSA was formed in the forties - you really think they've never spied on anyone before? Now you hear about it more - that's the only difference.

      Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

      Sure... Right... The Illuminati are really in power in the US, right?

      Both created a new agency for domestic security - one for the Fatherland and the other for the Homeland.

      So?

      Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html

      You probably have a problem with Neighborhood Watch too, right?

      Both launched wars against most of the world. One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?

      Umm... Had to think about this for a bit - Does the Taliban rule "most of the world?" Maybe I missed a late breaking news flash or something....

      I gather you must be talking about our President by the election bit, but I think you may want to check your facts -- they don't really jive.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    16. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilary Clinton?

    17. Re:Homeland Security by metachimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, it totally freaked me out. When was the last time you heard anyone say "Wow, that trip to Italy was nice, but I was sure glad to get back to my homeland!", or when have your ever heard a member of the military say "I joined the [branch of their choice], in order to defend my homeland!"

      I think they were trying to appear all wholesome and homey, and I'm sure that the Heritage Foundation gave them all sorts of suggestions. What I don't like about the whole Homeland Security thing is that there's no provision for un-making a cabinet position.

      The choice of Tom Ridge was interesting as well. Obviously G.W.'s way of saying, "Sorry, Tom, that Dick picked himself for VP, here's a brand-new cabinet-level position made just for you!"

      I just have to wonder: Is it really necessary? Do we really need another government agency to oversee the other government agencies? I just think it's going to end up adding another layer of red tape to cut through. If the FBI couldn't get off the dime when presented with evidence that something funny was going on, what makes anyone think that adding another tier to the system will improve anything? What is Tom Ridge going to be able to do that the DCI and Director of the FBI can't? (Other than coming up with a worthless color-coding system)

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
    18. Re:Homeland Security by Exatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thik you need to take your civics class again. The Articles of Confederation were designed to create a weak and fragmented Federal Government, which didn't work out too well. States were setting absurd taxes on goods from their neighbors and even printing their own currency. The current constitution was meant to fix that by establishing a Federal Government that had authority in matters concerning the nation as a whole and when states came into conflict. It does move slowly by design, but as a result of checks and balances against corruption and an ability to be reinterpreted rather than an attempt to keep it weak and fragmented. It's starting to show some flaws after 213 years, but it is still better than the Articles of Confederation.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    19. Re:Homeland Security by jsburke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > So?

      So, I find the comparison between our government and Nazi Germany offensive as well, but the point remains that the current administration has sacrificed liberty in favor of safety.

      Instead of considering our system infallible and just saying "So?" all the time, we should be self-critical. Maybe detaining people (some of them citizens) for an indeterminate period of time is wrong. Maybe creating completely opaque governmental agencies is wrong. If you're too defensive, you'll never even consider these things.

    20. Re:Homeland Security by mother_superius · · Score: 1

      The food dropping seemed more like token kindness intended to provide the image that they cared rather than real food aid. Crackers and peanut butter is not quite nourishing. And 33,000 of them were dropped in a nation of 40 million. Kind of a PR thing rather than anything substantial.

    21. Re:Homeland Security by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Obviously, I don't want my rights trampled on...I WAS MAKING THE POINT that the name of an agency being "scary" is not a valid reason to distrust it...it's practices are.
      And on that note I would like to sa..wri...type that I don't think its a good idea for the govt't to have our lives on a card. If they could just improve upon a normal, old ID card simply to replace a license/passport/SS card would be nice.
      Over n out.

    22. Re:Homeland Security by kingkade · · Score: 1

      That's an intelligent response and hopefully I can give an intelligent rebuttal (sp?):
      He did not say "so?" all the time and consider the US gov't "infallible". He even mention the "suspension of rights" is not something he (or anyone else here in the US) agrees with.
      Particularly, my bigggest annoyances are the military tribunals (for citizen/non-citizen "enemy combatants") are a bullshit way to circumvent judicial checks and denying due process.
      Also, I have a huge problem with detaining combatants without respect to their rights.
      We also want Iraq to surrender to complete weapons inspections instead of laser bombing their installations and sending more young people to meddle with that completely fucked area of the world
      Not to mention this all stems from the dynamic duo of Dubbya and Ashcroft being appointed to their respective offices.

    23. Re:Homeland Security by BlueFashoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You call the Supreme Court of the United States, the final authority on law and order in this country "irregular means?" When something is as close as the election in Florida was, there's not much choice but to get the Supreme Court involved. Do you have a better solution? They made the right call, and many "recounts" since bear that fact out, whether you like the results of it or not.

      Last time I checked, the Supreme Court declaring the winner of the Presidential election was highly irregular. In fact, it has never happened before, and I hope it never happens again. Better solution? How about we all go to the poles again?

      Umm... Had to think about this for a bit - Does the Taliban rule "most of the world?" Maybe I missed a late breaking news flash or something....

      No, but we do have troops all over the world. We appear to be involved in some conflict around the world just about all the time, and America has been for last 20 years. Do you remember the "axis of evil" rhetoric? Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia? Troops in the Phillipines?

      Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

      Sure... Right... The Illuminati are really in power in the US, right?


      Don't you remember the news reports about the shadow government that was revealed shortly after September 11th? From CNN

      Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

      No - looking for terrorists does not, in my book, qualify as a witch hunt.


      No, but arresting thousands of people does in most people's books. Don't forget many of these people were not charged with anyhting.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    24. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the German media refers to Bush's organization as the "Ministerium für Heimatsicherheit"

    25. Re:Homeland Security by FallLine · · Score: 2
      So, I find the comparison between our government and Nazi Germany offensive as well, but the point remains that the current administration has sacrificed liberty in favor of safety.

      Instead of considering our system infallible and just saying "So?" all the time, we should be self-critical.
      I agree. We should think and act critically. However, automatically critizing the administration and fighting them tooth and nail for any policy that might "sacrifice liberty" does not lead us to a considered path. Rather, this method leads us to the path of avoidance, to the extent that it works, whereby we merely avoid issues because they are politically unviable. You MIGHT get the administration to avoid stepping on your civil liberties today, but what does that mean when that causes a lapse in our security and causes you to end up dead tomorrow? For all the criticism that I've heard of the administration on slashdot, I've heard very few people actually consider the alternatives and/or the consequences of inaction with anything more than flip answers. I hear people on slashdot paraphrasing Jefferson and say they would rather give up security for liberty, but they remain very abstract as to what kinds of liberty and how much security.

      Maybe creating completely opaque governmental agencies is wrong.
      Completely opaque, are you kidding me?? Not even the CIA or NSA is completely opaque, never mind the Administration. We know what is coming in. We know what is coming out. We can judge most of their actions and we can, and have, held them accountable for it. We even have a whole lot of insight into the day to day proceedings, probably too much. So it's a wild exxageration to say it's completely opaque. What more transparency can you _realistically_ ask for? I'm sure you have some (though I'd disagree with most of it), but be realstic. Those things are relatively minor on the scale from transparency to opacity.
    26. Re:Homeland Security by gene_tailor · · Score: 1

      Actually, the first time I heard W use the phrase "Office of Homeland Security" I was like, "So what exactly is the department of _Defense_ for then?"

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
    27. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the NSA and CIA knew who did it within minutes - it wasn't a hard call. They had all the information, and when you know what you're looking for, it's very easy to find it. Their only failing was in not processing all that information prior to September 11th.

      I'm glad you brought this up. (Not that I agree with those I-have-no-argument-I'm-just-talking-shit items one bit, but that's another issue I don't care to get into.)

      If we had the intelligence data we needed, then why all the unnecessary loss of civil rights? Isn't that simply an indication the organizations responsible need to make some changes?

      Now that they have correlated the relevant data and produced their leads, what else do they need from us?

      I just don't see the justification in the overly broad scope of the Patriot Act myself. It seems at least eight cities agree with me.

    28. Re:Homeland Security by joshki · · Score: 1
      Good point -- maybe it is wrong. The question is: Who determines if it's wrong? By whose standards is it wrong? We can disagree with our elected officials all we want -- sometimes we need to step back and look at things from their perspective.

      There has to be a balance between liberty and safety -- I don't want to live in a society where anyone can do anything they want. Anarchy never works because people aren't basically good.

      And just so you know, I don't consider our current system infallible. I have some measure of faith in the people we elected -- if I didn't, it would be time for me to find a new country to live in, and as "bad" as people may think the US is, I really don't think there's anywhere else you can have the freedoms we have here.

      I've said it before, I'll say it again -- if you don't like the people in office, vote them out. It's not impossible, although it may be difficult in some cases, but it's at least worth a shot. That's the beauty of this country -- everyone has at least some say in government. I know it's not perfect, but at least give it a shot.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    29. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Ja, sign your ID card. It's for ze safety of ze Fatherland! Heil Bush.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    30. Re:Homeland Security by joshki · · Score: 1
      I don't agree with the patriot act either. It was an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to a horrible situation. Unfortunately, that's how people are -- politicians have to stroke the "sheep" to ensure that they keep getting re-elected. I suspect that many of the politicians don't agree with the bill -- they simply don't have the moral integrity to stand up to their collegues. If you don't like it, vote them out -- and make sure they know why they won't be getting your vote in November.

      I just don't agree with the whole comparing our president to hitler -- at least if we don't like our elected officials we have some recourse provided by our Constitution. I don't think the germans had much of a chance once hitler took power.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    31. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Maybe detaining people (some of them citizens) for an indeterminate period of time is wrong.

      Maybe establishing tyrannical regimes based on Medieval law that abuses women and chops off the hands of criminals in wrong.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    32. Re:Homeland Security by mosch · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html You probably have a problem with Neighborhood Watch too, right?
      There's a world of difference between an organization which attempts to stop crimes in progress and an organization which collects information on suspicious behaviours which may or may not be related to any future crime.

      I find it incredibly frightening that so many seemingly intelligent people can't tell the difference between TIPS and a Neighborhood Watch.

    33. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record I didn't like the comparison either. I do, however, think you could have done a much better job on your response. Too much lashing out and not enough logic and reason.

    34. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the Supreme Court declaring the winner of the Presidential election was highly irregular. In fact, it has never happened before, and I hope it never happens again. Better solution? How about we all go to the poles again?

      Next time, we'll follow the Constitution, and hand it over to the Republican-Dominated House. Oh, wait, nevermind.

      No, but we do have troops all over the world. We appear to be involved in some conflict around the world just about all the time, and America has been for last 20 years. Do you remember the "axis of evil" rhetoric? Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia? Troops in the Phillipines?

      With the exemption of Phillipines and Afghanistan (by the way, we're in the Phillipines at their government's request and in Afghanistan as part of the final part of the Taliban clean-up. And there are British, Canadian, and other countries troops there with us in both cases), we're there as part of UN-Sanctioned Peacekeeping operations, along with other countries troops. We have bases in other countries, but mostly its in strategically important countries that have decided to sell their military off to pay for their decision to be socialist.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    35. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't you remember the news reports about the shadow government that was revealed shortly after September 11th? From CNN [cnn.com]

      "Shadow Government" was a slipped up term that referred to the "Secure Location" that they send important officials during dangerous situations. If you've watched any movies or paid any attention during the Reagan administration, you'd have already known about the fact that there is and has been a secure location, in case the President was immobilized. Instead of reading the facts, they heard the name "Shadow Government", and suddenly concepts of conspiracy and evil men in black came to the minds of the crazed proles.

      I'm surprised you don't bring up the Globalization movement as proof of a conspiracy, instead of some government spud's freudian slip.

      No, but arresting [9-11peace.org] thousands of people [cnn.com] does in most people's books. Don't forget many of these people were not charged with anyhting

      Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    36. Re:Homeland Security by joshki · · Score: 1

      You're right -- I just wanted to get it out there and make my main points quickly... I think I accomplished that.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    37. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Next time, we'll drop a McDonalds on them. Or maybe we'll ship one of those hoity-toity French joints on over. I'm pretty sure, after years of munching on moldy bread that wouldn't even get fed to animals here in the US, they weren't too picky about what they got. Seriously.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    38. Re:Homeland Security by rruvin · · Score: 1
      I am truly, truly shocked such a troll has been moderated +4 Insightful. To compare the US and Nazi Germany is simply the height of insanity.

      Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.

      Excuse me? Both Hitler and Bush were elected legally and in accordance with the electoral process in their respective countries.

      Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.

      First of all, I wouldn't call nine months after the fact "immediately," not to mention the fact that the Reichstag was set on fire a only month after Hitler took office. 9/11 was also not the first time the WTC was bombed. Care to compare Clinton with Hitler, as well? After all, the first bombing took place a few short months after Clinton's election.

      Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.

      What "ethnic minority"? The Nazis blamed the Communists. Islamic terrorist groups were clearly blamed for 9/11, but Bush personally went to great lengths to emphasize that for someone to blame Muslims as a whole for the act would be perverse and wrong.

      Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

      What?..

      Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."

      Is this some sort of a joke? The Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany six months after Hitler came to power. If this is happening "twice as fast" in the US, one would have thought political parties would have been banned by the end of 2001.

      Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

      What is "secret and clandestine" about Bush's government?

      People who insist on comparing the US to totalitarian regimes clearly never lived under true totalitarianism. Try living in China, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran for a while and speak of them in the same way you currently speak about the US. Oh, and before you do, don't forget to go over your will.

    39. Re:Homeland Security by Glytch · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops.

      I think you mean that they weren't charged with the horrible crime of getting scared and shooting back from their farmhouses whenever a few hundred soldiers charged over a nearby hill, shooting everything in sight.

      Also, way to go on killing more innocents in Afganistan than died on Sept. 11! That will truely cement freedom for the people of Afganistan

      And in an astonishing coincedence the oil company that employed Dick Cheney will now have a more friendly government to deal with there when they build their stalled pipeline! Everyone wins! Except for those filthy foreigners who dared to defend their country from invasion, of course.

    40. Re:Homeland Security by Glytch · · Score: 2

      I actually pray that the DHS will be nothing more than a bloated beaurocracy, as inefficient and stupid as its' cousin agencies. The more mistakes that are made, the less effective they are at interfering with citizen's lives. In other words, I fear Heinrich Himmler more than I fear Colonel Klink.

      (My apologies for invoking Godwin's Law, but that's been done often enough in this article anyway.)

    41. Re:Homeland Security by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      It's not hard to imagine either of those countries having a Department of Homeland Security, especially when you consider that this Dept. will have authority over any Federal dept involved in protecting the mainland USA (FBI, NSA, Treasury, Justice, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, Customs Service, US Marshals, Secret Service).

      Except it's nowhere near that yet.

      It's not getting the FBI, DEA, or Marshals-they're all staying in Justice. I don't see it getting any more than limited influence over Customs or BATF, both of which are taxation agencies. I don't see it getting a whole lot of sway over the Secret Service, which is primarily a financial-crimes agency. In the end, it'll probably end up being just TSA, Border Patrol, and the Federal Protective Service (responsible for policing property managed by the General Services Administration.), the Dep't of Energy's security people (largely contractors anyway) and maybe parts of a few other agencies.

      Some people outside of the US freak out over the US Department of the Interior. In the former Soviet Union, most policing was managed by the Ministry of the Interior, or similar ministries with similar names in other countries. Here in the US OTOH, Interior is basically just an umbrella for the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Geological Survey, etc.

      Damn park rangers are out to oppress us all. Trust me on this. I used to be one.

    42. Re:Homeland Security by ThanatosNL · · Score: 0

      Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.

      So what?

      Ok, I don't think you're trolling per se, but you certainly don't understand all of the poster's points. He's talking about Hitler burning the Reichstag (the ruling "House" in Germany at the time) secretly in order to alter Germany's mindset into being "ready" for "turbulent times" and warfare (and to prepare to lose rights and cede control). This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter. I don't know if I believe it myself, but if you want you can read the material yourself. You cannot, however, shrug this point of with a "So what"...if Bush did have prior knowledge, then this is both an extremely important connection to make and possibly the the most scary statement in the parent post.

      --
      Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain. Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
    43. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 2

      The relatively recent Freedom of Information Act was a great step towards reducing the opacity of our federal institutions. I must praise the Clinton Administation for letting that through, as the FBI has abused its power in the past, and we must not allow the U.S. to become a police state.

      As for liberty vs security, the burden of proof should be on the government institutions: exactly how do further restrictions on our current freedoms provide us with more security? If the previous laws weren't being properly enforced, how does adding new stricter laws help the situation? Confiscating nail clippers does not improve the safety of airline passengers. A terrorist armed with only a bowie knife could not hijack a plane that contains at least 10 unarmed yet able-bodied passengers. A suicidal terrorist with an explosive would have better odds, but then, explosives are already illegal on planes. See, it is easy to prove that the right to board a public plane with a souvenier hand grenade is worth sacrificing for the security of the passengers on the flight. Now, why exactly can't I have a plastic knife to cut my microwave chicken?

      As for civil liberties, which should I sacrifice, and exactly how will that protect anybody's safety? The onus is on whosoever would violate the Bill of Rights to convince The People, otherwise The People can be as flippant as they like - though to be frank, I'm not sure which flip reamrks you refer to. "Don't tread on me", or maybe "Live free or die"? The defense of our most precious documents is not inaction, but rather our sacred duty as citizens of this great republic.

    44. Re:Homeland Security by J-bdy · · Score: 1

      To add to Joshki's reply to the comment on the immediate attacks:

      I think a relatively and crucial point that has been ignored is that while the 9-11 attacks WERE committed by the members of the minority that was blamed, the attack in Germany WAS NOT committed by those for whom it was blamed. Also, those blamed for the attacks on Germany's equivalent of a capitol building were the Communists (Actually, it was the Nazi's themselves attempting to gain total political control). Last I checked communism wasn't an ethnicity, have they started breeding them now?

      j

      Disclaimer:All the above information is based on a history course I took last year in which I failed many tests, use with caution.

