Slashdot Mirror


Interpol Wants a Global Identity Card System

Orome1 writes "The head of INTERPOL has emphasized the need for a globally verifiable electronic identity card (e-ID) system for migrant workers at an international forum on citizen ID projects, e-passports, and border control management. INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said: "At a time when global migration is reaching record levels, there is a need for governments to put in place systems at the national level that would permit the identity of migrants and their documents to be verified internationally via INTERPOL." Issuing migrant workers e-ID cards in a globally verifiable format will also reduce corruption and enable cardholders to be eligible for electronic remittance schemes that will foster greater economic development and prosperity in INTERPOL member countries."

349 comments

  1. One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of commie Nazi fascists!

    1. Re:One world government by click2005 · · Score: 1

      FTFA:

      "The ID WORLD forum heard that such a card required developing a mechanism whereby the biometric identity features of migrants, such as fingerprints and DNA, would be checked systematically against global databases."

      A global DNA database?

      At least they wont be able to lose that data on a couple of CDs...

      http://www.alertboot.com/blog/blogs/endpoint_security/archive/2010/05/13/disk-encryption-us-army-reserve-has-laptop-stolen-cd-causes-data-breach.aspx
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_United_Kingdom_child_benefit_data_(2007)

      It'll be DVDs or a flash drive for that much data.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    2. Re:One world government by Catbeller · · Score: 1, Troll

      One world corporation. Interpol is a private company.

    3. Re:One world government by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      From "show me your papers" to "put this swab in your cheek, low-life" in a single step. How droll.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:One world government by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Control is the only reason I can see for something like this.

      Why can't we live our lives in a matter of micro-transactions without everyone knowing what you are doing? I mean, do I really need a global ID to buy a loaf of bread or visit the someone (say, a doctor) and pay them in cash?

      The only benefit to IDs are to people getting services from governmental bodies. (ie: so people don't cross the border and obtain medical care on the local citizen's bill.) The more I hear about global/national IDs, the more I hate socialized services because that's the only "valid" reason to have them. If people lived their own lives to the extent that they, as an individual, can afford there would be no need for IDs to make sure you are getting your fair ration.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 2

      "You really can't afford that chemotherapy... Too bad, you die!!"

    6. Re:One world government by nschubach · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and? Sure, it may suck... but if you can't afford something what makes the next guy responsible for you or your mistakes? (Not saying cancer is a mistake... but what if you go jumping off a roof? Do they have to pay for your stupidity?)

      I also get tired of the "Oh the humanity!" arguments like the one you just presented. One day you have to realize that people die. You have to be prepared for it. There are simply not enough resources in this world to allow people to be careless with their own health.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      So, getting cancer, getting in a car accident where you're not responsible, or getting alzheimer is being careless? I mean, Why do we support prisonners? Why shouldn't we just kill them? After all, they are sucking up ressources, right? And yet socialised health care works for many countries...

    8. Re:One world government by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So, getting cancer, getting in a car accident where you're not responsible, or getting alzheimer is being careless?

      I never said that. You are reading too much. However, I did say that you have to accept that you will die. That's the end of my argument with you.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:One world government by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, and? Sure, it may suck... but if you can't afford something what makes the next guy responsible for you or your mistakes? (Not saying cancer is a mistake... but what if you go jumping off a roof? Do they have to pay for your stupidity?)/blockquote?

      Because we're human beings and not vile repugnant inhuman anti-social Libertarian monsters.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:One world government by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So, getting cancer, getting in a car accident where you're not responsible, or getting alzheimer is being careless? I mean, Why do we support prisonners? Why shouldn't we just kill them? After all, they are sucking up ressources, right?

      Well, its tough, but am I truly my brothers keeper? Should that not be my choice rather than forced on me by the government?

      And we DO kill prisoners, if the crime fits the punishment. Remember, prisoners are being punished for crimes, and the death penalty isn't justified for most crimes.

      But in nature, bad things happen to good people, it sucks but that's the world we live in. It shouldn't, however be forced to be my problem when it does, I don't mind handing out cash and resources voluntarily, especially to relatives or good friends...but I don't need or want the government (especially on the federal level which does NOT know my living needs as good as local govt) forcing me to do so.One is freedom, the other is not.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:One world government by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      So, getting cancer, getting in a car accident where you're not responsible, or getting alzheimer is being careless?
      I mean, Why do we support prisonners? Why shouldn't we just kill them? After all, they are sucking up ressources, right?

      And yet socialised health care works for many countries...

      We *should* just kill them. They *do* suck up resources out of proportion to their productivity. And they aren't likely to get any more productive as time goes on, recidivism being what it is. Convict them, then dump them on the waste heap ASAP is the most economic solution.

      But most people have this thing about reciprocity, and seeing things from the other guy's point of view, and walking in his shoes, etc. Keeps them from killing people that are not immediately threatening their life, or going to threaten them later, and whose death would not serve some other higher purpose.

      But of course those same people are probably also opposed to stealing the resources of others who never agreed to it. Sneaking over borders, taking what they need, then leaving the mess to be cleaned and the bills to be paid by others. That pesky "Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing again. Humanistic morality is a mess. Better to leave it on an economic level. Easier to know what to do and what to expect.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    12. Re:One world government by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      So, getting cancer, getting in a car accident where you're not responsible, or getting alzheimer is being careless?
      I mean, Why do we support prisonners? Why shouldn't we just kill them? After all, they are sucking up ressources, right?

      And yet socialised health care works for many countries...

      Indeed, why are we supporting convicted criminals? Bring back exile! There are plenty of isolated islands that are suitable for permanent exile. I'd rather pay for college scholarships and medical care for law abiding citizens than for kenneling criminals. Offenders who currently get life sentences or the death penalty would get a one way ticket to an island somewhere far away (the Pacific Ocean is a very big place). So much for the hand wringing over the death penalty.

      Seriously, most countries simply don't have the money for the luxury of attempting to rehabilitate criminals. Save a person early through education instead of wasting them (and other people's money) in prisons.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    13. Re:One world government by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      That's the end of my argument with you.

      It's just as well. "Sucks to be them" isn't much of an argument to begin with.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    14. Re:One world government by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It is not a private company. Interpol is an international organization that fosters coordination and mutual assistance between law enforcement organizations. Its TLD is .int, and that is only provided to international organizations after a strict vetting process proving that it was formed by way of international treaty.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    15. Re:One world government by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 2

      You didn't answer his question. Let me recap:

      You: Socialized/Community medical care sucks
      Him: What if you get cancer and can't afford it?
      You: Sidestepping cancer, throw up strawman of roof jumping. I shouldn't have to pay for your mistakes.
      Him: Bites on strawman.
      You: You will die.

      But you never answered the cancer situation. If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so? Sure, there is that ever present threat of health care sucking roof jumpers, but I feel like that's somewhat in a minority.

    16. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, like it or not, you are your brother's keeper. You can bellyache all you want but in healthcare alone there are myriad things we do, as a civilization, that benefits the whole far more than an individual (vaccination is a great example of this). This extends, of course further than healthcare, but since that's the typical US libertarian bugaboo I thought I'd use that one. So unless you want to go back to the days of Polio and other horrid diseases that were common, for you and your kids, and go back to that "simpler time" of life expectancy of around 30 years, you can pull your head out and realize you aren't an island.

      I swear, people like you have remarkably little sympathy for those who aren't so fortunate. For every time you've "worked hard" to earn what you have you've probably benefitted 10 times simply from good fortune. The thing about social good fortune is it tends to rain over and over on the same folks due to privilege, but people like you, who without exception hold themselves as intelligent, are remarkably blind to something like social good fortune, even though it's fairly obvious.

    17. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, I don't live in a country that has the death penalty.
      And our daily lives are made possible by the pooling of ressources. I don't have kids, and yet some of my taxes go to school districts.
      My neightboor doesn't have a car, and yet some of his taxes pay for the roads I use.
      I'm not sick, and yet some of my taxes go to someone who is.
      Right now I have a job, and some of my taxes go to someone who doesn't. And when i didn't have a job, that guy was probably paying for my appartment. That's called living in a community.
      Your community happens to have around 300 million members, and mine around 60. Why should your community be reduced to your few friends and family?

    18. Re:One world government by maxume · · Score: 1

      Aren't there lots of people that are opposed to killing prisoners?

      (at least enough to limit the usefulness of execution as an example when discussing how a society should function...)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:One world government by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why can't we live our lives in a matter of micro-transactions without everyone knowing what you are doing? I mean, do I really need a global ID to buy a loaf of bread or visit the someone (say, a doctor) and pay them in cash?

      Do you typically cross a national border to buy a loaf of bread or visit your doctor? Why would you think you needed a global id used for border control and migrants if you don't cross a border, and how do you deal with the requirement for id and recordkeeping that already exist if you do?

      Why would you think that an ID you use to cross the border to buy your loaf of bread would stop you from paying for it in cash, or for a doctor the same way?

      If people lived their own lives to the extent that they, as an individual, can afford there would be no need for IDs to make sure you are getting your fair ration.

      So live your life to the extent that you can without crossing a border and you won't need either a passport or a global id used to cross borders.

      Unfortunately, you can live your life to the extent you can afford and it will not stop anyone else from doing so, so their actions make it a requirement for everyone to have an ID for certain things. I mean, a welfare office, for example, cannot simply ask every person who walks in "are you a welfare recipient" when the line of people queue up asking for their welfare money.

    20. Re:One world government by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Please log into the internet with your global ID. No sites will load without it. "

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    21. Re:One world government by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Aren't there lots of people that are opposed to killing prisoners?

      (at least enough to limit the usefulness of execution as an example when discussing how a society should function...)

      Not really...and depends on the state you're in.

      Heck, in recent years...Texas has been putting in laws that will streamline the process for heinous acts of murder that have like 3-4 credible first account eye witness of the act.

      Sure, some states are trying to outlaw the death penalty, but Texas is putting in an express lane!!

      --with apologies to Ron White

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 0

      And yet socialised health care works for many countries...

      Those countries are quietly making tough choices: beyond a certain age, you don't get expensive treatments anymore, when you're younger, you get cheap treatments even though expensive treatments might be slightly better, etc. Most of those countries can only afford that because they are still benefiting from a post-WWII economic bonus and let the US pay for their defense. And it's still eating a large chunk of their disposable income and is likely unsustainable.

    23. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      {{Citation needed}} for every single one of your points...

    24. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      So the only country that matters is the US, and the only part of that country that's important is texas?
      Most civilized countries have outlawed death sentences.

    25. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?

      You have an inflated sense of what medicine can do right now; medicine doesn't reliably "cure the sick". Medicine can cure some simple diseases, improve quality of life for some others, give you a slightly better chance for yet more, and even make you sick or kill you. Medicine is not a very effective way of saving lives.

      The problem is really one of resource allocation: every dollar you spend on medical treatments is a dollar you don't spend on education, research, public health, etc. That only makes sense if that dollar spent on medical treatments saves more lives and produces more happiness than if you spent it somewhere else. We're already far beyond that point in our medical treatments in the US.

    26. Re:One world government by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      So if you get run over or need a kidney you'll take one for the team then?

    27. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason, I'd rather save on the money spent on the military than on the money spent on health.

    28. Re:One world government by Teancum · · Score: 2

      There are many problems with socialized medicine, not the least of which is that there isn't a limit to what care can be provided, or that the limit is something dictated by a government bureaucracy.

      Back about a hundred years ago, there were hard limits in terms of what a physician could do to help you out if you got sick. Giving you a couple pills, prescribing you some cocktail of chemicals mixed with alcohol, and some rudimentary surgery was about all that could be done, and none of that was really all that expensive.

      At the moment, in theory most people's lives could be extended almost indefinitely provided you have the cash to get that accomplished. It isn't really so much a matter of if somebody can be healed, but how much that is going to cost. While not extremely common, I do know of some people who have run up medical bills totally more than a million dollars using modern health care practices. Tens of millions of dollars in care for a single person is certainly not impossible any more.

      My point with all of this is in terms of how the decision is made to simply say "enough!" and that somebody who is injured, sick, or cursed with some genetic defect can receive or be denied that medical treatment, especially since not everybody around us is a multi-millionaire that can pay for this level of care. This is why health care expenses are spiraling out of control, because the ability to do this kind of treatment forces a hard examination of how much somebody is actually worth in terms of chewing up scarce resources (whatever that resource might be). Medical care is a limited resource and it is impossible to treat EVERYBODY as if they are all of unlimited worth.

      I would dare say that even the very notion of health care and how it is administered needs to really be rethought down to fundamental levels and perhaps whole new systems put into place.

      Getting back on topic, the question at had isn't if somebody who needs medical care should or should not be treated, but if the system is one of central planning with a central bureaucracy literally allocating the decision of your life or death, or if perhaps a less centralized system ought to be put into place that preserves personal liberties. For myself, I strongly distrust central planning groups because they almost never have my interests and needs in mind, or for that matter even care if I live or die. If your ability to live and see tomorrow depends strictly on your political connections (or lack thereof), something is seriously wrong and sick with the society as a whole.

      The whole reason to force everybody to get these IDs is strictly to know who has better political connections so they can get better treatment over the "proletariat" commoners who lack those connections. Yeah, that is something I want to support.

    29. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, like it or not, you are your brother's keeper. You can bellyache all you want but in healthcare alone there are myriad things we do, as a civilization, that benefits the whole far more than an individual (vaccination is a great example of this).

      Vaccinations are public health, not health care. Public health is clearly underfunded in the US: we should be spending more on vaccinations, health education, statistics and monitoring, and public health research.

      Public health may also include some treatments for infectious diseases. All of those should be free and provided by the government. Effectively they are. But even this overlap between public health and health care is negligible.

      Almost all US health care spending is on diseases which pose no threat to others: heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer. Most of that spending is wasted: either the disease is preventable, or it is treatable with lifestyle changes, or treatment is nearly ineffective.

      For every time you've "worked hard" to earn what you have you've probably benefitted 10 times simply from good fortune

      That kind of reasoning is pointless; markets aren't socially fair, but they are still better than the alternatives. Government should do a little bit of work to smooth the excesses that markets sometimes produce, but anything more doesn't really work.

      The real question is: what is going to get people off their butts so that they make the changes in their lives that keep our health care spending in check.

    30. Re:One world government by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So the only country that matters is the US...

      In this thread of a conversation on a US centric discussion forum...yes

      ... and the only part of that country that's important is texas?

      No...the US is comprised of several somewhat autonomous (although that is disappearing unfortunately) states, I was merely stating that there are vast differences in the law based on the state you reside in here.

      As far as world view of this...no, this request involves ya'll too, however, I'd vote the US stay as far the fuck away from this as possible. You think I don't want to get rid of my states autonomy (no, I don't live in TX)...that's nothing compared to my wishes and will to have my country remain autonomous from something like this which does sound like one world order stuff.

      I really don't much care what anyone does in their part of the world...until it affect me in mine.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    31. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speak for yourself

    32. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      The US has all the same pooling of resources. For education, infrastructure, etc. they make sense. Furthermore, all of those have significant per-use costs built in: if you have many kids, if you have multiple cars or use roads for trucking, you pay extra.

      It's not clear that that makes sense for health care, and for health care, you pay the same whether the costs arise as a consequence of your choice or by accident.

    33. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      So the only country that matters is the US...

      In this thread of a conversation on a US centric discussion forum...yes

      And here I was, thinking that /. was accessible and used by most of the world...

    34. Re:One world government by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Do you typically cross a national border to buy a loaf of bread or visit your doctor? Why would you think you needed a global id used for border control and migrants if you don't cross a border, and how do you deal with the requirement for id and recordkeeping that already exist if you do?

      Replace "loaf of bread" with "medicine", and you might have a clearer idea.

      Proof: Folks in the US trot off to Mexico to purchase drugs that, while they may work to an extent, are not approved (or banned) by the FDA, and happen to be real cheap - it's amazing what people will do when they become desperate to find a cure for something, especially if the disease is progressive to the point of fatality. Others also trot off to Canada to buy drugs at prices far cheaper than they can get back home of equivalent qualities and strengths, thanks to a combination of pharma corporation regional/national pricing, and the bulk buying power that the entire Canadian government has with which to drive down prices.

      Not so easy to do if the whole planet is under one giant bureaucracy with which to deny these purchases on a blanket basis, based on who you are and where you live.

      Go to Juarez right now and you can tell the local pharmacist that you're American, Canadian, German, African, whatever... and he won't care (or in some cases even know). Go there in a world that adopts a global ID, and odds are perfect that there are treaties that will have sprung up to insure that the same pharmacist is required to see your global ID, and either accept or deny the transaction based on that "Address" portion of the ID. Or, worse, expect that the purchase can be made, but that the transaction gets recorded and sent back to your government/doctor/insurance/etc - when you get home there will likely be an invoice waiting there for the difference, a misdemeanor summons if the drug has been banned, or a notice from your HMO in either case saying that you've just been dropped.

      Sure - you could do it illegally and whatnot, but expect the prices to rise accordingly.

      ...and this is only *one* aspect. Stretch your mind out to other commercial goods and services which, while ostensibly useful and/or valuable, tend to be regulated a bit heavy by the US Government and/or by industry (Tobacco, Alcohol, automobile specifications, etc).

      So live your life to the extent that you can without crossing a border and you won't need either a passport or a global id used to cross borders.

      Passports don't have the same kind of reach, nor do they have any sort of globally centralized and/or universally accessible database.

