Slashdot Mirror
No ID Cards in the Future
dmf writes "Throw away your identification cards! CNet is running a commentary piece on what the author perceives to be contradictions of privacy as technology continues to evolve our future. What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
How will I prove I'm legally able to drink?
we were all supposed to be getting Citizen I.D. cards soon.
tcd004
that would make cards uneeded! woohoo!
..we (europeans) feel really sorry for the you and the negative impact of the DCMA and other freedom cutting laws. Just get your shit together and put it onto european servers. You're welcome (really)!
I would like to know what is really going on here. Does anyone really have any idea? One day we hear that everything is going 1984-esque with personal ID cards and Microsoft personel watching our every move. Then the next day we hear this. Whats happening?
Some guys opinion!
privacy concerns, environmental concerns, and threats to global security are generally ignored because people are busy paying bills, viewing internet porn and getting drunk.
maybe that just describes me!
Does anyone know what company he may be referring to here?
"My name's Lowry. Sam Lowry. I've been told to report to Mr. Warren."
"Thirtieth floor, sir. You're expected."
"Um... don't you want to search me?"
"No, sir."
"Do you want to see my ID?"
"No need, sir."
"But I could be anybody."
"No, you couldn't, sir. This is Information Retrieval."
I gave up the ability to have privacy when I started using the internet in 1994. From that point on I have assumed that I am a public figure and anyone can know anything about me.
I bank online, pay my bills online, and pay my taxes online.
Choice, freedom of technology or be a hermit
" What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
yes..
the problem people run into is when they follow the argument through, they end up sounding like the NRA. that's uncomfortable for millions who do not agree that everybody packing is a good idea. they want some policing. but as soon as you elevate discussion beyond sound-bite homilies you lose the massive, sadly ignorant, majority of americans. they can't follow you.
so the trick you need is to make sound bite sense and not sound like a 'gun nut'. then you can get middle ground people to relate and vote.
yes, that's real sad. but it's also a necessity of ignorant democracy, and if you don't figure out how to make it work, then we're fucked.
Congratulations, Mr. Kanellos, for bringing to our attention what websites like thesmokinggun.com have been making clear for years. By the way, may I suggest a photo which does not suggest you are pinching a loaf?
Hello Barcodes
Well isn't this just freakin Dandy!
What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history.
Yeah, it does boggle my mind. Yeah, that and algebra.
---
GWB
Best Windows Freeware
Did anyone else notice that the author of this nearly content-free article referred to Bruce Schneier's complaint about hotels requiring a driver's license, then completely ignored the REST OF THE SENTENCE where Bruce explained why that is a bad thing?
It's a good thing the article was short, or I'd be bummed about wasting the time to read it.
I don't see the problem of having an ID card. Lots of democratic countries use IDs and in the US, you use your social security card, don't you ?
And you have the driving licence.
How are you supposed to do when you want to contract something if you can't prove who you are ?
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
The article states, "Research is already underway to lessen some of the deleterious aspects of snooping, removing identifiers that would connect the individual to the data. IBM, for instance, is tinkering with "randomizing" data, which involves fatally altering data in a database. Number-crunchers can subsequently use the randomized data to study trends in the numbers, but can never reconstruct the original data--an improvement over using encrypted data. It's in the experimental stage, but the results are better than expected, said Rakesh Agrawal, an IBM fellow and one of the pioneers of data mining."
Interestingly, they are lookingforward enough at thesedatabase altering techniques to justify the continued progress and depth of research. How much do they know already?
I sold out for stock options.
Does the government have right to invade our lives? I think not. Life (military and police protect us from murder and such) Liberty (protect our right to freedom, to say what we want when we want to say it) and persuit of happiness (They feel the need to make us happy, not just allow us the ability to be happy. Social welfare... Ha! Let us govern ourselves!) Who are they to tell us what to do and what not to do, as long as it doesnt violate the basic human rights of another person? Seatbelt laws? HA! Drug laws are just killing more people than the actual drugs are... It's getting way too out of hand. In soviet russia, the government runs you. In Soviet America, apparently the same thing happens. Libility laws, too. Noone's responsible. Privacy... i think the issue isn't with our privacy, but with those compromising it. Advertising agencies and govermental agencies... IT people stop the massacre, you have the power! Anyone who'se anyone in the IT world reads this page, and they design these systems... have a backbone. And all you crazy geeks like me out there, check out libertarian policy, it's definately something to consider...
Give us our freedoms back!
