Biometric Passports Agreed To In EU

An anonymous reader writes "The European Parliament has signed up to a plan to introduce computerized biometric passports including people's fingerprints as well as their photographs, despite criticism from civil liberties groups and security experts who argue that the move is flawed on technical grounds. (Back in 2005 Sweden and Norway began deploying biometric passports.)"

Comments

Demarchy is direct Democracy

[MindKata]

"What happens if there is a Stalin-like figure in the 1% that gets chosen" and "Furthermore, the lawyers and ambitious would quickly dominate."
The greatest advantage of a Demarchy is no one person can dominate it, (unlike a so called Democracy, which always fails to be a Democracy, because it is dominated by powerful groups). No one can know even just a fraction of that 1%, and its constantly altering, (yet always maintaining the same sampling quantity), so attempting to corrupt it cannot last. Also there would be public outrage if anyone even attempted to suggest it in the media, some way to grab power, so the majority view would crush a Stalin/Hitler like power grab outright and never allow it.

Plus what we have now in most countries, is *two major* opposing power groups, who over the decades oscillate alternatively in and out of power, yet they are all filled with people who all share *the same core goal*, of seeking power over other people, regardless of which party they are in. Therefore over time, they always push towards gaining ever more power over the majority of people. (They always push towards undermining democracy). i.e. Seeking political power is almost by definition, seeking to gain power over someone else, so they can then dictate the rules to others they have power over. So much for fairness. (Never forget, the people in power are allowed to be in power, and chosen to be in power, to help all of us, not put there to dictate to us all, often for their own gain, often at the expense of the majority of us).

Plus I really love the phrase "tyranny of the majority". Its pure FUD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
For a start, a democracy is supposed to be the view of the majority. So anything other than this position, is by definition, therefore highlighting we don't actually have democracy and instead have a bias towards a dictatorship helping to further the goals of a minority of the population. So much for fairness.

"Lastly, how would you organize 1% of the population? That's a staggering amount of people. Where do you hold them? How are that many people supposed to come to a conclusion, without the debate becoming very simple. There's no way even 1% of those people could make a speech to the assembly in the month they are alloted. What happens to the jobs they left behind?"
I did say technology, hence no need to all to be in same place at once!. Plus juries have managed to be used for centuries, so its no different in terms of people giving up their time to do jury service. Plus law trials are most definitely not dumbed down to be very simple, so no need to dumb down anything. Plus a lot of people each year do jury service.

Career politicians are a proxy. They are a proxy for the people they should be representing, as it wasn't possible in the past, to have the votes of everyone on every point needed to be voted on. But with new technology, we can remove the all too often corrupt proxy layer (and save a lot of money as a result) and move us towards a purer more direct form of democracy. Instead of voting for a political middle man proxy, to then allow them to vote for us, we cut out the middle man, and do the voting directly.

If the proxy was truly doing their job, *as they wish us to believe*, then removing the proxy and voting directly wouldn't have any effect at all on the system. But we all know, the system as it currently stands is corrupt, where the rich help the rich and the majority of people struggle to live. That isn't the world the people in power were put into power to create, yet each new group in power maintains this same imbalance at their core (*yet they wish us to believe they are not treating everyone like this*). The people in power seek political power almost by definition, seeking to gain power over someone else, so they can then dictate the rules to others they have power over, in effect, pushing the others