Slashdot Mirror
Cruising Fisherman's Wharf For New Passports' Serial Numbers
schwit1 writes "Fox News has an AP story on a hacker in San Francisco driving around and needing as little as 20 minutes to be successful in acquiring a passport number: 'Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic US passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet. ... Meanwhile, Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow "widespread surveillance of individuals" without their knowledge or consent.'"
You just need to buy an RFID shield for your passport and you can put your mind at ease. Unless, of course, you want to worry about how they don't work.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
I live in Finland and we do have a public healthcare system here. That doesn't mean that here wouldn't also be private healthcare available. Those who dislike the public system (which works pretty well but is underfunded so waiting lines can be hours long in any non non-emergency case) can go to the private clinics. In addition to competing with each other, private clinics also need to compete with the public health care. It sets some kind of a status quo of "If you don't manage to offer extremely good service, people will just use public healthcare".
So I don't think that the wealthy do need to worry about potential for lower availability of care. Public healthcare just gives best of both worlds... In theory.
Recently (within the past decade) right wing government has been trying to change the way that public healthcare works here. Instead of having doctors who work for the government they try to have government buy services from private companies. In practice this works horribly.
Government buys from the company that offers services for cheapest but that lowers the quality. And even those companies have higher prices than what government would pay directly to the doctors as the companies try to make profit. So it is slowly changing from "The best of both worlds" to "The worst of both worlds".
One example of this is a hospital near me (Peijas in Itä-Vantaa). It used to be managed by the government but then there was a decision to privatize (if that's a word) the emergency duty. Now, if you go there complaining that your chest hurts, you might still need to wait four hours in the lobby before a doctor sees you but if they deem that you need further care and send you to the main part of the hospital... You get EKGs taken, evaluations from several doctors and so on, all for completely free of charge. (Speaking from experience here.)
So even with the "worst of both worlds" it works somehow (which is good because I really couldn't have been able to afford the treatments in a private clinic). I just fear what happens if the rest of the hospital services will be bought from private companies too.
Public healthcare can be done very well or very poorly depending on how it is implemented.
As for taxation... Yeah, it raises. Can't deny you there. As a rather decently earning programmer I pay nearly half of my wage as taxes (then again, that is more than free healthcare. It includes, among other things, that government funded my university education and insured my student loan). You are wrong to assume it will hurt the wealthy, though. It uses the people who don't use the services.
Whether you are wealthy or not, having higher taxes that provide services that you use are fine. Higher taxes hurt those who rarely have to visit a doctor, they hurt those who don't go to an university and so on. Others would have had to pay that money anyways, it just wouldn't have gone to government but directly to the private companies that provide the services. And the result might not have been any better.