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?"
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!
-Adolph Hitler
A little scary, isn't it? National ID Cards are just one more step down a quite similar road. Please Vote!
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
If voting could accomplish anything, it would have been made illegal!
[btw, I am a registered voter; but I'm under no illousions that it matters.]
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?
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.
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
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.
As the old Cold-War-era joke goes:
-kgj
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?
[ pause for effect ]
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
That's not hypocrisy. That's being a citizen of the information age. We want the information that helps us be more productive, helps us be entertained, helps us work and play better to be free and open. But personal information won't help that for anyone and will only make my or your life worse. Whom is it hurting to have software free by design? No one. Perhaps the buyers of said software will pay a little more because some people do take it without paying. Haha, and ignoring the excuse that they could just download it too ;) (unless they are a company which has to pay because it's far easier to sue a corporation), that is a legitimate concern. But oh, well, in a revolution... there will always be people staying behind. But does it hurt someone to have his identity stolen? Does it hurt when your credit cards are maxed out, the company ignores you, and you now have a few grand on your debt...? I should say yes. Does it hurt to know that someone is always watching over your shoulder...? A government with normally less than angelic intentions who knows your every action is a very scary thought indeed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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.
A little scary, isn't it?
70% of Iraqi households had guns, and it didn't help them achieve freedom, did it? Do you honestly think, right now, that if a significant portion of the U.S. populace decided to revolt, that you could really overthrow the government?
You and every other taxpayer has funded the most advanced and most powerful military in the world, and if it came down to it, the government would use that military to defend itself, even if the constitution didn't allow it. The government in power would GIVE themselves the right to do it, under the guise of national security and PATRIOTism.
I know people who can recall first hand accounts of tanks rolling down the streets of Detroit. That little peashooter you have tucked under your pillow won't scratch a tank, and it's unlikely you could defend yourself against a soldier with an assault rifle and body armor.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
"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.
yes; The reason it didnt happen in Iraq was that they werent sure others would go along. revolting with 70% of the population would work; revolting by yourself is just suicide.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park