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!
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?
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
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!
Don't gloat for too long because you might miss the lobbying that is currently occurring over there with the aim of imposing similar restrictions ala the DMCA...
Quintus malus puer est.
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.
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...
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! ;)
"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!
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
"I suggest reading this [gnu.org] article about word documents and how to avoid them."
Score: +1, ItsNeverOffTopicIfItsAntiMicrosoft
"Derp de derp."
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. :-)
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?
Surely you know that the EU is in the process of passing DMCA-like laws.
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'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
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
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
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.
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
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
I'm sorry, our security policy does not allow us to open executable or MS Word document attatchments, as they may contain viruses. If the information contained in this document is important please send me a copy is a safer format, such as RTF, HTML or PDF. Thank you.
People are far more likely to conform to your request if it is states as comming from a pragmatic, rather than ideological, viewpoint.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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.
It's not the concept, it's the implementation and those who will implement it that worry me.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
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?
Dear european. How can you be so naive. The laws we see getting passed in the USA WILL get passed in europe. It's just that we in europe are warned.. and we still don't care. A fellow european.
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
If all people are created equal, why does the devil want to persecute Christians? Why not just persecute everyone?
Ignorance is not linguistic drift.
You know, look at Iraq if you truley want to see lack of freedom.
Yes, we are having our freedoms eroded all around us in the name of security, but by no means does this mean that we don't see any.
If you want proof go look at all the war protestors. Compare to what would happen if something similar had happened prior to Iraq invading Kuwait. You'll see little in the way of censorship or even overactive crackdowns on it. There you'd see people murdered, tortured, or just disappear.
You see people, in this forum and others talk openly and plainly against government policies and laws.
Now, while I do get worried about the government protecting IP to the point where you aren't allowed to look at what makes your world works, I don't think it rises yet to the level of remoting all traces of freedom. It doesn't seem like these are policies that foster a well informed populous, but its a long jump from that to getting a visit from MIB for disparaging the president.
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.
My question to you is, how do you define "us"? Frre trading of music does NOT make the record companies or artists more productive. It makes investment in artists more risky, and therefore, less likely. Thus artists must work day jobs and be less productive at creating music. You cannot simply take their work for free just because technology makes it easy. Similarly, private information that can be used for criminal purposes is also not free to the public. One cannot argue that p2p should be exempt from some laws (i.e. copyright infringement) but must obey other laws (information privacy).
Vote for Pedro