The question is the answer. The terms "responsible" and "thinker" are not applicable to the majority of people you're worried about.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
If we are concerned over privacy issues, we need to take a serious look at exactly who enforces the privacy laws and how these elected officials get into office. As long as it costs tons of cash to run for public office, corporations are going to pay for canidates. As long as elected officials are owned by corporations, our privacy will always be up for sale. Only dedicated citizens and vocal consumers will be able to turn the tide of the privacy battle... right now the corporations are winning.
Actually it scares me *not* to need an ID card. With face recognition, fingerprinting, and other biometric measures in place. I don't recall being asked for permission about any of these.
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men--the right to be let alone."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Consider the Patriot Act and new changes being pushed by the neoconservative administration, I can't help but think the Bill of Rights is turning in to what happened to the rights list in Animal Farm.
Proud to post (this one) Anonymously!
The real problem is that people leave all kinds of electonic trails and traces, because they want things cheaper. So much of today's cost effective way of doing business all revolve around computers and the capabilities they offer about tracking, correlating and predicting patterns. So the marketer wants to market (and spend money on) to those who will probably buy. You want discounts on things that you like. So you give up some privacy so that the marketer has a clue about what to advertise to you. Well it goes on and on but realistally its not going to chance until people decide that cost is note the biggest driver in their lives.
What's interesting is that many who would decry the lack of personal privacy are also the same ones that lash out against DRM in any form. After all, isn't DRM all about protecting content (personal information) based on the wishes of the owner of that content? And just as quick as anti-DRM people like to point out that there is no perfect DRM, they hopefully realize that there is no such thing as personal privacy, at least not in the casual sense. Unless you are willing to go to extremes, much of who you are and what you do can easily be tracked. The article earlier about social engineering should give one pause enough to know that despite any safe guards and reassurances, that any information kept about you digitally (and now days that's almost everything) can be gotten to by someone who wants to get to it.
In the information age, privacy is "virtual". The govt wants us to fight the id card, because A) it gives the illusion that we might still have some privacy B) it keeps people focused on a specific technology/item (the id card), basically a red herring.
lynx. And brother, do we mean it!"
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
It is very easy for people to take this viewpoint. As they may not have been directly affected, people easily forget the lessons history has to teach, even if those lessons have been repeated many times before.
Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "
I agree with this statement, but. . .
The more more important point is how much the government and corporations *think* they are gathering data correctly, and *think* they can use it to their advantage.
We are entering an age of false assumptions and spurious conclusions drawn on anecdotal data that supposedly has "validity" because it was retreived using a SQL query.
I think there is going to be a need for another edition of Carl Sagan's a "The Demon-Haunted World," that deals directly with peoples' (governments', corporations') willingness to add ill-conceived "reading tea leaves" type conclusions to otherwise opinion-less data sets.
Congratulations, we've graduated. It used to be that you had to know a little science to keep from being ripped off. Now we're moving into an age where you'll need to know computer science and statistics to keep from being arrested or discriminated against.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
I still think that David Brin has it right - personal data will get collected, collated, etc; what's important is that you be able to see what's being done with your data, and to make sure that everyone gets the same treatment - no exceptions for corporations, governments, politicians, etc.
I was afraid to read in case it sounded anything like the post,
What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
boggled my mind, what the heck did he just say?
Ironic that this article immediately follows one about keeping the same cell phone number for life. The "private" thing to do would be to get a different cell # every time you make or receive a call. If you don't want your friends to have to do a search every time they want to find you, you're going to need to commit to that phone #. And then what's the difference between it, and a big-brother government ID number?
The Straight Dope on Hitler and gun control
Of course, they can refuse service if you don't give them the number.
When I worked at Intel, we all had WWID's (World-Wide ID). I thought, "great, then my health insurance can use the WWID." Nope. They still used the SSN. Gotta love it when my SSN is on every card I have as a "subscriber number". Makes it that much easier to hijack my identity if my wallet is stolen.
What makes us think an ID system will be well designed? Look at many of the software and hardware systems we work with. Most are thrown together as people happen to think of things that are needed. Too rarely are systems well thought out in advance. Often, there is a rush to solve a problem and, at that moment, those in control view time (and thus money) as the more valuable commodity. To save that, the system is thrown together in a hurry.
I think a similar situation exists here. Some people are in a hurry to implement a system, and as a result, do not take the time to inspect the details, specifically, how some early design decisions have further reaching consequences. It may be short-sighted, but it is easier and quicker up front. The real payment comes later with trying to live with and improve that now legacy system.