    45. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 1

      All of what extends from the "dynamic duo"? How do you mean? Iraq was the focus of a previous Bush, why hasn't Clinton addressed the problem in the last 8 years? I guess it didn't jibe with MTV's playlist or the Arsenio Hall show. During the 90's I really was more concerned with "boxers or briefs" than the Middle East conflicts.
      Hey, Clinton, the first "liberal" in a generation (the Pepsi generation?) with Mr. GHoar would have been in a great position to push an alternative energy policy to us. Failing that, he at least could have kept an eye on the world's petroleum peddlers and their tumultous region of the world.

      As for your biggest annoyances, I sympathise with you but not about the source - that "all stems from" everybody in the public media ignoring the fact that we are not at war. Only Congress and the first lady can declare War.

      ( Oh yeah, how is Nancy's War coming along anyway? Historically, the only thing worse than a politician is a politician's wife. Has Mrs. W pulled a Hillary-Roddham-Tipper yet?)

    46. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      I think you mean that they weren't charged with the horrible crime of getting scared and shooting back from their farmhouses whenever a few hundred soldiers charged over a nearby hill, shooting everything in sight.

      Yeah, shit, dude, sorry for screwing it up. I'll get it right next time the international coalition that went to Afghanistan starts chargin up hills shooting at anything that moves.

      But wait, when an American owns an automatic rifle, you guys critisize our government for allowing such evil, but a Afghan toting an AK-47 on his Opium farm is totally cool with you?

      Also, way to go on killing more innocents in Afganistan than died on Sept. 11! That will truely cement freedom for the people of Afganistan.

      Thanks, it was my best work yet. Next year, I hope to outdo the Holocaust.
      I love Sarcasm.

      And in an astonishing coincedence the oil company that employed Dick Cheney will now have a more friendly government to deal with there when they build their stalled pipeline! Everyone wins! Except for those filthy foreigners who dared to defend their country from invasion, of course.

      Yeah, I know you Europeans see Karzai as a puppet leader. That's why you guys picked him out.

      But the funniest thing is how scared most european leaders are now. They're NOW willing to oppose Israel as the modern form of appeasement, because they fear their own September 11th. I'm suddenly getting this picture of the French president holding the 2002 version of the Munich Pact.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    47. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 2

      Your anti-hysterical dose of reality is much appreciated, but I must take exception to one particular point.
      Without a well defined entity to declare war upon, there should be no war declared. War is a drastic and extreme measure to be reserved for a threat to our nation's sovereign existance.

      Sure, it is noble to eradicate drug abuse and terrorism. While were at it, why not poverty? We should definitely use our military force against these evils, because a bloody battle is the best solution to these problems. Simply kill all citizens that live below the national poverty level, and we can finally declare victory. But then what do we do with the soldiers who are unemployed after the end of the skirmishes? Well, there was a WWII, after all.

      These metaphysical enemies in our media wars cannot be feasibly defeated, as they are merely symptoms to deeper societal ills. We can protect our nation without persecuting our citizens, or even our non-agressive neighbors. There are plenty of criminal laws to deal with violent criminals without the need to resort to military exemptions, martial law or autocracy.

      While I appreciate your rebutting the absurd parent, I must play devil's advocate for the last point (as odious as it was) just because it plays into my point. Did the Second Bush Administration declare "war" against the Taliban, or "terrorism?" Terrorism takes place throughout most of the world. "Terrorism" is poorly defined.

      Could "terrorism" include histrionic rants comparing irrellevant or tenuously-related events in history between a Plutocratic-Republic
      and a pseudo-Socialist Autocracy? Even if I don't agree with the crappy connections in the parent post, I should defend the posters right to express these insipid comparisons. So I must oppose the "War on Terrorism".

    48. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right on!!!!!!!!!!!

      i thought the nazi's were bad till i got a load of bush

    49. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings, stupid american.

      "looking for terrorists does not, in my book, qualify as a witch hunt"

      Do you know anything about witches?

      Heil Bush! *stomp, salute* For the homeland.

    50. Re:Homeland Security by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Homeland, Motherland, Fatherland. I, too, have been disturbed by this phrase entering the American lexicon.

      One should be careful about taking action to protect a land. Better that you should take action to protect your neighbors. At least then you know who you're fighting for.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    51. Re:Homeland Security by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Hey, nice of you to get both my nationality and my gun views totally wrong in your rush to jump to conclusions. I happen to agree with your Second Amendment entirely. The problem is a few morons who don't know how to lock guns away from their kids.

      And as for being European, try somewhere a little closer to home.

    52. Re:Homeland Security by randmairs · · Score: 1

      ...and they are looking for the authority to hire and fire at will. Either your a good ole boy or your a pile of dung. Something smells.

    53. Re:Homeland Security by joshki · · Score: 2
      Without a well defined entity to declare war upon, there should be no war declared. War is a drastic and extreme measure to be reserved for a threat to our nation's sovereign existance.

      Good point -- but I have to disagree in this instance. I think the reason that we didn't declare war on the country of Afghanistan is primarily that we didn't have any beef with the regular people there. Their government had been taken over by terrorists, and I think we did the right thing by singling out terrorism as the target of our military actions instead of saying we were declaring war on a specific country. I know it's a semantic difference, but I think it's an important one in this case. We had no intention of taking over their country -- simply overthrowing a regime that was owned and controlled by a known terrorist.

      You are correct, however that terrorism is poorly defined. I would not be surprised if congress moves at some time in the near future to correct this, as we have a de-facto declaration of war against a non-entity right now.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    54. Re:Homeland Security by bogado · · Score: 2
      Luke Skywalker was a terrorist.

      I find very amusing that revolting against a dictatorship ruled by an "evil" master is ok (SW reference) and revolting against an "evil" nation that is funding dictatorships or civil wars, so that the oil can be explored easily, is the most evil that you can get.

      The problem with the american people is that they don't even realize what the west-world is doing to that part of the globe. Shure I do belive that we should bane all guns, from the one in your drawer to the ones in the military personal. It is an utopia, and I know it, but I will suport every step in this direction. This don't mean that I will quickly jump into comclusions and say that all alfaganistan person with a gun is an "evil" person.

      And to finish my rant, why do every thing has be "evil" or "good"? The world is not a dungeons and dragons game, what is evil to one person is not evil to others. The wolrd is not black and white, it isn't even a gray scale, the world is colored.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    55. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, 33,000 is enough to encourage people to go into the minefields where some of them landed... Probably wouldn't have worked as well if there had been enough for the number of people in the country.

    56. Re:Homeland Security by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".

      I assume you're talking about the detainees in Cuba. I'm also pretty sure the original poster was talking about arabs living here in the US on visa, which actually have not been charged with anything. See this cnn story for the latest.

      I'm also disapointed to see that, just like the terrorists, you lack basic respect for human life.

    57. Re:Homeland Security by FallLine · · Score: 2
      The relatively recent Freedom of Information Act was a great step towards reducing the opacity of our federal institutions. I must praise the Clinton Administation for letting that through, as the FBI has abused its power in the past, and we must not allow the U.S. to become a police state. As for liberty vs security, the burden of proof should be on the government institutions: exactly how do further restrictions on our current freedoms provide us with more security? If the previous laws weren't being properly enforced, how does adding new stricter laws help the situation?
      I disagree. Yes, FOIA has in some cases performed some good services, but it has also created inestimable problems. It sounds fine in theory, but the trouble is that it doesn't scale. When the various agencies are forced to cope with thousands of them, it presents a very large burden. When they are forced with the choice of spending millions of dollars litigating to keep something out of the world's eye, it may (and indeed has in many cases) forced them to reveal very questionable sources. What's more, taking each particular item on its own may sound like nothing, but there is a real problem when you create such a large body of public documents that the critical information can be trivially gleaned. For instance, it may not be a big deal to list the tencile strength of one bolt on a particular dam (and there may even be a good reason for knowing it), but when every spot of every dam in the country can be quickly and easily queried to find the weakest point, THAT is a real problem. Without acts like FOIA, the same terrorist would have to spend millions of dollars trying to query this same data to perform his attack on a budget.

      If the previous laws weren't being properly enforced, how does adding new stricter laws help the situation? Confiscating nail clippers does not improve the safety of airline passengers. A terrorist armed with only a bowie knife could not hijack a plane that contains at least 10 unarmed yet able-bodied passengers. A suicidal terrorist with an explosive would have better odds, but then, explosives are already illegal on planes. See, it is easy to prove that the right to board a public plane with a souvenier hand grenade is worth sacrificing for the security of the passengers on the flight. Now, why exactly can't I have a plastic knife to cut my microwave chicken?
      I pretty much agree with this. In fact, I would say it's more than just not helpful, it's hurtful. When we spend our resources trying to keep nail clippers out of the hands of 80 year old grandmothers, we're wasting resources that could be better spent on far more probable threats. That said, this is NOT what slashdot is attacking the Administration, for by and large, and these kinds of decisions (they often aren't any sort of policy) are generally quite far removed from the Bush or his direct reports.
    58. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a relatively and crucial point that has been ignored is that while the 9-11 attacks WERE committed by the members of the minority that was blamed, the attack in Germany WAS NOT committed by those for whom it was blamed.

      As a matter of interest, do you think that if you'd been a German citizen at that time that you'd be asserting that the attack WAS NOT committed by the communists or that it WAS? You may wish to take into account the extent to which you have personally verified any evidence in the modern attacks.

    59. Re:Homeland Security by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      To compare the US and Nazi Germany is simply the height of insanity.

      Agreed, doesn't he know what will happen when the Department of Homeland Security hear he said that?

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    60. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      I lack respect for the life of a human who has made a conscious decision to eliminate other human lives.

      My physics teacher once said something to our class after 9-11: "You have the right to make decisions for yourself, but be prepared for the consequences. You're given enough rope to hang yourself with. You have the freedom to do what you want, but if you decide to kill, rape, steal, or assault others, don't be surprised if the rest of us want you dead or in jail."

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    61. Re:Homeland Security by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      One man's flaws are another's features.

      I'm far from a liberatarian, but it scares me shitless that a nitwit from Texas can steamroller over 213 years of legal tradition to combat a deliberately nebulous foe.

      It's been tried before. You might remember the Red Scare. How about the Volstead act. Or the internment of the Japanese in WWII. They all seemed like good ideas at the time. They all collided with the letter and legal tradition of the Constitution. They all were viewed in later years to be absolute travesties.

      BTW our federal government is, by the classical definition, a weak form of government. It is given a finite number of powers, spelled out by the consitition.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    62. Re:Homeland Security by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      And as i've said, the people we are detaining (who you would like dead) don't even have any charges filed against them, and most are not suspected terrorists.

      So if we kill innocent people (which we have already done in the 'war against terrorism'), we should also be prepared if their families want us dead or in jail.

      Maybe the families of innocent people we are holding without charges in the US (not in cuba) want to see those responsible for it in jail too. What your teacher said works both ways you know.

      Also, you may want to ask your math teacher if two wrongs make a right.

    63. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      And as i've said, the people we are detaining (who you would like dead) don't even have any charges filed against them, and most are not suspected terrorists.

      But apparently, all were CAUGHT shooting at Coalition troops...oops, not all, I believe 3 of them were caught while planting a bomb in Kabul.

      So if we kill innocent people (which we have already done in the 'war against terrorism'), we should also be prepared if their families want us dead or in jail.

      Please, tell me when your country has developed a methodology that creates at least 0 Collateral Damage. Where ever you come from, your country has caused collateral damage (which is the technical term for the deaths of non-combatants).

      Maybe the families of innocent people we are holding without charges in the US (not in cuba) want to see those responsible for it in jail too. What your teacher said works both ways you know.

      You know, the people held in the US are generally held there for violating US law, in all seriousness. They aren't just randomly picked, all the US detainees are people who have been living here with expired Visas. Yes, that is a violation of law.

      Also, you may want to ask your math teacher if two wrongs make a right.

      The saddest thing in this world is when good people allow bad things to happen. If you want to claim to be good and allow people to violate US law and live in our US with no papers, that's fine. And if you want to let the Taliban western-haters(Yes, they hate the whole west, not just the US. They hate all technology that's been developed since the Koran was written, unless it helps it kill people) to run loose, that's your choice. I don't want them around.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    64. Re:Homeland Security by cosmosis · · Score: 2

      I only have to say this in response to everyone who has a problem of me comparing the current administration to the Nazi's - what else can you compare it to. Name me one other administration that desires that all of its neighbors spy on one another and report "suspicious" activity to the authorities, and now want to intern American Citizens in concentration camps. Read it here:

      http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-turley14aug14.story

    65. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 2

      Being the particular brand of slashdot surfing geek I am, I can't help but relate Freedom of Information to Free Software. Sorry, I tried to succumb to fear in response to your dam example, but my naive idealism won out.

      See, if a foreign terrorist can easily query the dams across the nation, then a curious nerd living near the dam should be able to do the same thing. So not only can federal employees more easily access this information, but locals with a vested interest can also browse through this info. At this point, Johnny can find the previously concealed flaw in the dyke, and put his figurative finger in it. Or more likely, publicise the flaw, get his local congressman interested in it, and actually start the process of fixing the shortcoming.

      Of course concrete is a bit more troublesome than C code, but exploiting superstructures is also more difficult than the standard stack overflow. While running the latest 'sploit can be almost anonymous, probably at least a few nosy bystanders would notice if somebody were trying to destroy a dam.

      +++

      Then again, maybe I'm not the typical Slashdotter, because I am a registered Republican who tends to vote my party. I really don't think that these inane policies come from Bush. I am dissapointed in the federalization of airline security. There should be federal standards, but they should be enforced by the local state authorities.

    66. Re:Homeland Security by FallLine · · Score: 2
      Being the particular brand of slashdot surfing geek I am, I can't help but relate Freedom of Information to Free Software.
      And your point is what exactly? Ok, I disagree with this beloved interpretation of free software, but let's examine it for a moment. Shall we? Would you really argue that because free software is "good", that therefore all software should be "free"? Would you assert that the burden should be on all non-free software makers to prove why they should not be free? I would hope not, because it would be disasterous. Yet, this is essentially what FOIA demands. By creating the default position that these things must be, without putting any substantial burden on the requester, you are putting a very large burden on the agencies and consequently on society as a whole.

      See, if a foreign terrorist can easily query the dams across the nation, then a curious nerd living near the dam should be able to do the same thing. So not only can federal employees more easily access this information, but locals with a vested interest can also browse through this info. At this point, Johnny can find the previously concealed flaw in the dyke, and put his figurative finger in it. Or more likely, publicise the flaw, get his local congressman interested in it, and actually start the process of fixing the shortcoming.

      Of course concrete is a bit more troublesome than C code, but exploiting superstructures is also more difficult than the standard stack overflow. While running the latest 'sploit can be almost anonymous, probably at least a few nosy bystanders would notice if somebody were trying to destroy a dam.
      I think this is a real stretch. The trouble is that you ignore the vastly different nature of the what the two parties might attempt. The terrorist needs only to find a weak point, not even necessarily a flaw, out of the documents. Whereas the public cannot be of much use unless they spend the resources to examine most or all of the structure(s) and have the technical know-how to really understand it. I simply don't believe that the public has or will ever be inclined to take up this sort of cause--it's just too much work for a very marginal benefit. Sure, maybe there are a handful of geeks out there that might be inclined to examine a few bolts, so to speak, and maybe they'd even get lucky...but it's a stretch. If this sort of interest exists, then surely we can arrange it in a more secure fashion. Surely we can control access and know who is looking at what. If that local geek wants to see it, then we need not share it with the whole world. Surely if the public actually has the resources to UNDERSTAND and USE those documents, then they must have ENERGY to do a little more than just pick it up with their web browser (e.g., go through the courts, arrange a more secure system, etc). Raising the bar just a little across the board can go along way towards making it harder for terrorists while doing virtually nothing to inhibit the public from legitimate uses of the information. It's not an all or nothing proposition--I simply believe that FOIA is too far reaching and too much of a burden.

      Then again, maybe I'm not the typical Slashdotter, because I am a registered Republican who tends to vote my party. I really don't think that these inane policies come from Bush. I am dissapointed in the federalization of airline security. There should be federal standards, but they should be enforced by the local state authorities.
      I am also a Republican and I don't necessarily advocate federalized airline security. Certainly having government employees do security, whether they be municipal, state, or federal, doesn't make me feel any better. However, I don't see federal airline security as a threat (given the # of other federalized agencies) and I certainly don't see any benefit to having a bunch of seperate state agencies. Why should airline security agencies (those that supervise) be run on a state level any more than the FAA, SEC, FCC, and other similar agencies and bureaus should be run at a state level? It's a national problem. It's on national scale....
    67. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      The problem with the american people is that they don't even realize what the west-world is doing to that part of the globe.

      How do you figure? Is it because our government keeps doing it? Like I've said before is that most Americans don't support every military action we've ever participated in. Its not a matter of showing support or disgust, either, if the DMCA and the Drug War is any indication. What you may be mistaking with also, is that we don't abuse our veterans for taking part in an action. Mistakes made by people who go to jail (yes, the people who make mistakes go to prison for causing collateral damage. you don't get it on your news because the military doesn't like to "wash its dirty underwear in public") should be left to those who made the mistakes. The medics, well-trained ground troops, and the other men and women who risked their life for an ideal (even if the government wasn't trying to protect that ideal, the soldier fights for it in most cases).

      I do belive that we should bane all guns, from the one in your drawer to the ones in the military personal. It is an utopia, and I know it, but I will suport every step in this direction.

      Well, tell me when humanity matures to the point where weapons and defense are no longer necessary. Tell me when there are no murderers, rapists, theives, and armed robbers. Tell me when countries are no longer run by men who seek to murder and destroy and oppress. Tell me when.

      And to finish my rant, why do every thing has be "evil" or "good"? The world is not a dungeons and dragons game, what is evil to one person is not evil to others. The wolrd is not black and white, it isn't even a gray scale, the world is colored.

      Was the Holocaust evil? If some country threw a nuke at New York just to kill people, would that be evil? If a man captures 20 women, tosses them into a prison and one-by-one force-rapes them then chops them into little pieces, forcing the last one to eat the entrails of the other women...would that be evil? I think there are a few "evils" in this world, still.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    68. Re:Homeland Security by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      But apparently, all were CAUGHT shooting at Coalition troops...oops, not all, I believe 3 of them were caught while planting a bomb in Kabul.