      Some of your argument makes sense, in that some sort of identification is necessary - if you're accessing or using government-provided services (from roads to welfare, etc). OTOH, I'm not seeing any compelling argument for making this concept a global one, let alone a universally imposed one.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    35. Re:One world government by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?

      I don't know where you are from, but I'm in the United States. Last month, our government spent eight times what it took in. Our total deficit is larger than our GDP. We're going to have to cut trillions from the budget just to break even and then to tack on another few trillion to pay for socialized medicine, we will need to cut from somewhere else. Currently, the government is about to shut down because one side wants to cut $60 Billion from the budget out of a deficit of about $1.6 Trillion, and the other side is balking saying that it is way too much ("Six million elderly will starve!!!).

      Of course, if government starts paying for healthcare, expect the total bill to go up as no one will have any reservations about going to see a doctor for problems that they feel are not worth paying for themselves.

      Obviously, we do NOT have the resources and we certainly don't have the will to free up the resources needed to have government pay for the sick. If our debt was paid off and we had a surplus of a few trillion sitting around, I'd say it's a great idea. I don't see that ever happening.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    36. Re:One world government by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For some reason, I'd rather save on the money spent on the military than on the money spent on health.

      Then who would protect your right to say that?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 2

      Because we're human beings and not vile repugnant inhuman anti-social Libertarian monsters.

      I don't endorse the libertarian position, but frankly, people like you often just turn out to be a different kind of monster--the theocratic kind, the socialist kind, the totalitarian kind, etc. You're all out to help me live better, but historically, your track record is lousy.

      What seems to work fairly well is a democracy with a loosely regulated free market and a limited set of public services. The government should build roads, prevent monopolies, and make sure everybody is vaccinated and gets treated for communicable diseases.

      Whether it should make sure you have insurance coverage for diabetes, cancer, and bypass operations is open to debate. Often, those diseases are preventable and do fall under personal responsibility. And the amount of treatment people want may also differ.

      In different words, I am happy to pay for the consequences of your bad luck, but I'm not happy to pay for the consequences of bad choices you have made when you should have known better, and I'm not happy to waste money because you have an irrational fear of death.

    38. Re:One world government by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      And our daily lives are made possible by the pooling of ressources. I don't have kids, and yet some of my taxes go to school districts.

      No, but I bet your parent's had kids who went to school on the state's dime. THAT is what you are paying for.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    39. Re:One world government by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      And here I was, thinking that /. was accessible and used by most of the world...

      Not really. According to the FAQ page, under the Editorial Section:

      Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope? "Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

      It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites. "

      So yes...when I post here, I take things from a US perspective, and how it affect me as a US citizen. I welcome foreign viewpoints...nice to hear and learn about them. But this is a US centric site with US centric mindset on the topics, so, no reason to get offended if you don't live here nor should you expect us to think they way you do either....especially if the topic at hand might affect USA and its citizens.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:One world government by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 2

      Right, because most of the money spent on the military ends up defending me... Sure.
      I mean, my country is currently engaged in wars in three countries, none of which were started to defend it
      And let's not even start talking about the US military spending...

    41. Re:One world government by unixfan · · Score: 2

      Haha, not quite so. As the end of the war (WWII) there was the growing concern amongst various war criminals in Germany that they might end up in big trouble. The idea was formed to start an organization that would be looking for criminals, but manned by them, which would hold them above suspicion (plus they had new identities). At least that was the idea. That organization was named Interpol. It certainly was a private organization without any powers which is often given all sorts of powers in movies, but alas that is in movies.

      Their current status does not have any war criminals as they are all dead, but one can only wonder what is up with an organization started by war criminals to help them hide.

      For all the young ones I'd like to point out the classic PR number that people so easily fell for in the early days of gas stations. Back in the days when you went to fill up your car with gas you were often doing the filling yourself. The criminal would fill up his car partly, turn off the pump and the restart it. Then completing the filling. Of course the meter only showed the last fill and so you got away with paying less than you took. To raise themselves above suspicion they would simply pop in every now and then and announce that they took gas the day before but forgot to pay. Thus making the gas attendant think that the criminal was one honest fella.

      There's two ways to hide, one is in the open. In the most obvious place...

      As far as TLD, that ship sailed a long time ago as everyone simply stopped verifying the correctness, and the steps in place is easy to sail around. Since most people don't verify much I would be surprised if someone questioned Interpol's status. Which mind you I've not done for some time myself. By now anything is possible, I just don't look at a TLD to determine what they are.

    42. Re:One world government by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and? Sure, it may suck... but if you can't afford something what makes the next guy responsible for you or your mistakes? (Not saying cancer is a mistake... but what if you go jumping off a roof? Do they have to pay for your stupidity?)/blockquote?

      Because we're human beings and not vile repugnant inhuman anti-social Libertarian monsters.

      Then I suppose you are donating at least 45% of your after tax income to pay for the treatment of others, correct?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    43. Re:One world government by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      But think of all the security that this would bring to the world. They could just bounce the amount of money you make versus what you are spending it on and find out if there are any discrepancies. If there are discrepancies then you must be doing something bad with your money like buy drugs...or girl scout cookies. If you're doing this then you're a druggy/pedo/fatty and therefore must be jailed. If you're saving it under your mattress then you must have no faith in the system and therefore must be jailed.

    44. Re:One world government by Score+Whore · · Score: 0

      It seems like there is an underlying argument here and that is that you think people shouldn't be responsible for the choices they make. None of those situations are unknown. Humans are human and if you get old you're going to get sick, you'll get cancer or have heart disease, or develop dementia. Given how probability works, everyone will at some point be involved in a car accident. Those are just the realities of life. So the question really is is whether people should be planning for these eventualities or whether they should be able to ignore the future. Wear a seat belt, buy insurance, save for your retirement. I have a really hard time accepting the fact that Fred and Wilma Johnson took their family to Europe every summer instead of building a nest egg, now Fred has prostate cancer and they don't have the means to pay for his cancer treatments. The question is always framed as my greed vs. Fred's cancer treatment. But that's completely false. The real question is Fred's summers in Europe vs. my daughter's college tuition. Or Fred's smoking habit vs. my being able to afford living in a safe neighborhood. Or Fred's refusal to wear a seat belt vs. my having to work until I'm seventy.

      People are generally not assholes, even those who don't want to pay others' medical bills. They have real, valid reasons why they are incensed at being seen as a resource to be tapped by those who show complete disregard for their own future well being.

    45. Re:One world government by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, why would I? I pay my taxes and don't call it theft or believe that what I've earned doesn't come with a debt to the wider society in which I live. I'm not an anti-social Libertarian monster.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    46. Re:One world government by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You don't endorse the Libertarian position, but you basically defend it in the next three paragraphs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    47. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      We have the technology to save some of the sick. The resources ultimately come from the individuals themselves. If it didn't they would dry up very fast. Someone has to pay for everything right down to that syringe.
      I work in a hospital. I see the strain on the system as it is. I know how much things cost, and why they cost so much. Claiming that we are able so save everyone is stupid and foolhardy.

    48. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A) Military actually is in the US Consitution, unlike any mention of health care
      B) Deterance and prevention is the primary point of a standing army
      C) If there were no US military there would be a lot more wars going on than there already are.

    49. Re:One world government by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?

      Good question. Your question, however, ignores the issue of WHO PAYS for the cure.

      Should our government, made up of ALL, force ALL taxpayers to pay for it, or should paying for it be a matter of personal conscience? (And should it then exempt half the population from paying because they don't 'make enough' to pay taxes? If this is a true moral imperative, then doesn't it apply to the people making less than the minimum AGI as well as those who make more? Can true moral standard truly depend on how much money you have?)

      Do you allow those who disagree with you that it is a moral imperative for others to pay for the sicknesses of some the right to disagree in any significant way, or do you force them to participate in the process by using tax dollars? Is this how freedom operates?

      Charities have existed for a very long time and aren't taxpayer funded, or shouldn't be anyway. St. Judes, the Red Cross, Ronald McDonald house, and a very very very large number of others, exist to provide the charity that is the basis for your "moral imperative" without needing to apply it to those who differ in their opinion. Those charities are harmed every time the government steps in to raise taxes to provide the service. People can honestly and ethically say "if my tax dollars do this, I don't need to donate...". Sadly, they lose the positive reinforcement of the act of charity, so while some gain, many more lose.

      So yes, we should cure what we can, but no, I don't believe that forcing everyone to pay for it is the right solution.

    50. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't need to. Since your so generous and feel everyone deserves the best there is (which ultimately just reduces the meaning of "best), you would pay all my bills for me, right?

    51. Re:One world government by maxume · · Score: 1

      Neither the debt nor the deficit is larger than the GDP. The debt is getting very close.

      And it pays to note that the Republicans in congress want that $60 billion to come out of the ~$500 billion of non-defense discretionary spending. I don't really think the massive spending is doing the country any good, but cutting 10% of the government looks a lot harder than cutting 3% of it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    52. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      I can't remember all the details, and I don't care to look it up, but in the 1800s there was a major disaster in the southern US. I think it was a drought or something like that. People called on the president to sign a bill issuing welfare to those affected. He refused on the basis that it wasn't the governments job and private parties should rise to the occasion. They did, supplying almost 10 times as much as the bill would have granted.
      The point is that that wouldn't have happened if the government had stepped in. Voluntary donations are better all around. People feel better about giving them than taxes, they usually give more, and those receiving it are more grateful.

    53. Re:One world government by Scamwise · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean who would protect all the oil you need to power the internet because we are too stupid to move to alternative generation methods that allows you to say that.

      --
      Sam "to lazy to register" Look
    54. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2

      In history, who has proven to be the biggest monsters? Marx and Engels (the fathers of both socialism and communism) or George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?

    55. Re:One world government by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      So why do you assume that the position of people who don't want total socialized health care is zero health care? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. As a public policy issue mandating vaccinations (which we do not do, fyi) makes good sense because high levels of vaccination help everyone. On the other hand spending a million dollars on cancer treatments for an 80 year-old, beloved grandmother just doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, it sucks, but it's the truth.

      Most of the time good fortune isn't just random, it's being positioned to fit the needs of the situation. You might say I have the good fortune to have a well paying job, but the reality is is that the opportunity opened up for everyone, but most people didn't have the skill set. Or someone has the good fortune to have purchased a particular stock when it was at a low value, no it's more like they had saved up their money so that when they recognized a good value they were able to create mutual benefit by funding the startup via a stock purchase. Luck is winning the lottery or being hit by lightning (bad luck in that case.) Being prepared and making good choices when opportunities arise isn't good fortune, as opportunities arise for everyone all the time.

    56. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof: Folks in the US trot off to Mexico to purchase drugs that, while they may work to an extent, are not approved (or banned) by the FDA, and happen to be real cheap - it's amazing what people will do when they become desperate to find a cure for something, especially if the disease is progressive to the point of fatality.

      Your "proof" doesn't hold up. Actual approval of pharmaceuticals in Mexico is surprisingly well regulated. Also, there are only a handful of drugs that are not approved in US that are actually approved in Mexico, and I don't recall any of them is for the common stuff Americans would bother crossing the border for (e.g. CV disease, cancer, diabetes, ED, and possibly asthma). And for all it counts, the FDA and its Mexican equivalent meet a number of times each year on this issue. There was even talk of having a permanent FDA representative in Mexico not long ago.

      The real reason why Americans cross the border to buy medicines in Mexico (apart from the price) is because you don't need a prescription to get them. That means you can go out of your way and buy a supply of legitimate, Pfizer-produced viagra for the whole year and no one will stop you. And you can do that at a regular pharmacy, without breaking any law. (However, stay away from "Farmacias Similares", as they sell low quality generics that have been a pain in the ass to get out of the market).

      The only, recently introduced, exception to the no-prescription situation is for antibiotics due to fears of people abusing them and developing resistant bacterial strains.

      Now, if you are talking about miracle remedies, you don't really need to cross the border for that. You guys have your own long tradition of snake-oil salesmen. So please, stop spreading nonsense.

    57. Re:One world government by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Um... Often though not always cancer IS the result of one's poor choices. I don't like the word mistake though. Few people are mistaken about the risks of smoking, poor eating habits, lack of exercise etc and I don't think they accidentally lit the cigarette and dropped it in their mouths. They just chose an early, slow and painful death anyway. Actually, it's the same with heart disease, STDs and a number of other maladies. I think it's perfectly reasonable not to want to be responsible for someone else's choices.

      That being said I don't think that is what a global id would be about.

    58. Re:One world government by layabout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're going to have to cut trillions from the budget just to break even and then to tack on another few trillion to pay for socialized medicine, we will need to cut from somewhere else.

      we are already spending twice the most expensive single payer system to service fewer people why do you think we would need to add to out tax burden? take what we are spending today on health insurance, eliminate all but 10% admin overhead and we could have a gold plated health coverage for everybody. starting up means rearranging what we spend on health, not adding to it.

    59. Re:One world government by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actual approval of pharmaceuticals in Mexico is surprisingly well regulated.

      I never said otherwise - what I did say was that Mexico has/sells pharmaceuticals that the *US* FDA may not have yet approved, or may have banned for some reason or other.

      Also, there are only a handful of drugs that are not approved in US that are actually approved in Mexico, and I don't recall any of them is for the common stuff Americans would bother crossing the border for (e.g. CV disease, cancer, diabetes, ED, and possibly asthma).

      You don't come close to invalidating anything I said, and confirming it further doesn't help any.

      The real reason why Americans cross the border to buy medicines in Mexico (apart from the price) is because you don't need a prescription to get them.

      ...which in turn only reinforces my main point even further. Thanks! :)

      Now imagine if the US and Mexico had one big ol' database where all buyers could have their medical records updated no matter which country the person is from, or buys the drugs in?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    60. Re:One world government by imric · · Score: 2

      A. Promote the General Welfare _IS_ mentioned in the preamble. It may not be a duty, but it IS a goal.

      B. Really. So having a military that outspends all other militaries in the world _combined_ is all about peace, eh?

      C. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Non-Military-Industrial-Complex funded citation requested, please.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    61. Re:One world government by imric · · Score: 1

      So - you agree that a baseline of social healthcare is important then? It's just a question of how much?

      How... reasonable! You vote that way too, I hope.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    62. Re:One world government by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Not so easy to do if the whole planet is under one giant bureaucracy with which to deny these purchases on a blanket basis, based on who you are and where you live.

      A very nice rant, but it ignores both the issue of this article and the specifics I detailed in my post.

      There is nothing in a "global id" used for migrants and border control that would prevent you from buying that medicine or bread or whatever you desired using cash, credit card, or trade in chickens for all that matters. Ranting about anonymity in this context is completely irrelevant because you ALREADY give up anonymity to cross that border. You cannot be losing something you already DO NOT HAVE.

      Now, I don't go to Mexico, so I don't know if they care who comes in from the US and run the same passport scans that the US does on incoming people. If they don't, and they do allow you to enter anonymously, or at least with just a look at your id and no record, then that's great, and NOTHING CHANGES, because they are just as unlikely to record anything about your global ID, or even require it. In that case, your anonymity is unchanged. You lose nothing.

      In any case, Interpol is not an agency that can deny you anything. They can't say "don't sell to him" because they have no authority to do that. All they can do is advise any border crossing agents that you have a record internationally and they might want to look twice at you.

      Go to Juarez right now and you can tell the local pharmacist that you're American, Canadian, German, African, whatever... and he won't care (or in some cases even know).

      And he won't know tomorrow unless you tell him. And even if you tell him, he's just as likely not to care. The same reason that he's there today selling cheap/imitation/unapproved drugs to Americans will exist tomorrow.

      Go there in a world that adopts a global ID, and odds are perfect that there are treaties that will have sprung up to insure that the same pharmacist is required to see your global ID,

      Nonsense. There are no "perfect" odds. There is no treaty that will force a local pharmacist to look at your global id when he is free not to look at one for local purchasers. He can't force local purchasers to show such a card because there is no requirement for them to have one.

      Or, worse, expect that the purchase can be made, but that the transaction gets recorded and sent back to your government/doctor/insurance/etc ...

      It's hard for data to be sent back to 'your' government/doctor/etc when nobody knows who that is or even who you are. If you are saying that they'll know you crossed the border, well, THEY ALREADY KNOW. What you do there depends on you. If you pay by credit card, they'll know who you are and what you bought. If you pay by cash, they won't. There will be nothing to send back.

      Proof? My local pharmacy has my insurance information on file. I can still walk in there and buy things with cash and there is no tie back to my insurance because I DON'T TELL THEM WHO I AM. It's hard for them to record a transaction with my name when they don't know it.

      Passports don't have the same kind of reach, nor do they have any sort of globally centralized and/or universally accessible database.

      You don't need a globally centralized database of passports for YOUR COUNTRY to know where YOU go and WHEN. At least they can tell when you COME BACK, since going is relatively anonymous and you deal with THEIR country mostly. This card does NOTHING to change what you do when you leave, and isn't required if you don't want to leave in the first place.

      OTOH, I'm not seeing any compelling argument for making this concept a global one, let alone a universally imposed one.

      Since it isn't proposed to be globally imposed, much less universally, go back to sleep. When someone proposes a mandatory global id for everyone, your rant will have some validity. It's unlikely to happen because it would apply to too many people and be too intrusive for them to accept it.

    63. Re:One world government by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      No, but I bet your parent's had kids who went to school on the state's dime. THAT is what you are paying for.

      That brings up one question I can never reconcile. Should people that have kids (or lots of kids) not pay more in taxes than those with few kids or none...since they do in fact use more resources?

      I mean, if I drive a larger gas guzzling car/truck, I pay more fuel taxes....