The only way we can really stop being forced to use half-assed converters is to actually boycott the dissemenation of proprietary software formats. No historical illegitmacy has just decided to stop functioning. It takes organized resistance and education. This is definitly a very important issue which warrents enough attention for us all to write a few lines and send to our local publications.
Allen Ginsberg once wrote, "Police agencies have become so vast that there is no turning back from computerized state control of America". Companies like Microsoft can no longer be allowed to maintain monopolies on something like, at the most basic level, how ideas are stored. Corporations do not make morality a very important factor in thier social function. This is stated very clearly in publicly acessible documents. It is known that Microsoft has incorporated security backdoors in several of its products at the request of governmental agencies (you can read abou this on the gnu philosophy website).
We are the only thing stopping the "computerized state control" of the world. Refuse to use windows and office file formats if you truely believe in free software. Sure this may constitute an explaination on your behalf; you may be kicked out of class, fired, marginalized or threatened. The truth is that this is the only way that things change. Stop letting microsoft run you school and community. You're worth more than that.
Several months ago I read a post here that got me thinking about my SSN. According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID). So I started noticing how often people ask me for it. I've been quite surprised at how often it is asked for. Exam registration, scholarship application, research conference registration, volunteer application, etc. I've started writing "available upon request" when it asked for my SSN, and no one has complained. But it makes me wonder how many times I've given it out without thinking twice about it?
There was a really good discussion about privacy issues in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig. It gave a clear description of the problem and proposed some alternative solutions. One of his points was that privacy was formerly the default simply because no one was capable of maintaining a practical and useable database of the size that would be necessary. Because of this former impossibility, there was no need for legislation or other guidelines to address it. That makes the problem unique to our day and age because only recently have we had the technology to do these sorts of things. Lessig argues that in such cases we have two options:
- Interpret the Constitution as literally as possible. If the costitution says it's okay (or fails to say that it's not), then go for it.
- Determine a solution based upon the same principles that the founding fathers used.
Lessig tends to lean toward the second option, and he's very persuasive in arguing his viewpoint. One possible solution that he proposed was for database owners to blind themselves to personal information and to only use the data for statistical analyses. From the article: "IBM, for instance, is tinkering with "randomizing" data, which involves fatally altering data in a database. Number-crunchers can subsequently use the randomized data to study trends in the numbers, but can never reconstruct the original data--an improvement over using encrypted data." That sounds like a good solution to some of the problems. Companies can use their database to improve marketing research but can't use them to invade your privacy.Anyway, just some things to think about...
So, who am I?
Consider the Patriot Act
Ok, I'm considering it.
I can't help but think the Bill of Rights is turning in to what happened to the rights list in Animal Farm.
How?
There's a ton of mention of the Patriot act in every single slashdot article, and how it's so damaging to everyones rights, etc, etc... And slashbot mods always give it a +5 insightful.
But how? Show me an example. Quote the parts of the act that is unconstitutional or denies you your rights.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
There's a reason free-thinking is called that...its not worth much! ;)
I think Jeb has all the ol' punchcards in a file cabinet...waiting to give birth.
"How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
A lethal combination of:
- Bread & circuses.
- Those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
- Current Question == Unpatriotic perception.
Any of these suck, alone. Together it could get nasty.My
Limekiller
A futurist (initialls D.A.) has forseen this problem and predicts that all your biometrics will be recorded onto a card which you will have to carry with you at all times.
Like almost all articles on privacy, this glosses over the distinction between data that was never private, but in the old days was not widely accessible, and true privacy.
Your address, your occupation and the approximate value of your house are not private information: lots of people know them.
The contents of your personal diary, your conversations with your SO in your bedroom, and how you voted at the last election are private information: no-one else can get them unless the government forces you to reveal them, someone burgles your house or a trusted person breaches your confidentiality.
We are approaching the point where all non-private data are easily accessible. That has some unfortunate effects (and many fortunate effects), but there's nothing that can be done about it.
There is however no reason why truly private information should become less private. The only cause of this loss of privacy is a growth in the ambition and power of government which has nothing to do with technology and which needs to be fiercely resisted.
A Florida start-up is working on a 15,000-processor supercomputer than can essentially reconstruct the timeline of your entire life in minutes.
Imagine a Beowulf clus.... oh, wait, they already have.
