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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
These days, no ID = no vote. Opt out of a driver's license (or non-driver ID card), you opt out of voting, too. You also opt out of having a bank account. There's more, but I'll leave completing the list of opt-outs to others . . .
I am not a crackpot.
Maybe in America you can't get a bank account without photo ID, but in Canada there's an old law that mandates you must be able to get a basic account with no photo ID. Now, if you actually try, banks will make a fuss, but it is possible.
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).
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Employers have been doing clerical work gratis for the government for a long time. For example, they're already required to process income tax withholding and to verify the immigration status of job applicants.
Why they put up with this escapes me.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Ihre papiere, bitte.
No, in Germany they ask for your Personalausweis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_identity_card
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
...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?
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?
How do they verify you are who you say you are? Do they require some form of ID? I think here in Alaska you need your voters registration card or a form of picture ID.
You tell them your name and address. They manually cross your name off of a printed list. There is no live database, there is no real checking.
Can you say "ripe for abuse?"
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
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
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.
Works ok in the UK we haven't had any "hanging chad" or similar problems and you don't have to "resgister" with the state which party you support.