      And no....I don't buy that it is to encourage people to have kids (future tax payers). People will naturally fuck, and naturally have kids.

      I cannot even imagine a scenario where the couple was vacillating about using a rubber or not, and realized they'd get tax deduction...and ripped off the rubber to fuck bareback.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re:One world government by layabout · · Score: 2

      It's not clear that that makes sense for health care, and for health care, you pay the same whether the costs arise as a consequence of your choice or by accident.

      If I choose to ride a car, motorcycle, subway, do I pay different costs of I get hurt because of who is at fault? If I choose to take a shortcut home through an "unsafe" neighborhood and get hurt in a mugging do I pay more? I cut code, I develop rsi, I can no longer work. is it my fault for choosing programming as a career? you take a dr prescribed drug that puts on 60 lb and will not come off because of non-reversible biochemical changes? are you at fault for being fat? .you live in a city, poor and can't afford or find off working hours, food that isn't cheap carbs and become diabetic? are you at fault because your living environment and income won't pay for food that doesn't make you sick? today, each of those very real examples has a "and then you sue" component to determine fault. big waste of time and money when the goal should be restoring the person injured to health asap? chasing all of these corner cases would probably cost more than just paying without question.

    65. Re:One world government by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The real reason why Americans cross the border to buy medicines in Mexico (apart from the price) is because you don't need a prescription to get them.

      ...which in turn only reinforces my main point even further. Thanks! :)

      No, it proves you are spouting nonsense even more. There are already passports and border control documents in use by both Mexico and the US and there are scads (according to you) of people who cross the border to get drugs without prescriptions or the government knowing. Having a US passport in your pocket when you walk into a Mexican pharmacy does NOT mean your cash purchase is being tracked any more than any other ID in your pocket allows that. This grand global conspiracy to rob you of your privacy and keep track of everything you buy simply does not exist.

      Now, if you pay by credit card, and the vendor sends more than his company id to the CC company, then you have an issue with the vendor, not the US government, and you've chosen to lose your anonymity for the convenience of a cashless purchase. Does the CC company send a notice to ICE to check you out when you come back into the US because you stopped at XYZ Pharmacia in Juarez? Don't be silly, but if you are paranoid, use the ATM in Juarez and pay in pesos. Problem solved.

      Proof? Several months ago I went to "a large south american country". That country has in place some really strict visa requirements for US citizens, and has reporting requirements to go with them. Where are you going? Where are you staying? Etc. If any place in the world would have ID requirements for monitoring purchases, they would. I walked into a pharmacy. I asked for a specific antibiotic. They handed it to me. Clearly printed on the package was the fact this was a PRESCRIPTION ONLY item. Great, I said. May I have another? Sure, here you go. And discount! I handed them cash. They waved goodbye. They reported nothing to anyone. Since they had NO IDEA who I was, it was impossible for them to do so. Is that store still there? Have the federales closed them down? I doubt it, it was one of a very large chain.

      Now imagine if the US and Mexico had one big ol' database where all buyers could have their medical records updated no matter which country the person is from, or buys the drugs in?

      And imagine if we all had ponies and ice cream for dinner every day and lemon drops fell from the sky ...

      What does this mythical database you are so worried about have to do with anything being discussed here? Did you even look at the summary, much less RTFA?

    66. Re:One world government by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, its tough, but am I truly my brothers keeper? Should that not be my choice rather than forced on me by the government?

      Well, what do you suggest? I don't want to live in a country full of sick beggars. It's cheaper to spend a small amount of money on socialised heathcare to stop people getting sick than it is to deal with the rampant spread of disease that having expensive private healthcare causes. What would you do when the sickly beggars die on the streets? Leave them there to rot and spread more disease, because you can't bear the thought of your precious pennies being spent on burying them?

      Forget all that Ayn Rand shit and live in the real world.

    67. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now imagine if the US and Mexico had one big ol' database where all buyers could have their medical records updated no matter which country the person is from, or buys the drugs in?

      I have read the replies to your OP and I have come to the conclusion that you, Sir, are an obtuse idiot.

    68. Re:One world government by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think I'd have a hard time classifying Washington and Jefferson as Libertarians per se.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    69. Re:One world government by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Protect it from whom? The only people I currently see potentially taking away that right are the people in charge of the military.

    70. Re:One world government by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Since Marx and Engels didn't really have anything to do with the later corruption of their works, I'd have to say the two that lead a revolution against their government would be the bigger monsters. That said, I wouldn't really classify any of them as being particularly monsterous. A better comparison would be to Lenin and Stalin, the fathers of what most people think of when you talk about communism.

    71. Re:One world government by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      If I choose to ride a car, motorcycle, subway, do I pay different costs of I get hurt because of who is at fault?

      Yes. Your health insurance (assuming you have it) will pick up the bill and it will sue (on your behalf) the insurance of the party at fault. If you don't have insurance you're welcome to bring action against the party that was responsible for your injury.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    72. Re:One world government by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The origins of Interpol are pre-WW2, and the idea behind it even predates WW1. Germany took hold of it only because it conquered Austria, and then placed people like Reinhard Heydrich in charge. It was known at the time as the International Criminal Police Commission, but was renamed in 1956 with the adoption of its constitution. That direct link is in the opening words of that constitution: "The Organization called the 'INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE COMMISSION' shall henceforth be entitled: 'THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION - INTERPOL'." Interpol was granted observer status in the UN General Assembly in 2000.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    73. Re:One world government by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      "The real question is: what is going to get people off their butts so that they make the changes in their lives that keep our health care spending in check." This is Slashdot, you really thing we're here to ask/answer hard questions?? We're not Engineers, Scientists, Policy Wonks, Programmers, or smart people! Wait...

    74. Re:One world government by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Yes, cutting the budget is hard, really hard, but has to be done. The easiest way of doing it would be to follow the 10th Amendment. Take every program that is directly authorized under the Constitution and keep it, everything else gets cut and offered to the states to take over. If the states want it, they can tax their populations and pay for it. If they don't, then they won't.

      BAM!!!! Budget crisis solved! If anyone bitches about old ladies starving or corn farmers going out of business, refer them to their respective states.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    75. Re:One world government by petman · · Score: 1

      The problem is really one of resource allocation: every dollar you spend on medical treatments is a dollar you don't spend on education, research, public health, etc.

      That's one of the problems with capitalism. Everything is measured in terms of money. How about taking the dollar out of the picture? What does the ability of a medical institution to medically assist a sick person have to do with the ability of an educational institution to provide education, or the ability of researchers to perform research? The answer is absolutely nothing.

    76. Re:One world government by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The problem is really one of resource allocation: every dollar you spend on medical treatments is a dollar you don't spend on education, research, public health, etc. That only makes sense if that dollar spent on medical treatments saves more lives and produces more happiness than if you spent it somewhere else.

      You mean like how we spend over $200 billion more on our military than the entire rest of the planet combined? I fail to see how those dollars are making me any happier.

      Sorry, but sane resource allocation hasn't existed since being a congressman became a well paying career choice.

      --
      ~X~
    77. Re:One world government by novium · · Score: 2

      Actually, there's an easier way to cut the budget, one that involves little pain to the needy nor endangers the fragile economy. It's called "cut defense spending". We could cut it enough to save a hell of a lot more money than scrimping here and there on the services side of government, and still be spending more on our military than the next five biggest (in military spending) countries combined. Or we could just let the "temporary" bush tax cuts actually expire.

    78. Re:One world government by taucross · · Score: 1

      You think you're a good person because you live and let live? Because, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours"? This doesn't make you a good person. Nature demands that you work on behalf of your society. Working in the service of others is what makes you a good person. If you don't, then you will suffer.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    79. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? Marx and Engels tried many times to start a violent revolution. They have plenty of blood on their hands. Ultimately they were unsuccessful in their own attempts but what Stalin and Lenin did was not a corruption of their work. It was the fulfillment. It is exactly what Marx wanted but was unable to do himself.

    80. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1
      A) it also says

      "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      B)See C
      C)Are you speaking Russian, German, or Chinese right now?

    81. Re:One world government by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Well, its tough, but am I truly my brothers keeper?

      Spoken like a true murderer! Just in case you don't know what it is you are quoting ...

      Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
      “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
      The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.

      -- Gen 4:9-10

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    82. Re:One world government by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

      C) If there were no US military there would be a lot more wars going on than there already are.

      Oh my, you really said that?

      The US has been involved in wars pretty continuously for the last half a century, a hell of a lot of which it had no business getting involved in, or more to the point, it bloody well started, half the time of very dubious premises.

      I contend that the US is the cause of more wars, and a reduction in its scope would reduce the number of wars in the world.

      We are of course both entitled to our opinions.

    83. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be horribly obvious, but money is just a way of allocating resources. If you want more education, then teachers are going to have to eat and will need a place to live. They need chalk, blackboards, paper, books, etc. That's resources that won't be going to doctors, or some other sector of the economy. If you use certain chemicals to make drugs, that's chemicals that aren't going to research. The only difference between raw capitalism and pure socialism is how our votes on resource allocation are weighted - under raw capitalism, the 'votes' of the rich are weighted, under socialism, our 'votes' are equal, at least in theory.

    84. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Our American medical dollars might be stretching further if we did more *preventative* care. There's a lot of uninsured people who just wait until they have to go to the emergency room - and then don't pay the bill, raising the costs for people who *can* pay for health insurance. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right? Also, I think lack of access to health insurance is a major driver of lawsuits. If you get hurt, you want somebody to pay for the bill, even if it is a bit of stretch to think it was their fault. Some level of socialized medicine would do a lot to make our economy more efficient. (I would prefer a public single-payer system to an individual mandate, though.)

    85. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to cut trillions from the budget just to break even and then to tack on another few trillion to pay for socialized medicine, we will need to cut from somewhere else.

      Or, you know, we could RAISE TAXES! Or rather, undo the reckless tax cuts that the previous administration put in place.

    86. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, pretty much every first-world nation outside of America HAS national healthcare and is LESS totalitarian.

    87. Re:One world government by (Score.5,+Interestin · · Score: 1

      "The ID WORLD forum heard that such a card required..."

      That's an important point there. The ID World forum is the collection of vendors who'd be making money out of this. Lots and lots and lots of money. So he went to the most receptive arena possible and told people, in effect, "Please help lobby for this and you'll make more money than you know what to do with". If I was pitching at the ID World forum I'd be saying the same sort of thing. They'd invite me back, and take me to expensive dinners.

    88. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      It looks more like the idea is to enable governments to see if random migrants are criminals, and maybe make it easier for migrants to cross borders. I don't see anything in TFA about access to socialized services. I suppose nations could handle that simply by issuing IDs to their own citizens - no need for a transnational ID system there, unless different nations want to work out some sort of exchange. TFA mentions something about this cutting down on corruption (by making it unnecessary to forge IDs saying that the migrant is a citizen?) and something about an electronic remittance system. Does anybody have more details on this? What is in it for the migrants? If I never leave my native member country, would I have to sign up for this system?

    89. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and? Sure, it may suck... but if you can't afford something what makes the next guy responsible for you or your mistakes?

      Your ignorance and prejudices are profound. There is no country in the Western world (Europe and North America) that comes even close to being "socialist". Maybe try learning something about history and political science before parroting what you hear on Fox News.

      And quite frankly, if people think that helping each other is a bad idea and something that only stupid "socialists" do, then they should get the fuck out of my neighbourhood, and yes these assholes can take their money with them.

    90. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Medical care is a limited resource and it is impossible to treat EVERYBODY as if they are all of unlimited worth. [...] Getting back on topic, the question at had isn't if somebody who needs medical care should or should not be treated, but if the system is one of central planning with a central bureaucracy literally allocating the decision of your life or death, or if perhaps a less centralized system ought to be put into place that preserves personal liberties. For myself, I strongly distrust central planning groups because they almost never have my interests and needs in mind, or for that matter even care if I live or die.

      You're right that we can't expend infinite resources on a single individual, but I would think that universal health care systems would tend to use a triage system rather than a hard cutoff. Also, public funded universal health care doesn't rule out private health care. If you don't like a central planning group (which, hopefully, would have some level of democratic oversight), then you're quite welcome to use your own money to buy health care on the open market. Universal health care would just make sure that everybody gets *some* level of protection vs. our current allocation system of "screw you, you're poor." It's not like universal health care would make private practices illegal, you know.

    91. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      The point is that that wouldn't have happened if the government had stepped in. Voluntary donations are better all around. People feel better about giving them than taxes, they usually give more, and those receiving it are more grateful.

      Why wouldn't it have happened if the government stepped in? Does government intervention rule out private charity? What makes you think that people *usually* give more in such a vacuum, and the case you cite isn't just a fluke? There is plenty of unmet needs out there right now, and I don't see private charities stepping up to the plate.

    92. Re:One world government by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Sure, Marx and Engels were revolutionaries, but the governments they were fighting against were about like the current government of Iran.

    93. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody knows how to prevent Type 1 Diabetes. You say you don't endorse the libertarian position but, with that attitude, you might as well. There's very little daylight between you and them.
      And show me an example in history of a country that regulated business loosely AND prevented monopolies for more than a few decades. Heck, show me a tight regulation country that managed to prevent monopolies!

    94. Re:One world government by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I read a article a while back that claimed that a scandinavian style public health system actually lead to a more dynamic economy. This because it became easier for someone to start their own company because they did not need to worry about health insurance costs.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    95. Re:One world government by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Marx and Engels wanted a casteless, classless society of equals. The USSR was just another version of the bourgeoisie vs proletariat where the ones in power claimed that everyone owned the various businesses.

    96. Re:One world government by airdweller · · Score: 0

      Who modded up this idiot? How are Marx and Engels monsters?

    97. Re:One world government by airdweller · · Score: 0

      A pile of steaming bullshit.
      The first actions towards its creation were taken in 1914 and it was founded in 1923 as the International Criminal Police Commission.
      Take your meds granny.

    98. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Not even close to the truth. Marx was a barbarian who wanted to destroy all governments to recreate the world into what he thought would be the inevitable society, communism. It didn't matter what government it was.

    99. Re:One world government by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Exactly the problem. It is impossible to have a casteless, classless society because ultimately someone is going to be in charge. The USSR was exactly what they wanted and heralded as the savior of human civilization. It's failure should have shown the stupidity of the system, but unfortunately there are still too many who buy into their line of thought.
      Stalin and Lenin did not corrupt Marx works. They followed them.
      PS I study a lot of history and political theory, of all kinds. I'm curious how many of you who are defending Marx have ever read his stuff. I have. It's scary shit. Don't take the watered down propaganda that the push. Go ahead and read the Communist Manifesto sometime.

    100. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Our American medical dollars might be stretching further if we did more *preventative* care.

      Absolutely.

      Some level of socialized medicine would do a lot to make our economy more efficient. (I would prefer a public single-payer system to an individual mandate, though.)

      As long as you lump together preventive care with insurable diseases, costs are going to spiral out of control.

      The solution is to offer preventive care, care related to communicable diseases, and some simple common medical problems (appendicitis etc.) for free to anyone, without insurance, since everybody needs that anyway.

      Anything else, people should have the option (but not obligation) to buy as much or as little insurance as they like, with steep discounts for those people taking advantage of preventive care offers.

    101. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      You mean like how we spend over $200 billion more on our military than the entire rest of the planet combined? I fail to see how those dollars are making me any happier.

      What kind of stupid argument is that? "Because we are wasting money here, let's waste more money there?" Of course, our defense budget should get cut back strongly now that the Cold War is over.

    102. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with scarcity. Each person chooses one profession, each gallon of oil is turned into one kind of product, etc. You want more of one, you get less of the other. Capitalism is one way of allocating those resources, central planning is another. Dollars are a convenient way of keeping track of the tradeoffs in a free market, but you are free to do the bookkeeping differently if you like; it doesn't alter the tradeoffs involved.

    103. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Given that a huge chunk of US health care costs is due to frequently preventable medical conditions (e.g., obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer) or involves personal treatment choices (e.g., aggressive end-of-life care), those aren't "corner cases".

      For the motorcycle, you already pay different costs because you pick different coverage. That's also how it would work for healthcare: beyond some basic coverage, you pick what you want to get covered for and that's what you pay for. Your insurer will make you an offer based on your risk factors, with provisions against genetic discrimination. Courts usually wouldn't have to get involved to determine who's at fault.

    104. Re:One world government by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      I do not want most of the expensive treatments that my health plan currently provides: in case of heart attack, coma, stroke, broken spinal column, severe burns, or most diseases requiring a transplant, I would prefer death to treatment because I know that the quality of life after treatment would not be satisfactory for me.

    105. Re:One world government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SENMACE want to keep the people of the world separated from each other. The SENMACE cannot create and profit from the wars between the nations if the SENMACE and the banksters and tradesters that control the SENMACE cannot get the different SENMACE controlled governments that farm the governed to use differentiating propaganda. It is differentiating propaganda that the leaders of each nation state are charged to use to keep separated their governed. The nations states must teach their population to hate and fear those "other people" in those "other nations".
      Because the people in one nation have not seen, have had no contact with the people of the other nations, they can be lead to believe that the others will cause them harm. Propaganda to work requires nearly everything to be a state secret and it requires the different nations to prohibit its governed from understanding the humanity in all of those "other places", no matter their color no matter their religions, no matter their language is always the same, differentiated only by nation state segregated propaganda.

    106. Re:One world government by Imrik · · Score: 1

      By claiming it is impossible you are conceding that it didn't happen. In my opinion a communist democracy would come much closer to the idea of a classless society than anything else.