The thing that infuriates me is that if this were a Democratic administration pursuing these legislative goals, we would see the neocon propaganda machine going balls-to-the-wall with apocalyptic wrath. Limbaugh and his lesser clones would daily be spewing out crap about how this is yet another example of how the Democrats are in cahoots with the commies and blah blah blah. But since we have Republicans in office there is next to nothing coming from these mindless sycophants who are responsible for propping up this administration.
I oppose any measures which lessen civil liberties no matter who is in office. Democrat, Republican, Green, don't care, doesn't matter. The "PATRIOT" Act was a complete load of shit, and kudos to the lone Senator who voted against it. (I think it was Feingold.)
Meanwhile, this so-called conservative administration is doing everything in its power to roll back civil liberties, and is succeeding in doing so on a daily basis. Congress is compliant, and the courts are becoming packed with judges friendly to the administration's views.
"Gotta give the cops MORE power! MORE! MORE! MORE, I SAY!" And if you complain about it, you are slandered as being unpatriotic or (worse!) a liberal.
Fuck all. These guys are power hungry goons the likes of which the Clinton administration never even got close to pursuing. Vote em all out, war success be goddamned!
Heh, ya, michael is fanatic about his yro.slashdot.org niche.
/. powers to mod down huge threads that are highly critical of him.
The part that cracks me up is how hypocritical he is. He posts hundreds of "Powerful leaders will abuse their power, our freedoms our gone!" posts on slashdot...yet he's been guilty of this exact same thing when he abuses his god-like
P.S. I'm posting anonymously not because of your sig, but because I fear michael's power of destroying my karma.
__ Yes! I'd like to be able to snoop on anyone, anytime from the privacy of my home or office computer. I understand that with Net Detective 8.0, I get an easy-to-use, self-installing program for unlimited use that carries a 90-day, 100% satisfaction money-back guarantee.
The author, Michael Kanellos, says:
"Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "
This is an excellent point, and it is exactly part of the problem. It's not just when they use this information correctly it's when they screw it up as well. It's when they confuse me for a terrorist, or make connections in my data that aren't really there. So this remote problem is only one thing to worry about, it's also the rest of the time they get it wrong.
There's always room for improvement. Always some niggling little problem, even in "relatively" good times.
What do we do to improve things? Why, that's easy. Identify that group of people holding things back.
And if those people are listed in some database and are required to carry "papers" rounding them up is easy peasy.
And thus things "now" become things down the road, in easy, popular, and politically advantageous tasty little bite sized morsels.
America's founding fathers understood all of this very, *very* well and took steps to lay logs across the rails of such "progress."
Good thing we've gotten rid of most of *those,* eh brother?
You *are* a brother aren't you? Let's see your papers to be sure, shall we?
KFG
According to the statutory laws that adhese you in a Driver's License, you are given permition by a private company to "Drive" their "Motor Vehicle" on the public roads.
That's fine and dandy, given that it is not constutional whereas the private company that gave you such permition neither owns the public roads and neither does it own the automobile that you gave to them and they re-titled it as a "Motor Vehicle". They must private a publicly notarized oath of affirmation, an affidavit, showing such laws and that isn't even half of it; you must be in their jurisdiction, ie agreed to those laws by contract. We the People have spoken a long time ago, and the unalienable right to travel is part of your liberty by the Common Law of the land.
A Driver's License is not supposed to have a picture, because there are artificial entities that can obtain Driver's Licenses. And the SSN is the same way, these are all simply adhesion contracts. Within the law, identification is according each entity you declare it as. You can identify yourself to anyone, in order for them to recognize any contracts you have initiated with them. That's how the world works, but sadly everyone thinks they can use the identification of you beknownst by another private company and that is unlawful.
Without any means of identifying you all such represive laws are inherently moot.
Has it never occured to you that nearly every law to "protect" minors, laws "for the children", in effect *remove* a right from the minors themselves?
You don't think that's accidental, do you?
We middle aged people in control have you right where we want you right now, and don't you forget it.
KFG
This is a perfect example of why gun ownership is a good idea and why our forefathers thought the Second Ammendment was a good idea.
Stand Fast,
tjg.
"which involves fatally altering data in a database"
I've seen lots of code that could do this. Unfortunately, it was part of an eCommerce application. This made it difficult to get access to the requested data. :-)
I'm still rethinking my beliefs on a lot of these things. I thought I had things sorted out. I had a set of beliefs which seemed to make sense, for instance, the idea that an armed populace is much less susceptible to oppression than an unarmed populace. But common sense in this case got blown out of the water by facts-on-the-ground when I became aware that guns and oppression are omnipresent in Saddam's Iraq, and almost nonexistent in Blair's UK.