      God damn you are dense. THOSE detainees were caught in Afganistan after we invaded it, and are now being held in Cuba. The group I am refering to (and the CNN article refers to) are arabs living in the US that were rounded up just after 9/11 and BEFORE our invasion of Afganistan. Now, how can a group arrested before we attacked have been shooting at coalition troups before they were even there?

      So get it straight; the detainees to which you were refering to are not the ones the original poster was refering to, and are the same ones you want 'hung by thier balls'

      Please, tell me when your country has developed a methodology that creates at least 0 Collateral Damage. Where ever you come from, your country has caused collateral damage (which is the technical term for the deaths of non-combatants).

      As far as i know the US has not developed such weapons. Even if the US has good reasons to invade another country, do you think thats going to change the mind of someone who's parents ended up being 'collateral damage'? That term is also a callose disreguard for life. Its a PC way to say 'we killed innocent people by accident.' At any rate, i know i'd be pissed if my parents were killed by another country, even if i was glad they were removing an oppresive govt. The fact that i'm now free doesn't mean i won't be missing my parents.

      You know, the people held in the US are generally held there for violating US law, in all seriousness. They aren't just randomly picked, all the US detainees are people who have been living here with expired Visas. Yes, that is a violation of law.

      No kidding. However, even if you are being held for violation of the law, you have certain rights. One of those rights is that people must be informed you're being held, or at the very least when asked the gov't must tell you if someone is held. You also cannot be held indefinatly and without a charge. Some are being held on visa violations. Fine. actually if thats the case, ship them out. But from what i've read, most have not been charged with anything. THAT is a violation of the law as well. Try brushing up on the Bill of Rights sometime.

      The saddest thing in this world is when good people allow bad things to happen. If you want to claim to be good and allow people to violate US law and live in our US with no papers, that's fine.

      I'm not saying that at all. But if you arrest someone, you must charge them with something. If they are found to be here without the right papers, the answer is simple. Send them back to whichever country they came from.

      And if you want to let the Taliban western-haters(Yes, they hate the whole west, not just the US. They hate all technology that's been developed since the Koran was written, unless it helps it kill people) to run loose, that's your choice.

      They have every right to hate the west. Its when they try to kill someone that its a problem. They can run around and hate us all they want, as long as they stay out of the US.

    69. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      God damn you are dense. THOSE detainees were caught in Afganistan after we invaded it, and are now being held in Cuba. The group I am refering to (and the CNN article refers to) are arabs living in the US that were rounded up just after 9/11 and BEFORE our invasion of Afganistan. Now, how can a group arrested before we attacked have been shooting at coalition troups before they were even there?

      The ones held in the US are being held as violators of US immigration laws (i.e.: Staying in the country on a expired visa). So, I don't know what people are saying they haven't been charged with.

      As far as i know the US has not developed such weapons. Even if the US has good reasons to invade another country, do you think thats going to change the mind of someone who's parents ended up being 'collateral damage'? That term is also a callose disreguard for life. Its a PC way to say 'we killed innocent people by accident.' At any rate, i know i'd be pissed if my parents were killed by another country, even if i was glad they were removing an oppresive govt. The fact that i'm now free doesn't mean i won't be missing my parents.

      No, we haven't, neither have you, so, please, don't act like your country has no blood on it's hands. And speaking as the victim of a Turkish Terrorist incedent, I don't get all saddened when people say "collateral damage". Yes, it's callous, you know what? I don't expect the world to feel the pain I do. I'm not an emotional co-dependant with the citizens of this planet.

      However, even if you are being held for violation of the law, you have certain rights. One of those rights is that people must be informed you're being held, or at the very least when asked the gov't must tell you if someone is held. You also cannot be held indefinatly and without a charge. Some are being held on visa violations. Fine. actually if thats the case, ship them out.

      What? And let them off scott-free? What does that say? "Break our immigration laws, and the trip back is free!"

      They have every right to hate the west. Its when they try to kill someone that its a problem. They can run around and hate us all they want, as long as they stay out of the US

      But when they come into the US, you have no problem giving them airfare back?

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    70. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 2

      Whatever my view on Free Software versus prprietary software, the US governments are specifically for the people, by the people. Nothing the US government takes part in (ideally) should have the same motivations as a private company. I didn't say anything about good or bad, I left the first sentence vague, so that the following paragraphs could address the benefits of treating a Free government similar to Free Software. Even if non-Free Software developers don't have to justify why thier software isn't free, the US government should have this burden. US citizens don't live to serve the state, the state exists for the people, by the people. If something can't be justified to the people, it should not be sponsored by the state.

      Yes, I agree that it might be a strech to compare methods of Free software development to methods of maintaining a Republic. This is why I confessed that I am a particular brand of Slashdot geek, to imply that my views may be unusual. Nonetheless, I find your rebuttal to be lacking:
      What is the difference between a weak point and a flaw?
      The public doesn't have to be of justifiable use to the government, it's the other way around. Of course most of the public won't have the technical background for that one specific example, but there are many people of many backgrounds who may be concerned in many aspects of public works which intimately affect their daily lives. Engineers aren't the only people "of much use". Yes, it's a strech that a concerned citizen might be "lucky" enough to find a flaw in a local structre, but it is also a strech that a protagonist would find and choose to exploit that same weakness.

      Now who gets to decide "legitimate" uses of information? If I live under a dam, then mere interest in the quality of it's construction should be sufficient. Maybe I am this engineer with the training to comprehend that a dam has an architectural flaw. How am I to know that this fabled bolt even exists? I must petition the courts to allow me to see if bolts were used in the construction of this dam, so that I may decide if my experience is applicable to this dam. Then I can convince the judge that this particular brand of bolts are my field of specialty, so they should reveal the locations of each bolt to me, so that I may then measure the bolts' efficacy? Anti-terrorist efforts (or hostile computer exploits) aren't the only valid reason for open review of information. Perhaps there are circumstances that were not foreseen at the time of this dam's construction. A new finding in materials science, or a change in the weather patterns, for example, could have adverse affects on the dam, and if the documentaion is sealed nobody would know about it until the dam failed. Without knowledge of the current system, how could any private citizen be able to design a more secure system?
      If by raising the bar, you mean more beaurocracy, red tape, and government secrecy, then I must disagree with you. If the government is truly for the people, then the FOIA is a necessary burden.

      I didn't mean to advocate state run airline security agencies. Each state should decide on their own how to address their security needs, be it through a private company, a government agency, or sticking their heads in the sand. Each state should have the option to impose policy and regulations on the chosen system, just like the federal government should have a written policy to be enforced by each state as they see fit. The US Constitution addresses global problems on a national scale, and each United State is tasked to uphold the Constitution as they interpret it.

    71. Re:Homeland Security by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Bush senior wanted to overthrow Hussein and even called on Iraqi ppl to rebel but the US could not help b/c of UN pressures, they were left swinging in the wind.

      During the 90's I really was more concerned with "boxers or briefs" than the Middle East conflicts

      That's real nice.

    72. Re:Homeland Security by bogado · · Score: 2
      How do you figure?


      Yes, yes, I guess you are right, and I am doing exactly what I was acusing others of. :-) All my rant is based in the stereotype I see in movies, TV and news. I don't realy know to many americans to be shure of anything. My comment was more of an "moment" unthought thingy. And I would like to apologise, to you and all the other I may have offended.


      Well, tell me when humanity matures to the point where weapons and defense are no longer necessary.


      As I said before, it is a utopia, and like all utopia it is in my opinion unreachable. But I do believe that people should not have fire arms in their houses. Shure police force and military, must have them (unfortunaly in my opinion, mainly when you live in a country with a badly trained and corrupt police force, like Brasil).


      Was the Holocaust evil?

      I didn't say that there is no evil in the world, all I said it is relative. I do think, for instance, that all wars are evil, it dosen't mean that for other peoples some wars could be justified. I don't believe that smoking maryhuanea is evil, some people do.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    73. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      I would like to apologise, to you and all the other I may have offended.

      Apology accepted and sorry to all the Europeans I offended.

      I didn't say that there is no evil in the world, all I said it is relative. I do think, for instance, that all wars are evil, it dosen't mean that for other peoples some wars could be justified. I don't believe that smoking maryhuanea is evil, some people do.

      Everyone can agree that war for the sake of war is evil. War with the purpose of removing a man who kills his own people and doesn't give them the right to vote is a little less evil, I think.

      I'd just like to say one more thing. People say "They only want to do war with Saddam to get a guy who'll be more generous with the oil." I'd like to remind them that current foreign policy, which our president agrees with, does not allow us to buy from Saddam. Not because he doesn't want to (he does). But because for the last several years, we've been practicing "containment", as suggested by our European peers. Apparently, it's not working. I doubt there's a regime more willing to sell us oil than a man desperate for American dollars. But it doesn't matter. He kills his own people, he plans on using Nukes and Biological/Chemical weapons. He needs to go.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    74. Re:Homeland Security by castlan · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I was too dry. Maybe I should have used an Emoticon to convey my sarcasm, which was referring to Clinton's appearance on an MTV presidential Q+A session. I guess I fugured you would infer my tone from the rest of my post, which to my inner monologue sounds rather harsh against the dynamic between popular youth culture of the '90s and William Clinton.

      Bush Sr refused to participate with MTV, turning the kids against him. Clinton was asked if he inhaled... he said no, but that was because he didn't know that he was supposed to, and if he had the chance again, he would. I can honestly say that during the General elections, and during the 8 years afterwards, I never once wondered about the former president's choice of undergarments. Not even during the sexual scandals did the thought occur to me.

      As for Mr Hussein, I now confess that I actually am mildly curious. Does Fruit of the Loom export to Iraq? Is desert sand a problem? Oh, forget about it.

      Back to reality, Is anybody concerned about the next generation of Husseins? Bush has his golden child in office now, what about Saddam's son? I don't mean the Jeb, I mean the scary one, who grew up witnessing his father's sadism, and is eager to follow in hs footsteps.

    75. Re:Homeland Security by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I was too dry.

      I understand, it's hard to convey intention without a face or at least a voice to go along w/ the comments.

      As for Mr Hussein, I now confess that I actually am mildly curious. Does Fruit of the Loom export to Iraq?

      Sweet merciful crap, I just got a mental picture pop into my head of Hussein in bikini breifs, skipping along a shoreline. Thanks a bunch.

      Back to reality, Is anybody concerned about the next generation of Husseins? Bush has his golden child in office now, what about Saddam's son? I don't mean the Jeb, I mean the scary one, who grew up witnessing his father's sadism, and is eager to follow in hs footsteps.

      Yes, this is certainly an argument for his forceful removal, unfortunately the UN probably can't even agree what they're ordering out for in their meetings let alone agree on having to remove a dictator while they were already in the midst of pushing his army back from Kuwait.
      So, fast fwd to now, he supposedly is building up a killer arsenal of devastating weapons (and he's tested it on his ppl before).
      I personally would like him to be forced to surrender to UN inspection teams so the US doesn't look like the bad guy, "sticking" our nose in everyones business. But I've hear he's got trucks driving around constantly with his weapons, so that inspectors can't find them in installations.

    76. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man, what is going throught your head is some fucked up shit. Are you living in a pretend world of videogames and shit. You have no respect and decency concerning human life and that is what this fucking country wants you to think so they can "protect" US interests around the world by first:
      sending poor people and especially poor people of color to go die. (55% of Us frontline troups in the gulf war were people of color) Think about this. You really should. We are killing off our young blacks, hispanics, asians, mative americans and even poop white folks! Look, for people of color, things are fucked up at home, so why should we go fight wars on foreign land when we don't have decent housing, education that caters to our needs, as well as surviving within an institutionaly racist decadent system?
      Second: We are fighting wars nations of color-we send our young people of color to go kill other people of color in order to maintain our capitalistic global superstructure in place dominated by old white men.
      Such is life.

    77. Re:Homeland Security by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The ones held in the US are being held as violators of US immigration laws (i.e.: Staying in the country on a expired visa). So, I don't know what people are saying they haven't been charged with.

      Some have been yes, but not all. Some have not been charged. Perhaps if you had been keeping up with the story you'd know that.

      No, we haven't, neither have you, so, please, don't act like your country has no blood on it's hands. And speaking as the victim of a Turkish Terrorist incedent, I don't get all saddened when people say "collateral damage". Yes, it's callous, you know what? I don't expect the world to feel the pain I do. I'm not an emotional co-dependant with the citizens of this planet.

      I never said the US hadn't. And you're right, that is pretty callous. Which proves my point; you have not reguard for human life. Being in a terror attack, i would think that you wouldn't want people to go through what you did. Being upset about collateral damage doesn't have anything to do with feeling sorry for you, its about being upset that it has happened to someone else. But you obviously don't care. I bet you would have rather someone let you die instead of helping you after the attack. Or doesn't it work both ways?

      What? And let them off scott-free? What does that say? "Break our immigration laws, and the trip back is free!"

      I really don't care if they are punished. Deportation seems a reasonable and fair punishment for breaking immigration law. And its probably cheaper to send them back then to house them and feed them indefinatly. And pay for any litigation costs..

      But when they come into the US, you have no problem giving them airfare back?

      Better that then letting them blow something up here..

    78. Re:Homeland Security by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      First off, learn to type intellegently. It helps you get modded up.

      Secondly, don't post anon if you want to say something controversial. It makes you look like a flamebaiting troll.

      Third, name one "white" country, as you've so racially polarized that sends its own people off to die here for their own personal benefit. Or that spend millions to develop WMD's to point at our indecent housing and our standardized education.

      Fourth, the world is as racist as you want to believe. I'm native american. I don't need you to protect me from the evil white man. I don't think the white man has this big conspiracy to destroy my life. I DO believe, however, that those in this world who have not succeeded have done so due to their lack of initiative and poorly thought out decisions. I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do expect them to learn from them. If you make credit mistake after credit mistake, and go into bankruptcy twice...it isn't a white man's conspiracy nor is it a racially decadent system that keeps you from getting that Platinum Card.

      The people who keep racism alive in this country are the men and women who strive to separate the races by saying that those who have done nothing are racist. People like Jesse Jackson are the most racist people on the planet, and I'm offended, everytime they speak of me like I'm a victim. I've succeeded under my own merits. My friend Tonya, a black girl raised in one of the poorest cities in Georgia, succeeded and is currently studying to be a Genetic Scientist. I've never seen any individual with the drive and initiative to make their dreams come true fail in their endeavor.

      People need to take responsibility in this world, or we'll all be wallowing in the mistakes of the past.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
  7. Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Bit-o-background before I get hated and flamed:

    Been with the scene since Dos 3.0 and ZModem, use and love Linux, programmed for 5 years in NYC... hate DRM and DMCA for the freedoms they take away, 2600 should have won their court case in regards to DeCSS...

    So why do I want a National ID card? Because right now, show a NY cop an out-of-state ID that is HORRIBLY fake, and he will almost never be able to reconize it. Scores of states (like 50 or something, right?) and scores of ID's all different. It makes no sence. With a standard, everyone would be familiar with it, and security measures would be better. They would! I know I know... "better like SSL assh0le" I might hear... but I would say "better like US currency". Imagine if every state had it's own dollar bill like it used to? Sometimes standards make a good base. LSB comes to mind. If someone gets smart and included eyeball biomentric (cause every other can be easily faked) then the system might work.

    And if you think that the "feds" might get at your pr0n or your precious hard drive with a national id, it's nothing they can't do anyway already. I could see only benefits. What would a national ID do in terms of taking away freedoms? Nothing I can see, though I'd love to learn something new.

    1. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by soapvox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A national ID card isn't bad, its the data they want to associate with it, but then do I need a national id card and a state drivers license??? I had no ID before i had my DL, do we require everyone over the age of 12 to get a national ID card??? Alot of issues come up, plus its just one more peg of making us more centralized and less free for the states to make laws and placing our fates in a bunch of politicians who don't give a shit about us.

    2. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by t0qer · · Score: 2

      Been with the scene since Dos 3.0 and ZModem

      Try goin back to 300 baud and those good ol atari atasci 8 bit days :P

      My only rebute to your statement is history has shown, anything that can be made can be cloned, humans included. I would hate for someone to use my ID to commit a crime.

    3. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe I don't want to be recognized by the NY cop? Maybe its none of his business who I am, its not like the police are some great benevolent association.

      What about women going to bars? Women are vain, but that's not the point, women like to lie about their age. Some women look *a lot* younger than they are, decades even. When a girl like that shows her real ID to get into a bar, invariably the id-checker will say something like, "you can't really be [insert real age here] old" thus telling all her companions her real age. (I've seen it happen many times) Now, get a fake out-of-state id with an age that looks about right for the girl and voila, no more stupid, privacy invading exclamations by ignorant minimum-wage flunkies.

      There are lots of not-illegal reasons to make the truth about you hard to discern. That's the freedom we've had so far and it has worked out JUST FINE so far. Sure it has its drawbacks, but FREEDOM IS NOT FREE and never will be. But once you give up your freedom to this kind of fear-mongering you ain't ever going to get it back again.

    4. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem is, why do you need to show your ID to a police officer?

      But what happens when you have to show it everyplace you go? what happens if you change a pattern of behaviour and it sets of a red flag and suddenly your being investigated?

      This sort of stuff happens in russia. Back during the cold war, the USSR would do this, and that was w/o computers.

      eyeballs change with time. Plus the same way you would fake an eyeball, is the sameway you would fake a thumb print, by changing the data on the card.

      We, are a country of Independent states, with, what is supposed to be, very specific guidlines on what the feder government can do. Are fore-fathers knew that a central government that controls everything is bad for personal freedom.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by GlassUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we need to have a national ID? Why not just a federal minimum standard for ID cards, like data field locations, orientation, picture type, etc?

    6. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by baudbarf · · Score: 1

      "In politics as well as society, a little revolution is good every now and then." - Thomas Jefferson

      Jefferson's view was that periodic revolution is healthy for democracy. After being in power for a while, a government tends to forget what it originally stood for, as our seems to be starting to do.