      As for defending Marx, I really didn't intend to, I just didn't like the comparison between two people who were famous as political revolutionaries and two who were famous as economic idealists. If you don't like Lenin and Stalin being substituted in, how about swapping in Adam Smith for Washington and Jefferson.

  2. Cue Mark of beast comments by Red+Weasel · · Score: 0

    in 3...
    2...
    1...

    --
    ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
    1. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      A mark of the beast this is!!!!!!!

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    2. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      Cue ideas spinning in my head about hacking these and creating fakes.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    3. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, religion/faith in a supernatural god is obviously dumb, but not everything in the bible is stupid, lots is pretty good advice. Be nice to people, stop murdering and generally being assholes, etc. And warnings, even if they are couched in hallucinatory crazy prophecies towards the end, about the evils of "papers, please? Vere are you papers?" are also fair enough.

    4. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "Be good to each other" takes one sentence. The rest is rubbish.

    5. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      "Be good to each other" takes one sentence. The rest is rubbish.

      Personally, I think Bill and Ted said it best: "be excellent to each other".

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mark of the beast hell...

      Oh lets start with oh sovereign rights of countries?

      How about a one stop shop for criminals to forge identities? Make it nice and easy for someone, oh lets say Russia, to pretend to be me. Yeah an excellent idea lets do it.

      These arguments are simply a way for 'the man' to track who you are. Why do they want that? To protect me? It doesnt protect me. It makes my life a pain in the ass. Criminals do not fucking care. Waste of time and money.

    7. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The somewhat more long-winded version is Rabbi Hillel's summation of the Torah:

      Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do until you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So dietary/animal care laws that prevent your segment of the population from getting the plague is rubbish?

    9. Re:Cue Mark of beast comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In modern societies, for the most part, yes they are.

  3. I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

    1. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought someone had to say it. So me be the first! YEH! Epic Wins!

    2. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The amazing thing is, despite this not being a mark on the right hand or the forehead, there are people out there who will see this as fulfillment of that prophesy. Seriously, why bother even having a sacred text if you're going to just ignore what it actually says...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Revelations was a political tract railing against Emperor Nero. It was a capital crime to dis the emperor, so they wrote in code - seven hills, three heads, yadda yadda. The "Beast" was Nero. The "Whore of Babylon" was Rome. It was a political/religious pamphlet.

      Any sufficiently nebulous set of metaphors can "predict" anything, if you want it to. What would impress me? St. John of Patmos saying, "In 2011, Interpol sets up an international ID card system." If you can see the future, there is no reason to obfuscate.

    4. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by cobrausn · · Score: 2

      The problem with broadcasting how the bad guy will behave before the bad guy does it is that when the bad guy gets around to doing it, he just does something slightly different from what you previously said and suddenly it's not the same thing and all is well.

      I think Peter should probably have taken Time Travel 101 before writing Revelations and been a bit more vague.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    5. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by GNious · · Score: 1

      I can appreciate that Roman Bureaucracy can be slow, but this is silly

    6. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by rbollinger · · Score: 1

      So far the only people here saying that this has anything to do with 'The Mark of the Beast' are people that are mocking Christians. Is this irony or just bigotry?

    7. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole prophecy thing is actually a big fat told-you-so.

    8. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      Read Foundation sometime.

    9. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Revelations was a political tract railing against Emperor Nero. It was a capital crime to dis the emperor, so they wrote in code - seven hills, three heads, yadda yadda. The "Beast" was Nero. The "Whore of Babylon" was Rome. It was a political/religious pamphlet.

      Any sufficiently nebulous set of metaphors can "predict" anything, if you want it to. What would impress me? St. John of Patmos saying, "In 2011, Interpol sets up an international ID card system." If you can see the future, there is no reason to obfuscate.

      Nostradamus predicted your post...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate to defend religious nutjobs, asking St John of Patmos to make clear predictions isn't really fair. Imagine someone from the first or second century really was magically transported to the present (or rather, the future if this international ID thing were to go through). Saying, "There will be this thing-y that you have to have, because if you don't have it you won't be able to work or sell things" seems like a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.

      And now this is coming off as if I really think this card is the mark of the beast or something. For the record, I don't. I just think that your particular argument that valid predictions must be obvious ignores the fact that the predictor might not have understood everything that he 'saw'.

    11. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      What have the Romans ever done for us?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    12. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Schadrach · · Score: 2

      Metaphorically it is. Most are right handed, so most will present this card with their right hand, and certainly much like SS, most will remember the damn number because of frequent use, thus having it in their head.

      I honestly expect the genuine mark of the beast to be something like "CC companies merge, create global electronic currency system accepted as legal tender worldwide." You know, something like what "cred" was in Shadowrun.

      If you think about it credit/debit cards already have the traits of the "mark" except for not being *required* to buy or sell just yet. Carried in the hand, card number memorized, carries a name of the beast (issuer) and the number of his name (phone # for the issuer).

    13. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by slackzilly · · Score: 0

      You mean, without an international ID card I will not be able to buy breakfast? The article didn't mention that the cards will be used as a way to pay for stuff.

      --
      - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
    14. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Problem, the glimpse of the future would have to be expressed in a manner that can be understood by the locals from your home time.

      So explain something like, "At some point in the future, all will have to carry a numbered marker in order to buy or sell things, and this marker will either need to be in hand, or you will need to remember it's number. This device will come from a blasphemous, heretical government and will bear their name and the number they assign" in terms that someone from early AD Roman Empire will understand, and do so without necessarily being put to death as a result. Now, run it through a few rounds of Telephone, then Google translate it three or four times between different languages. See how close the result sounds to what I started with.

    15. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ... a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.

      You mean like a social security number?

      This article is about registering for an ID before they are allowed to cross the border, whether or not they are going to work. Sorta like the PASSPORTS we already require people to have, but with the ability to tie into an international criminal database instead of just the national one.

    16. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by lambda_the_alternate · · Score: 1

      So far the only people here saying that this has anything to do with 'The Mark of the Beast' are people that are mocking Christians. Is this irony or just bigotry?

      Its only bigotry if the Christians are doing it.

    17. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it is fair for us to expect John to have made clear, specific predictions. It is fair, however, to expect a clear prediction before we consider it to be at all convincing. The predictions contained in the Bible (and in the works of Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, the Koran, etc) all are so nebulous as to be applicable to virtually any time in history, rendering them utterly useless. Is there any way that John of Patmos could have understood what he was seeing were he transported to the future? Maybe not. He would, however, have had to do a much better job communicating the fact that he had access to knowledge that he could not have otherwise had before I am remotely impressed.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    18. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The predictions contained in the Bible (and in the works of Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, the Koran, etc) all are so nebulous as to be applicable to virtually any time in history, rendering them utterly useless.

      Not utterly. They are a statement that bad things can come to pass unless we are watchful, and this is what to watch for. I'm not particulary worried whether the prediction applies to a plan from the Barons and Earls in 16th century England to require the peasants to have the Baron's number tatooed on their forehead if they want to buy grain, or a global electronic payment system replacing all cash in the 21st.

      Just another data point in the debate of who/what the beast is: Seventh Day Adventists will tell you, with a pretty reasonable argument, that the beast is or involves the Catholic Church. Word to the wise, ok?

    19. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      No one expects the People's Front of Judea!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    20. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so at least name the YEAR. Give or take. Any number system will do. "CCXII fortnights" or whatever.

      A prediction of the future is extraordinary. If you don't deliver it with extraordinary falsifiability then just keep it to yourself. Or expect to be ridiculed.

    21. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with broadcasting how the bad guy will behave before the bad guy does it is that when the bad guy gets around to doing it, he just does something slightly different from what you previously said and suddenly it's not the same thing and all is well.

      I think Peter should probably have taken Time Travel 101 before writing Revelations and been a bit more vague.

      Well I'll consider you know nothing about the topic since the author of "Revelation" named himself as John (not Peter).

    22. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Well I'll consider you know nothing about the topic since the author of "Revelation" named himself as John (not Peter).

      Eh, it's been over 15 years since Catholic School. I regret nothing.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    23. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Err, John of Patmos, not Peter. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    24. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, how about this prophecy?

      "Buy ye not Betamax."

      from "The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch."

    25. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The problem with prophets and their prophecies is that if they aren't terse about it it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy (someone will work towards the goal of fulfilling the prophecy), if they are sparse with details or code it people will interpret it and apply it to whatever or whoever they want.

      The "Sign of the Beast" has been applied to everything from government ID cards to social security numbers and zip codes. The Messiah prophesied by Moses has been applied to Jesus, Mohammed and the Jews are still waiting for him.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    26. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Velex · · Score: 1

      Just another data point in the debate of who/what the beast is

      For me, this is what it all comes down to. I don't believe in the bogeyman because I've never found one in my closet. How do I even know that this beast exists?

      Additionally, I fail to understand what the problem would be with a global payment system. How, precisely, is enabling two parties to exchange money efficiently going to bring about the end of the world? How does that lead to anyone controlling anything?

      When I look at the question of "who wants to stop me from doing a thing I want to do" it always comes back to religious nutjobs who are trying to protect me from some bogeyman or curse that will be activated without any clear method of causality if I engage in activity x, y, or z.

      Although sometimes there are also self-fulfilling prophecies. Humans seem very good at constructing those.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    27. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by westlake · · Score: 1

      If you can see the future, there is no reason to obfuscate.

      That assumes that there is only one possible future - and that you can see it fully and explain it clearly.

    28. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... and Interpol also announces a new design, 6 pointed yellow star shaped cards with biometric tattoos.

    29. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Americium · · Score: 1

      I think that is the most relevant verse in the Bible. We should celebrate the dumb luck we have that the biggest religion in our country has that verse in Revelations. Without it, I assume 1984 would be here much earlier. I will most certainly claim I'm a Christian (and claim religious exemption) if this idea comes to pass.

    30. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the specificness in Revelations is very, very helpful. It specifically says the mark will be placed either on the right hand or on the forehead. We need some form of hard-to-counterfeit ID for lots of reasons (migrant workers being just one example).
      So we pass a law that says any ID marker must be placed either on the left hand or the left earlobe.
      Anyone who suggests changing the location to the forehead or right hand is the Anti-Christ, so shoot him in the heart immediately.
      So no one ever gets a mark on his right hand or forehead, so the Anti-Christ never gains control, so Revelations is invalidated, so Christianity becomes obsolete (Pat Robertson can cry himself to sleep) and we can all become . . . wait for it . . . Scientologists.

    31. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Of course, if he had said that, Interpol would have a different name because they wouldn't want to be thought a religious organization and they would have set this up in 2010 or 2012 instead.

    32. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by garompeta · · Score: 1

      If you can see the future, there is no reason to obfuscate

      It may not be obfuscation, just incomprehension: A primitive mind might be incapable to interpreting what he sees in the future.
      Lets imagine someone from the past, lets say middle ages or even before, actually having some kind of supernatural gifts that allows him to really see what is going on in our present: cars, motorcycles, fridges, nuclear power, raise of feminism, a black president, humanoids robots, augmented reality, Internet, virtual reality, space travel, people sitting 10 hours in front of a bright box, surveillance techniques, hacking, Segways... etc...
      First of all, that person would believe he had been eating the wrong mushrooms. Secondly, he would try to describe it the best way he can, limited by his cultural and historical context.

      Imagine someone today someone seeing our future 5000 years ahead. We might have achieved technologies that we can't even dream of. Maybe we will be able to switch matter and energy trivially, maybe we will be able to be "alive" in a coherently pure energy state. Maybe we are replaced by machines. Maybe we end up living in a matrix-like world. Or maybe it is even way more exotic than that. Maybe we end up mastering time and space. IF we consider for a minute that this is the type of world we have ahead, if someone is actually seeing our future we would think he is a junkie or a new-age idiot.

    33. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that quote was supposed to be interpreted as a direct prophecy of right now, more just as a well known warning of what to expect when authorities force this kind of liberty-stripping law onto us. What is going on right now globally is obscene. In the EU we have people writing laws that effect our lives and we don't even know how they came into power?

      Who actually votes for an EU politician? I have never once received a ballot to put my mark next to a name, yet every day new laws appear to further the goals of the authorities at the expense of the masses.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to get away with crime, but I want the choice to commit one. It's my right. I won't, and I have no plans to, but what if I need to one day? I'd break a law or two for self defence or to feed my family. Considering what people seem to get away with in terms of murder and rape its just plain scary that so much focus is being spent on speeding tickets and copyright infringement.

    34. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by fuzza · · Score: 1

      Yes, because men were "travelling to and fro across the earth", and "knowledge was increasing", in those days. Unlike today.

      --
      Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
    35. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When one looks into the future, many things are strange and incompatible with his understanding of the world.
      And so objects are identified by an explanation of their function, and not by their preferred name.
      That is why the descriptions are obtuse.

      And it may not be a prediction of a single activity, but a warning of a likely form of tyrannical government. Forewarned is forearmed.

    36. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History doesn't repeat itself but it certainly does rhyme.

    37. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well...

      In 2041, an icy comet will hit the Moon, coming from an orbit nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane. The ejecta from that collision will blast into the Earth as a rain of small debris, heating the atmosphere to hundreds of degrees, and scouring most of the planet.

      Now that you know, assuming this were true, what would or even could you do about it?

      Assuming there are such things as Prophets, I would think they would go mad with the knowledge.

    38. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Supposing one could see the future and named the year, wouldn't it be likely that doing so would cause the people of the future to alter their behavior in such a way that it would happen the year before or after.

    39. Re:I think I heard of this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The specificness of Revelations is very, very helpful. Revelations says the mark will be placed on the right hand or the forehead.
      All we have to do is pass a law that says any identifying markers have to be placed on the left hand or the left earlobe.
      If somebody suggests changing the location to the right hand or the forehead, you know he's the Anti-Christ and you can nip it in the bud.
      The Anti-Christ never comes to power, Revelations never comes true, the world never ends*. You're welcome.
      *At least not for five billion years when the Sun goes kablooey.

  4. And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds like a bad case of mission creep to me. INTERPOL doesn't need global ID capabilities for its job. So why should we put them in charge?

    1. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by memnock · · Score: 1

      " 'Issuing migrant workers e-ID cards in a globally verifiable format will also reduce corruption ... ' "

      I guess INTERPOL is incorruptible? That's a relief to know.

    2. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      INTERPOL doesn't need global ID capabilities for its job.

      Surely global ID would help them locate Assange more rapidly... snicker snort

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a bad case of mission creep to me. INTERPOL doesn't need global ID capabilities for its job. So why should we put them in charge?

      We already have global ID cards when outside our home country for work.

      It's called a passport. Generally works pretty well.

      In fact, my passport has worked in Canada, USA, France, Germany, Belgium, Australia and Jordan.

    4. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a bad case of mission creep to me. INTERPOL doesn't need global ID capabilities for its job. So why should we put them in charge?

      And a global identity card already exists. It's a little booklet that lets you pass through ports, I think they call it a "passport".

      There's a standardized format for them and everything too.

      Oh criminals? They won't have a real ID card anyways, so going with passports is just as effective.

      People who don't have passports? They don't migrate anywhere, so it's not Interpol's responsibility, either.

      Problem solved.

    5. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Easy, so they can ask for (and recieve) additional funding to cover this.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:And INTERPOL wants to be in charge of it. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a bad case of mission creep to me. INTERPOL doesn't need global ID capabilities for its job. So why should we put them in charge?

      More to the point, even if Interpol does need global IDs to "do their job", that doesn't mean we should be required to have them!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  5. Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, theft and murder are bad, but a mass global ID means that anonymous existence will become impossible. Just think what access to such a system will mean to governments that run by dictators. Even the oh so sweet and trustworthy "democracies" will abuse this. Sometimes, it is important for the good of mankind to disappear into a crowd.

    1. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The usual majority laugh at privacy and point at illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. "You have nothing to worry about unless you're doing something wrong", they giggle. They watch as the world police state clicks on. We're all safe behind the police walls, they agree.

      Then the masks drop and our real bosses appear, and they ain't governments. And there is no where to hide. Forever.

    2. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      In a way, it's true today. If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record. It's been working out fine... Pushing it to mandatory IDs though is a very... very bad idea.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record.

      That you know about. You don't think the government has a database of everyone? Every time I go to the airport I get screened because I must be "on the list" yet I don't have a single mark on my record.

    4. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record.

      Incorrect and has been incorrect for a long time. Police abuses of records keeping procedures are extremely common. The most recent example off the top of my head is New York's stop and frisk data retention policy. You can read more at: http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

      In this particular case, between 87% and 90% of the victims of this abuse that had their records retained by police were completely innocent.

    5. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      The usual majority laugh at privacy and point at illegal immigrants and drug traffickers.

      And there is such an easier, straightfoward way to take care of much of this.

      We pay a lot of money to train our military snipers...why not do rotations of them along our borders to help keep their skills honed?

      I mean, set up an area of the border that is a DMZ...nothing human should cross into it...anyone that does, is a criminal, and BANG...taken care of....

      I'd think that would put a bit of a stop to people crossing illegally to carry themselves or illegal drugs or weapons across the borders.

      I agree we should decriminalize most drugs...that would stop a lot of the traffic, but I see nothing wrong with defending our borders.

      Hell, it is one of the FEW enumerated powers/responsiblities the constitutions gives the Feds....so, why not make use of an effective resource we already have at our disposal?

      I wouldn't mind setting land mines at the border either...again, there is NO legal reason to be crossing there, and not at a legal border crossing. If you do otherwise...BANG/BOOM

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by tukang · · Score: 2

      If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record.

