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."
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.
2002 is 1984!
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
The identity theft lobbyists must be mighty powerful.
--
fight global cooling
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
Your papers please.
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.
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
This sort of thing is coming.
It isn't a matter of if, simply a matter of when.
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?
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
Ph33r m3!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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
For those born after such an ID was introduced, they could be verified and ID's essentially at birth, providing a factually verifiable ID.
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).
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.
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.
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
We're on the road to Tycho.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
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).
...). 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!)
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
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
if it has a 20gb ipodlike storage and runs palm os as well.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
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
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.
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....
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)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!