      I'm against big brotherism because, while our government still does seem to have our best interests in mind, we can't let them limit our ability to revolt, just in case they decide to do something that we, the people, disagree with.

      This is why we still desperately cling to our right to bear arms, because someday, we may need them to protect ourselves from a government who we slowly allowed to nickel-and-dime our human rights from us.

      Americans must ALWAYS maintain their power to join together and overcome the government if it is to stop serving us. I'm not suggesting that we do so, by any means, but if we lose our option to unite and fight, then we've lost our right to anything. And these things don't happen quickly, they happen gradually; most people don't tend to notice.

      Some people seem to think that reduction of freedom is temporary. What, do you think that in ten years, the US Government is gonna say,"Okay everybody, thanks for your patience! We're gonna stop wiretapping you now, we're gonna restrain ourselves again and respect your privacy, since the terrorist threat is long dead!"??

      "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler

      --
      You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
    7. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by phraktyl · · Score: 2
      eyeballs change with time. Plus the same way you would fake an eyeball, is the sameway you would fake a thumb print, by changing the data on the card.


      And here I thought it was to chop of the guy's thumb or poke his eye out...
      --
      Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
    8. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Funny


      Those abuses might happen in Russia, but that would never happen in the United States.

    9. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by aralin · · Score: 2

      Well, patern of behaviour, hmmm when did I hear that? Oh yeah, I remember, few days ago when I got back from a trip to L.A. and found 8 calls from my bank to verify that its really me spending my money. I could feel more safe or I could feel my privacy is invaded by someone watching my behaviour paterns.

      Well, you be the judge...

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    10. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      But what happens when you have to show it everyplace you go? what happens if you change a pattern of behaviour and it sets of a red flag and suddenly your being investigated?

      I don't need to show my state ID "everyplace I go". If I change my behavior, it doesn't set off any flags in my state government, even though I am forced to carry a state-issued ID at (essentially) all times.

      Why would having a federal ID change any of this?

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    11. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2

      I personally would not complain. better they call you now, than ignore it when some fool steals your credit card and goes on a shopping spree in Seattle.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    12. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Those abuses might happen in Russia, but that would never happen in the United States.
      ----- ... just ask Dmitry ...

    13. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is... having a national ID does not lead to the other effects that you mentioned!

      What happens when you have to show it everyplace? What happened was that *something else* changed, not the existence of a national ID, but a more significant survillance.

      In other words, you take what *may* be a perfectly reasonable measure for *personal security* (it might greatly reduce identity theft) and conflate it with police state behavior and then use that to condemn the technological measure.

      Besides, we already have a national ID card in the US. It is called your drivers' license. Oops... it isn't national. BUT... that problem IMHO hurts the citizenry more than having a national one! It allows all sorts of fraud, because of its lack of standardization. And... it doesn't protect you one bit unless you are a criminal... because all of those drivers licenses are in the same database (or accessible through the same switch) just like a national ID owuld be.

      Let's not get too knee-jerk about security measures. Some are important. Furthermore, we are in a new age - where a single individual, through technology, may be more dangerous than an entire military fleet or division was in the past. In a world like we now live in, we may need different security measures than we have had in the past.

      The key to avoiding totalitarianism is not simply attacking every change in policing and security techniques. It is in fighting those which have no value, and more importantly, it is in fighting those who would actually engage in totalitarian practices.

      The ID isn't the problem. Someone who would track innocent people for nefarious purposes is the problem. Prevent the latter, not the former. P

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    14. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Once someone clones your ass, you're fucked anyway. Didn't you see the Shwarznegger movie, the 6th day or something like that? Seriously.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    15. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. So SSN isnt used all other the place , just as mr R. promissed. Good. Now i could sleep well.

    16. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2

      Because right now, show a NY cop an out-of-state ID that is HORRIBLY fake, and he will almost never be able to reconize it. Scores of states (like 50 or something, right?) and scores of ID's all different. It makes no sence.

      There is actually a very interesting advantage to the scores of different ID cards--it gives counterfeiters 50 different things to counterfeit. Sure everyone is gonna take a crack at the kindergartner can do it New Jersey photo driver's license. That hardly matters. On the other hand, take a Pennsylvania. The PA license has a devilishly hard hologram to fake--and my understanding is no one is trying to do it. On the other hand, if all the licenses were the same, and had the same hologram, that means that every single counterfeiter in this country would be putting all their effort, resources, and be discussing how to counterfeit the National ID card.

      Indeed, look at the poor bastards in California. Here we have a state that not significant changes to their licenses every two years (far more than any other state) and recently introduced a license that probably caused every counterfeiter in the nation to cream his pants. On the other hand, California has many times more counterfeiters than any other state, the license looks so good that people trust it without doubt, and the state issued a big challenge to counterfeiters everywhere, whether or not they are in California, to try it out. Somehow the less difficult Pennsylvania license goes right under the radar.

      I would also like to point out that the state of California, as I said, changes their licenses every two years to thwart counterfeiters. Not only do they not exactly succeed--but they also cause differently looking CA licenses to exist. Ohio has issued the same (butt ugly) license since 1995. California has changed at least four times since 1992, with two significant changes (at least four of those types are still valid.) So not only does your NYC cop need to know what a CA license looks like--he also has to know what four of them look like--all in the attempt to prevent unpreventable counterfeiting.

      Regrettably, few people realize this, and if they did, we wouldn't be in as stupid a situation as we are now.

    17. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > There is actually a very interesting advantage to the scores of different ID cards--it gives counterfeiters 50 different things to counterfeit.

      "Weakest link of chain" comes to mind.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    18. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      "Weakest link of chain" comes to mind.

      In some situations. underage peeps are always going to be trying to make an New Jersey license to drink. However, note the following:

      a.) no one makes a fake New Jersey license in New Jersey, since no one in the state actually trusts it (oddly enough, reducing fraud)

      b.) if you have to do something in your own state, like, banking, you need a fake license from your own state, not from another

    19. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by castlan · · Score: 2

      I will assume the opposite of Neo and venture that you feel more safe. You don't usually spend money in LA, so their suspicion is justified, and could be useful in case somebody tries to "steal your identity."

      The trouble comes when your identity is not linked to your personality and experience, but to an inhuman and distinct physical token. Human relations are the best judge of "behaivor patterns". Humans possess empathy or compassion, while machines, numbers, statistics distill the humanity out of "human rights". My citizenship is not embodied by a card, but by my person.

    20. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by castlan · · Score: 2

      How are you forced to carry a state-issued ID? Do you pass Identity checkpoints at pain of arrest?

      Owning and operating a motor vehicle, must like a gun, required licensing and registrations. Owning and operating feet, much like fists, does not.

      Private establishments may require proof of age if they offer adult oriented "vices", but that is not the same situation either.

      Having a federally uniform ID makes seemingly minor abuses of power too convienient. Consider the Social Security Number, which was explicity not intended as a national ID for non-employment purposes. Now the SSN is bandied about in public situations, and most Americans don't realize how unfortunate this can be regarding privacy or personal security. Yet try to function on a daily basis at banks, colleges, without ever using your SSN, and see how futile it is. Many institutions try to use it as your unique ID, even though it isn't "unique".

      Upon acceptance of a federal ID, you come closer to experiencing the fascism of being forced to carry your ID while in public, or risk federal penalties. Freedom and privacy are worthy ideals.

    21. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by Yokaze · · Score: 2

      > a) ...
      So, they changed to another kind of ID verification, and it reduced fraud. Assuming you meant in comparison to other states, this begs the question, why shouldn't other states drop the drivers license as ID, too.
      > b.)
      What is when you have a (valid) New Jersey drivers license. Just happen to be in different state.

      A little exaggeration:
      Family Johnson is "travelling" from Camden to Philadelphia. (A hop over a river)
      "Honey, didn't you forget your passport?"

      And what about money?

      The dollar hasn't (drastically) changed for quite some time and is in every state the same.
      There are only two printing facilities in the whole US, to guarantee a great similarity.

      Following your argumentation, all this is actually detrimental to its forgery-proofness.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    22. Re:Ok ok, here is why I WANT a national ID card... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      Following your argumentation, all this is actually detrimental to its forgery-proofness.

      Absolutely...except that forged money can only be spent by the forger once. (It order to spend it, its ownership must be relinquished.) A fake ID can be used lots of times. For that reason, currency forgery (in small amounts) doesn't pay off.

  8. Great Idea,,, but by Openadvocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I live in a place where we do have a ID card, although very low tech.
    I think this card looks cool but there is a couple of issues.
    Once this new standard is in place everywhere, image having a faulty card. With all the gadets on it, I'd say you would have to take better care of it than your PDA.

    So a lot of places would require you to show this card, like taking a loan, getting a card to renting videos, etc. Would I like every shop be able to view all the data that the card could contain. I don't think so.

    I would be good to get a single standard id, that is accepted and hard/impossible to fake and that everyone knows what look like.

    It seems to me that the current databases of information has shown to be less than 100% correct, ahrm. So it would be needed to verify each and everyone from scratch so give the card any value. What use is it that you know that the card indeed belongs to the person who carries it, if that information was wrong to begin with.

    --
    my sig
    1. Re:Great Idea,,, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be good to get a single standard id, that is accepted and hard/impossible to fake and that everyone knows what look like

      There is no reason for identification. Credit cards typically verify account information in realtime. Many places accepting checks can easily do the same thing (and some already deduct the funds from your account at the time of acceptance). Fraud could be eliminated with a simple biometic (but anonymous to all except the financial institution) device.

      The only people who NEED to identify you is the government, and their only NEED in doing so is due to their NEED to control as much of your life as they can.

      You are all slaves, and most of you don't even know it.

    2. Re:Great Idea,,, but by ArcadeNut · · Score: 2


      Well, as long as it looks cool! I'm all for it! What could possibly go wrong?

      </SARCASIM>

      --
      Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    3. Re:Great Idea,,, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessir officer... I've got my neat looking national ID card right here... yup, cool little eagle hologram huh? Scan away officer.... what?? The data is corrupted? Invalid key? Well, I *did* get it wet the other day... hey, wait! what are the cuff's for?? what do you mean I'm in the country illegally?!?!? No! I'm a citizen!! What do you mean prove it?!?! I can't now that my ID card is busted! What?? Held without bail and no charges for 9 months on 'suspicion of terrorism', wait!! Isn't that a violation of my civil liberties?? Oh.. I don't have civil liberties because my ID card is broken and I can't prove I'm a citizen?? Wait, I thought the constitution said that *ALL* men are created equal -- life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that stuff... right?? Death row??? Execution??? Military tribunal found me guilty?? How can that be!! I'm a Law abiding citizen for chrissake!!

  9. Get used to the idea by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2

    This sort of thing is coming.

    It isn't a matter of if, simply a matter of when.

    1. Re:Get used to the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, then for me the idea moving to a free country will be a matter of when rather than if as well...

    2. Re:Get used to the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a matter of if, simply a matter of when.

      I have a fast-growing lichen that can survive on ice. With a plane ticket, a boat ride, and one good Antarctic summer and I can flood your coast lines.

      Remember that supervillains are created, not born. Encouraging the events that spawn them is not generally a wise course of action.

    3. Re:Get used to the idea by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1
      Revelation 13: 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.
      No sh!t Sherlock! It was foretold nearly 2000 years ago. So were are all getting a UPC Bar code... Can they put it on the back of my head like that Dark Angel chick...
    4. Re:Get used to the idea by Temsi · · Score: 1

      Did you just say Bush is the Devil?

      --
      -- This sig for rent.
    5. Re:Get used to the idea by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

      Nope.. Clinton was... Stupid Jackass coward!

  10. I can't resist... by intermodal · · Score: 1

    "multi-pass!"

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  11. Biometric activation? by DoctorFrog · · Score: 3, Interesting
    First of all it's a silly idea to carry all your information on one card, because it's a security risk and not needed just to identify you, but it got me thinking;

    Would it be possible to include a biometric in smart credit card so that it won't swipe correctly unless my thumbprint has been put on it recently? That would stop a pickpocket from buying $200 worth of gasoline before I notice it's missing.

    You could also have a home bio-scanning device that would be needed (maybe in addition to a password) to contact your bank for skinning off disposable numbers from your credit account to shop online with. It would be worth it to people who do a lot of online purchasing, and partcularly for small home businesses.

    Bio-metric based identification systems aren't going to solve national security problems any time soon, but some of them are close enough that they could have useful applications for individuals andprivate organizations. Or are they?

    1. Re:Biometric activation? by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      Maybe you could take a scan of someones retina and use it to generate a long ID number. Then, that number would be used to indentify you to a national database.

      To buy gas, you'd use your card and verify your identity using a retinal scanner (hey, ten years ago, gas pumps didn't have card readers, either). Since your ID number is derived from your retinal pattern, it'd warn if one or the other didn't match up.

      Of course, this doesn't save you from having someone coldcock you and stuff your head up to the scanner Metal Gear Solid-style, but nothing's perfect.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:Biometric activation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't mind my medical history on the card, just so I would have to authorize the data being accessed. Let's say the medical records of tracking things like weight, blood pressure, height, etc. over your lifetime wouldn't be a bad thing. Plus there wouldn't be all of those folders at the med. office.

      And if there was an emergency, there would be info on the card that might help.

      Now if they start tracking where I go, that is another thing.

    3. Re:Biometric activation? by bluGill · · Score: 2

      I don't know about you, but my thumb print is all over my id cards. When ever someone asks to see my id I pull it out of my wallet without first putting gloves on. So now we get a id card with my thumb print on. Now all the theif needs is to finish the job is to lift the print, and put it on a false print. (See some recient stories on this, though I don't have the link)

      Biometric sounds good, and is a part of security, but it is fairly easy to fake if you want to. (Want a retnia scan, just scan the victums retna and past a picture on your forehead. Blood sample, no problem, they sample comes from a bag, not the theif, gathered earlier, until we figgure out how to create DNA.) Note that implimentation is left to the user, but a good thief will have no problem getting his own copy of the biometric data.

      That isn't to say biometric is useless. However the best security relys on something you carry (your id card), something you are (biometrics), and something you know (a pin, password, or passphrase). All 3 should be stored in a trusted location that uses security to aduit the machine wanting to identify someone before accepting data. (This security is not easy to impliment correctly! For example the machine must destroy itself before allowing someone to access data, which means that you have to renew your id every few years so the new machines know your id)

      However how much do you really need. My credit card is just one of the above: the card I carry, or the number if I memorise it. They use insurance and legal action to make sure fraud isn't a problem for the end user. My ATM card worries me more because if someone gets both my card and my pin they can get my money, and it is up to me to prove that I didn't withdraw all my cash. Even though it is more secure, I prefer not to use it because there isn't the other protections against fraud.

    4. Re:Biometric activation? by mortenf · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's a good idea.

      Instead of the data itself - biometric or otherwise - how about just a digest of some sort?

      You wouldn't need to have your data in a central registry, just go to, say, your doctor or another trusted intermediary, have your essentials scanned and the checksum/digest computed. This would then be put on the card and into a central database.

      Should you be required to identify yourself to someone, they would have to scan you and compare the digest to the one on the card and checking for existence in the central database.

      Nothing to lose, and identity theft would be impossible (although kidnapping wouldn't).

      --
      Don't make fun of my speling, english is my 2nd language...
  12. um......ok by Xzisted · · Score: 1

    but can I hack my DirecTV with it? and if so....will it tell DirecTV that I am using it for hacking?

    --

    Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
  13. PARENT NOT OBVIOUSLY A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the parent is a bit sketch on details . . . BUT for all the simpleminded naivete, Eric_Cartman_South_P doesn't deserve to be branded troll.

    Someone mod the post at least back to 1?

    (Harsh, harsh, /.'ers...)

  14. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by The_Guv'na · · Score: 2, Informative

    Winston Smith is the lead character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty Four. A highly reccommended read.

    If you keep your finger on the pulse of corporate media distortion then you'll see just how scarily close to Nineteen Eighty Four the world we live in really is. The Associated Press changes it's stories after publication to suit the suits. I need not explain the masses of new powers for those in power to snoop on us. Doublethink prevails, albeit in a more subtle form. And yes, "The proles have intellectual freedom, because they have no intellect."

    Mods please note: The "Troll" moderation was doubleplusridiculous verging crackthink!

    Ali

  15. Is it Constitutional? by MountainLogic · · Score: 5, Informative
    There was a case in the early 80s or late 70s called Larson V. California that went to the supreme court where the court held that requiring ID was not consitutional.

    The background was California had a law requiring ID. A man was stopped by police while walking down the street and for no reason ordered to produce ID. He had none and was arrested. The subtext was that he was black and the neighborhood he was in was a rich white area.

    1. Re:Is it Constitutional? by MountainLogic · · Score: 4, Informative
      Found the case, it's Kolender v. Lawson:

    2. Re:Is it Constitutional? by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      True... It's illegal (under that proceeding) to demand ID, but the way the US congress would want to go is the "added benefits" features.

      If you have the "super-we-know-where-you-are-US-power-id" you can use public transportation with only 5 minutes of hassle. If you dont have our ID, plan to wait 3 hours while we do cavity search.

      The ID crap will just make more things in government a PITA.

    3. Re:Is it Constitutional? by sweetooth · · Score: 2

      Uhm, while the convenience issue is a good way to sucker people in, more people need to be aware that no law enforcment agent can require a search without probably cause and/or a search warrant.

    4. Re:Is it Constitutional? by polymath69 · · Score: 2
      Here's the decision.

      I'm not sure how much this applies; prohibiting police from doing random ID checks is not the same as requiring ID at established security checkpoints. Who wants their every move to be in a database? Thank goodness there are not yet checkpoints at every state border crossing.

      --

      --
      I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
    5. Re:Is it Constitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you mind mentioning that to them then? I've seen people pointing that out, who are then arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer,
      and then after they're searched, the police release them without charges being filed.
      I actually remember that happening several times when I was a teen, and having committed such horriffic crimes against society as
      "walking along a street" and "waiting at a bus stop".

    6. Re:Is it Constitutional? by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but mention it to their lawyers too!

      Seriously, anyone who has taken psycology101 knows that the power we give police officers is not only easially abused, but humans tend to abuse that power. The public needs to be constantly aware of what the police are doing.