As the old Cold-War-era joke goes:
-kgj
...by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
This is a perfect example of why gun ownership is a good idea and why our forefathers thought the Second Ammendment was a good idea.
Ummm... I suspect that a "responsible" thinker would pick the appropriate weapon, rather than recommending violence as the solution for every problem. Consider this: which of these items will be more useful in helping you prevent violations of your personal privacy:
1) A gun
2) An ACLU membership card
I bank online, pay my bills online, and pay my taxes online.
Wow, what a troll. Did you give up privacy in snail mail because anyone can open an envelope? Because you bank online, you are willing to have a webcam in your toilet? OK fine for you, but don't force that choice on the rest of us. Your attitude is dangerous and so is Mr. Kanellos's.
What you and Michael Kanellos gloss over is the difference between data that's being made available. Public records online? Great, it spares everyone a walk to the courthouse. What I look like when I'm pissed kept by the government? No thanks, that's a pointless waste of my money as well as invasive and abusive. It's currently against the law to publish another person's recognizable likeness for comercial purposes. Not distinguishing between the kinds of data that are useful and those that are harmful creates fear about the ability to publish and the recording instuments themselves.
The biggest problem is not too much publication but too little. Imaging in the future will be pervasive and so should publication. Cameras are already small enough that hours of full video and audio can be recorded by a device that fit's into your pocket. They will only get smaller and cheaper. We should all be able to share what we record with our friends and the world. Discresion should remain a thing of private manners. Kiss and tell has always been looked down on but it's never been against the law nor should it. Already reactionary idiots are trying to limit who can run mail and web servers. The kinds of fears Mr. Kanellos raises falls right into their hands. Irrational fears will be used to abuse indivduals, companies will continue their abuses while the rest of us are silenced and unable to complain about it.
I chose to expand my web presence and all of the good things it has brought me. New peer groups, contact with my family and friends, better news service and better communications all around. I also chose to keep others, private and public, from abusing information about me. I can encrypt my email and everyone should. This kind of thing will bring greater communciation because the media will be trusted as private. To paraphrase Rhodes, no natural resource can save a people who violate the post and lack respect for each other.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I do mean to troll here. Can somebody explain why the "Information wants to be Free" crowd at the same time is so obsessed with privacy? Does anyone have a good explaination of this or a pointer to further reading?
How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?
Complacency. Historical lessons are an interesting thing... people only tend to learn a lesson if they were personally affected by the lesson in their own lifetime. I would venture to say that at least half the civilized global population has lived in a stable enough societal setting (whether repressive or not) that they just figure the status quo is the way at's the way it always has been and always will be. It's the same reason a dissenting majority of people in a country often can't/won't get up the balls to overthrow their repressive leaders.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
By the unspoken rule of the Internet, that makes your argument null and void. Sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am willing to learn another language.
I don't like real hot weather. ( light skinned )
General: A Sysadmin geek, single, definitily not rich
I like freedom, but the current trends in the US scare me.
DRM is about someone else claiming ownership of your computer as a condition for listening to music or watching a movie. That ownership extends to everything you put onto that machine. This is the exact oposite of digital privacy. The idea is well devined in M$'s EULAs espeially for Media Player. It was demonstrated here.
Reasonable privacy of data can only be assured by demand and true ownership of computers by their owners. You should not do business with information rapists who demand the ability to collect and distribute information that has little to do with product quality. Laws should be passed requiring companies to state what information they collect and who they share it with so that people can have their preferences. If you and those companies don't really own your computer, all the above efforts are in vain. The real owner can collect and use the information and lie about how they got it.
DRM is evil, pure and simple. My privacy is better gaurded by not having a machine loaded with spys. You know that, don't you?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I'd never thought of it quite that way, but that is exactly right.
The ACLU has a good summary of what you're asking for here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206
The EFF has their analysis here: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html.
And the Center for Democracy & Technology has a long list of links here: http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/analysis.sh tml
Now go read at least one of these links before making anymore comments on how you don't think the Patriot act isn't bad for your freedom. EnkiduEOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?
yet another example of some moron analyzing the news IN the article. You report the news, let it be analyzed in the discussion.
Good news. Crimethink now easier to recognize and locate. -Minitruth
Dear AC,
Please cease and desist your illegal acts immediately or face the consequences. It is obvious that you have concealed the place of origin of your digital communication by using the name "Anonymous Coward" rather than your true name and email address. You are a threat to Homeland Security and are probably illegally downloading music, too.
