The desire to fix things with a single, federal, solution is part of problem. As many of the above posts already note, identity theft is possible in large part due to the existence of single national identifiers. Further, a federal-law solution would be constitutionally limited, and could only regulate those organizations engaged in (interstate) commercial activity. Data collections created for governmental, political, religious, or research purposes would probably be above federal authority and subject only to state law.
As a practical matter, the governance of personal information is something best handled by the individual states, based on their individual needs and values. A (large) state that values convenience and automation can adopt a "uniform information code" much like the present UCC. A (small) state that prefers privacy and control can adopt more stringent regulations. In the end, an individual has a lot more control over the laws of his state, (and thus the laws governing his personal information,) than he does over federal laws.
Are you assuming that the Punk/Lover/Driver is guilty before you even hear the evidence? If you were the accused, and you believed you were innocent, would you want a jury to listen to you?
how exactly would this involuntary servitude have any bearing on affirming or defending our rights?
You have three rights here that you're protecting:
1. The right to have a jury of ordinary people decide what the facts are when you're charged with a crime. 2. The right to serve on a jury. 3. The right not to be put in jail if there is reasonable doubt as to your guilt.
Actually serving on a jury affirms and defends all of these.
OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights?
Citizens of different states have different rights. Some of these rights govern how the government(s) can collect and use information. (For example, information gathered during a police stop.) How do you propose to make one database that protects the rights retained by one state and not by another?
the government's
Ah, here's what you're missing, government in this case is plural. If you live in a united State, you live under two separate and distinct governments, one State and one federal. Driver's licenses fall into the state category. You give some personal information and a few dollars to your state, and your state allows me to drive a car on the roads. Because your vote is stronger in your own state than in federal elections, you also have a lot more control over how that information gets used. With a shared database, you would give up this level of control over your personal information.
unless you've taken pains to obscure your face while driving (which is illegal in most places)
Can you elaborate on this? Which places? The reason I ask is that, while the underlying rights on which the Minnesota court based it's decision may transfer from one state to the next, this peculiar prohibition on covering your face covered sounds... local.
If you weren't, you sign the affidavit that it wasn't you, and they have to actually examine the photo and your picture to see whether you're telling the truth. If you know what you're doing and the picture isn't identifiable as you, you can make a good case that you weren't driving. Of course, you also have to explain why you didn't report your car stolen that day. Maybe someone took it for a joyride, but then they left it in the exact spot and you didn't notice anything was wrong, etc. which is pretty unlikely.
This does not work either, because of that other right, the one about remaining silent. In a criminal case, you can plead not guilty and say no more. Proof that you own the car is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving it at a particular time and place. The State has to do all the work of proving who was actually driving, and you don't have to help them. (Perhaps, once the charges against you had been dismissed, they could subpoena you to testify as to the identity of the driver, but this starts costing the State more time and money than it is worth.)
As an alternative, the State might make this offense a civil matter, and avoid some of those pesky civil rights...
Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.
Sure, I'm familiar with ADM, but if you read the link you posted, you can see they don't do much, if any, actual corn farming. They run processing plants.
Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons),
I'd like you to introduce me to these rich corn farmers you speak of. I live in a united State with a lot of corn farmers, and not one of them is rich. If you know of some, I'd like to find out how they do it, and tell my friends.
Good point. As a practical matter, this training will probably (hopefully) be available to anyone interested, particularly lawyers on both sides. Maybe the statement about prosecuting attorneys and judges was made just to show the public that the program will have value to them.
(People being people, it is probably harder to stir up public support for programs designed to produce better criminal defense lawyers.)
Pure population density may not be the cause, but it might be a related factor. Consider states like North Dakota which, for years now has been seeing out-migration. Although the market may be good, there are a lot of people living there who want broadband access, the total population has been slowly decreasing as residents move to population centers in other States.
If you are an investor or broadband provider, what motivates you to invest in infrastructure in a place where you will almost certainly have FEWER customers next year?
Also, although some very good observations have been made about the spacing and distance between small towns, this analysis still leaves one problem unanswered. In states like South Dakota, more than 50% of the population lives OUTSIDE of town. (At least, according to MS Encarta, circa 2000) Many of these people live miles from their nearest neighbor. Will it ever be cost-effective to run a wire for 20 miles to serve one customer?
Actually, the federal law for witholding funds, 23 USC 158, only calls for a 10% reduction in funding, not the loss of all federal highway funds. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this section in South Dakota v. Dole. It held (arguably) that witholding all funds might constitute coercion and be impermissible, but a 10% sanction was within congressional spending authority.
Screw megapixels, I can't wait for the first Video/Camera/Handgun/Phone...
This would be a great combination, in theory. But do you really want to put a gun into a device that you frequently hold against your head? *Oops, wrong button!*
You hit on an interesting point here. Accusing someone of being 13 is probably the most damning thing one can say about another person online. What is it that makes 13 years the magical age of heightened folly? At age 13 (on average) are we just old enough to argue, but still too young to really think things through? Are we just old enough to participate in the great internet conversation, but still young enough that the reader can tell us for what we are?