      That isn't to say that all police are bad. Most are trying to do what is right, however the nature of their job (and the bad people they have to work with) makes going over the line too tempting.

    7. Re:Is it Constitutional? by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Uhm, while the convenience issue is a good way to sucker people in, more people need to be aware that no law enforcment agent can require a search without probably cause and/or a search warrant.

      ..unless the search is of an administrative nature with a primary purpose other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecution.

      Closely-regulated businesses can be searched warrantlessly, for example. Try and imagine what would happen if the Wal-Mart told the ATF inspector where to go when he came to look at the gun rack, the dealer's inventory, and the Forms 4473.

      Similarly, places at high risk for violence can require searches for the prevention of introduction of weapons. Airports, sports arenas, and jails are classic examples. The search is a condition of entry. If you don't want to be searched, you're free to refrain from entering. I don't fly and I don't like baseball, and there's rarely anybody in jail who I have any interest in seeing again.

    8. Re:Is it Constitutional? by Kinetix303 · · Score: 1

      Last time that I checked, Walmart was a business, not a person.... ...but I could be wrong. :P

    9. Re:Is it Constitutional? by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Last time that I checked, Walmart was a business, not a person.... ...but I could be wrong. :P

      Yeah, but the person with custody of the 4473 forms and the FFL Dealer's Inventory is a person. One who can (and would) be prosecuted criminally.

      And jailed upon conviction. ATF doesn't screw around with a refusal to permit an inspection by its licensees.

  16. How does this help? by swordboy · · Score: 2

    Many of the people who want to harm this country via terrorism, have no reason to fear a national ID card. Heck, some of the 911 "terrorists" were here legally and a national ID card could not have stopped them.

    The US Gov't just wants people to feel safer so that they spend money and be a good consumer. They aren't fixing the root of the problem (which, ironically, would save us a fortune... see my sig...)

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  17. Let me get the straight... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    To combat sophisticated terrorists we are going to take all of the information required to authenticate someone out of a variety of databases scattered of agencies private and government. We are going to put them all in a single card protected with a cookie cutter encryption scheme. Then we are going to make this the preferred way to identify people!

    Come on! This is a giant step backward. Much better to run a fat pipe to all of your airports and hospitals, and have them check a database. Think of it: (at least in the US) your ATM card doesn't contain all of the data need to authenticate you. It asks the bank computer to check your pin. (That delay after you type it in, and the bleep whirr modem sound starts.) When you go to the store and use plastic, what do they do? They have the machine phone in to see if your card is valid.

    The model the works in industry is to simply store an ID number, and authenticate everything else through a centrally controlled database. The nice part is, this number can be looked up if the ID card is lost or stolen.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  18. Damn Yankee Peeg Gummint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wont even 'ave my keeds fingerprints taken. Screw ye bastids!

  19. Necesary and Propper by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Since Andrew Jackson the federal government has been overstepping its constitutional boundries little by little. "To control the mob is to control Rome; To control Rome is to control the mob". I campaigned for Bush. I actualy believed in him. Now I believe that he's no better than Adolph fucking Hitler. This Bearu of Homeland Security coupled with this new "citizen watch" (I don't remeber the offical name of the programme) put together a package that communist east germany would have been jealouse of.

    I strongly suspect that its nearing the time to invoke our moral right to alter or abolish a government when it has become destructive to the end for which it was created, a la the Declaration of Independence.

    1. Re:Necesary and Propper by betis70 · · Score: 1
      >>"citizen watch" (I don't remeber the offical name of the programme)

      I think it is called the Citizen Corps or something like that. The program is TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System).

      "Would you like to know more?"

      www.citizencorps.gov/tips.html

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    2. Re:Necesary and Propper by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      We do it every 4 years. It's called and election.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Necesary and Propper by MrHat · · Score: 1

      Recently forwarded to FOX's "America's Most Wanted".

      Am I making this up? I wish I was.

    4. Re:Necesary and Propper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I campaigned for Bush. I actualy believed in him.

      How stupid do you have to be? You must be 20 years old or something.

      I strongly suspect that its nearing the time to invoke our moral right to alter or abolish a government when it has become destructive to the end for which it was created, a la the Declaration of Independence.

      You're just an unstable crank. Here's a hint: become a nudist. Any politician who wants to take away your right to go to a nude beach is the one you don't want leading you. That's a good acid test, and if you think about it, it's a pretty good one. Probably a better way of picking a candidate than most.

      But don't go fucking starting a revolution just because you backed an asshole.

    5. Re:Necesary and Propper by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

      Well, actually I'm 18. I turned in June just past. I sighned on my voter registration i'd like to be an election day offical. I'm going to take the chance to hand out propaganda for the Libertarian and Constitution parties. And freeBSD

    6. Re:Necesary and Propper by castlan · · Score: 1

      The Constitution party? Are you a crack smoker? What do you know about them?

      As an anti-Bush Republican, the Libertarian and Constitution parties swing in opposite directions. Why don't you think things through for yourself before proselytizing others.

      Seriously, what draws you to the Constitution party? What do you know about Pat Buchanan? How do you feel about the seperation between church and state? What about firearms?

      Then again, perhaps you should ignore national politics for the time being, and focus on local politics. Frankly, whether you voted for Bush or Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, there would have been no difference. Look at the issues regarding State positions, and especially consider races in your township. Also find out your local regulations considering primary elections... and decide whether or not belonging to a main party outweighs the ramifications of belonging to a minor party. Are the minor parties active in your city? If you need political favors, can a minor party help you? Can a major party?

      -castlan

  20. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by WilliamsDA · · Score: 1

    Thanks for explaining it. I was hoping I wouldn't have to -- I was hoping that people would be intelligent enough to get it right off the bat. I guess not.

  21. Exactly how would these prevent "9/11"? by A+Rabid+Tibetan+Yak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By all accounts the last batch of terrorists had basically good documentation -- arrived with proper visas, dotted their I's and crossed their T's. So how exactly would national ID cards stop this kind of attack happening again? "Smart Visas" would probably make a heck of a lot more sense.

    I'm getting a bit sick of "The War On Terrorism (tm)" being trotted out as an universal excuse. If they want to bill the cards as cutting down on bureaucracy and red tape, or catching convicted fraudsters/thieves/etc, so be it, but otherwise, it's a bit late for kneejerk reactions.

  22. What about the Illegal... by pauly_thumbs · · Score: 0, Troll

    aliens? Do they get a smart card or are they still
    allowed to walk in and out of this country with
    impudence? The perps of september 11th were NOT
    US citizens... US citizens are not the #1 threat
    alqueda is. Stop treating citizens like criminals
    or europeans .

  23. this is not new - Virtual National ID Cards by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2
    While the notion of a single ID card issued by the federal (US) government makes me instinctively cringe, the fact is that anyone who thinks it would erode civil liberties further is kidding themselves.

    Our rights are already eroded. Blame the IT revolution.

    Any law enforcement agency (or unscrupulous third party) has always been able to gather all the info you'd see on a national ID on a person from different sources and build a "virtual ID" file for them. Back when the whole world used paper records, the process was too impractical to be done wholesale (not that that stopped people from trying). With electronic records, it became quite doable (what do you think a background check or credit check is?). A national ID would simply make it easier to snoop on a person by setting up a "one stop shop."

    America needs to wake up and be proactive on this issue. We need to protect civil liberties through establishment and enforcement of universal privacy standards rather than the patchwork of laws throughout our states. We're been living in a Fools Paradise for years, assuming that just because our data was scattered all over the place that it was protected (a twist on the "security through obscurity" belief). Fifty years ago it was only J. Edgar Hoover that had the resources to root out our secrets in all those paper records. All that computers (and now, a proposed national ID) have done is lower the bar for those with less manpower... if no less scruples.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:this is not new - Virtual National ID Cards by bsDaemon · · Score: 1
      the process was too impractical to be done wholesale (not that that stopped people from trying)

      I hear that the Nazis did a pretty good job of it thanks to their friends at IBM

    2. Re:this is not new - Virtual National ID Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote:

      Back when the whole world used paper records, the process was too impractical to be done wholesale

      BZZZT!

      Wrong!

      Incorrect!

      Many police states kept detailed records on citizens (Nazi Germany, the USSR come to mind) long before the advent of computers. Many non-police states also keep detailed information on file centrally.

      Remember that its not the data / database that is where the problem lies, it is how that data is used... I want a pony too.

  24. obvious danger by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 2
    Let's see, they are proposing that this card could contain:
    • Your USID number...Most logically your Social Security number.
    • personal data such as previous addresses, mother's maiden name

    Perfect, everything the identity thief needs to impersonate me, mess with my bank and credit-card accounts over the phone, and so on.

    I'm generally not a paranoid privacy freak, but come on, this is just obviously stupid!

    --

    "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
  25. Wouldn't smart card be a security risk? by scoile · · Score: 1

    Seems like the card isn't even necessary. Simply scan biometric information (fingerprint, retena, voice) and feed the scan to some central server, which simply replies "citizen" or "non-citizen".

    Putting the credentials on the card itself allows forgery and tampering, which means we're right back where we started. If all that information is to be stored, it should be stored somewhere else.

    If a national ID system is put in place, the *ONLY* thing it should allow someone to check is citizenship. All this medical history and other crap is bad, becuase someone, somehow, will eventually break into the system and misuse the information.

  26. As long as it doesn't have my web history, by sup4hleet · · Score: 1

    I should be fine. </JOKE>

  27. Already got one!! by westies-from-hell · · Score: 1
    This has been out for a while now. It's not even credit-card-sized. It's a little chip about the size of fingernail that sits under the skin, and all that has to be done to get the info is set a little RF wand on it. Then all the info like medical history, address, name, breed...

    Oh, wait, that's my dog's chip!

    Nevermind.

    --
    "Just because you're a genius doesn't make you a smart guy!" -- Narrator, Powerpuff Girls
  28. Notebook computers as security example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long would it be until someone in government loses a notebook computer with All of the data on it? Or has that already happened?

  29. ID card my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have bipolar disorder. The day I "let" the government issue me a card with MY medical history in THEIR database is the day I voluntarily commit myself to a sanitarium with filtered Internet access.

  30. Good thing I have a VISA checkcard.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clerk: I'm going to have to see some ID
    Me:OK...here's my license.
    ClerkHmmm...that's no good I'm going to have to see your SSI card
    Me:*fumbles around wallet* I don't have that with me, what about my student ID?
    Clerk:Can't take that either, do you have your National ID card?
    Me:No, I think I left that at home
    Clerk: I'm sorry sir, I can't take your check.

  31. If they DO institute national ID cards ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    If they ever do institute national ID cards there's one thing I want them used for:

    Voting.

    To insure that any person who votes in any national election is ELIGIBLE to vote in a national election and ONLY VOTES ONCE.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:If they DO institute national ID cards ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheit ... in California, you don't even need to show IDENTIFICATION to vote (this probably has to do with that case someone else mentioned in a different thread).

      Just so long as the name and address you provide match up with a registered voter, you are good to go.

      And in my town, the punch cards we had to use made the ones in Florida seem simple.

  32. Bah, the cards wont work... by umask077 · · Score: 1

    Look, if you have ever been to club med before and gotten the little cards with the chip built in you will notice they are destroyed by the smallest ammount of water. Spilled drink, rain, diving the pool with it. So Im gonna have to carry an id card and cant get wet when I carry it? Not gonna happen, Ill probably shower with mine every day.

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
  33. Ya know... by Twintop · · Score: 1

    Gallagher came up with this idea a long time ago, but it was even better: assign every person in the country (world?) a number that they used for everything and anything.

  34. Storage? by umask077 · · Score: 1

    Can I store my porn collection on my national ID card? Ill take one if I can.

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
  35. Religious twist... by umask077 · · Score: 1

    Not to be religious because im not but doesnt a national ID kinda make you think of the whole christian revelations mark of the Beast thing?

    Now we can just move it to a chip in the persons hand were set.

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
  36. National elections are a fallacy by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    All elections are state matters. You are voting for your state's reperentitives. Picking of congressmen, senators, and presidential electors are to be conducted in a manor perscribed by the state legistlature. Why don't people understand this? We live in a federal republic, not a fucking unitarian democracy.

    1. Re:National elections are a fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because schools are too busy teaching children how to put condoms on cucumbers.

    2. Re:National elections are a fallacy by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      All elections are state matters. You are voting for your state's reperentitives. Picking of congressmen, senators, and presidential electors are to be conducted in a manor perscribed by the state legistlature. Why don't people understand this?

      Because it isn't true. The Federal government has overriding authority in elections where federal officials or issues are voted on. (They used this authority to enforce the civil rights voting act, for example.)

      The Constitution also mandates that the Fed insure that each state has a Republican form of government. (Meaning elections of representative officials, not the Republican Party. B-) ) This lets the Fed diddle in elections of state officials and the general form of the election - especially if the state(s) in question have a record of using procedures that deny representation to their residents or a subset of them.

      The Constitution also gave the Fed a mandate (after a period - long since over - when the states could still make the decision) to decide who is a legal immigrant and thus eligible to vote.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  37. Get Rid of the Masonic Symbols! by alue · · Score: 1

    I hope the government won't insist on keeping the masonic symbols that they print on the one dollar bill. Those symbols are relics of a dead paradigm that was always followed by a minority and thus should not appear on anything as significant and pervasive as the US National ID card.

    As far as I know, the free masons fashioned themselves to be cryptic, disguised, and ubiquitous; the dollar bill is exactly where they want to put their symbol, because (1) everybody sees it all the time, yet (2) nobody knows what it means. But those are the masons, and I just wonder: what the hell was the government thinking when they pasted that bizarre symbol on its currency? If they embed it into a 21st century ID card, it's not going to make any sense at all!

    1. Re:Get Rid of the Masonic Symbols! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the government won't insist on keeping the masonic symbols that they print on the one dollar bill

      Those aren't masonic symbols; they're illuminati symbols representing the great revolution of 1776.

  38. Only truly reliable for those born afterward by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    The problem with an ID like this is that ultimately it will be issued to individuals based on previous ownership of a less-secure ID, such as a driver's license or passport. The new ID would only be as verifiable as the data used to authenticate it, which in the case of driver's licenses, isn't trustworthy at all.

    For those born after such an ID was introduced, they could be verified and ID's essentially at birth, providing a factually verifiable ID.

  39. Fear the database, not the card by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
    I don't think the card itself is a big problem. Sure, you could store medical information and all that on it, but I'm not sure what point there would really be to that (beyond the medical information cards people already carry). We all have cards already, and at certain circumstances we have to present them. Making it harder to fake IDs doesn't hurt anyone who's legit.

    The real problem is much more trivial -- universally machine-readable cards. Just having a standard on how IDs are stored in a bar-code form would be enough -- the ID numbers already exist (every state has a license ID, prepend the state code and you've got a national ID). This doesn't exclude the possibility of having more than one ID and number (I assume there's nothing exclusionary in having different state IDs), but that would be easy to fix too (just match up SSN during ID signup).

    Once you have this reader possibility, big brother has nearly everything necessary. They're talking about swiping cards at every large building, every federal building, and with the new public-private "security initiatives", there's no reason this couldn't be matched up to all sorts of other systems. This could lead to a thorough record of certain activities -- many related to our fundamental rights and duties as a citizen. If the database was expanded further -- in particular, credit cards and other automated payment systems -- people's lives could be tracked quite closely. This wouldn't necessarily track any one activity, but would be a way of profiling. (Past experience shows that the FBI will use this to track any sort of dissident -- considering how often they've done it in the past, and that they have never been reformed, only slightly hobbled a couple times)

    But don't worry, the card would be voluntary (haha -- as long as you consider interstate travel voluntary, internet commerce voluntary, etc).

  40. I love the BackGround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's on the dollar bill, but with the everything going down I just love the Illuminati sentiment

  41. Re:as long (no SSN is needed) by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    You can opt out of a social security number - actually. It's basically impossible to get one revoked once you've been given a SSN, but you can opt out of having your child being given on, though if you have your child birthed in a hospital you'll need to jump through tremendous hoops to not get them to automatically file the paperwork. A midwife is an easier route or you could go to the Amish or others and birth your child with their assistance.

    this alone implies that you could opt out of a national ID card, but you'd need to be really pre-emptive about it....

    -shpoffo

  42. People are too hung up on the physical card. by -tji · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether the information is on the physical card makes no difference. In fact, most likely you would not want to store much information on the card. Only the basic: name, address, physical characteristics, digitized picture, and that sort should be stored on the card. Just enough to make it roughly equivalent to a current ID, but a bit stronger.

    For any effective system, the DB should be centrally managed. Both for revocation of ID's, and for security of the sensitive content.

    The card has the person's private key, stored in a physically secure chip. That key can be authenticated against the government's issuing authority (as can the validity of the data on the card).

    Then, data can be accessed from the central DB, according to the privileges allowed the requestor of the data, on the authority of the cardholder.

    There are obvious security / privacy concerns. Particularly if the entity you fear abuse from the most is the government. But, it has the potential to offer a lot more privacy and security than current completely insecure systems.

    1. Re:People are too hung up on the physical card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no hangups about the physical card. Any card that comes into my possession for more than a few hours will be subjected to high energy magnetic fields, ultraviolet radiation, and microwave energy. My own National ID Card will also be stored in a glass of water at home when it's not otherwise "in use".

  43. Quick Predictions re National ID card debate by nadador · · Score: 2

    Since the posting-to-100-comments time for this article was relatively short, I'm guess most of us won't RTFA, and we'll just rehash the National ID cards in the US debate.

    I'll condense the national ID card debate Slashdot style:

    1. Some Americans (the smart ones) are concerned about the unconstitutional and immoral encroachment of the federal government and the State in general into private affairs,the cancellation of your civil liberties, and the abandonment of privacy as a fundamental notion of American identity. (Yes, I said immoral. And I meant it.)

    2. Some Americans don't care, and won't care, until someone comes after them individually, by which time, it is already hopelessly too late.