Anyone knowing the true identity of Anonymous Coward, please contact your local TIPS snitch.
Regards,
Anonymous Government Offician
The "private" thing to do would be to not carry a cell phone at all. A cell phone is like a homing device that lets the phone company track you everywhere you go.
It's funny how slashdotters don't want any restrictions on p2p services, but they want the govt. to clamp down on trading of information when it's their personal data, even if it was collected in public settings (e.g. public security camera) or voluntarily given information (e.g. when you purchase a product with a credit card, you've voluntarily told the company who you are and what product you've purchased). So I guess information wants to be free, unless it's your personal information. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Vote for Pedro
Privacy in the electronic age has become a massive, intractable paradox. People are terrified about the ability of corporations to track their lives, but the world economy has come to depend upon all-seeing computer systems.
I'm not sure "terrified" is a word I would use..."deeply concerned" yes, but not "terrified". If people were terrified, then people wouldn't use technologies like the Mobil SpeedPass, the I-Pass for Illinois' automated tollbooths, or even credit/debit cards.
People scream for privacy, yet at the same time use online banking, crecit cards, and unencrypted e-mail. It was pointed out in a particular blog that RFID tags such as what Benneton or Michelin have proposed to use are a very deep threat to privacy...amongst other abuses, stalkers could conceivably use the technology to track their victims. While true, it is also unlikely, as tracking would require placing RFID scanners in strategic locations and linking to them. Not impossible, but improbable.
"Dragging all human behavior into the public is literally totalitarian," said Bob Blakely, chief security and privacy scientist for IBM's Tivoli Systems. "If you erode privacy, you erode liberty, because people don't tolerate things going on in front of them that they don't approve of."
I would tend to think that all human behavior is public in some fashion, technology or no. If you do not want your shopping/eating habits known to the general public, then don't shop or eat in public places. Anybody who has sat on a park bench and just watched people go about their lives can tell you a lot about human behavior, since it is so public. It's like the arguement regarding women who wear revealing clothing then get mad when men look at them. If you don't want me looking (note I said look, not leer) at your cleavage, then don't wear the ultra-low cut supertight t-shirt that shows nearly all to the world.
On the other hand, few people really want to restrict the flow of information. Search engines such as Google have made the world a smaller and far more accessible place. Collaboration among researchers on diseases such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) would be far more difficult without the ability to share patient data rapidly.
Very true. We are a "live in the now" society, wanting what we want when we want it. Instant messaging, downloaded music, instant credit for thos big purchases are such examples of an "immediate need" society. We have a need, we want it fufilled NOW. Not ten minutes from now, not in a few days, but NOW. Remember when eyeglasses took several weeks to get? Now you can walk into a Sterling Optical, get your eyes checked, and, you have your new glasses ready to go home with you.
Ultimately, though, business, government and individuals are going to have to agree to a compromise. Companies will likely have to take consumers' objections more into consideration when it comes to collecting or selling personal data. The legal fees and fines that come with misusing data will also help whip businesses into line, said John Tomaszewski, chief privacy officer at CheckFree, which specializes in payment systems.
Total agreement here. What information I give to you isn't really your information. It is still mine, but I am loaning it to you so you can provide the goods/services I am arranging, and that is it. No more, no less. If I haven't agreed to let you use my information for any other purpose, then you have no permission to do so. In a sense, your personal information is copyrighted (that dreaded word, I know) by you and is only released under your terms.
My two cents for the evening.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
The neocons and the globalists know that secure IDs stand in the way of profit because it makes it harder to sneak in cheap slave labor and abridge the penumbral rights of American citizens to first shot at whatever work is available here in America.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The card was not to be used for identification purposes. As it had no picture. It was also just a torn out piece of thick paper stock. Not even laminated! I still have my original old-style card.
"...just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
Are we in the same country or even on the same planet?
Actually that got started as a response to the left-wingers running a revolving-door justice system (so the violent offenders were constantly being dumped back on the streets)
Actually that would be the right wing revolving door, as violent criminals have to be released to make room for non violent drug offenders who got stuck with right-wing minimum sentences. Which will only get worse if the right wing Orrin Hatch gets his way and judges loose even more disgression when sentencing.
Eventually, "we are going to find ourselves on a slope with some degree of mind-reading," he added. That's because, he predicted, these systems will be one day able to rapidly compare your facial expressions with samples taken in a normal setting and with others taken in more stressful situations--when you were explaining yourself to a cop on a freeway shoulder, for example.
;)
Sounds like a face crime to me.
