Slashdot Mirror
Biometric Database Plans Hidden In Immigration Bill
Doug Otto writes "Buried deep in the bowels of a bi-partisan immigration reform bill is a 'photo tool.' The goal is to create a photo database consisting of every citizen. Wired calls it 'a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.' Of course the database would be used only for good, and never evil. 'This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.'"
Create a distributed database of all politicians with current (hours old) photos, locations, sound captures, etc. Give them hell. Film them in their homes. I don't care if it's illegal.
Hey, buddy... are you up for another filibuster?
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to.
I am not about that life.
Ending with? I think in my state (plus federal laws/reg) we've got at least 4 of those already. And that's not counting opening an account with the gas company.
I am not a crackpot.
Why does this sound like every old WWII depiction of the SS coming to life?
Mission Creep is a ridiculous thing to worry about. Just like your Social Security Number, which the SS Administration has declared from the begining that it is NOT to be used as a form of identification.
When you get your drivers license.. don't they already store your photo in a database?
The simple solution to this is to just NOT get a drivers license. You know that's a perfectly fine thing to do. Build your life around that fact, instead of lazily building your life around the need to drive a car on a taxpayer subsidized highway system.
Use public transportation. Or hitchhike and ride on the back of freight trains and take photographs of it, like what this guy did: http://mikebrodie.net/
What's that? You want to drive your own car on taxpayer funded roads, but you DON'T want to follow the rules set by the people that built that for you? HAHAHA... I didn't know we spent tax-money on an interstate system so that you can do whatever YOU want with it.
Two, actually. Yes, even from dealers at gun shows.
For some reason it's racist to ask for ID to vote.
Vote early, vote often!
But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.
Don't you sort of already have to do this for everything above, minus "attend a sporting event" or "log on to the internet"?
The Identity Cards Act 2006 mandated national ID cards. In October 2006, the Government declared it would cost £5.4bn to run the ID cards scheme for the next 10 years, and by November 2007 this estimate was revised to £5.612bn. The Identity Documents Act 2010 cancelled this with at least £256 million already spent.
It is generally acknowledged that this scheme would not have delivered any increased security, as applications would be verified against passport and driving license databases that were already known to be inaccurate.
"Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo."
Are employers officials of the state now? This sounds very un-American, and very un-doable too.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Papers, Please.
I know this is true. My first job out of college required a DoD security clearance. My fingerprints are forever in the FBI databases.
Most jobs that I would consider in IT also require background checks. That means paying an agency to search local, state and federal databased PLUS run credit reports looking for flags. The reports usually are not provided to the job seeker - which seems wrong to me. I don't have an issue if they get the reports, but I want to get a copy of the data too so I can correct incorrect data - not just if I'm refused employment - that will never be stated - the job offer just will not come. It is a form of discrimination without reason - at least that is how it appears.
I got pissed off when Bally's Health Club and Sam's club required a photo ID. Might as well take a thumb print too. Now, with hi resolution cameras and sound imaging, this will happen at every traffic stop, ATM, or government facility. RFID tags embedded in everything can be tied to everything too, and provide a more error resilient method. If you go to a protest against the next war, I am sure you will be kept on an enemy list. I fear that next, they will require a blood / saliva / sperm sample as in the movie Gatica?
Stuff like this really pisses me off. Doubly so because the people who normally run around talking about preventing government interference in business seem happy to create programs like this (and the already existing e-verify) that boil down to having to get permission from the federal government in order to work.
It is hard to imagine a more pervasive and intrusive control over society than having to get President Obama's permission in order to feed and clothe your children. And yet the people who should be howling at such things are happy to embrace them because their xenophobia trumps their patriotism.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
by AdmiralAl (1136661)
Your user ID brings to mind something that we could exploit to get the right-leaning fundies riled up about this. John of Patmos wrote in Revelation 13:16-17:
I can see how fingerprints could be spun as "a mark in their right hand."
It turns out that having a universal unique idenitifier is really handy. There are reasons you WANT to be able to be affirmatively and uniquely identified as "you", but you want that capability under your own control. Even with PKI (a system that could be trusted, anyway), someone has to hold a central database. Guess who that would likely be? And if it shouldn't be "the government", then who?
You already have to have proof of self to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane.
It may not be by law, but those folks already want to see id. I am 99% sure the gun one is a law.
Really?
Next mandate, fixed IPv6 IP addresses for all devices. Your devices and their IPv6 addresses get added to the definition of "who you are".
No more internet anonymity except when using a proxy.
Which proxies do you trust?