    3. Most Europeans will treat the Americans in (1) with disdain and in (2) with general disgust, and then go on at length about how the tradition in whatever country they're from permits a stronger *national* government and notion of the State while maintaining a firm but limited notion of civil liberties. They will then make a disparaging remark about American culture based on one of the following: Walmart, McDonalds, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, or neo-colonialism.

    4. Some Americans will then counter the culture argument with some remark based on one of the following: grooming habits, combined GDP, nuclear weapons, WWI and/or WWII.

    5. People reading Slashdot from places that are not the US nor Europe will watch as the Americans get flustered at the European attitude, while the Europeans get flustered at the American attitude,

    all the while wondering when they will start listening instead of just waiting for their turn to talk.

    --

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
    1. Re:Quick Predictions re National ID card debate by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Since the posting-to-100-comments time for this article was relatively short, I'm guess most of us won't RTFA, and we'll just rehash the National ID cards in the US debate.

      Snip...

      You left something out. Invariably, some American and some European will get into a pissing contest about gun control. The American will throw a fit because he has more guns in his home than the London Metropolitan Police, and the European will scream and cry because the American also has more guns than the Icelandic Air Force and the UNSCOM peacekeepers in the Balkans combined.

      Not to mention the obligatory Orwell/Huxley references. They stopped being insightful and all became redundant somewhere back when /. was still giving out four-digit UID's.

  44. Where are the hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone really believe the world is overpopulated with hackers? Anyone ever had their identity stolen? Can any of you break in to a computer that isn't running some server or isn't connected to the net? There are no hackers, especially lunix users.

  45. I have an idea by DaveWood · · Score: 2

    If you want to learn something, read Orwell. Then if you haven't got the point, maybe move on to Huxley.

    I'm not being rude, I mean it. They put the case better than I ever could.

    If you're not a reader, find a friend who lived in the U.S.S.R.. Ask them about what it was like to have serial numbers on typewriters and copy machines, and a national informant system, or to have to show papers to go from one town to the next, or at any time for any reason. To walk down a quiet street at night with a girl, arm in arm, but not steal that kiss, because you are not really sure you're alone.

    The psychological effects of these regimes are subtle and pervasive.

    The thing you want to think about is that, often times, the government does things not quite for the reasons that it gives. And surveillance is one of those things that has a lot of purposes besides preventing terrorism.

    Consider the fact that almost none of the security measures passed since 9/11 were related to published dificiencies in our previous security program's handling of the disaster. National IDs had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and would not have prevented the attack - the attackers would have simply had their own. They were in the country legally.

    The Soviets pulled out every stop. They did things the current pro-surveillance, pro-data-collection Americans would have nightmares about. I'll give you a hint. It didn't stop crime, let alone terrorism. But it did make a striking example that life in a totalitarian state is barely that.

    Our history in this country is that of refugees from government. And we organized our society in perpetual conflict with its government as a result. If we trust government, why have a jury, since judges are better qualified? Why have courts? Don't you trust the police? Wouldn't they know best who'se guilty and who'se not? Why have elections? After all, as Lenin put it, some things are too important to put to a vote.

    Instead we have checks and balances, and we have a sense that a life should not be lived in the shadow of government. That it should be in our lives as little as possible. That every time it intrudes, to collect a tax, to stamp a passport, to pull us over on the highway, it had better be giving us a hell of a bargain in return. Our country's resistance to ID's stems from a basic, visceral aspect of that conflict; I do not exist at the sufferance of my state. I do not need to be stamped and photographed to be legitimate. I am a free, "legal" person inherently - not because of my card. I am not, in other words, a number. But this sounds too much like rhetoric. The basic point is, let each agency who needs to know who I am ask each time it needs to. Let each give an ID if it must. Don't let government as a whole enumerate us; that's a bad bargain, because it doesn't need to. Only specific parts of it do. So let it do only as much as it needs.

    Of course, it also stems from the basic necessities; a national ID system is expensive, and it has no clearly stated and important benefits that justify its expense. If you say that it helps provide "security," you'll have to say precisely how.

    But I'd rather not preach at you. You should look at the works on the subject, read about the relevant history, and draw your own conclusions.

    -David

    1. Re:I have an idea by thogard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember the brian washing that went along with the "duck and cover" program that was going on until the early '70s in southern Florida. One of the reasons that the Russians were so evil was they convinced kids to turn in their parents. A line in a move made about that time (The Presidents Analyst) had a line from a Russian spy to the American spy "Ever year you become more like us, every year we become more like you. Soon there will be no difference". This is a very good movie and I expect anyone that is reading this topic is likely to enjoy it.

    2. Re:I have an idea by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      And that was an absurd comment. To compare the US to the USSR is like comparing a goldfish to a shark! There are major qualitative and quantitative differences.

      And the what brainwashing are you talking about with "duck and cover?"

      The only brainwashing I have seen about that is from people who have convinced you and others that the whole idea was silly.

      The american public WAS brainwashed. We were brainwashed by a media with an agenda - and the brainwashing was that nuclear was was not survivable, so duck and cover is silly. This tied in to the agenda of nuclear weapons ban movements, and the purpose for the disinformation was to exagerrate the (admittedly terrible) effects of nuclear war.

      Duck and cover made sense. It would have saved many lives and prevent even more injuries in the vent of a nuclear war against US cities - especially with the quantity of weapons that would have been used in the '50s and '60s.

      I lived through the cuban missile crises. My father had been a nuclear weapons designer, and we lived in the city that had (and still has, apparently) the largest stored number of nuclear weapons in the united states - Albuquerque, New Mexico (check out the mountain with the bunkers and the fences just as you leave town to the east on I-40). And my father one day showed the family *how* and *where* to duck and cover to maximize our chances of surviving the weapons he was an expert on. For some info on how deadly and not deadly the are, check out my site.

      Likewise, civil defense and fallout shelters made sense also, but they were also killed by the ban-the-nukes people. OF course, nukes haven't been banned, but rather have proliferated. Oh well...

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    3. Re:I have an idea by thogard · · Score: 1

      After the "duck and cover" sessions, the teachers would discuss why they were needed and how evil the Russians were. Another reason that was given was that the listen in on phone calls even though any exchange built at that time had the ability. Other reasons were given as well but at that age (4th grade) it was hard to tell if it was just the teachers ideas or some other program but most of the lectures were about the same topics. This was in Ft Lauderdale which was very close to the largest city closest to Cuba. The "duck and cover" sessions were much different than the Tornado drills which represented a very real danger in the midwest but there weren't any evil ruskies to blame for that.

    4. Re:I have an idea by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Well, the Russians (or the Soviets anyway) certainly WERE evil, so I think you were getting information, not propaganda.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  46. The real problem... by neocon · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's all very well to talk about whether the particular smartcard technology being discussed is or isn't secure, but this misses the larger problem with such a plan: the fact that forged or copied cards are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the security of these things. As with most systems, the real things to worry about are the human factors.

    Most proposed plans for a national ID have suggested that state DMV's should be the ones to hand these out -- but the last few decades have seen hundreds of cases of corrupt DMV employees giving out drivers licenses for cash. It's hard to imagine any other agency you might choose being much different.

    And in a world where this card is believed to be `secure' for so many more purposes, such cases will do even more damage than they already do, because people will be even less likely to question the documents before their eyes.

    So even if there were not serious privacy concerns with a national ID system, it is at best highly unlikely that it would buy any real security gains in return for the great cost and bureaucratic overhead it would introduce.

    Put differently: you thought standing in line at the DMV sucked now-- just imagine what it would be like after the people who brought you the IRS and the INS got done with it.

  47. Remote Database by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 1

    I heard that the Military is issuing smart cards now, the smart cards do not contain the actual info but tell the scanning computer what file to look at for that particular soldier.

    Now lets say there's a government database that houses all this information, and the card readers can only access the parts relevent to their field. This would probably be one of the more secure ways of doing it.

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. I forgot to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote the post above because every other post is crying about the ID cards being targets for hackers. If they have the tools and skills to hack magnetic strips, they are doing credit fraud. Do all you slashbots think you're important enough to be targeted? I thought I was paranoid.

  50. If Only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only our state ID's looked so good. I live in Washington, which last year finally switched to an ID with a magnetic strip. Unfortunately, the card design is DISGUSTING. It's a good thing I still have an out-of-state ID that doesn't look so bad.

  51. Blatant Karma Whoreing by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1
    --
    Nice Marmot
  52. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by mother_superius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd have to say that, while 1984 is not without its merits, Brave New World is much more accurate. Globalization has replaced imperialism, power goes into fewer and fewer hands (political and economic). Corporate control is comparable to the heat conditioning and the conditioned rejection of education. Ford has replaced god; instead of Ford we'll most likely have AOL-Time-Warner-Microsoft-whatever, but you get the point.

    The book is about globalization, which I think is far more alive than oppressive government. The latter is only getting started. Meanwhile, we are very familiar with the former

  53. Why do people care about privacy by L600R · · Score: 1

    Unless your doing something illegal, why would you care if people can find out who you are?

    1. Re:Why do people care about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless your doing something illegal, why would you care if people can find out who you are?

      Because "something illegal" can, by the mere passage of a law, become "owning a firearm", "owning a non-DRM operating system", or "being Jewish".

      Americans have the right to be secure in their papers and effects. If a cop wants to know who I am, then he should get a search warrant for the relevant information.

      You are a slave.

    2. Re:Why do people care about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while we are at it, we can tack on employment history... and the fact that I hold a DOD Secret clearance... so when the foreign powers figure out how to crack our cards, they know I have a clearance and they know my bank account numbers so they know where to send the money.

      Seriously, not that I would *ever* sell out the country, there are serious reasons why certain things are best kept *personal*. Yeah, they know a lot about me from their investigation of me for the clearance... and its all locked away in some file at the pentagon, I'm sure. That doesn't mean that I really want *everyone* to know.

      Does my next employer really need to know my dating history?? Do they really need to know that my first girlfriend was *married* at the time (ok, seperated and getting divorced.. but still, if he happened to be a christian fundamentalist maybe I wouldn't get the job because of being discriminated against for that).

      Oh.. yeah... I'm sure *you* don't care. So when you get fired from your current job because you asked the bosses secratary out on a date, and she files harassment charges.. even if it gets dropped, *you* wouldn't mind all your prospective future employers knowing that now, would you? Yeah, that new potential boss really loved you.. until they found out that you have rather kinky tastes (into bondage, from your kinky clothing orders they found out). Nothing wrong with that... you wouldn't care, right?

  54. great idea by jasonv118 · · Score: 1

    i think this is a great idea.

    and btw, did anybody pick up on the name on the sample card in that article? Winston Smith is the name of the oppressed main character in 1984.

  55. Homeland Security - cocaine by chipotle_pickle · · Score: 1

    GWB used cocaine. He does not deny this. Nobody denies this. He denies that he's taken cocaine since sometime in the first Regan administration (I forget if it's 1982 or 1984). Check your facts.

    I'm not sure how important this is. Certainly Hitler was hateful and dangerous before he took cocaine.

  56. ITAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Identity Theft Association of America?

  57. Vote fraud and California. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Sheit ... in California, you don't even need to show IDENTIFICATION to vote (this probably has to do with that case someone else mentioned in a different thread).

    Just so long as the name and address you provide match up with a registered voter, you are good to go.


    Worse than that: You can register at the polls and vote immediately. (This proposal wouldn't keep them from doing that, by the way. They could just seal the votes of the newly-registered voters until the ID had been checked, then count such ballots later in the final tally.)

    Of course thanks to the "motor-voter" law you can also register by mailing in postpaid bingo cards that you can pick up at most government offices (and at supermarkets, and ...). You can do this over and over again, making up names as you go. You can vote absentee on all of 'em. (One address in Berkeley had over 4,000 voters registered. "We're operating a maildrop for the homeless" - yeah, right!)

    A guy down the street from us is not a US citizen, but brags about how he has over twenty registrations - and votes 'em all.

    The girl next door has been trying for years to get her deceased mother off the voting rolls. Clerk keeps putting her back on "because she's still voting".

    Vans stuffed with people go from polling place to polling place, with the people voting at EACH of them.

    I have changed my party affiliation several times and found myself double-registered as a result twice - because the same form is used for add, change affiliation, and change address and the clerk typoed. (I made DAMNED sure nobody voted my extra registration until I got it canceled.)

    Turnout in one district dropped over 80% when a (false) rumor went around that the INS would be checking voters for ID and deporting non-citizens.

    I could go on.

    But there's SO much corruption in the elections in California that I really wonder how much of the vote is the actual population and how much is the political machine.

    This has got to stop!

    Because when the elections become so corrupt that they don't actually represent the will of the people, and the people REALIZE it, they stop performing their real function. And that function is to convince the losers that they can't reverse the decision by force. Corrupt elections destabilize governments and lead to civil war.

    Now there are two things I don't like:

    - Corrupt elections.

    - Government ID cards.

    By tying them together I hope to get ONE of them stopped.

    Maybe it will be the ID cards - because some of the politicions currently in power might think some of their votes were faked up by the party machine back home and the ID cards might cost them their seat. Or maybe we'll lose on the ID card issue but at least get improved elections out of it.

    But I'll be DAMNED if I sit around silently while the machine-politicians ram through an ID card and still leave the machine intact.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  58. ok, i want one... by hpavc · · Score: 2, Funny

    if it has a 20gb ipodlike storage and runs palm os as well.

    --
    members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
  59. people are overreacting by LupusUF · · Score: 1

    All these talks about 1984, and evil Bush in response to an article that is speculation are rather premature. The ID design is simply putting together a bunch of pieces from other countries with what the writer thought sounded cool.

    *quote from the article*
    For now, the Bush administration is cool to the idea, but it's not hard to envision the Department of Homeland Security re-examining the concept if further terrorist attacks occur. More than 30 countries, from Italy to Malaysia, have already introduced "smart" ID cards. If you're eventually issued a national card, it will likely incorporate several of the technologies shown here, combined to make the card readable by both high- and low-tech devices.
    *end quote*

    After reading that from the beginning of the article you know that the rest of the article is nothing more than the writers fantasy. Come on, their evidence for the ID card is "it's not hard to envision the Department of Homeland Security re-examining the concept if further terrorist attacks occur"

    I could understand the article, and people's reaction if Bush currently said he was pushing the idea (I say currently since a lot of things were batted around right after the attacks that were abandoned when everyone calmed down) but the article itself admits that Bush is not fond of the idea.

    If I want fantasy I can go read Terry Goodkind...at least there people will not flip out at the government because of something that is written.

  60. Atlantic Article by kisrael · · Score: 2

    Interesting article "Homeland Insecurity" from on how some of this national databasing can make systems more brittle security wise, rather than more robust.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  61. why are smart cards considered secure? by thogard · · Score: 2

    Smartcards get cracked all the time. Just ask a cable TV company. Smart card fruad numbers have been exceeding mag stripe fraud for years and one figure I saw set the ratio of about 10 to 1.

  62. You are soo full of shit. by BadlandZ · · Score: 2
    I've already adressed someone who has TRIED to make a case for what your TRYING to say, so I won't waste too much time.

    But, given the fact that we all NEED a Social Security card to WORK, a Drivers Licence to DRIVE, a ID to buy Cigerettes and Beer, why not have ONE ID?

    I am a long standing Libertarian (As in lp.org, not liberal), and I am very for the National ID. Your kidding yourself if you really think that the ID is the problem. The ever expanding government is the problem, not some piece of plastic that makes it hard to counterfit an easier on my wallet weight!

    and for the record, I'm not a full Libertarian, ONLY because I am isolationist, very much a Jeffersonian, as our founding fathers intended. I think the government fell apart with "the great FDR" who made us the world's policeman ... which the LP's "open borders" doesn't transision well into given the world culture now days.

    How the hell did THIS crap get moded to +5 on ./? I thought much better of the readers and mods....

    1. Re:You are soo full of shit. by Corvus9 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But, given the fact that we all NEED a Social Security card to WORK, a Drivers Licence to DRIVE, a ID to buy Cigerettes and Beer, why not have ONE ID?
      I read your rant, but you are wrong. A single national ID will automatically tie together all the various personal databases. No, not by magically moving all the data to the same location, but by creating a unique persistent ID which relates disparate data to the same person.

      In the current system, with separate IDs for every agency, there is no way for a cop who looks at your driver's license to also check out your employment history, credit rating, drug prescriptions, criminal records, religious affiliation, or anything else not associated with your driving records. The cop could not call up the AMA and find your drug prescriptions because there is no unique, persistent relationship between your driver's license and medical record. No, I hate to break it to you, but your name, birthdate, address, and phone number are not unique, persistent identifiers.

      If there were a single national ID for every person, someone looking at your driver's licence could call your doctor and find out your medical history through this ID that you, and you alone, have which he now has access to. So could a bouncer that checked your age. With a national ID, everyone will be able to find out everything about everyone else.

      It gets worse. What if someone steals your national ID? Now they have access to everything about you; they can withdraw all your money, take your drug prescriptions, sell your house, get your passport, enroll you in political parties or movements, take over your life.

      To escape this you would have to get a new national ID. Consider the amount of grief you go through to cancel your credit cards. Now imagine you have to the the same thing for every form of personal identification you ever used in your entire life. It would be a nightmare, but that's only the start. The new ID would be that of a completely new person, there would be no way to revoke all the times you had used the ID in the past. The person who stole your card would become you, and you would be a different person.

      A universal national ID would be a privacy and civil liberties disaster; the people opposing it are not idiots. I agree it's a nuisance to have separate driver's licences, blue cross, library cards, employee ID, and so on, but someone who would give up liberty for convenience deservers neither.

    2. Re:You are soo full of shit. by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, given the fact that we all NEED a Social Security card to WORK,

      Really...good luck finding that law...it doesn't exist. (You are refering to De Facto practice)

      a Drivers Licence to DRIVE,

      The ability to travel freely is the essence of liberty; it is a natural, irrevokable, right. That right doesn't change because your personal property uses an engine. The requirment of a licence to travel in any fashion is an abomination of freedom.

      I am a long standing Libertarian (As in lp.org [lp.org], not liberal), and I am very for the National ID.