      Police records are created the moment a person is charged with a crime. There are plenty of people who were found not guilty but still have police records.

    7. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record. It's been working out fine

      If the government is honest and acting in your intrest, this is true. We try to protect certain rights so that the government can't screw us too badly when they're dishonest and out to get you.

      Madison said it best:

      If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

      I'm stunned by the number of /.ers who both complain that the US government has been corrupted by corporations, and avocate systems where we trust the government implicitly, often in the same post!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Other countries do that, I think the reason we don't is simply that we consider ourselves better than that. We have a constitution which doesn't allow for individuals to be judge, jury and executioner. The closest thing to an exceptions are forcable felonies and certain cases where law enforcement is authorized to use lethal force. But in both cases it's a matter of practicality and the individuals have a clear ability to avoid it.

    9. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by houghi · · Score: 1

      Belgium has it. The source to read them is available. IDs must be on your person at all times.

      However the abuse that goes on is not about these cards. It is about police officers abusing the database and look into famous people or more troublesome, ex-life-partners.

      The fact that this is known to the public is already a step in the good direction.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Why does your "we" include Arizonians that you do not know but exclude Mexicans that you do not know?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      There is already a register of everyone with citizenship in Norway. It works quite well as far as I know and is used for verifying identity and not much more.

      How is this going to screw me over exactly? Are there not already a myriad of registries you have to appear in to get anything done in the real world?

      I personally prefer having a national registry like this compared to having to present a birth certificate if I want to prove my identity...

    12. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Is peaceful protest "wrong"?

    13. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with the notion that we should kill border crossers, but I can at least see the logic. There is no logic in burying land mines to deter them, however. Not only is it a problem to future generations, but crafty criminals can harvest and redeploy them. Given the drug subs we've been seeing, would mine redeployment robots be a stretch?

      People are crossing our borders because they are being employed and because of opportunities to move illegal substances. If you go after the people employing illegals and force them to do better checks of right to work, and legalize some of those substances, then you'll see the flow of illegals across the border dry up. They come here for opportunities. Deny them those opportunities and they will not come.

      Of course, it would help if American (and other) corporations weren't crapping on Mexico continually...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      I agree we should defend our borders and there is no reason for anyone to be crossing them illegally and if they do so it is at their own risk. We should put land-mines and/or snipers anywhere that is not part of the legal crossing with warnings that lethal force is authorized and will be used upon anyone crossing the border illegally. These people are obviously criminals and should not be allowed to come into our country.

      The only problem is that our government is using the illegals to support the collapsing Social Security system right now so they don't want to keep them out. Think about all of the money that is being paid into the system by illegals that are paying social security tax using dead people's social security numbers. My girlfriend runs and apartment complex and she turns down illegals all the time because they give her social security numbers from deceased individuals when verifying employment and other requirements for renting apartments.

    15. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The closest thing to an exceptions are forcable felonies and certain cases where law enforcement is authorized to use lethal force. But in both cases it's a matter of practicality and the individuals have a clear ability to avoid it.

      Sounds like this would be a matter of practicality where a felony is taking place.

      And here's a hint for those who don't understand how to avoid becoming a casualty of the system: DON'T GO INTO THE DMZ. Sounds like a "clear ability to avoid it" to me.

      So, now that we've put this proposal smack dab into the middle of existing and acceptable procedures, what's the reason not to do it?

      Clue: I'm not saying we should do it, just that your reason not to was already contradicted by your admission that there are existing situations that would allow it.

    16. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Fritz+T.+Coyote · · Score: 1

      Because military snipers might not be eager to murder innocent civilians who are just trying to get from a country that sucks a lot into a country that sucks less?

      Wouldn't it be easier, and cheaper, to just make your country suck so much that you need to put up a wall to keep people from leaving?

      After all, It worked for the GDR..

    17. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 2

      I really hope you're being sarcastic. But just in case you're not, or someone else thinks you're serious and that this is a great idea, here're the problems with this:

      1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
      2) Where do you propose we put these snipers and mines? The border is pretty much all private property, and large sections of it are range land for cattle. Something tells me ranchers won't be too hot about having bombs put out where their property walks around unfettered.
      3) This won't stop people from trying to get into the country, it will just funnel them into even more dangerous and desperate situations, leading to even more people ended up dying in horrible conditions (seriously, look into how many people die in the desert every year, it's already incredibly dangerous and yet people still do it, that should tell you something of their desperation).
      4) Remember the Berlin Wall? Remember people being horrified at the idea of guards shooting people because they wanted a better life? How is your plan any different from what they did (beyond the superficial one of keeping people in instead of keeping them out).
      5) Do you have any idea how much it costs to train and equip a sniper? Do you have any idea of how many you'd need to man the entire border?

      Not to mention, all of this would go away if we created a new visa type for migrant and unskilled workers, and then allowed everyone from Central and South America (who can prove their citizenship and law-abiding status in their own country, to keep out undesirables) to get one automatically. There is currently NO LEGAL WAY for migrants from Mexico on south to come into the US.

      That bears repeating: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY for them to do what they're doing. If we were serious about immigration reform, we would at least provide these people a way to comply with the law, before getting all upset that they don't.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'm stunned by the number of /.ers who both complain that the US government has been corrupted by corporations, and avocate systems where we trust the government implicitly, often in the same post!

      You'd think that a bunch of self-proclaimed science and tech geeks would at least be self-consistent in their beliefs, but you're right.

      It's odd how the government is "a police state" that's overrun with corporate greed and cronyism, hell-bent on subjugating the unfortunate citizens of the third world in a relentless quest for "moar oylz!" on the one hand, and on the other hand, anybody who would argue against a national ID card is a right-wing libertarian nutter who must be the type to watch Glenn Beck and live on a separatist homestead in Montana.

      Because the government that was a horrible police state? That was Dubya's, not the CURRENT government - they're transparent, not ruled by "core-pirate greed", not wasteful, and totally respectful of the territorial rights of sovereign nations. And we all know that the Pax Obama will last forever and ever, world without end, amen.

    19. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, and while we're at it we can train regular riflemen by tying tax-evaders and shoplifters to posts downrange. Also land mines? Really? Why don't we skip the generational middleman and just start cutting off limbs of random kids that go hiking today.

    20. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I really hope you're being sarcastic.

      I fear he's not.

      1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense. That is blatantly unconstitutional.

      Actually, it seems like he's suggesting a closed society, enforced by fascism and violence, and in which your constitution would necessarily be re-written/scrapped to more or less "keep out, shut up, and fuck off" and would go down hill from there.

      He's not advocating anything that would be "legal", he seems to be advocating that America scrap her Constitution, and start over with a fairly radicalized position of saying if you weren't born here, you can't stay. Then of course, you move onto other "undesirable" elements.

      The logical conclusions of such a beginning are truly terrifying to consider.

      I fail to see how anything from the starting position of "shoot all illegal immigrants" would be able to remain consistent with the Constitution in any meaningful way, or even continue a pretense that they plan to.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    21. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Typical right wing buffoon. Complaining about the power and size of the "feds" on the one side. And wanting to give them right of execution on the spot for suspected illegal immigrants on the other.

    22. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense. That is blatantly unconstitutional.

      Not really, this is defending our borders, something that is constitutional. If they are crossing illegally, then they are easily termed as enemy combatants/invader..which is not a civil offense. These are not US citizens jaywalking, these are foreign invaders by definition.

      2) Where do you propose we put these snipers and mines? The border is pretty much all private property, and large sections of it are range land for cattle. Something tells me ranchers won't be too hot about having bombs put out where their property walks around unfettered.

      Not putting this stuff haphazardly...land mines in a DMZ right ON the border. One of the few reasons I can see that is justifiable use of eminent domain.

      Again, our snipers need training...the can sneak around on the lands near the border, or if mountains nearby, use that. Hey, why not use UAV's that are armed to cover the flat areas with no cover?

      3) This won't stop people from trying to get into the country, it will just funnel them into even more dangerous and desperate situations, leading to even more people ended up dying in horrible conditions (seriously, look into how many people die in the desert every year, it's already incredibly dangerous and yet people still do it, that should tell you something of their desperation).

      Well, hoping the bad current conditions keep some of the human flood back...I see no reason to make this illegal activity MORE inviting or easier. I'm advocating making it downright and openly DEADLY.

      4) Remember the Berlin Wall? Remember people being horrified at the idea of guards shooting people because they wanted a better life? How is your plan any different from what they did (beyond the superficial one of keeping people in instead of keeping them out).

      Different..we're not trying to keep unhappy people trapped within our country, we're trying to keep invading foreigners from illegally coming into our country, to break even more laws (crossing illegally is crime #1) and put strains on our systems, and undermine our national security. Illegal blocks of non-citizens voting in many cases for things not in the best interest of the USA.

      5) Do you have any idea how much it costs to train and equip a sniper? Do you have any idea of how many you'd need to man the entire border?

      ...do note I mentioned that this would be part of the ongoing training we already do for our military snipers. Hell, it would be money saving, and offer more real world experience than simulatons. Headshots here would be real headshots...

      And as you saying people from MX or other SA countries can't come here and work legally? Are you fucking kidding me?

      We have plenty of people from around the world coming here legally with green cards, H1B visas, etc.

      Look I don't mind where you come from....if you want to come to the US and contribute, and hopefully become a citizen...sign the fucking guest book on the way in.

      I agree that we need reform of the immigration system, to streamline it, not make it a revolving door, there needs to be limits and regulations on traffic into the country.

      But until then...no, don't break the current laws....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The police have been called on me twice by former girlfriends once for domestic violence and once for brandishing a weapon. I spent several hours in the back of a parole vehicle both times.

      The first ex called the dispatch and said that I had beat her when she was in the house. When the police arrived, she then told them that she couldn't get her stuff from inside the house because she had been outside the entire time. She wanted the flat panel TV I had bought for her a month or so prior, but she never took when she broke up with me. She wanted me arrested and taken away so she could get it. I was released.

      The second ex was an illegal alien and I refused to marry her after I caught her lying to me. She ended up calling the police and telling them I was pointing a gun at her and threatening to kill her. I told police from the back of the parole car in handcuffs, where the gun cabinet was and the combination to the safe. The police determined that there was too much dust on the safe to have been opened in the last year. Again I was released. Less than a year later she was deported.

      Both incidents have a police record on me. Looking at my record shows a history of physical abuse and that I have guns in my home. A record that I will never ever be able to clear.

    24. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Why does your "we" include Arizonians that you do not know but exclude Mexicans that you do not know?

      You're question is not clear to me...but taking a wild guess here and the distinction I'm making is that the people from AZ are legal US citizens, entitled to be here, and those from MX are not legal US citizens, and therefore illegal foreign invaders, and should be treated as such when discovered attempting illegal crossings or if found on this side after making it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by TheLuggage2008 · · Score: 1

      ... set up an area of the border that is a DMZ...nothing human should cross into it...anyone that does, is a criminal, and BANG...taken care of....

      So... someone who is crossing into the U.S. illegally to pick fruit for $4 an hour for a couple of months before going back deserves to die now? Perhaps those of you who see life as such a trivial thing to be extinguished for a wide array of offenses ranging from the trivial to the serious are the ones whose lives should be ended. I am not an advocate of the death penalty in any form, but if people need shooting as you seem to suggest, getting rid of the people like you with such violent tendencies is probably a huge step towards reducing a lot of our violent crimes.

    26. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense.

      Uhhh, crossing the border illegally is not a civil offense, it is a criminal felony. Carrying illegal drugs while doing so is also a felony.

      3) This won't stop people from trying to get into the country, it will just funnel them into even more dangerous and desperate situations,

      Eliminating one avenue of illegal activity does not make someone responsible for the other illegal activities that people choose to participate in. How many times have you seen a city government sued by the family of a drug addict because the city arrested the guy's regular dealer and he had to deal with someone else and got shot while doing so? Not gonna happen.

      4) Remember the Berlin Wall? Remember people being horrified at the idea of guards shooting people because they wanted a better life? How is your plan any different from what they did (beyond the superficial one of keeping people in instead of keeping them out).

      You already know the difference, but you think it is "superficial". It isn't. It's the significant difference. A nation shouldn't have the right to demand that people stay in; a nation cannot survive without the right to exclude. Not even the Evil Satan US of A tries to keep people in. Every time I've travelled out of the US, there has never been a US agent checking my papers to make sure I can leave. The airline has people doing it to make sure I can get IN where I'm going and they aren't stuck flying me back to the US, but the fact I'm leaving -- don't let the door hit me in the butt on the way out is what the US says.

      5) Do you have any idea how much it costs to train and equip a sniper? Do you have any idea of how many you'd need to man the entire border?

      Do you have any idea how much it costs to install an alarm system? Let's just put up a sign that says "Monitored by Bracewell" with a few dummy cameras.

      That works to deter crime because there is some reasonable chance that the alarm really exists. So, put up the signs defining the DMZ and then rotate the snipers from position to postition on a random basis. Fewer snipers are required.

      And while it does cost a lot to train a sniper to be successful under battlefield conditions, this would be a good and productive way of honing the shooting skills without really endangering the sniper himself. It would save money in recurrent training.

      There is currently NO LEGAL WAY for migrants from Mexico on south to come into the US.

      That is just plain nonsense. It took less than five minutes of looking at the US State Deparment website to find more than one way for Mexican immigrants to legally enter the US. Are there limits? Of course. But to claim NO LEGAL WAY is just patently untrue.

      That bears repeating: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY for them to do what they're doing.

      Say it twice, maybe it will become true? No. Sorry. Even were there no legal way to do something, that is not an excuse for them doing it illegally, or a reason not to enforce the law they know they are breaking when they do it.

      There is no legal way for me to walk out of a pharmacy with oxycodone (other than getting a prescription, which makes my claim about "no legal way" patently false, but for the sake of the argument...). Should that exempt me from being arrested when I walk into a pharmacy and take what I want? Of course not.

      If we were serious about immigration reform, we would at least provide these people a way to comply with the law, before getting all upset that they don't.

      If there is no legal method of entry, then there is a trivial way of complying with the law: don't enter. As it stands, there are existing legal methods of entry, which they can comply with by obeying the law.

      Trying to argue that there should be some legal way for someone to break the law is just stupid. I'm sorry, there is no better way of putting it.

    27. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how anything from the starting position of "shoot all illegal immigrants" would be able to remain consistent with the Constitution in any meaningful way, or even continue a pretense that they plan to.

      Sounds perfectly constitutional...in fact one of the FEW enumerated things the constitutiion tells the Federal Govt it is charged with, protecting our borders.

      If someone is crossing the border, through said DMZ and not at a legal crossing zone, it can be assumed they are illegally crossing and a foreign enemy, and should be treated as such. No, not all of them are carrying guns across our border, but many are and the MX death squads have come to target US citzens on our side of the border, so, yes..I can see it as an almost warlike defense of our borders and treating it as such.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for showing that not all hope is lost in this idiotic society where people seem to be following a trend like sheep to just give up freedom, rights and anonymity for the sake of security. When some day these governments turn rogue.. Who will fight back in your place? The criminals, thugs, thieves, murderers, terrorists you put out of business or the government you are selling your soul to today?

    29. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So... someone who is crossing into the U.S. illegally to pick fruit for $4 an hour for a couple of months before going back deserves to die now?

      Well, how do you know what someone's motive for illegally crossing the border is? Are they wanting to pick fruit for $4/hr...or, are they an armed MX drug thug, coming over to kill a US citizen?

      I'm for default thinking of someone illegally crossing our border, is an illegal foreign invader. Let's treat them as such.

      Sure, I agree we should revamp, and streamline our immigration system..that would help. But I see no reason for tolerance for people breaking our sovereign national borders. If they were coming across in tanks would we not shoot them at the border? Well, why should we assume they're not carrying arms or have nefarious plans....after all there ARE criminals the second they cross our border illegally.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And sealed != non-existent... which means that in a lot of US states, a ticket for a minor traffic infraction means you now have a record.

    31. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Police records are created the moment a person is charged with a crime.

      You don't even need to be charged to get a record. Just arrested.

      It should also be no surprise that the records are spotty - they seem to be real good at keeping track of anything incriminating like an arrest or charges, but only do a half-assed job of keeping track of anything exculpatory like charges being dropped or being released with no charges filed.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    32. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by maxume · · Score: 2

      I was lampooning your nationalism.

      Clearly you think that historical accidents like borders and constitutions carry with them a great deal of moral weight. I don't particularly agree.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    33. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

      The usual majority laugh at privacy and point at illegal immigrants and drug traffickers

      So true. It's crazy how "conservatives" eat these ideas up. When I think of "conserving" the best from the past, anonymous and free speech are right up there. Apparently not so with conservatives-in-name-only.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    34. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by rockfistus · · Score: 0

      I've been in jail for charges that the cop made up, not fun. The police here where I live(And especially one cop in general, Steve Herd.) do whatever they want. Everytime I have a run in with Steve he gives me a charge of some sort. The last time I had a noise complaint, he showed up with 2 other cronies, I offered to lower the volume and he got shitty with me. I did absolutely nothing wrong. I put my hands in my coat pocket while I was talking to him and he goes Cop: "Get your hands out of your pocket" Me: "Huh?" Cop: "GET YOUR HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKET!!" while grabbing me and pulling me out of my apartment, slamming me on the ground, hand-cuffing me. I did 23 long days in jail over that, got fined. And he charged me with all kinds of stuff......Resisting arrest, Interfering with an investigation, etc.....

    35. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by rockfistus · · Score: 0

      I forgot to mention, Steve looks like that mexican cheesedick from CHiPS.