Question is, what if your face is ALREADY a crime? hmmm???
Don't hurt yourself on that one.
Identification Good!
Security Clearance Better!:-)
Our government loves us! It just wants to read our minds and reassure itself that we aren't a threat to it.
And when we go to Orange Alert status, I just stand still until Rover passes by.;->
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really?
Although America took the all-out war option to rid themselves of British rule, I think I remember another country that got the Brits off their backs, without the use of any weaponry, whatsoever.
Doesn't that rather undermine the example?
You Americans... it's all asses and guns with you lot... asses and guns.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
You are free to pay cash for all transactions, to not have a phone, to not drive a car, etc. It is only when someone wants credit, to communicate over public telecommunications media, operate a motor vehicle on governement built roads, etc. that they must identify themselves to both other private citizens and/or the governement. Or would you have the governement not be allowed to have the white pages of the phone book, you know, with all that personal identification information like your name and phone number and maybe even your address?
And, yes, I know the phone companies are, in theory, private companies. By public media, I simply mean that anyone can get a phone who can afford to pay the charges involved or, as an example, can buy a set of FRS radios (no FCC licensing). In order to participate in the "modern" world, you have to make yourself known to others and that may mean that someone who you'd rather not have that information can also get it.
Likewise, you are free to drive an un-licensed, unregistered car on private property. It just when you want to actually go someplace that you need that license, etc. So you are free to not interact with the governement for things like licensing your car... you just have to negotiate with each property owner between here and there permission to drive your car across their private property. That doesn't sound like too good of an idea to me so I'd just as soon let the governement build the road and determine who can and who cannot drive on it with me. And somewhere along there, for better or for worse, the governement makes up some silly regulations (like seatbelt laws) about what you can and can't do while driving.
Finally, pay cash for EVERYTHING. It kind of makes buying stuff on the internet or from a catalog difficult but at least no one can track your transactions. Also, you'll find big purchases like cars and houses to be a little bit difficult but just keep tucking that money under the matress (you can't put it in a bank or other people including the governement will know about it) until you've saved up enough and hope inflation stays low. Or do you expect a bank or store to extend credit to you simply on your good looks since NO ONE has any record of your past ability to pay?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You're forefathers thought the second amendmant was a good idea cause they needed their guns to wipe out the native americans that were runing your land opportunities by existing. Stop waving around an outdated right-wing idea as a godsend.
"How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
People who believe in the importance of the right to keep and bear arms have been wondering about this for a long time.
Welcome aboard, brother.
Insert witty sig here.
Actually that would be the right wing revolving door, as violent criminals have to be released to make room for non violent drug offenders who got stuck with right-wing minimum sentences. Which will only get worse if the right wing Orrin Hatch gets his way and judges loose even more disgression when sentencing.
I agree with you that they are definitely a BIG part of the problem.
I will take SOME issue with you on the matter of which "wing" is responsible. As I see it, historically they BOTH have pushed for such laws. But currently the only in-power voices for legalization seem to be Republicans.
But I'll be HAPPY to pat on the back any Democrat who proposes, or votes for, a legalization bill. Can you name one?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
NO, Information wants to be free when it helps me. When it helps someone else then the government should get involved.
See the differance?
An assult rifle. The ACLU only helps pedofiles in my area
I state "Chomsky quote here."
I think "Wow that showed him because I am liberal and clever"
You point out a flaw in Chomsky's logic
I say you lie because I am not that clever
I continue to think "Wow that showed him because I am liberal and clever"
perhaps one could remove the commodity status of their own personal information, insuring that no one would bother purchasing/tracking/etc it?
you've lots of ways to do that, here's two:
become homeless, quit your job, do nothing, buy nothing, say nothing..
or
follow every last little law to the T, do it cheerfully and genuinely, only buy products which are purchased by the largest groups of people, blend into the herd and leave no trace of an individual worth watching..
heh, you lose any old way.
but is it such a loss? who cares who sees what, if you're of no great interest to the government or major businesses? if you really don't have anything to hide, the problem is merely idealogical, and therefore insignifigant. just make sure you stay inside of those crosswalks when you traverse that intersection.
Things like this get me thinking more and more about the Free State Project
"Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote."
Yes, that's quite true. Woefully, the chance of their gathering it incorrectly, taking no useful advantage of it and incidentally screwing over thousands of people's lives is pretty huge based on prior track records....