      You're what us principaled (real) libertarians and anarchists call a Republican in Drag . What you are is a very confused statist. It's a shame the Libertarian Party has been consumed by your type. The LP was the last hope, and now all hope is lost...

    3. Re:You are soo full of shit. by BadlandZ · · Score: 2
      But, given the fact that we all NEED a Social Security card to WORK,

      Really...good luck finding that law...it doesn't exist. (You are refering to De Facto practice)

      Feel free to attack the legality of the IRS, but they will still put you in jail. Thank FDR for that, the President that screwed up this country. Don't blame me for stating the obvious.

      am a long standing Libertarian (As in lp.org [lp.org], not liberal), and I am very for the National ID.

      You're what us principaled (real) libertarians and anarchists call a Republican in Drag . What you are is a very confused statist. It's a shame the Libertarian Party has been consumed by your type. The LP was the last hope, and now all hope is lost...

      So now I'm wrong for voting for the political canidate that most closely represents my beliefs? That's what's wrong with the American political system... Even someone in a FRINGE party like the LP says "no, your not welcome."

      Sad thing is, I agree with MOST of thier politics mroe than any other party, so I vote LP. Since I'm very Jeffersonian, and belive in isolationism (e.g. Switzerland, we shouldn't have "the worlds strongest army" only a highly trained millita, and if we go to war, it would TAKE the MAJORITY of the people to go, because they are Millita and go on their own will, I'm not LP?!?!) People like you make me sad to say I'm a member of the LP.

      I believe that if we made the US military 1/4 of it's size, we would have no world fears of invasion, IF and ONLY IF, we took 1/3 of our world aid and put that into the UN's military (where the world decides). Why do we fund all of these foregin govenmnets (I can name 1 very sad country we fund more than EVERY other country in the world combined) and impose OUR will (that is, the government will, not the peoples) on the world when we were set out to be a FREE and INDEPENDANT country? Huh?

      It's insane to think we are "right" when the government speaks for the people, but doesn't listen to the people. The world sees the USA as what the government does, but the government doesn't TRUELY represent the people, just the lesser of the two evils in control. Can you not see a world view? Can you not see indepandance and freedom nationally AT THE SAME TIME you support the WORLD view of human rights?

      Why should the US be the world's policeman? WHy the hell does a government that is TRUELY the lesser of two evils have THAT MUCH world power?

      Yea, it's a DRAG to think about, but, you really should open your eyes and face facts.

    4. Re:You are soo full of shit. by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      In the current system, with separate IDs for every agency, there is no way for a cop who looks at your driver's license to also check out your employment history, credit rating, drug prescriptions,
      criminal records, religious affiliation, or anything else not associated with your driving records. The cop could not call up the AMA and find your drug prescriptions because there is no unique, persistent relationship between your driver's license and medical record. No, I hate to break it to you, but your name, birthdate, address, and phone number are not unique, persistent identifiers.


      I don't know about you but in Marland my DL also has my SSN Number assocated with it. In VA your DL Number is your SSN. With that SSN Number they could get access to all of that data anyway but for the most part they Can't due to state and federal regualtions. The Fact is that even if a US Id Card get created it use and the data assocated with it by the gov't will be controled and/or regulated.

      It wont stop even more data assocated with it like you SSN Number but that is already being done already. So the idea of a National ID isn't as bad as many say it is.
  63. I just can't let go ripping on this idiotic rant by BadlandZ · · Score: 1
    "I campaigned for Bush. I actualy believed in him. Now I believe that he's no better than Adolph fucking Hitler. This Bearu of Homeland Security coupled with this new "citizen watch" (I don't remeber the offical name of the programme) put together a package that communist east germany would have been jealouse of."

    Look, there are TWO WAYS to look at the whole Homeland Security thing...

    One is the Bush way, which is.... All these stupid agencies answer to no one, and don't even talk to each other. Let's cut through the crap, bring them all under one umbrella. That will let us cut out the redundancy, make a smaller government, and let the info folow... Making us safer.

    Then there is the Democrat's way of looking at it, that your seeing, which is.... Yet another department... The only way we agree is if there is more government, more regulation, more red tape, and we will screw it up so bad even us "big government" people are scared of it.

    It's not Bush you should worry about, who saw a bunch of redundant BS agencies he wanted to cut some fat on by combining them... It's what the Democrats are spinning this into you should fear.

  64. So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by extrasolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like anytime people respond with references to 1984, we've already lost any ability to compromise. So I hope that some of technologies most adept would be willing to come up with some ideas on what the solution is, rather than restating the problem and saying how we are all going to die and all that.

    We already have infringement on our privacy, of course. Cops stop your car and ask people for their driver's licenses all the time. This is okay, since we don't want people without licenses driving. The rest of it is okay to that is on the card, since its okay to make sure the car is not stolen and that the person is who they say they are.

    We already produce our social security number when we apply for employment or enroll for college.

    Are the privacy advocates against these forms of identification?

    If not, then rather than attacking every incarnation of a national identification system, propose a solution. Make a position on how far is too far as far as identification goes. Come up with a compromise.

    Do you want separate medical cards (for doctors and hospitals), security cards (for airports and bands, and general cards (for street police and any of the above) instead of one card with all the above information on it? Do you want laws written on who can legally ask for the information on the card? Do you want all the information stored on the card or available in an online database? If the later, then do you want the ability to say who has access to this up-to-date information (such as former employees)?

    Regardless of what the radicals believe, we (at least in the US) still live in a constitutional system. We have a Bill of Rights that guarentees we'll never come close to the kind of dystopia in 1984. That would require a radical overthrowing of our government.

    Just like the restrictions placed on software, we should not complain that a certain restriction is bad, but rather remind people when and where we step the line.

    In otherwords, say what you want or don't complain when you don't get it.

    (this is aimed a many of the comments posted here on slashdot, if there are real privacy organization doing the above, then I wish the best)

    1. Re:So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by RgnadKzin · · Score: 1

      The solution is for the people to accept personal responsibility for their own security and carry their handguns.

      I don't have a driver's license and cannot get one. Cops will have to be satisfied with the ID that I made myself and attested to by two people I know. I do not need a license to travel upon the public easements we grant to each other for access and egress. Check the original acts of your state legislature (not the code) to see that it is artificial persons engaged in commerce that are being regulated.

      I have no SSN because of my religious beliefs and colleges or corporations cannot discriminate against me due to these beliefs.

      Identification is not the issue. I can make an affidavit with a photograph and my name and address on it, have two witnesses who know me attest that the information is correct, put a notary seal on it, laminate it, and presto - ID. It satisfies all requirements of same. I do not see that I need to register as a "resident alien" in the land of my birth.

      The solution is not further restriction of my liberty. My essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety. You cannot show me how I would be safer if I were to participate, so I will not participate. My liberty will not be compromised. Neither you nor CONgress have that authority.

      There are already laws on the books (The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended) that are being eroded day by day by idiots who pretend to place my safety as a priority. I value my safety, which is why I carry a Sig 239.

      You must be kidding that "this can't happen in America." Sorry, it already has. Japanese internment camps. Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC (the American Reichstag) and now the Pearl Harbor (that they most certainly knew about and did not prevent) of 9/11/2001. The government has already been overthrown, or can you please give me the date and time that CONgress declared "War on Terrorism?"

      Here is what I want: I will carry my pistol because it is my personal responsibility to protect and defend myself, my kin, and my nation. I want people like me to be able to carry our pistols onto airplanes and anywhere in public that we want. The "authorities" have neither the capability nor the incentive to protect us. Only we can do that.

      Or would you prefer to abdicate this responsibility?

      http://www.projectsafeskies.org

      --
      Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
    2. Re:So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by extrasolar · · Score: 2

      I really don't see how your comment is a response to mine.

      Do you want to bring your hand gun into the movie theater?

    3. Re:So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by RgnadKzin · · Score: 1

      I responded point for point to your post.
      Read each of your paragraphs and then mine.

      Why would you want criminals to know that people must be unarmed in a particular type of establishment?

      That's almost as bad as a sign out in front of a school that says "Gun Free School Zone."

      As far as I am concerned that creates a posted "Victim Rich Kill Zone."

      Mass shootings are minimized in states where people can carry their arms freely.

      If only 10% of the teachers at Columbine had been armed, how many kids would have been saved?

      Instead, you create a place where people must be defenseless. Do you seriously think that criminals will check their guns at the door?

      Your premise is that security is a function of the state.

      My premise is that the state has no capacity or incentive to make us secure--except to enslave us. The responsibility to protect ourselves, our kin and our nation is ours alone.

      A cell phone dialing 911 or a Sig 239?
      I know what I would prefer.

      --
      Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
    4. Re:So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by extrasolar · · Score: 2

      Actually, I just wanted to know what it was that the privacy people wanted. What is the ideal method of identification?

      I'm not yet prepared the argue against the libretarian/anarchy philosophy.

    5. Re:So, what do the "privacy" advocates want? by RgnadKzin · · Score: 1

      I will address your second issue first:

      Anarchy is an absense of any organized government. Neither I, nor anyone I know advocates such a thing. I just want the beast back in the box surrounded by the Constitution.

      As to your first issue:

      I do not see any reason for me to participate in a National ID system. Nor do I see that it has any benefit vis a vis security issues.

      No matter what kind of ID is being proposed, imposed, whatever, it can be faked, duplicated, forged, whatever. So it immediately loses its usefulness.

      Given the fact that I cannot be required to produce any identification unless a criminal investigation is underway (Brown v Texas), I see no need to submit to a registration system akin to tatooing some number on my arm, as was done to some of our forebears.

      Revelation (13:16-17) warns against the mark of the beast "in your hand" (like an ID) or "in your forehead" (as though reciting from memory), in order to be able to buy or sell.

      It is hard enough for me to live in the land of my birth without an SSN. Why are you so determined to make it impossible?

      --
      Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
  65. Re:I just can't let go ripping on this idiotic ran by bsDaemon · · Score: 2
    the CIA and FBI didn't share information because it's illegal for them to do so. But are congressmen going to comeforward and say "we made it illegal for the cia and fbi to share information because they have two coompletely seperatre scopes of operation and shouldn't be engaged in the same stuff because it's wrong" now? no. of coursenot. that would make them look unpatriotic and like commie terrorist sympothisers.

    btw, don't just install the UNIX keymap when your keyboard doesn't support it and expect to be productive. actyaly typing Ctrl+h in netscape is a bitch.

  66. ID card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yessir officer... I've got my neat looking national ID card right here... yup, cool little eagle hologram huh? Scan away officer.... what?? The data is corrupted? Invalid key? Well, I *did* get it wet the other day... hey, wait! what are the cuff's for?? what do you mean I'm in the country illegally?!?!? No! I'm a citizen!! What do you mean prove it?!?! I can't now that my ID card is busted! No, I'm not an islamic militant!! I'm a friggin white american male damnit!! What?? Held without bail and no charges for 9 months on 'suspicion of terrorism', wait!! Isn't that a violation of my civil liberties?? Oh.. I don't have civil liberties because my ID card is broken and I can't prove I'm a citizen?? Wait, I thought the constitution said that *ALL* men are created equal -- life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that stuff... right?? It didn't say "All citizens" did it?? Death row??? Execution??? Military tribunal found me guilty?? How can that be!! I'm a Law abiding citizen for chrissake!! HELP!! No, I'm not an islamic militant!! I'm a friggin white american male damnit!!

  67. Re:I just can't let go ripping on this idiotic ran by BadlandZ · · Score: 2
    "the CIA and FBI didn't share information because it's illegal for them to do so. But are congressmen going to comeforward and say "we made it illegal for the cia and fbi to share information because they have two coompletely seperatre scopes of operation and shouldn't be engaged in the same stuff because it's wrong" now?"

    Exactly where in the constitution does it say our congressmen should?

    I vote, I know who votes on what... That's how it works, and the more people you vote for that actually do what they SAY, the more you should support them. The more they don't, the more you try to vote them out.

    Back to Bush, if we could. You said you voted for him. Why? If it was to reduce the size of government, and insure people of this country more freedom, you choose the lesser of to evils, and didn't vote TRUELY for the best man (just the one that was slightly better than Gore).

    Don't you think the CONSEPT of 1 agency is better than 20? Or at least something in there to do some checks on them?

    My god, if they could get the BATF in line, I'd be happy (not that I believe the BATF is an agency of evil. I know BATF agents that are cool. But, the laws that created it are idiotic! Thus, back to the VOTE.

    If you really want to make a diffrence, make careful note of WHO in congress waters down Bush's plan. Also, more importantly, note who want's to change the plan to be bigger and more expansive, and more red tape. It's been taken both ways, and THOSE are the people to blame, not Bush. Those are the people to vote out in 2-4 years....

    and, BTW, my keymap is fine, I type ^H quite frequently, as do MANY PEOPLE, to indicate a strike-through that you really don't want to erase. It's an old USENET thing that happened before html was big and strike-through was possable. I don't know where exactly you saw it, but I sure as hell don't deny doing it, because I don't care to start doing EVERYTHING in html when I'm quite use to doing a ^H^H^H and most intelleget people know what it means.

    aside from that, when was my productivity in question exactly?

    cheers.

  68. Re:I just can't let go ripping on this idiotic ran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'd rather vote *against* the people who think its ok to have my garbage man spying on me.

    Hey, FBI, I have been spying on this guy for you... his Slashdot handle is "BadlandZ"... I think he's an islamic militant, and I found a piece of steel pipe in his recyclable bag... I think he's making pipe bombs. You'd better raid his house and see what he's up to.

    This is just a way of taking the onus of investigating *OFF* of the agency's that *should* be doing it. Hell, when I got my DOD clearance a few years back, they questioned all my neighbors and friends about me... as *they* should. I don't really think its your job, or my garbage mans job. If *they* want to take my trash and sift through it, they can go ahead... thats their charter. I'm paying them, not *you*.

  69. we need good national IDs; this isn't it by g4dget · · Score: 2
    National ID cards should actually have less information on them than current driver's licenses: they should have name, ID number, photo, and, possibly, some secure, one-way biometric identifier (i.e., an identifier that can't easily be used to fake the biometric signal). It might make sense to put a bit on there that indicates whether the person is permitted to work in the US and whether the person is a US citizen.

    There should be no information on a national ID card about medical history, organ donation, marital status, driving history, or anything else. All information should be human readable, and there should be no writable content. Anybody with a right to know should keep their own database of such information and should be required to comply with strict privacy regulations.

    Unfortunately, the hysteria about national ID cards on the one hand, and the incompetent efforts at designing them on the other hand, just keep degrading our privacy. Foes of national ID cards condemn us to continued reliance of indentification methods that both expose too much personal information (driver's license, social security) and are unreliable and highly susceptible to identity theft. And the folks now influential in the federal government seem to think that a national ID card system should satisfy every pipe dream of a neo-fascist world view in which the state controls and knows everything.

    We need a solid national ID system, and we need strong privacy legislation. Anything less than both of those condemns Americans to continued invasions of privacy from crooks, companies, and the government.

  70. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    I'd have to say that, while 1984 is not without its merits, Brave New World is much more accurate.

    And his Brave New World Revisited is his retrospective on how far we'd come along towards his predictions. He was surprised how fast we were coming along. BNW written in the 30s, BNWR in the 40s I think.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  71. Re:My Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would support a National ID/Database on the following conditions

    I'll add one more requirement before I would tolerate a National ID. A National ID would prove that I am a citizen. A citizen has a right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed". Therefore, any National ID card should also be accepted anywhere within the United States as a concealed carry license.

  72. Maybe... by castlan · · Score: 2

    Good point.
    Maybe I should reconsider renouncing my U.S. citizenship in favor of Iraqistan.

    Sure, "They" are pretty backwards. That is no excuse for the U.S. to stoop, even slightly, to a behaivor that we proclaim to be above. There is a reason why the U.S. is better, lets not sully ourselves because others fight dirty. Without full authority of the Constitution to protect unpopular citizens, the U.S. might as well be an evil empire. We should have nothing to hide, we are the shining example of the world.

    Oh, Auntie Em, you'll never believe the dream I had, you were all there...

    1. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. The "Iraqistan" really needs to work on their public image. They are seen as "dirty" and "backwards", in contrast to the US which is "better" and "shining".

      I don't know how you managed to convince yourself that you got the tastiest slice of bread in the loaf but hey, look how happy and content you are. You did manage to find your utopia.

  73. I like it. by BoneFlower · · Score: 2

    I'd like to see it implemented. Such a device could be extremely convenient with airport check ins to check your history, for paying for stuff, etc...

    What I DO NOT want to see is this or any other ID card sceme being mandatory. I like being able to walk around at random at 2AM without any ID just because. But, this could be a useful tool as long as it is not required to access basic services, but is implemented as a voluntary way to streamline the process.

  74. sorry...here's the link by ThanatosNL · · Score: 0

    This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter.

    The link is here. However, I doubt anyone will read this, as my karma is so bad it's below anyone's normal threshold.

    --
    Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain. Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
  75. the federal govt is already issuing them.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. Does anyone here have a military ID card? Or seen one lately? First a little background, when I got my first ID card grom the military like 10 years ago, it was a simple green form they used to type on a typewriter, cut out a polaroid picture, and laminated the whole thing. Well apparently that wasnt good enough, so in 1993 the redesigned the ID card. It was an improvement, as it actually fit in a wallet! Additionally, it included a digitl photo printed on it and a hologram in the plastic laminating material. well a month ago i had to get a new one, and guess what? It's now a smsrt card. Its a little something like this (front)

    digital photo printed directly on card
    smart card chip
    odd pdf417 barcode
    hologram on laminate material
    (rear)
    mag stripe
    another (normal type)bar code
    another (black&white)dig photo

    additionally the data stored on the card is protected with a PIN (6-9 digit)

  76. The real problem with surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, the Clinton administration requested 900 confidential FBI files "background information" files.

    Were these files on suspected Islamic terrorists? No. Suspected child pornographers? No. Suspected drug kingpins? No. Members of their political opposition? Why, yes.

    So, as long as you aren't an evil terrorist, pornographer, drug kingpin, or politically active citizen in an opposition party, you are okay.