Neither citizenship verification, employment verification, or any of these other functions for which these databases have been proposed actually need centralized government databases. All that you really need is a reasonably secure way of identifying yourself and proving your citizenship. You should be able to store your credentials (physical or electronic) in some secure way if you like, but that should be your choosing. The traditional thing to do is to store your birth certificate, passport, and similar documents in safe or in a bank lock box.
The DHS and TSA will be going to class to say "Papers, please" with a thick Russian accent.
They've also been given Commodore 64 emulators for Linux and a copy of the classic game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QP5X6fcukM
The USA are turning into this weakened version of a police state which is the surveillance state, too.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Fear libertarians fear!
Is that supposed to be: Fear, Libertarians! Fear! Fear Libertarians' fear! I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say. And which conspiracy?
ending with the proof of self being required at polling places
You mean I won't be able to vote as Tom Cruise anymore?
You already have to show photo ID for most of the things listed. Tagging on "and logging onto the Internet" at the end is just sensationalist trash.
Hint: if you have a driver's license, the Gubmint knows who you are.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I think of the $60,000 hammer comment made in the movie, "Independence Day"
such a huge system will *ever* get implemented? The Feds have a long and sucky track record of managing huge IT projects that explode in budget and go down in flames a decade later.
Thus, I'm not worried.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The OUI can be used for part of the address, but doesn't have to be. Microsoft by default does not use it when generating the IPv6 address as of Vista and instead generates a random address to make it harder to track a device across connections.
I don't know where you got the idea that a serial number was used at all.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I'm sure it sounds great. Until the minimum wage, data entry clerk doesn't match up the right photo to the right name and you are instantly cut off from all the things mentioned in the article. Unable to get a driver lic, can't open a bank account, can't go to a sporting event, can't get on the internet in order to send the emails needed to clear up the issue.
Why the hell do you vote on bundles of bills instead of individual ones? It would take less time to vote on multiple bills because your representatives would not be wasting time trying to crush or protect their own bills inside the bundles.
...if I have voluntary given up my personal info to have a passport and driver's license, yet act incensed about all this?
In principle, the very act of collecting data on us goes against every moral fiber in my body. Yet if I think about it, I've already given in by securing a passport and DL. I am sure there are pockets of people in this country who want to remain "off the grid," and I respect that and even support their right to do so. But realistically, discounting this very small minority, is there really anything left to fight for given that most of us have voluntarily given up this information to the government in the first place?
This just in: After over 200 years since the USA was founded with the explicit intent of being different from the Rest Of The World, The Rest Of The World still expresses surprise that the USA is different from them!
I'm betting your country already does something like this. But rage on, dude.
Except for some sporting events and accessing the internet, the other events all require ID, some require photo ID and others do not. Please, stop the hysterics. The issue is not whether you need to show an ID to vote, or to rent a house (credit report, anyone?), or buy a gun (background check, hello?), or board a plane (where have you been for the last 12 years?).
The bigger issue is does the DHS - or a client of their data - have authority to prevent you from carrying out these activities based on the data - identity and other - stored its databases. That would be a sensible concern.
Stop whining about policies of private institutions and state and local governments that are sensible and non-invasive. The arm-waving and yelling is immature, and cheapens other more valid concerns about the use of personally identifying (and classifying) data.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
Were you around in 2001? First, we had 9/11. Then on 10/24 the House passed the USA Patriot Act 357-66. The Senate passed it 98-1 the next day, and on 10/26 it was signed into law. SIX WEEKS!
If you look at the size and scope of this bill and the bewildering number of changes it made to existing law, it's rather obvious that it had it ready and waiting long before 9/11/2001. Do you really need more evidence to demonstrate that there is a "conspiracy" to deprive U.S. citizens of their civil liberties?
And what bastion of freedom do you hail from, Mr. AC?
Yep, the federal government never prosecutes identity theft. Right? They sure as heck don't have a huge anti-fraud division of the FBI. I get that there's plenty to be cynical about in our government, and most of that flows back to a combination of our electorate's stupidity and a locked-in broken system for elections. That doesn't mean there aren't elements of law and government that are actually intended to do some good.
It's really easy to be cynical about everything but that's just another kind of self-delusion.
Good, it's about time we finally have something like this. Let's do it right and have an actual, official national identity registry. It can help us with voting, getting on airplanes, and crossing borders. Stop it with the nonsense about the mark of the beast and tyranny. If you think "having a photo ID" is "tyranny" then you need to get some perspective.
Our society is declining.
It is a sad and pathetic joke because those who bray the loudest about freedom are the fascists.
We are becoming a parody of everything we are supposed to stand for. The empire is failing. We are not worse than the Soviets ever were.
Stalin executed tens of millions. We are a long long way from being worse than than.
National ID is something pretty much every country has. Can someone please explain to me why is it such a bogieman for the libertarians?