    36. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      And as you saying people from MX or other SA countries can't come here and work legally? Are you fucking kidding me?

      Yes, that's what exactly what I'm saying. Do a little research on the subject, it's not hard to look this stuff up. There is no visa for unskilled workers, even though there are obviously jobs waiting for them.

      Not bothering to respond to your other drivel, as you are (IMO) grossly ignorant of the current situation. I suggest reading through some of the coverage on the issue at either Mother Jones or Reason to get a better grounding on the facts.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    37. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, crossing the border illegally is not a civil offense, it is a criminal felony.

      The governing law on this matter is 8 USC 1325 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html). Show me where it says "felony" anywhere in there. This is a civil matter, not a felonious one.

      And I'll repeat myself again, with a clarification: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY FOR MEXICAN UNSKILLED WORKERS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY. Saying "they should play by the rules" assumes there are rules for them to play by, and stating that there are is just nonsense. There are jobs waiting for these people, Americans want to hire them and they want to work. So make it possible for them to do what they're already doing legally, and there will no longer be any reason for them to smuggle guns/drugs in, risk their own lives with coyotes, work under the table and avoid taxes, or do any of the other things that are currently a huge problem.

      You guys really need to get your head out of the sand. Millions of people on both sides of the border want there to be unskilled immigrants as a ready labor pool and for a chance of a better life, respectively. It would be best for everyone if we made it possible for them all to work together legally without forcing people into a black market economy.

      But of course conservatives don't really care about practical matters like civil rights, human rights, recognizing the reality of a situation, or even fostering economic growth. No, it's just all about control with you people. You think if you just make the laws a little bit harsher, people will start living the way you want them to. Despite all of the evidence that that is not how things work.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    38. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Actually, it seems like he's suggesting a closed society, enforced by fascism and violence, and in which your constitution would necessarily be re-written/scrapped to more or less "keep out, shut up, and fuck off" and would go down hill from there.

      Yes, I agree.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    39. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Sounds perfectly constitutional

      Answer your phone, Inigo Montoya is calling.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    40. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by tyger_purr · · Score: 1
      Do we have 6,000 snipers sitting around doing nothing?

      One sniper per mile. 2000 miles. Three shifts of eight hours each.

      Much of the border is remote desert land where it would not be practicle to station soldiers

      Expense of relocating entire cities to creat a DMZ.

    41. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by tyger_purr · · Score: 1
      >>>There is currently NO LEGAL WAY for migrants from Mexico on south to come into the US.

      >>That is just plain nonsense. It took less than five minutes of looking at the US State Deparment website to find more than one way for Mexican immigrants to legally enter the US.

      Those ways are:

      Be rich

      Be educated

      Be related to somone already here legally who can sponser you

      The people crossing the border illegally do not qualify for any of these conditions.

      If they did qualify they wouldn't be crossing illegally

    42. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~90-95% of all felony convictions are the result of plea bargains.
      http://www.truthinjustice.org/bargaining.htm

      You are adorably naive if you believe cops and district attorneys have a 90-95% rate of accuracy in their persecution. Why don't you go sit in on a session of Circuit Court sometime and watch the system at work?

      Come back and tell me then that everyone with a police record has done something wrong. Personally, the guilt of knowing that every day, people of no worse character or conscience than myself are regularly destroyed at the altar of "justice" weighs heavy on my shoulders.

      Particularly of those situations where crimes were actually committed, most of them were victim-less, and the crime itself only exists to further careers, and as a form of political maneuvering to enable the continued representation of white collar criminals.

      Dangerous Criminals are given parole and plea bargains while the people who make nuisances of themselves by being a drain on public services end up having the book thrown at them for being criminally stupid or unlikable.

      The American Justice System - the best Justice System money can buy. Bread and circuses for the rest of us.

    43. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martin Luther King had a record. Ghandi did too i bet. don't confuse morality and legality.

    44. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Police records start the moment you get a driving ticket. Sure, it may be a civil record, but it's a record nonetheless and the police will look at it any time they stop you.

    45. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The governing law on this matter is 8 USC 1325 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html). Show me where it says "felony" anywhere in there. This is a civil matter, not a felonious one.

      Thanks for the cite. You are right, it does not say "felony" in that section. One point for you.

      However -- it is clearly not a civil matter, since there is a threat of imprisonment. Subsection b specifies additional civil penalties for the same crime, but does not change the subsection a criminal action into a civil violation. Point for me. Tie.

      And I'll repeat myself again, with a clarification: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY FOR MEXICAN UNSKILLED WORKERS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY.

      You "repeated" yourself by not repeating yourself, you changed the meaning considerably. And sorry, but you are still wrong. There are legal ways, which a following poster cheefully outlines in his attempt at disproving there are legal ways.

      The fact that there may be no legal way for a specific individual to enter the US doesn't change the fact that his entry is illegal and that he has a trivial means of complying with the law. Can you guess what that means is? Right, BY NOT TRYING TO ENTER THE US. Simple.

      So make it possible for them to do what they're already doing legally, ...

      This argument is significantly different than the one you were making previously. Changing the law may be a good thing. It may be a bad thing. I'm not going to enter a debate about it. The law, however, as it stands, makes crossing the border without complying with the immigration laws a crime, not a civil infraction, and it is TRIVIAL to comply with this law.

      It would be best for everyone if we made it possible for them all to work together legally ...

      I disagree entirely. How many people here rant about the outsourcing of jobs to India or China or other low-paying countries, and the loss of jobs for people in the US because of it? Well, what difference does it make if the low-paying jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or the foreigners come here to take them? We've still lost jobs for US citizens. Our unemployment rate goes up not because there are fewer jobs, but because there are so many people coming here that they can't all be hired. That's not good for "everyone", it's good for companies (those evil things with no ethics that everyone here rants about) who want cheap labor. It's good for the immigrant who comes here to work. But it's bad for those already here.

      But of course conservatives don't really care about practical matters like civil rights,

      I'm sorry, but there simply is no "civil right" to immigrate to the US, or any other country for that matter. Does not exist. That alien who comes to the US looking for a $4/hour job (below any minimum wage I know) has no more "civil right" to come here than I do to run off to New Zealand when I retire so I can take part in their wonderful social medicine system.

      No, it's just all about control with you people.

      And it's all about calling names and stereotyping with you people. So there. Point, set, match for me.

    46. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Titanarm · · Score: 1

      Is peaceful protest "wrong"?

      If it's against the things I believe in, then you bet your ass it's wrong!

    47. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Titanarm · · Score: 1

      ...murder innocent civilians...

      Two things:
      1) People stop being "innocent civilians" the moment they break the law (common sense wise, not law wise)
      2) It wouldn't be murder, it would be enforcing our border with force, which every country has a right to do if they so wish.

      I'm not saying I agree with the notion, but I disagree with your equivocation of border enforcement to murder.

    48. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Titanarm · · Score: 1

      THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY FOR MEXICAN UNSKILLED WORKERS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY.

      It's called a work visa you fucktard.
      Thousands and thousand of people, unskilled and skilled, from all over the world get them. They come to the US to work and often send most of the money back to their home country. It's not hard, and everyone won't be approved, but there are legal ways. The only caveat being, that they can't stay in the country permanently. Next time try talking about something you understand.

    49. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent people have nothing to hide.

      You're not the one who gets to decide who's "innocent", though.

    50. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by Americium · · Score: 1

      Thank god pot is still illegal, otherwise I fear the big brother government would have much less resistance.

      I think most people forget how much they already know about you, from you filling out your income tax return every year. That's why moving to a national sales tax is such an important privacy issue.

    51. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by taucross · · Score: 1

      Please, please, please put snipers around the American borders. We need it more than ever. But just a quick suggestion, can you get them to shoot anyone coming out as well?

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    52. Re:Criminal Activity is IMPORTANT!!! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It's called a work visa you fucktard.

      There's no such thing for unskilled workers. Now who's the fucktard, fucktard?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  6. No World Order by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Nihilo Ordo Seclorum

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:No World Order by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      "No order for the ages"?

      Or did you mean Non Novus Ordo Orbis?

      (...yeah, knowing me, I prolly borked the grammar :) )

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. Dear Interpol, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On behalf of humanity; "fuck off"!

    1. Re:Dear Interpol, by hoppo · · Score: 1

      Also, "when will your next album be released?"

  8. And I want by 0racle · · Score: 1

    I want a Porche and Interpol to go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, Interpol will probably get their way first.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:And I want by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Here's your Porsche. What? you wanted a new one? Oh, that's gonna cost quite a bit more.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  9. Cue Mark of beast comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually those comments will be in 663 minutes.

  10. At birth by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    everyone should be forced to surrender one kidney. The government will keep it preserved to permit detailed DNA identification, and will of course swap it for your other kidney if it turns out you need it at any point in your life. It's not just a cure for terrorism, it's a vital safety net for people who are feckless with their kidneys.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:At birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What use would an adult have for a baby's kidney?

    2. Re:At birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, removal/destruction of a vital part of the endocrine system, so that use of government supplied supplements is required to simply live. Behave or else. No going off-the-grid. Or some wonderful disease that is suppressed by gov issued drugs - same thing - misbehave and we cut you off.

    3. Re:At birth by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      Several baby kidneys wired in parallel could prove to be useful.

    4. Re:At birth by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

      A beowulf cluster of kidneys?

    5. Re:At birth by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      But can they run Crysis?

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  11. Ummm... by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 2

    But all of the pastor's I've listened to told me the Beast was going to come from the USA!

    1. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he will need his e-ID to prove it!!

    2. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those sound like some under-educated pastors.

    3. Re:Ummm... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      That can't be right, Snooki was born in Chile.

    4. Re:Ummm... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they also said that Obama is the anti-Christ, and everyone knows that he was born in Kenya!

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:Ummm... by Americano · · Score: 1

      But she was raised in Jersey.

      You can take the girl out of Jersey, but you can't take Jersey out of the girl.

    6. Re:Ummm... by imric · · Score: 1

      Tell that to a Jersey boy...

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  12. Hmm - never gonna happen by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

    This reads like Interpol want more funding. Global ID cards will not effect illegal immigrants - they'll still be brought over to wherever in container ships etc.

    If anything it will create a market for illegal ID cards in countries with less scruples - INCREASING the level of corruption.

    What's wrong with the passport system we have already?

    1. Re:Hmm - never gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with the passport system we have already?

      It's not under the control of a world wide stasi? Papers please!

    2. Re:Hmm - never gonna happen by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That market already exists, I think that this will likely make little to no difference one way or the other. You'd still have to trust the documents that are issued by the officials in whatever part of the world the individual comes from. And I assume you remember how those bigots reacted to the documents provided to substantiate President Obama's citizenship.

  13. Got One Already... by mholve · · Score: 0

    It's called a "passport."

  14. In theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is good too.

    But we're a few hundred years away from the star trek world where we don't need anonymity.

    -AC

    1. Re:In theory... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, the Star Trek world is anonymous. There is nothing in any of the shows where they connect to a local satellite and zoom in on someone taking a crap because they know precisely where they are or what they bought at the store.

      In fact, I'd say that the ability to sustain oneself through technology would lead to more private lives where people could settle on a distant planet and enjoy whatever they like.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:In theory... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      There is nothing in any of the shows where they connect to a local satellite and zoom in on someone taking a crap because they know precisely where they are or what they bought at the store.

      Er, what ? They snatch people off random places on the planet (or in space) with transporters all the time !

    3. Re:In theory... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      After the coordinates are obtained via a scan or transmission. True lack of anonymity would meant that they know where you are if you steal a stick of gum and they'll teleport you without needing a comm badge to identify that you are the human they are looking for.

      It would also mean that instead of questioning Wesley on what he was doing, they'd check his comm badge logs and verify via security cameras all over the ship to track his every move for the past week.

      There's very much anonymity in the Star Trek universe.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  15. it's not the card, stupid... by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    ...it's the database behind the card. Being able to prove who you are is actually a very comfortable luxury. But what data will be held apart from your name and date of birth? And who will control that rules are obeyed and data gets deleted on time?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to prove who you are? Honestly. What services do you benefit from that require a global ID card?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to prove who you are? Honestly. What services do you benefit from that require a global ID card?

      You know, if there were only some form of identification that would allow migrants and others to travel across national borders while allowing those nations the ability to identify criminals who want to enter their country ...

      Wait a minute. It is called a "passport". We already have a reasonably global system in place. It appears that Interpol is looking for a system that is common enough between states that they can also check interpol records for criminal histories, as well as the individual country.

      Did we miss the part about "migrants" and "border control"? If you don't want to be in someone's database, you probably don't want to travel to another country where they control their borders anyway because they'll be keeping a record of you entering, and that border is where you'd need this card.

    3. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is that while in places like the US, and the EU, the reliability of the documents as proof of identity is pretty good, there are other parts of the world where it's basically just proof that they paid their fee or bribed an official. Some places for a nominal bribe they'll put whatever name you like on the documents.

      That being said, I'm not sure this is the correct solution. And I'm positive that this solution scares me.

    4. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      Did we miss the part about "migrants" and "border control"? If you don't want to be in someone's database, you probably don't want to travel to another country where they control their borders anyway because they'll be keeping a record of you entering, and that border is where you'd need this card.

      But, as you said, these issues are already provided for with a passport. So why do we need a global repository to manage this? And why does <Country 1> need to know that I travelled to <Country 2> three years ago? Especially if my homeland is <Country 3>? Because that's the big difference I see in this.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    5. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by mangu · · Score: 1

      there are other parts of the world where it's basically just proof that they paid their fee or bribed an official. Some places for a nominal bribe they'll put whatever name you like on the documents.

      And the Interpol would solve this problem exactly how?

      No self-respecting sovereign country would allow the Interpol to send agents to verify that the data is correct, they would still depend on people being correctly identified by their nation of residence or citizenship. Not to mention the cost of installing Interpol offices everywhere in the world.

      Besides, even in the USA or EU it's not so difficult to assume a fake identity once you realize everything starts with a birth certificate, and birth certificates do not contain any data from after you were born. Get a birth certificate from a person who could be plausibly you and you can get any other document. There are many ways of doing it.

    6. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by spectrokid · · Score: 1

      Renting a summer cottage in spain without the owner being afraid I am going to run from the bill. Open a bank account when I become expat for a few years. Selling my car to someone who lives just on the other side of the border. Applying for an education abroad. I didn't say NECESSARY, I said COMFORTABLE.

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    7. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But, as you said, these issues are already provided for with a passport.

      No, the issue of checking other country's criminal databases are not provided for with a passport. Someone holding a UK passport, for example, entering the US, is checked in the US database, but any crimes he's committed in Greece would not show up there.

      So why do we need a global repository to manage this?

      Because we are becoming a global society?

      And why does Country 1 need to know that I travelled to Country 2 three years ago?

      I don't know that they do. They should be able to know that you were convicted of smuggling drugs into Country 2 the last time you went there, however.

      Especially if my homeland is Country 3? Because that's the big difference I see in this.

      What's the big difference? Did you use acetone to remove the entry stamp from the passport you apparently have no trouble with? The stamp that country 2 made in your passport with a date and time of entry, and maybe a date and time of departure? If you don't remove those stamps, then you're accepting the fact that any following countries can tell where you've been just by looking at the passport you hand them to get into their country. Well, every few years the clock resets and you get a clean passport, but you start collecting stamps again as soon as you travel with it.

      And yes, I've heard of countries that are very interested in looking at the stamps in passports. Where is your difference now?

    8. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Simple solutions to all those: Ask for money up front. Risk is involved in all transactions. Minimize it as much as you are willing to accept.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:it's not the card, stupid... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      No, the issue of checking other country's criminal databases are not provided for with a passport.

      Doesn't INTERPOL already track major international crimes? And can't local forces investigate those? If so, why add more oversight?

      Because we are becoming a global society?

      Take it in the other direction. Why shouldn't you need papers to travel within your own country? Some would say that personal freedom is worth more than the price required to remove the criminal activities.

      And yes, I've heard of countries that are very interested in looking at the stamps in passports. Where is your difference now?

      The difference is not unlike that of monitoring public areas. Without automated monitoring, you have a veneer of anonymity when you walk down the street. People can find out who you are and what you did, but it takes workAdd complete camera coverage, automated facial recognition, database logging, and people with less than the purest of intentions, and you have a system which would make any dictator green with envy.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  16. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Cause nobody will have the motivation or resources to crack them and make fakes.

  17. Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So like a FaceBook/Twitter account then?

  18. Well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And citizens want their privacy.... It's nice to want things, huh?

  19. Passports? by molo · · Score: 1

    Isn't this what the current passport system already provides? Passports already have unique numbers, and there are existing standards about reading the mag printed strip and RFID tags in there now.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea but that's an existing system. Nobody can use that grab a few billions from various governments to implement something new. That's the purpose of most new systems: make somebody with connections to decision-makers even richer (and make them pass a few millions along to said decision-makers).

    2. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current system is run by each individual government.

      That can itself cause problems, as there's no back-end to it.

    3. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Passports don't have a mag strip and they don't have RFID tags either. Maybe you are confusing the US passport *card* with real international passports. Passports generally do have an RF enabled processor chip in them with an ICAO 9303/ISO 7501 standardized Logical Data Structure on them, including a signature over the data.

      PS had to log out to post anonymously - slashdot system can sometimes really suck

    4. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this what the current passport system already provides? Passports already have unique numbers, and there are existing standards about reading the mag printed strip and RFID tags in there now.