What people always forget is that most of the damage caused by large beauracracies is not caused by the focused, well-managed efforts of sinister authority figures. It's usually the broken bungling of incompetent peons who have been given a pointless role to serve and are terrified that someone will realize that fact.
this article makes the assumption that our lifestyle with computers and all that will last beyond the next few years. well, let me tell you: all this computerized stuff depends on the availability of cheap oil. oil is something that will not be replaced easily - and it is running out. check out www.globalpublicmedia.com . there are a multitude of oil experts and academics who agree that the substance is running out and that there is no readily available alternative.
lets just cut the garbage short and return to the trusted lifestyle of tribalism.
cheers,
tim
So, I'm going to reply to my own message in response to those who replied to the original.
What I gather from what all three of you have said, is, that we can think governments have been and might in the future be oppressive when it comes to something that liberals abhor, such as a national ID card, but governments are always nice and respect the best interests of all their citizens both now and in the future, when it comes to a something that liberals love such as gun control.
All you who believe that we don't need and will never need our guns obviously haven't been paying attention to our lovely Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and that other wonderful fellow, the Secretary of Homeland Defense, Tom Ridge.
I got stopped by the Department of Homeland Security the other day on my way to the airport. It was far more surreal than I expected it to be. When I rolled down the window of my car to talk to the nice officer, I half expected him to say "Can I see your papers please?"
Stand Fast,
tjg.
.. is public information *by law* in most if not all states (presumably because it pertains to property taxes, which depend on assessed value, which in turn derives partly from the value of adjacent properties). Anyone can look it up in the local county assessor's office records (along with whether you've paid your property taxes, and how much they were).
Anyway, point being, the author of the article (which I agree is mostly yammering without much content) didn't bother to distinguish between legally-available personal data, data collected for marketing, and unethical snooping or "outing" of personal data by someone who's out to get you.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
Well put dmf! Nice pics too.
With face recognition, fingerprinting, and other biometric measures in place. I don't recall being asked for permission about any of these.
Would you go out of your way to stay in a hotel that respected your privacy as a matter of policy and a service "feature"?
How about a car rental company?
Or a grocery store?
Or $service ?
There is going to be an economy, (like the current "Black Market Economy") that will be HUGE, to cater for everyone that doesnt want everything about them to be writen down and stored.
OR
Everyone will practice dual identities. The problem with doing this is that if you "short circuit" your two identites, say, by using your two different credit cards (with different names) to pay one restaurant bill, a gateway between them would be created making it easy to get info on the real you.
This way, joined up government and or joined up databases can be broken down again. Into very small pieces.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Because God not only gav us the bible, but also brains to study it.
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
A thorough understanding of the bible is only possible if you are guided by the spirit, which means you have to be saved.
Since your understanding is little, let me tackle this point.
God knows everything and doesn't need blood to identify us.
Sin leads to death, but trough the blood of Jesus, the innocent who suffered for our sins, we may be forgiven and triumph over are sins.
Now God was going to kill all the first born of the heathens, but the jews were saved this death thru the blood of the lamb, which is an symbol if you will for the blood of Jesus (who is also called the lamb).
This esthablished the pascha for the jews where the blood of th lamb saved them.
Christ was crucified during the pascha holidays and replaced the lamd that had to be offered each year.
God's whole purpose with the Jews was to create a people who worshiped him so that the Messiah could be born of them and practice all his cultural rituals without sinning.
The KKK just like you misinterprets the bible.
The bible is very clear that all people are created equal. How exactly they quote the bible to support their claims, I have no idea.
But just like you they take certain texts ignore the rest and use it to say something that it doesn't.
Just like how you took that text and twisted it to show that it contradicts revelation 13:16-17.
God doesn't say identification is wrong, he merely says that the beast will use it embedded on the human body in the end time and that we should refuse it because it is of the beast/devil(in contrast to the identification we have now that is of humans) and will aid the beast in persecuting christians.
Europe has data protection law to control who gets your personal information (click here for info about the UK's implementation). Shouldn't you have the same?
Makes perfect sense. The whole phonebook idea is good, but it's sad that it's able to be pillaged by those unscrupulous few. I mean, if you have to pay per call, like with cellphones, the fact that one would get telemarketing calls over that medium at your expense is absurd. But to stop advertisers would mean more government, so it's a sad day. Noone has any respect for the common man these days. Can't they all just leave us alone? Personal freedom is of primary concern... let us govern/run our own lives. Make a product and let word of mouth spread its reputation, or market by product, not by paper. The whole thing seems ludicrous to me.
A good metaphor:
Do you take the red pill or the blue pill?
It's a matter of freedom.