I don't have a sig.
I don't see why there is such a fuss.
The black side of our government already has this, we just don't admit it in public, just like we don't (usually) admit we record all Internet and phone (land, sea, air, cell) and Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest data we have on you.
Pinterest is the most interesting, as we're looking for embedded messages from in-country terrorists stored in images.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account More like rent a house, open a bank account There is a dissarmament underway. By the time these biometrics make it into the mainstream. Owning weapons will be as frowned upon as smoking, and eventually eliminated or reduced to the point of harmless. Then the biometrics can get to work!
...that want to use a fake ID to go out and get hammered? It's our God-given right as American citizens!
"privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep"
I consider myself a privacy advocate, but I'm also a computer programmer who desperately wishes for a national ID number unique to every citizen. Last year, I advocated for voter ID cards here in Minnesota ( http://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/237086.html ) because it seemed like a way to bypass the usual conservative opposition to government ID cards. Finally, conservatives' fear of "furriners" overtaking the country might exceed their fear of religious mumbo jumbo about numbers of the Beast. I'll take progress however I can get it, and voter/immigration paranoia seems like the way I can finally get a national ID number.
I assumed that once I received my Driver's License (in 1986, heh), I was already IN a giant database like this? Why DON'T we have this? Seems like a pretty obvious thing that I would want if I was issuing photo IDs and SS#s. I'd fire any employee who introduced photo ID's and forgot the database part.
And for those banging the Big Brother drum, Given the shit people spill to social networks, this seems completely benign.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
15 states passed laws prohibiting themselves from implementing a national id and 25 more "rejected" the law
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/yes-states-really-reject-real-id
Sounds like a dead end
These days, no ID = no vote.
Not in my state. They cannot legally ask for ID at a polling place (not that it'd do any good if they did as you don't even need to be in the country legally to get a DL in New Mexico).
And you have a lot of election fraud, don't you.
This is one of the reasons the Electoral College, rather than national popular vote, to elect the President is a good idea. It limits the fraction of the vote margin that cheaters in one state can achieve.
It also limits the scope of recounts. Remember the mess a couple years back in Florida? Imagine if they had to recount the WHOLE COUNTRY in a close election...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Given the technical prowess generally demonstrated by the government (especially the legislators), and the level of complexity of maintaining a database of this kind, I'm really more bothered by the massive potential for FUBARs. This kind of database is probably inevitable, but I just don't trust a government-led effort to get it right. Or even in the general vicinity of right.
These days, no ID = no vote.
Not in my state. They cannot legally ask for ID at a polling place (not that it'd do any good if they did as you don't even need to be in the country legally to get a DL in New Mexico).
And you have a lot of election fraud, don't you.
Here in Oregon you don't need to show ID, you sign a ballot envelope and put your ballot into the main or in an election collection box. And no, actually, we don't have high fraud. We have less than almost any state. Basically "none." Winners and losers agree there is little or no fraud, because we've slowed down the process and included real and strong transparency and reversibility at every stage.
This is one of the reasons the Electoral College, rather than national popular vote, to elect the President is a good idea. It limits the fraction of the vote margin that cheaters in one state can achieve.
It also limits the scope of recounts. Remember the mess a couple years back in Florida? Imagine if they had to recount the WHOLE COUNTRY in a close election...
These are not the advantages of EC, but rather of every region voting separately (and EC is more than just that). The problem with EC is the usual winner-takes-all approach, rather than assigning elector votes proportionally to how the electorate in that particular state voted (or just ditching electors, and having states supply their percentages directly, and feeding them into the federal calculation). This retains both advantages that you list.
So it looks like the Democrats and Chuck Schumer are pushing again for their national ID card.
For those wondering how this would lead to a national ID card think how this would work. If they have to collection all government, state and federal, photos that is going to alot. Just doing a quick inventory of myself there are 7 and those are current and used, if you include past ones that would not be cleared from a database who knows. All of those pictures look different, from hair changes, weight loss, age, etc.
Since they are going to have that many pictures they need a way of linking them which means that each person will need an individual key. Once you have an ID number that is linked to you and this database that is a national ID under any name.
After posting our (appropriate) indignation on /., how many of us jumped to our senators' websites and left a comment voicing distate and/or disdain for the plan? (I went before posting this question.) It would be great to be able to get an accurate answer because when these types of YRO posts happen, I often wonder about the "so what?" response. How many /.'s consider themselves to be activists? (And maybe that would be an Ask Slashdot topic instead of this.)
Bark less. Wag more.
If they have to collection all government, state and federal, photos that is going to alot.
PSA: don't drink and post.
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/obama-administration-peg-usa-visa-to-caste-system-in-india
Casteism