      -molo

      Didn't read TFA, naturally, but you could just as easily put all that stuff into a credit card sized identity card, and call it a travel document. Some countries already issue such things if you like, and you can travel in Schengen countries using them.

    5. Re:Passports? by molo · · Score: 1

      They don't have a mag stripe, they have mag printed characters. See the bottom two rows of text in this photo, the "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_Passport_inside_(Biometric).png

      RFID passports are currently in production from several countries. I've personally seen one from Japan, and reportedly new US Passports also include them. See here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    6. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I have a national ID. I used it last month to get back into the USA. The border guards don't accept state IDs anymore...

      Every country has a passport system. I have no problem with my passport except the size of it. Now, creating a central database of every person from every country with or without a passport is something else...

    7. Re:Passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mag stands for magnetic. The text in the photo is the MRZ (machine readable zone) and certainly not magnetic. Normally RFID (and especially RFID tag) is associated with low cost numbering systems. This does not compare well with the 144 KB EEPROM, some 384 KB ROM, DES/AES and RSA/EC coprocessor CPU's (with RNG) running easily over 50 MHz on the latest iterations of high end smart card chips. By now many (most?) developed countries have biometrics on their passports.

    8. Re:Passports? by molo · · Score: 1

      Okay, you are correct on the MRZ. I thought those were mag printed characters like typically found on a US banking check, but apparently they are designed for OCR-reads, not magnetic reads. As for RFID, that is mostly semantics.. the important part is that it can be read over RF.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  20. Not to put too delicate a point on it, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INTERPOL can go fuck themselves.

    It's not good for me. It's not good for anyone I know. It's certainly not good for the refugees and other migrants this claims to help, who are often already fucked because they don't have a nation to call home and issue them a passport. This is a great idea for bureaucrats who want their jobs to be easier at the expense of everyone else's rights, and a terrible idea for pretty much everyone else on earth.

  21. Republicans conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand they want a universal ID

    On the other hand they want to tell other governments to fuck off.

    Oh well, back to trying to pound down the states' rights to do things republicans don't like with REAL ID.

    1. Re:Republicans conflicted by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, Republicans don't want a universal ID in the US, if you look at Real ID adoption by states, Republican states generally oppose along with Democrat majority states.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#State_adoption_and_non-compliance

      Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington have joined Maine and Utah in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

      Thats a good mix of Red and Blue states

      Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

      Again, good mix of states.

    2. Re:Republicans conflicted by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I know that in Washington State the issue with Real ID was more of an unfunded mandate issue. Also, it doesn't really DO anything for the citizens of the state. Washington does have an EDL* for those that want it which DOES provide value as we head up to British Columbia often.

      Come to think of it, Real ID would would more likely hurt the state as most of our crops are picked by "migrant" workers.

      *The enhanced driver license (EDL) or enhanced ID card (EID) confirms your identity and citizenship, and is an acceptable alternative to a passport for re-entry into the U.S. at land and sea border crossings.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Republicans conflicted by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yea, I knew about Washington's EDL, wife had to choose between that and a Passport Card when we drove from Washington to Alaska, dealing with the State Department was cheaper and faster than Washington.

  22. Let me be the one to say it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    On behalf of all the forgers, ID-theives and other people who have to hold a damn lot of different forms of ID creation and their various security schemes at hand to satisfy all their customers:

    PLEASE! MORE POWER TO YOU!

    And while you're at it, at least condense it all into one big database, too. Hacking hundreds of national ones is really cutting into profits.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. I was once naiive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough to see only the legitimacy of such things. Sure, in the right hands this could be used to verify that people from overseas are who they say they are and have the qualifications they should have etc. but in the wrong hands...

    - could be used to hijack or at least blackmail, and hence eventually hijack all records so that THEY decide who is legitimate.

    - could lead to an alarming increase in "misplaced" laptops as more personal information is sold and traded

    - believe it or not, there are people in this world that don't really want you moving anywhere. It suits them to demonise migration, and have open borders so they can bring this stuff in. A place for everyone and everyone in their place. You won't be able to go anywhere as you'll be fried by body scanners and if you do go somewhere, it will be if they allow you too - via these id's.
    Families could be broken apart with this, like a Berlin wall.

    - Who runs interpol? I don't know, can't know, and won't know..in any way that I'd care to ...

    - It's indoctrination. You have to fill out a entrance form when you fly in, and an exit form going out, customs declaration form, passport, body scanner, and now this. It will teach you not to travel, and of you do travel, to remind you the perils of doing so, not unlike getting onto one of the sailing ships of old only to be gobbled up by a big giant squid.

    - it could be all pervasive in your life, like a key you can't afford to lose, or afford to keep.

    - and you could slowly be deftly conditioned to accept it, with the threat of "terrorism" looming in the background.

    - Please help us lord. Please. Help us all, all of us.

  24. Just tattoo it on their foreheads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cards are too easy to loose.

  25. Sing along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Track me, hack me,
    no database can lack me...

    as long as you protect me, it's all right...

  26. Against corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the founding of interpol, the corruption in the eu, especially in the uk and germany, has grown to levels unbelievable - and they want to put in the argument that this would lower corruption?

    That's already corrupt in itself.

    All interpol is really used currently is to suppress political opposition through international means.

  27. Interpol cares about undocumented workers now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why? It's not like the United States does.

  28. Interpol and other stupidities... by eprparadocs · · Score: 0

    It seems that you only need to track migration to make sure no one sneaks into a country, so one has to wonder why do we need countries? We don't need Nato, we don't need the UN. And we don't need any damn universal ID card. What we need is a world with a single government that works for the benefit of all the world's inhabitants. Countries seemed so important when we needed to protect the resources I own from others. But no a days no single country owns enough to be self-sufficient. We all need what others have, and to do so we need to cooperate.

  29. Today We Laugh it up. by Neptunes_Trident · · Score: 1

    And what of tomorrow?

    1. Re:Today We Laugh it up. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Tomorrow, we finally find Carmen Sandiego...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  30. Join the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to sound like a broken record, but... there is an attempt to do the opposite. Reference: http://www.metagovernment.org/

    Yes, it is going to be difficult and perhaps a long-shot. But do you have a better idea? One that you personally can work on today?

    Metagovernment needs programmers and other nerds to help get it off the ground. If you help, it just might work.

    P.S. Metagovernment is an open community. If you have a problem with how it is being implemented, you can change it!

    1. Re:Join the opposite by master5o1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      P.S. Metagovernment is an open community. If you have a problem with how it is being implemented, you can change it!

      That's what they said about democracy, but I tend to see little change.

      --
      signature is pants
    2. Re:Join the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because what the politicians call "democracy" isn't democracy.
      It is (at the very best) representative democracy, which is riddled with major flaws.

  31. see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what have i told you? next come RFID implants and we are all fucked!

  32. Work by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    I'd be up for having an international form of identification (card) if it meant I can work wherever I want.

    1. Re:Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be up for having an international form of identification (card) if it meant I can work wherever I want.

      Arbeit macht frei: I too would be up for a worldwide fascist police state as long as it's of short term benefit to me. /sarcasm

    2. Re:Work by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

      In this case I was thinking more like "reisen macht frei", but I like the reference.

  33. Cards get lost or taken away by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    how about something more permanent like a tattoo?

    ...what?

    1. Re:Cards get lost or taken away by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      tattoos are for wimpy girls....

      Branding or cutting it into your flesh with automated knives is more permanent.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Cards get lost or taken away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you correct a compromised tattoo ID? If someone's copied it, you're stuck with a bad ID you never wanted, that you cannot get rid of without a significantly painful procedure of one sort or another. This adds injury to insult, honestly.

    3. Re:Cards get lost or taken away by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Tattoos? You mean something like this?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Cards get lost or taken away by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Idiocracy. Why come you no have tattoo?? We have an unscannable! HALT! You must be processed!

      Oh, I get it, you were quite possibly referring to the Mark of the Beast. Okay, never mind then. Apply the usual slippery-slope argument and can we skip the subsequent validity-of-religions trollathon this time?

  34. Police wants to track everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is news? Really?!

  35. Yeah and... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I want a pony...

    Is interpol going to PAY for this?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  36. self interest by DaveGod · · Score: 1

    Why I am always even more sceptical of any claims that "greater access to information and control is needed" (to paraphrase) when they then state it should be themselves doing it?

    I keep finding myself wondering "needed by whom?", and why wasn't a relatively independent observer saying the same thing?

    Wait, "enable cardholders to be eligible for electronic remittance schemes"... Soooo, Interpol wants unhindered access to all your international bank transfers? Oh I see.

    Anyway, I imagine most of the participating governments would fail to implement the large IT system required, nevermind Interpol connect them all in a usable way.

  37. Police seeking ID is an unreasonable search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What value does this ID provide? Since I am not a criminal, why would INTERPOL need to identify me individually anyway? If I was a criminal, I doubt I would provide an ID that identified me to INTERPOL as a criminal.

    1. Re:Police seeking ID is an unreasonable search by Fritz+T.+Coyote · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. you are a criminal. look hard enough, you have broken some law, somewhere, sometime. Or you will.
      There are too many laws to avoid this.

      And since your DNA is conveniently on file they will be able to match it up and find you.

      Bottom line... Interpol represents police interests, and police would love universal fingerprint and dna databases, automated torture devices, the elimination of defense attorneys and no complex 'rules of evidence'.

      Because who doesn't like cutting corners to make their job easier?

      Now if we can implant these Identichips and include gps and transponders ... even better.

      Add a remote-triggered stunner / agonizer and it is a Jackbooted Thug's wet dream.

  38. Yeah we should privatize it too... by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    I vote for Epsilon to handle this one.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  39. Criminal Activity? by xednieht · · Score: 1

    The only criminal activity I see running rampant is in the major banks and governments in the "Western Democracies". Perhaps INTERPOL can start by ID-ing politicians and bankers and track their flow of money and transactions first. Think of it as a high value pilot project.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  40. Sweet Dreams are Made of by geoffball · · Score: 1

    I'd like a pony. And world peace. And...

  41. I guess Anonymous pissed off the wrong people by aarongadberry · · Score: 1

    Who knew Sony ran Interpol, or maybe they are just avid gamers and had nothing to do yesterday.

  42. Hitler's idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, this was Hitler's idea! Except that it was not electronic but he proposed mandatory paper ID cards for everyone, including everyone in occupied countries.

  43. smart ones might.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    If they want this to take off, they would approach facebook and gmail and offer them some sort of deal for making this happen using their social network as a base to catapult this thing forward.....

    1. Re:smart ones might.... by Americium · · Score: 1

      or some remix of it will be made on go viral. Could be destroyed on arrival.

  44. Naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record. It's been working out fine

    Not for me. I don't trust government like you do. My eyes are wide open to the fact that corruption is the norm in the business of government, rather than the exception. I realize that the people who run the business of government work for themselves, not me, and I consider it naive to assume that government has the interests of "the people" in mind, rather than themsleves.

    On the contrary, the correct response to "if you are innocent than you have no reason to hide" is precisely "if I am innocent than you have no justification for tracking me". Above all, tracking of innocents undermines the principle of innocent before proven guilty. If I am innocent, then in a free country I should NEVER have to prove it.

  45. Tunnel vision by spasm · · Score: 1

    So what. I do research with disease transmission among stigmatized populations and I've been saying for years that my job would be a hell of a lot easier if we just put a barcode tattoo on everyone at birth. I can even justify it by describing the advances in public health we'd be sure to get out of it. Does that make doing so ethical or desirable? Hell no, not even close. The problem with people like these is that they get caught up enough in the specific needs of their little world, and the specific (often highly desirable) benefits that would accrue if something like this went ahead, and completely lose the larger perspective about what the broader and highly negative implications of such schemes might be.

  46. Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Even the United States, with its big-government push toward national IDs, has failed completely in that effort. The States won't comply, nor do they have any reason to. Interpol will never get anything like it in my lifetime. And for good reasons.

    Electronic IDs are an illusion of security at the cost of real security. People put faith in them but they are hackable. The end result is that they go unquestioned, so those with hacked IDs can get away with murder, so to speak.

    Every time somebody has said they have come out with an "un-hackable" ID system, somebody else has hacked it within a very short period of time. I do not see that changing any time soon.

    1. Re:Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do parallel retina id checks with passport screening in Yemen for the migrants to catch immigration offenders. Independent parallel systems are the present in IDs. When the renewal period of your papers shorten to 5 years you know that a biometric ID has been added to the identification document. The US may not implement such a system but here in Europe the EU bureaucrats will love to forcibly implement such a system trough a directive in the secretive envelope of the internal affairs, security and police collaboration.

    2. Re:Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need national or even global IDs. What we need are less borders. Of course that's going to require being able to understand and get along with your neighbor.

    3. Re:Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "They do parallel retina id checks with passport screening in Yemen for the migrants to catch immigration offenders. Independent parallel systems are the present in IDs."

      If an ID can be created, it can be hacked. Sure, retina scans can be checked against the IDs. But fake IDs can be created containing your retina scans.

      The thing to be most concerned about is not the IDs themselves, but central databases. The lack of cooperation with central databases is why passports can be so easily faked today.

    4. Re:Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and identity theft is not a problem in the US, is it? Last info I've found is that there are millions of ID-theft victims each year (that data is from 2003, it's the newest I've found). Having a national ID-card will at least limit the damage someone can do with a stolen identity.

      Here in Belgium, we've had a national identity card for decades (it's mandatory for everyone above 12 years old). Recently it was updated to an electronic variant. We even have a (shock, horror) global database of all Belgian people, containing info about when they were born, where they live, etc.

      Has it lead to totalitarian repression of the Belgian people? No, it hasn't.

      We have laws in place to regulate who can use identity information, and for what. We also have independent bodies who keep an eye on privacy issues. For example, law enforcement can force you to show your ID, but only when they have proper cause (when you get caught doing something you shouldn't, for example). The same things apply for searching you in the identity database (and this gets check: I know someone who works in IT at my local police office, and they get regular requests to provide info about who did a lookup in the database and why).

      What it did lead to, is that we all have a way of proving our identity when needed. When doing government-things for example, or for opening a bank account. When I don't want to show my ID, I can choose not to (and then don't get the services that require me to). The electronic one can't be read contactless, and is actually quite open. The certificates on it can be used to sign my mail, log me in to websites, and stuff like that.

      So yes, I actually like the card. I don't see it as a privacy issue (when something requires it, they have to know my name anyway), but it does provide a way to prove I'm me. And no it's not unhackable or anything like that, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you guys have in place.

      But hey, what do we know. We also have national healthcare and things like that. Here, people protest when they actually want to take some of it away...

    5. Re:Only one word for this, but it's a big word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, good luck with getting 3rd world counties to do this. I can see somalian pirates jumping on the Interpol ID bandwagon for a start.

  47. Bring it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Death penalty for cops who abuse their position. Then we'll have a talk about global IDs.

  48. false by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    If you do nothing wrong you won't have a police record.

    It is erroneous to equate law with morality or right/wrong. Something being law does not make it ethically right or wrong. It just means there was enough support/clout/influence/lobbying/greased palms to push it through.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  49. Yeah? Well I want room full of sexy ladies ... by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

    ... that cater to my every whim. You can't always get what you want.

  50. Here's an idea by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Instead of a card, they can just print it on peoples' foreheads. Or perhaps give them the option of using the back of their right hand.

    What could go wrong?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  51. Um... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    How about:
    FUCK NO!
    and:
    FUCK YOU!
    ?

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  52. Is this JUST for work, or...? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Are people going to be detained and forced to produce their papers on demand?
    Why only "migrant workers?"
    "...systems at the national level that would permit the identity of migrants and their documents to be verified internationally via INTERPOL."

    Seems to me they did this in Poland in the late '30s, more or less.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  53. Vatican joins interpol. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4901449.ece Why should a Church have access to INTERPOL data? Funny separation of Church and State ? And also why does a Church need armed guards? Why don't other religions need private police forces.
    And should the Catholic Church have any access to INTERPOL considering the abuse potential?

  54. And after they get this... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    we want a tracking device in the ID card!
    we want the ID implanted in an RFID at birth!
    we want the implant to also function as a kill switch!

  55. We already have it by mldi · · Score: 1

    It's called a passport.

    You want something more than that? Fuck you.

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  56. Scary by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Today you need it to work in a foreign country. Tomorrow you need it just to visit. How long until you need it just to get by within your own country. Ronald . Noble makes it sound so nice though. He found a perfect niche to get his pet card into existence so he can increase it's scope a bit at a time later.

  57. I would like to invite Interpol to get bent. by jcr · · Score: 1

    We do not arrange our society for the convenience of the police.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:I would like to invite Interpol to get bent. by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      We do not arrange our society for the convenience of the police.

      Convenience of the police? I don't see this as being very convenient.

      Like copy protections and HDCP, this will only stop people that aren't interested in committing a crime. This is nothing more than a create big database for nefarious people to get into and legitimize themselves.

      What? Could the world government database be wrong?

    2. Re:I would like to invite Interpol to get bent. by imric · · Score: 1

      Cool! What society are you in? It ain't the West, and it ain't the East, north OR south.

      Oh! I get it! Send the UFO around right away!

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  58. when do I get my implant? by McTickles · · Score: 0

    "foster greater economic development and prosperity in INTERPOL member countries."

    READ: foster greater consumerism and censorship in INTERPOL member dictatorships.

  59. Fuck you, Interpol. by bipbop · · Score: 1

    Fuck you, Interpol.

