Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No ID Cards in the Future

Posted by michael on from the bend-over-and-wait-for-it dept.

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?"

18 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Yea... so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How will I prove I'm legally able to drink?

    1. Re:Yea... so... by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.]

  2. Wait, I thought... by tcd004 · · Score: 5, Funny

    we were all supposed to be getting Citizen I.D. cards soon.

    tcd004

  3. privacy, what privacy? by lily2skippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  4. the detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " 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.

    1. Re:the detail by dlakelan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NRA is basically correct. Lots of people don't like this fact. It doesn't make it any less true.

      Now I disagree with the NRA's support of the "war on drugs" and their concept that we generally need more imprisonment of all sorts of criminals (as opposed to basic economic changes that reduce the incentives for criminal behavior), but when it comes to believing in the domino effect of gun rights concessions, they are dead on.

      Privacy people sound the same because they are dead on about the Domino effect as well.

      Armedby Gary Kleck, and Don Kates gives a very good synopsis of this issue.

      --
      ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
  5. Goodbye ID Cards by buyo-kun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello Barcodes

    Well isn't this just freakin Dandy!

    1. Re:Goodbye ID Cards by pnatural · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      Revelation 13:16-17
  6. driver's license at hotels by faster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. how?! by nanojath · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?


    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

    1. Re:how?! by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you ask a victim of identity theft whether they "think things are relatively agreeable at present" you will probably find out that not everyone agrees with that assessment. Privacy and activity requiring "automated identification" (e.g., on-line, electronic banking, voting, commerce, etc.) are mutually exclusive. The only way you can be positively identified is if a trusted third party has sufficient knowledge of you that they can verify that you really are who you say you are (good-bye privacy) or you have some sort of unique identification that cannot be forged and that absolutely identifies you (hello government IDs).

      Turn the clock back to the '50s or earlier and the only thing that has really changed is you know who knows about you. People were trusted on a simple hand-shake or signature because the person extending the trust already knew who they were extending the trust to plus where they lived, who they worked for and, most of all, whether they could be trusted. That's why people worried about their "reputation"; the local banker didn't need a credit reporting agency to find out whether you paid your bills on time. Likewise, the corner grocer didn't need to ask someone buying alcohol for an ID to prove they were old enough because the grocer knew his or her customers and their kids.

      We can't turn back the clock so get used to the idea that positive identification will probably happen.

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
  8. Big Brother Loves You by hoopyfroodman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. My voice is my passport.... but i have laryngitis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  10. Brin's Transparent Society by zog+karndon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. One cell # = No privacy by dgenr8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  12. Not quite accurate by ThinkingGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Straight Dope on Hitler and gun control

  13. Interesting... by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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...

  14. Have you READ the patriot act? I have by enkidu · · Score: 4, Informative
    And so have these people. They articulate the problems with the PATRIOT act much better than I could hope to, so I will defer to their eloquence.

    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