    Not to pick on Democrats exclusively. I'm sure that J. Edgar provided plenty of dirty info to the presidents that he worked for, too.

    The real solution might be more along the lines of David Brin's reciprocal transparency, though. Let the government keep a file on me. But I deserve some rights to view that file and to know the identities of every government official who ever accesses that file.

  77. Get yer EZ-Pass today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank goodness there are not yet checkpoints at every state border crossing.

    No, the checkpoints are at the highway on-ramps and off-ramps. Already a few of them require driver ID chips in all lanes. And a lot more of them (like all the ones I see in NYC/NJ area) have 30-second lines at the 8 EZ-Pass lanes and 5-minute lines at the 2 anonymous-cash lanes.

  78. they're opening our files by Blakflag · · Score: 1

    Philip K. Dick wrote, in his book Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, regarding police-states:

    "Once they notice you, they never completely close the file."

    I think they want to open up all of our files.

    I've never been fingerprinted. To me this means I am less likely to be pulled in on some random charge because my fingerprints were on the wrong doorknob somewhere. That's the way I like it.

    My overly trusting friend answers all the privacy issues I have with "well I dont do anything wrong so I dont need to worry..". Well what happens when being dark skinned or left-handed becomes a crime?

    --
    *** DRINK MORE COFFEE ***
  79. Drivers License isn't a national ID card... by castlan · · Score: 2

    You do not have to show any ID to an oficer. Your drivers' license is not national ID, but proof that you are certified to operate a motor vehicle, and you are only required to show it while operating one. You never have to show an officer your optional, non-driving state ID. BTW, what database is a nationally comprehensive compilation of driver's licenses?

    What sort of fraud does a non-federalized ID enable? Anything that threatens personal or national security? Potential corruption of the citizenry's morals aren't life threatening, but they do make an excellent opportunity to excercise personal responsibility! Why should I submit my privacy for a national ID card?

    A national ID in itself isn't a problem, just like technology isn't a problem. But the existence of a uniform national ID is an enabler to abuse, and it is worth fighting because it has no value. Technology is very valuable, but only with other resources can it enable an individual to become overly dangerous. These other resources (political, financial) were used in an old age with old technology, to amass a powerful military fleet. A single individual used these resources with varying levels of technology in the past, from Ghengis Khan and Julius Caesar to Napoleon and Hitler. One man was more dangerous than many military fleets.

    The key to avoiding totalitarianism is to value individuality over national conformity, freedom over jingoism, and privacy over bureocracy. A national ID has no value. The FBI has tracked innocent people without just cause in the past. There is no way to know if their purposes were "nefarious". If you were offered dictatorship of the United States of America, would you refuse? I'd rather you didn't have the opportunity, I don't want to find out. Likewise, I'd rather not promote a national ID and any abuses it might engender. To prevent totalitarianism, preserve preedom; know your rights, and assert them fervently.

    1. Re:Drivers License isn't a national ID card... by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      You do not have to show any ID to an oficer. Your drivers' license is not national ID, but proof that you are certified to operate a motor vehicle, and you are only required to show it while operating one. You never have to show an officer your optional, non-driving state ID.

      So, what makes you think you would have to show a national ID to an officer any more than a state one?
      BTW, what database is a nationally comprehensive compilation of driver's licenses?
      National Criminal Information System - NCIC. If you are ever stopped while driving and give you "state" ID, the officer can, and will, run what in most states is called a "10-27" which is a drivers license check. That will go against NCIC if it is an out of state license.

      A national ID in itself isn't a problem, just like technology isn't a problem. But the existence of a uniform national ID is an enabler to abuse, and it is worth fighting because it has no value

      If it had no value, I would agree that the government shouldn't issue it. But it does have value, done right. Oh, and because of the current existence of NCIC, it doesn't make you *any easier to track* than a state drivers licence.

      The key to avoiding totalitarianism is to value individuality over national conformity, freedom over jingoism, and privacy over bureocracy.
      I strongly disagree. The key to avoiding totalitarianism is citizen participation in an open government. Whether those citizens are individualists or not is immaterial.

      If the nation is right, then national conformity is okay (not that it would ever happen). "Individualism" is a modern cult that started with the humanistic psychology revolution of the 20th century. Many posters on Slashdot seem to think it is individualism is a sacrament, but it is not. Freedom is the real political sacrament, and that includes the freedom to conform.

      I suspect you confuse patriotism iwth jingoism, btw. And there is nothing wrong with patriotism - as long as the patriotic citizen is willing to disagree with political leaders and work, within the law, against those who they disagree with. It is true that dictators use real or imagined threats in order to consolidate their power, but that does not mean that every additional security measure is totalitarian. Nor does it mean that every threat is imagined.

      And privacy, like any right (BTW, privacy is one right NOT specified in the constitution, except as imagined in "pneumbras"), is not absolute.

      With regard to all rights, a nation must first be able to defend itself against external enemies, or it cannot defend your rights. And even those strongest libertarian would agree that protecting you against depradations of others is the first reason to have a government at all.

      You are so worried about privacy, and yet I was once subject to the draft. Don't you think having yourself drafted into the military is a bit more severe than being spied upon? And I agreed with the draft, because I felt it was then (and might again be at some point) necessary to defend the rights of all of us. And, btw, I voluntarily joined the military and served my time - with no privacy or freedom of individuality or anything else, and considerable danger. So people whining about tiny losses of freedom in the name of national security seem pretty trivial to me! It is important to be vigilant but not to waste your time on the small stuff.

      If I wanted to be a dictator I would do all sorts of minor stuff to get the privacy fanatics, etc, all discredited (and exposed). But more importantly, I would work to remove the people's respect for each other and their respect for democracy (which is *not* the same as freedom, btw).

      The FBI has tracked innocent people without just cause in the past. There is no way to know if their purposes were "nefarious".

      Yes, and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. And innocent people have been executed. Guess what! Life isn't perfect. But National ID's are not the problem, nor do they make it significantly easier for the FBI to track you, but they make make it easier for them to track Mohammed Atta!

      If you were offered dictatorship of the United States of America, would you refuse?

      Yes. Dictatorship is wrong.

      I'd rather you didn't have the opportunity, I don't want to find out.


      And duh... I suppose you think I want anyone to have the opportunity.

      Likewise, I'd rather not promote a national ID and any abuses it might engender. To prevent totalitarianism, preserve preedom; know your rights, and assert them fervently.

      Just out of curiosity, do you seriously oppose environmental takings of private land? How about federal controls on public schools? How about gun control? How about laws preventing doctors from informing parents about the abortions of their thirteen year old children? How about laws which force children and governments to discriminate in favor of specific races? How about speech codes at federal schools that make it illegal for you to use derogatory or racist language?

      Are you really for freedom?

      Do you support the protection of the american people from terrorists? Which is more likely to lead to totalitarianism: open security measures such as national ID cards, or the reaction of the public after some bad guys get in and kill, through WMD, a few million americans?

      What *is* the purpose of a government in your mind? In mine, the primary reason to give the authority to use lethal force to a common organization is so that they can protect me from others! Why else should I let them have atomic bombs, tanks, FBI, etc? And if I am to give them that force, why should I hobble them at the same time?

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  80. COINTELPRO lamers infesting slashdot by gestapo4you · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Never seen this many disinformers spinning in the ceiling before(joshki, C0LDFusion etc.). Damage control galore.

    Points awarded for every lie found in their rhetoric.

    Oh btw, here's one to get you started.

    joshki wrote:
    "I don't agree with the patriot act either. It was an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to a horrible situation."

    The Fact is that an act like the "Patriot Act"(sic) takes more than six(6) months to put together, even if you have a dreamteam of lawyers working around the clock.
    So, a "knee-jerk reaction" is NOT the proper wording here.

    The Fact is that the "Patriot Act" was introduced and clubbed through over night!
    NOT A SINGLE ONE of the people in the Congress were allowed to read through it before they had to decide on it. Mighty democratic!

    I suggest that some people go back to school since it will take a little more than that to fool people that everything that happened on 9/11 and afterwards has just been coincidents.

    Finally, for those who don't believe that there are criminals in high places in the US. Just take a look at the "Operation Northwoods" docs. JFK happened to get wind of the operation and stopped it before he "coincidentally" got his brain splattered all over his wife. As an educational excercise into corruption, compare the people involved in the Warren Commision and the people involved in the "commision" that has been put together to "bring light" into what happend on 911.

    Points awarded for every correct match.

    Bonus awarded for every correct answer of who's dad's name appears in that investigation too.

  81. The japanese gov will slip it through... by darekana · · Score: 1

    Heres a good link with a summary of news and links from around the world. Heres the Japan link.

    I already have a "gaijin" (foreigner) registration card that I'm legally required to carry with me for random police checks, so what's one more.

  82. some of use ID's and remain sane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to live in the lovely country of Israel which is expiernced with terroist attaacks.
    I carry in my Wallet a government issue ID which
    has my photo on it.
    the DMV has a digital version of my photo so does
    the army, which has several photos of me( front,
    side, etc.) the army also keeps a record of my
    finger prints hand prints and dried blood sample.

    I also carry in my wallet voulentarly my medical
    insurance card which has my medical history
    easly accicbal on a magnetic strip.

    And yet I live a happy life, not given any thought
    as to what my wallet holds, or the DataBases the
    goverment keep.

    DRYICE

  83. 666 anyone? by Ixe · · Score: 1


    Can we get them in the forehead and wrist versions too?

    --
    Sigs pose an operational security risk and help the baddies aggregate data. I guess commenting does too, oops.
  84. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, all of us /.ing 5cr|p7 k|dd|3s weren't born until after 1984....
    but I'm l33t and knew about the book ne way LOL
    --Supr3m3 31337 h4x0r h3llr4153r 0f tHe uB3Rl33t

  85. Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the capitalists were more scared of communism than the Soviets themselves. The western elite could have cared less about their (often more evil than ours) methods, as ironically this debate is proving.

    You want to talk about propaganda, think about what it means that you just called an entire nation "evil." Realize that while Lenin and his successors might have been paranoid opportunists riding on the back of populism, that our leaders are nothing more than a ruthless aristocracy that'll do anything to stay on top. A huge, systematic (and effective, apparently) propaganda campaign was just the beginning.

    1. Re:Hah by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Written like a true communist.

      The US was afraid of communist totalitarianism, whether it was imposed by the Soviets or anyone else. And history has proven that communist totalitarianism was indeed something to be very afraid of. Read "The Black Book of Communist" - written by a bunch of current and former *leftist* French intellectuals if you want to see how *every* communist government ever created was evil. Yes - evil. Not just because of their denial of economic rights, but because of their denial of *all rights.*

      The western elite cared plenty about methods. And, the methods of the western "elite" in general did not use methods as evil as the Soviets. Certainly the western "elite" didn't use evil methods against their own people!

      And the paranoid fantasy that our leaders are *nothing* more than a ruthless aristocracy is one that is surprisingly attractive to people. I guess it is just the nature of some people to imagine that those who have more power than themselves are naturally evil or ruthless or an aristocracy or whatever. It is indeed sad that people are so misinformed or deluded, because it provides fertile ground for those who would indeed cause trouble. Hitler used people with these sorts of fantasies, as an example.

      There are ruthless people among our leaders - probably in greater percentage than among non leaders, but there are also honorable people - lots of them. Believe me, if we were lead by a "ruthless elite" you would feel that ruthlessness just by posting on this board the way you did!

      Oh, and those in charge want to stay there. Duh! Could it be that achieving something that takes years of hard work might lead one to want ot continue to achieve that? I don't think it is good that our congress (as opposed to presidents) is almost immune from reelection defeat. But it is not a result of "aristocracy" and the effects of inherent ruthlessness is limited by the countervailing systems we have (the press, the courts, opposing parties, conservative talk radio, etc).

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  86. Paranoia will destroy ya. by BadlandZ · · Score: 2

    Paranoia will destroy ya. Dung, da do, da dee dee da do .... Good points actually, but your missing a key component. That is, your against the government or any agency havening the power to access ALL of this information. We are in a world of information at your fingertips. The things to fight are keeping hospitals and financial instructions secure from web attacks. Keeping government records confidential and KEY is non-intrusive of individual liberties. If the government taps into your local trash service record, I think you probably have a case. Why not let the law enforcement have one database, and make sure that is monitored closely by someone like the ACLU? WE ALL should have access to that government file on us, and if we find that there is information in that file that is intrusive, that should be a Civil Liberties Violation, and taken up by someone like the ACLU. If you REALLY think that databases will be shared, and, if you were right, then, we would be in a major lawsuit against the government, and close to revolution! Your talking very fanatical there! Come on, Identity theft? Isn't that exactly what anyone capable of forging your signature now can do? It's not really that different. Matter of fact is, without this technology and a photo ID, identity theft is even easier now that it would be with a National ID! Dung, da do, da dee dee da do .... Good points actually, but your missing a key component. That is, your against the government or any agency havening the power to access ALL of this information. We are in a world of information at your fingertips. The things to fight are keeping hospitals and financial instructions secure from web attacks. Keeping government records confidential and KEY is non-intrusive of individual liberties. If the government taps into your local trash service record, I think you probably have a case. Why not let the law enforcement have one database, and make sure that is monitored closely by someone like the ACLU? WE ALL should have access to that government file on us, and if we find that there is information in that file that is intrusive, that should be a Civil Liberties Violation, and taken up by someone like the ACLU. If you REALLY think that databases will be shared, and, if you were right, then, we would be in a major lawsuit against the government, and close to revolution! Your talking very fanatical there! Come on, Identity theft? Isn't that exactly what anyone capable of forging your signature now can do? It's not really that different. Matter of fact is, without this technology and a photo ID, identity theft is even easier now that it would be with a National ID!

  87. Paranoia will destroy ya. (Formatted Better) by BadlandZ · · Score: 2
    Paranoia will destroy ya. (add rythem and HTML)

    Dung, da do, da dee dee da do ....

    Good points actually, but your missing a key component. That is, your against the government or any agency havening the power to access ALL of this information.

    We are in a world of information at your fingertips. The things to fight are keeping hospitals and financial instructions secure from web attacks. Keeping government records confidential and KEY is non-intrusive of individual liberties. If the government taps into your local trash service record, I think you probably have a case.

    Why not let the law enforcement have one database, and make sure that is monitored closely by someone like the ACLU? WE ALL should have access to that government file on us, and if we find that there is information in that file that is intrusive, that should be a Civil Liberties Violation, and taken up by someone like the ACLU.

    If you REALLY think that databases will be shared, and, if you were right, then, we would be in a major lawsuit against the government, and close to revolution! Your talking very fanatical there!

    Come on, Identity theft? Isn't that exactly what anyone capable of forging your signature now can do? It's not really that different. Matter of fact is, without this technology and a photo ID, identity theft is even easier now that it would be with a National ID!

  88. BadlandZ is a Islamic Militant by BadlandZ · · Score: 1
    I think I'd rather vote *against* the people who think its ok to have my garbage man spying on me.

    Hey, FBI, I have been spying on this guy for you... his Slashdot handle is "BadlandZ"... I think he's an islamic militant, and I found a piece of steel pipe in his recyclable bag... I think he's making pipe bombs. You'd better raid his house and see what he's up to. This is just a way of taking the onus of investigating *OFF* of the agency's that *should* be doing it. Hell, when I got my DOD clearance a few years back, they questioned all my neighbors and friends about me... as *they* should. I don't really think its your job, or my garbage mans job. If *they* want to take my trash and sift through it, they can go ahead... thats their charter. I'm paying them, not *you*. Just to give you a better chance in hell of knowing who I am, please visit my sig link below... Which does include my home address.

    WANKER.

    Must be nice to be Anonymous and go off on STUPID rantings about accusing someone of something.

    Care to debate? Care to come by and BS about politics? Not a threat.... Not at all. I am a PROUD American, I will happily offer you a beer and sit down and discuss what things are and what they should be.

    Care to make a threat, you better prey the police find you before me ;-)

    BTW, Malda CAN track Anonymous posts via logs and IP, so you better hope that was posted through a good proxy if you want to turn it into a threat.

  89. Re:Nice name on the card...[explanation] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. 84 was written in 48. 1948. Not many of us were born then.
    If it were written in 49, would have been 1994. and in 1950, would have been 1905.

    uh.. just forget it.

  90. Double Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Written like a true tr0ll!

    Of course, I think you either don't drink at your own fountain, or you have a little lead in your pipes, if you know what I mean.

    I would like to speculate for the crowd how well this coherent-sounding rhetoric would hold up while you were being tortured by a few CIA-trained SAVAK interrogators. Oh, that SAVAK. The American-backed Shah of Iran's security services. The people who were so bad the Ayatollahs looked great by comparison. In the words of Amnesty International, "No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran." Under our puppet dictator, that is.

    We are lovers of totalitarianism in the West, and we gave the Soviets excellent competition. I just gave you one Middle Eastern country. Press me, and I can respond a dozen times before I even get into to South America.

    The western elite cared plenty about methods. And, the methods of the western "elite" in general did not use methods as evil as the Soviets. Certainly the western "elite" didn't use evil methods against their own people!

    I want you to chant this a dozen times before you go to bed each night, and two dozen times in the morning. But you have no chance of catching up to the number of "insurgents" (now the term is "terrorists") our regime has murdered, generally by proxy, but often directly, before you die. Unless you're visiting Guatemala and get mistaken for a communist. Then you'll really miss the mark. Or start chanting a lot faster, one or the other.

    Think I should be confused by the fact that I won't go to reeducation for my comments? Why should I? I'm intimately familiar with the recent history which allows me to speak unfavorably about capitalism, as well as the more recent history that seems eager to turn back the clock.

    I don't really understand it myself, but I suppose the idiot's garden of denial about the exigencies of power and the behavior of western governments is powerfully attractive to some - actually, most - people. I think it has something to do with our pain threshold. Or maybe just those regular public education funding cuts.

    Rock on, "mesocyclone." If you really believe what you are saying, someone as obviously wrongheaded as yourself will be in little danger of questioning your beliefs, and if not, you're even more likely to profess the same. Take my advice, though. Don't do too much traveling in the 3rd world.