  60. We already have one, or rather a set of them by davidwr · · Score: 1

    In the USA, well over 50 different authorities issue license plates. But there's nothing but money and a mechanism of trust preventing all of them from sharing access to each others' databases. For all I know this may already be in place.

    Nothing says that countries that wish to could share passport-database information. Present your passport at a border that has access to its country's back-end server, and *poof* it should be able to verify any passport issued by any participating country in a matter of minutes if not seconds. No need for new cards, no need for e-cards, no need for biometrics beyond your face matching the picture on the card.

    How would this work?

    Send the passport number, issuing country, and some other info found on the passport back to your country's back-end system. It queries the originating country's database and gets back some additional info already on the passport, including a recognizable but not necessarily detailed version of the face and sends it back to the customs agent. The customs agent compares what he gets back to the document in his hand, which he's already compared to the person standing in front of him. If they clearly match, the passport is confirmed. If they clearly mismatch someone is going to be arrested. If it's not clear he sends a 2nd query and either sends a scan of the passport back for a back-end review or the back-end sends him a high-resolution photograph of what the passport should look like including a detailed face photo.

    This whole system does have the same flaws shared by the current system and any possible replacement: It's subject to defeat by corrupt or lazy employees or officials or by implementing technology that is not secure or which is not kept secure.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  61. Papers, Please? by splerdu · · Score: 1

    In Soviet world, papers police you!

  62. Godwin Alert by mbone · · Score: 1

    When I hear of Interpol, I think of Reinhard Heydrich and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and how the organization they ran avoided hunting Nazi war criminals for years because those were "political" crimes.

    What more do you need to say ?

  63. Uncontrollable Laughter by Holi · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

    Reallyy heheheh No wait really????

    Yeah I can see that flying over really well here (USA incase yer wondering)

    Hilarious
    thats gonna go by really well with the 2nd amendment club

    But go ahead and get your INTERPOL card. we'll still want your passport,

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  64. Well Interpol can go and fuck themselves, can't th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Interpol can go and fuck themselves, can't they.

    Interpol are a laughing stock anyway.

  65. InterSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an e-ID for InterPol - my big fat cock shoved directly into those institutional assholes.

    Let them read that - stupid fucktards.

  66. "Am I my brother's keeper?' by jeko · · Score: 1

    You realize you're quoting the world's first murderer, right? And the quote you're using was his lie to God that he didn't know what had happened to his dead brother.

    And you're using that quote to bolster your argument that you have no duties or obligations to anyone but yourself? Apparently that sentiment even extends to "relatives and good friends" such as your wife.

    From your previous post about so much as sharing your television with your wife:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2052954&cid=35607736
    I meant is she doesn't like it...tell her to go into the other fucking room and watch what she wants if she doesn't like what I'm watching.
    My house....my rules. If she doesn't like it...there's others out there...always...

    Is it any wonder that we don't think you have the best perspective on how we as a society should cooperate to accomplish common goals?

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  67. How things are done nowadays in France - ID phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In France we have a national identity card, we are supposed to carry it at all times. It's just a piece of plastic with a photo, a name and an address. Each card is valid for 10 years. I noticed a novelty when I renewed mine recently, in the paperwork they asked for a mobile phone number. Mobile, not land line.
    Enjoy your new government database and smart tracking device citizen.

  68. Where do I get my Global Idenity Card? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    How droll.

    I don't know, I've always wanted to be a Global Identity.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  69. another great idea from the elites by marcuz · · Score: 1

    There is no such need for us. They need it just for their global governance plans. They seek total control and power.

  70. Distasters and private efforts by jeko · · Score: 1

    in the 1800s there was a major disaster in the southern US.

    I think they usually refer to it as the Civil War, though some of my neighbors still call it the War Against Northern Aggression.

    He refused on the basis that it wasn't the governments job and private parties should rise to the occasion.

    They did. We called them carpet baggers. Most of us would have preferred another visit from Sherman than to endure that horde of locusts.

    The point is that that wouldn't have happened if the government had stepped in.

    I heartily agree. I remember the Dust Bowl and Katrina. Good times were had by all. Whoever said it was government's job to promote the general welfare? Let's disband the National Guard, Search and Rescue, the Coast Guard and all those socialist fire departments. Surely private citizens will voluntarily acquire the heavy equipment and years of specialized training necessary to handle all major disasters. Why, just a few years ago, I remember seeing a documentary about how some geek built himself a personal suit of armor and single-handedly put an end to the war in Afghanistan. :-)

    When you're ready to quit reading Ayn Rand and other comic books, and you're ready to abandon the Sarah Palin School of Reasoning where you offer events you can't remember and the quotes of Presidents you can't name as proof that you're right, perhaps you could join us in the soft green fields of reality where it takes more than your favorite EDC pocketknife and a contempt for the sheeple to handle even a problem as small as a routine house fire.

     

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  71. "...economic development...INTERPOL..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >economic development
    >INTERPOL

    Say what?

  72. Stating the obvious by jeko · · Score: 1

    *Sigh* OK, once again for the slow learners.

    Public health is simply the sum total of private health. You understand the principle with vaccinations, and that's a good start, but you need to consider this problem more deeply. A review of the events surrounding the Black Death wouldn't hurt either.

    Why should you care if your someone in your town lives in rat-infested tenements? Because the Plague can travel across town. Why should you care if some poor illegal alien comes down with the flu? Because he's going to wipe down your lunch table tomorrow. Why should you care if some homeless bum breaks his leg? Because when he comes down ill from sleeping in the gutter, and you brush past him ignoring his request for spare change, you're going to inhale some of his saliva that aerosols out of his mouth when he speaks. Why should you care if some little old lady is suffering from heart disease down the street? Because she's offering pneumonia and tuberculosis a perfect foothold into your community health.

    Like it or not, your health is inextricably tied into the health of everyone else. Unlike money and cookies, this isn't a situation where you can say "Screw you I got mine."

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Stating the obvious by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* OK, once again for the slow learners. Public health is simply the sum total of private health. Like it or not, your health is inextricably tied into the health of everyone else. Unlike money and cookies, this isn't a situation where you can say "Screw you I got mine."

      Nonsense. Public health is concerned with a small number of communicable diseases, plus some infrastructure, sanitation, cost containment, and quarantine procedures.

      There is only a small overlap with private health. It makes no difference to my health whether you suffer or die from cancer, obesity, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, or heart disease, and those are the major sources of private health expenditures.

  73. The tunnel vision of youth by jeko · · Score: 1

    You sound young. I hope you're young, because then I would understand. I used to sound like that when I was 17 too. You're echoing the books you've read pretty well, but you're not understanding the reality behind them. This is not your fault because you've had no experience with them -- yet.

    But you will.

    Small number of communicable diseases? There are so many communicable diseases we don't even have proper names for them all, and even if we did, Nature is cranking out new ones every day. When I was a boy, no one had ever heard of AIDS, Mad Cow Disease, MRSA, Avian Flu, H1N1, Ebola, Marburg, Hanta, Legionnaires... -- and those are just the names I can pull off the top of my head.

    Why should you care about some schmoe with diabetes? Because before he dies, opportunistic infections and diseases will use his body as a factory to crank out pathogens that will eventually enter your environment. One bad apple will eventually turn them all. One sick cow will eventually cost you the herd. It is in your own selfish best interest to ensure various bacteria and viruses do not have a foothold in your community.

    But let's talk about something like ALS or Huntington's, which may be purely genetic and absolutely not communicable. Let's suppose those people are simply going to die in helpless agony. Do you think their families will simply sit by and wring their hands? We can either sit by and spend fortunes on security systems, cops and cleanup to handle the inevitable headline disasters ... or we can skip the drama by writing some prescriptions. It is literally a selfish ounce of prevention vs. a pound of cure from your tax dollars.

    I offer all those arguments in case you're young and ignorant of life, in the hopes that you've never even had the fairly routine experience of watching them slice your wife open to pull out your child, that you have yet to put a parent in the ground.

    It makes no difference to my health whether you suffer or die from cancer, obesity, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, or heart disease,

    If you've got some gray in your hair, and your heart and spirit are still this stunted, small and shriveled, then you have my pity. You're going to go to your grave feeling even more miserable, alone and afraid than you do right now.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:The tunnel vision of youth by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      If you've got some gray in your hair, and your heart and spirit are still this stunted, small and shriveled, then you have my pity. You're going to go to your grave feeling even more miserable, alone and afraid than you do right now.

      You said: Public health is simply the sum total of private health. ... Like it or not, your health is inextricably tied into the health of everyone else. Unlike money and cookies, this isn't a situation where you can say 'Screw you I got mine.'

      That statement is objectively false: my health does, for the most part, not depend on your health. My health does not depend on whether you have ALS or Huntingtons or cancer. If we only needed to address private health concerns that affect other people, we'd get by with very little money per American per year.

      But nowhere did I say that because of that we should not help other people who have fallen sick. I was simply pointing out that your argument was false. There are many reasons to provide free health care to people, including the fact that it considered is a basic human right, but public health is not one of them.

      You apparently think that defending your political and social views entitles you to insult and attack other people in whatever underhanded way you can come up with. I don't know what made you so bitter and arrogant, but whatever it was, it has turned you into a reprehensible human being.

  74. Have you stayed close to home? by jeko · · Score: 1

    That statement is objectively false: my health does, for the most part, not depend on your health. My health does not depend on whether you have ALS or Huntingtons or cancer. If we only needed to address private health concerns that affect other people, we'd get by with very little money per American per year.

    OK, you're completely missing the idea that individual compromised immune systems offer communicable diseases a foothold into the community. Some guy across town comes down with Hodgkins lymphoma. You're safe. Cancer isn't contagious. Cancer shreds his immune system, leaving him wide open for the tuberculosis problem we're seeing recur in the American South and inner cities. Tuberculosis is contagious and is your problem.

    He dies hacking and spewing, but you feel happy because none of your tax dollars are going to treat him. Sadly, the Fedex man spoke to your neighbor's caregiver before he dropped your package off, so that nagging cough that just broke out in your chest and the blood you're coughing into your kleenex isn't going to go away any time soon.

    Have you never seriously traveled? Go spend some time in Europe and Canada, then go spend some time in places where access to a doctor isn't a given, like Papua New Guinea, Alabama and Mississippi (Huntsville doesn't count.) Have you never noticed you seem to have fewer health problems when everyone around you is healthier?

    When "personal" medical problems get treated, "public" medical problems find fewer opportunities to breed in your community. You're hanging out on Slashdot, for goodness' sake. You should have an intuitive understanding of the concept. One vulnerable host on a network does not mean only that user has a problem...

    You apparently think that defending your political and social views entitles you to insult and attack other people in whatever underhanded way you can come up with. I don't know what made you so bitter and arrogant, but whatever it was, it has turned you into a reprehensible human being.

    Oh dear. Did I hit a nerve? Did I hurt your feelings? Do you need some comfort, reassurance and consolation?

    Well, fortunately that's your problem, not mine. :-)

    OK. Maybe a little too much snark. I apologize. Look, here's my problem. At the outside, I got maybe 30 years left. I could drop dead right now and go into the light with nothing left undone. I have been there, I have done that, and I have got the t-shirt. I got mine. I got more than mine.

    I also got kids. Them and the grandkids will have to live in this world after my wife and I are gone. What terrifies me is that half this country's population, a country I gave years to, half this country's population thinks Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't loud-mouthed idiots. Sarah Palin shoots wolves out of helicopters and talks about how huntin' makes her a Real American. Funny, my grandpa threatened to tan my hide if I ever shot something I didn't intend to eat. I'm a hillbilly from a long line of hillbillies. I et 'coon, possum and deer as a child. I figure that makes me as real an American as Daniel Boone.

    Half this country's population think they're right with God and following Christian tradition when ain't none of them ever sat on a bare wooden pew and cain't none of 'em remember the words to "the Old Wooden Cross." I've heard preachers -- Preachers, mind you -- who talk about the "Evils of Socialized Medicine" like not one of them ever read the tale of the Good Samaritan.

    Sick people get doctors. Period. Whatever it takes, I don't care. I don't care if my taxes go up. I don't care if we have to pay the doctors in moonshine and chickens. I don't care if I get drafted to rip bedsheets into bandages. Civilized people do not leave the sick and the wounded to suffer, and I don't care if it's a drunk suffering from DTs. The whole outside world -- and I've been there mind you -- the whole outside world looks at us like we're savages for leaving the sick and injured to fend for themselves.

    And they're right.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Have you stayed close to home? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      The whole outside world -- and I've been there mind you -- the whole outside world looks at us like we're savages for leaving the sick and injured to fend for themselves.

      I have lived in half a dozen countries around the world. You're right that other nations are less savage than the US when it comes to health care: they are less savage because they put limits on how selfish pricks like you can waste medical resources on unneeded procedures, ineffective end-of-life care, and the latest gimmicky drugs.

      Sick people get doctors. Period. Whatever it takes, I don't care. I don't care if my taxes go up.

      Taxes don't need to go up; the US already spends far more per capita on medicine than other nations. What "it takes" is putting people like you in their place and stop them from causing our medical expenses to spiral out of control through their ignorance and unreasonable expectations. That's how other nations achieve full coverage with less money than the US.

      When "personal" medical problems get treated, "public" medical problems find fewer opportunities to breed in your community

      Even Cuban-style health care would be sufficient for that, at a small fraction of what the US pays per capita. We can actually do better in the US, but not as long as people like you "don't care".

      Them and the grandkids will have to live in this world after my wife and I are gone. What terrifies me is that half this country's population, a country I gave years to, half this country's population thinks Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't loud-mouthed idiots

      Then be terrified of yourself, because you're just as ignorant and destructive as the people who worship Beck and Limbaugh.

  75. Now we're making progress by jeko · · Score: 1

    OK, we started with "Screw you I got mine" and "It doesn't matter to my health how sick you get," and now we're arguing efficiency, so I'm wonderfully happy. You've moved away from "Ayn says let 'em die in the streets," to "We're wasting money," so we're making progress. You've still got some nonsense going about what we spend money on for healthcare in this country, but we're getting there.

    A centimeter at a time, but we're getting there. :-)

    they put limits on how selfish pricks like you can waste medical resources on unneeded procedures, ineffective end-of-life care, and the latest gimmicky drugs.

    You mean like prophylactic c-sections, hospice and morphine?

    My wife had a natural delivery in one of those "limited" countries. She luxuriated in the hospital for almost a week. They didn't discharge her until she could walk on her own. She carried our baby out of the hospital. She had a full complement of pain meds just in case she needed them. She was assigned a lactation nurse who spent several hours making sure our child began feeding without issue. We had a pediatrician assigned to us. The city even gave us a routine stipend to cover initial babcare expenses like diapers and cribs just in case we couldn't afford it. Frankly, we got firehosed with assistance. When I asked why, they told me it was cheap insurance, cheaper to pay these minor expenses up front than to worry about larger issues later.

    My wife had an emergency c-section stateside, as in she was bleeding out and both mother and child would have died. Looking at my call record, our insurance company was on the phone with me to argue the charges before my wife was even out of surgery. My wife was discharged less than 48 hours after being cut open like a fish. She was still actively bleeding when they kicked her out the door, without pain meds.

    Every single issue was a fight. We had to fight to get her the needed pain meds. We had to fight to get her back in when the bleeding wouldn't stop. We had to fight to get our child in to the pediatrician. When my wife showed up bleeding at the ER, we had to fight through an off-duty cop to get in to get triaged by the nurse. We fought the insurance company over every single dime for months afterwards as they denied every single claim as a matter of standard procedure.

    And I have what is considered to be "Gold standard" health insurance.

    It took a literal act of Congress to allow pregnant women to stay the night at the hospital after delivery. Every other father I talk to has similar horror stories. The fact that you're not familiar with these issues tells me ... that you're not familiar with these issues.

    Even Cuban-style health care would be sufficient for that,...

    Even Cuban style of healthcare?! God Help Us, when did we fall so far that we look UP to anything, ANYTHING Cuba has to offer?

    But, but, but, but SOCIALISM! Socialist Health Care? You mean exactly like the sort of health care system used by the United States House, Senate, Supreme Court and every branch of the Armed Forces, that kind of Communist health care? How come every other civilized nation on Earth seems to have these sorts of systems, but they haven't been smitten by the Capitalist Fist of an Angry God?

    We rank 33rd, at the bottom of the list among civilized nations on infant mortality. We edge out Croatia by a tenth of a point, and it looks like they'll pass us in the next go around.

    Croatia. We're about to get beat by a war-torn nation from the Eastern Bloc. We put as many babies in the ground as a shattered chunk of what we used to call Yugoslavia.

    We put those babies in the ground because we can't come up with a coherent health plan, because we'd rather pay United Healthcare's CEO 1.1 Billion dollars -- that's Billion with a "B" -- than save the lives of infants. You know what grand accomplishment Bill McGuire can point to to justify that 1.1 Billion dollars? Well, so fa

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Now we're making progress by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      I hope things worked out with your wife. Obviously, C-sections should be covered and easily reimbursed.

      I took issue only with one specific point you made: your argument that public health is the sum of private health. It is not. Your wife's C-section makes no difference to my health; it should simply be covered because it is the right thing to do.

      As I was saying: you are a bitter and angry human being because you have had problems with your health insurance. But your bitterness and anger has obviously gone beyond what is normal and acceptable. Your problems do not entitle you to insult people or lie or put words in their mouth, and you have done all of those.

      Get some psychological help; you need it.

  76. ghguh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The heating time for the hair straightener should help you decide on buying the rightGHD Hair Straighteners. Choose one where you can adjust the temperature, or at least have more than three temperature levels in it.