Be nice to the 13 year olds, they have it rough. They have to deal with pimples AND work out their personal ideologies at the same time.
The Internet, one more reason why puberty is no fun.
A good headline like this should always be followed with a call for new legislation. We need to protect the industry. Perhaps we could ban trafficking in illicit news-related photographs, or the use of technologies that allow unrestricted sharing of such photographs on the internet.
On the other hand, the few photojournalists I know can usually take vastly better pictures of a newsworthy event with a disposable camera than I can with a phone/camera of any kind. Maybe talent will save the industry instead.
That an independent researcher would headline something like this, rather than some "well-funded" group. How could you ever write a grant to research something that is free of charge?
What, exactly, prohibits stem cell research in the United States? Is there a federal law that says "stem cell research impacts interstate commerce, and is hereby prohibited." Or is it more like "We're not going to provide any funding for groups that do stem cell research?"
If I recall, the DMCA prohibits trafficing in technology to bypass security measures on copyrighted media put in place by the owners of that copyright.
The limitations on Tivo are copy protections put in place by a third party, not the owner. (I can still record the same programs on my betamax with no trouble.) Have I missed something?
This is a risky statement. It suggests that your rights exist only at the pleasure of the state, and are not intrinsic to you. If this were true, the state could easily take those rights away. This is problematic because many of the rights we cherish serve to protect us from the zeal of the state.
Due to hereditary hair, and the fact that you can't really wear a baseball cap with a suit and tie, I want nice men's hats to make a comeback in popular fashion. Maybe the growing use of CCTV will help my cause. Has anyone done a study to determine how wide a brim is needed to hide one's face from a typical CCTV camera? Will a bowler or fedora suffice, or do we need to go for a full sombrero?
If all of your personal information is publicly available, what happens to electronic commerce? Do our current norms of electronic commerce rely on certain information being "secret"? If all of my credit cards, social security numbers, and my mothers maiden names are available for anyone, would anyone dare to do business online with a person claiming to be "me"? What about public services, social security, child support, or medicaid? How would a government agency know if the person receiving the benefits was the "right" person?
On the other hand, could personal information be devalued to the point where nobody wants to collect it anymore?
Does anyone else suspect that the english language has run out of words? Our slash & burn marketing has almost completely exhausted the natural supply. We are cobbling new buzzwords together out of existing words at an alarming rate.
Tech-ade? Soloprenure? Fantabulous?
One recent study from a Canadian research group suggests that the meaning of of 28% of all naturally occuring English buzzwords have been reduced by as much as 90% through over-marketing. We need to act now. If we fail, none of our words will have any meaning anymore, and our children will be unable to communicate.
These numbers are enlightening, but I wonder how accurate they really are with respect to the United States. I notice that EU members are stated separately, but indiviudal united States are not. Does the United States figure account only for taxes at the federal level? (Some states have no income tax, and very low taxes on consumption. Other states have high taxes in both categories.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ever been to an Indian reservation in the United States?
The desire to fix things with a single, federal, solution is part of problem. As many of the above posts already note, identity theft is possible in large part due to the existence of single national identifiers. Further, a federal-law solution would be constitutionally limited, and could only regulate those organizations engaged in (interstate) commercial activity. Data collections created for governmental, political, religious, or research purposes would probably be above federal authority and subject only to state law.
As a practical matter, the governance of personal information is something best handled by the individual states, based on their individual needs and values. A (large) state that values convenience and automation can adopt a "uniform information code" much like the present UCC. A (small) state that prefers privacy and control can adopt more stringent regulations. In the end, an individual has a lot more control over the laws of his state, (and thus the laws governing his personal information,) than he does over federal laws.
Are you assuming that the Punk/Lover/Driver is guilty before you even hear the evidence? If you were the accused, and you believed you were innocent, would you want a jury to listen to you?
how exactly would this involuntary servitude have any bearing on affirming or defending our rights?
You have three rights here that you're protecting:
1. The right to have a jury of ordinary people decide what the facts are when you're charged with a crime.
2. The right to serve on a jury.
3. The right not to be put in jail if there is reasonable doubt as to your guilt.
Actually serving on a jury affirms and defends all of these.
OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights?
Citizens of different states have different rights. Some of these rights govern how the government(s) can collect and use information. (For example, information gathered during a police stop.) How do you propose to make one database that protects the rights retained by one state and not by another?
the government's
Ah, here's what you're missing, government in this case is plural. If you live in a united State, you live under two separate and distinct governments, one State and one federal. Driver's licenses fall into the state category. You give some personal information and a few dollars to your state, and your state allows me to drive a car on the roads. Because your vote is stronger in your own state than in federal elections, you also have a lot more control over how that information gets used. With a shared database, you would give up this level of control over your personal information.
unless you've taken pains to obscure your face while driving (which is illegal in most places)
... local.
Can you elaborate on this? Which places? The reason I ask is that, while the underlying rights on which the Minnesota court based it's decision may transfer from one state to the next, this peculiar prohibition on covering your face covered sounds
If you weren't, you sign the affidavit that it wasn't you, and they have to actually examine the photo and your picture to see whether you're telling the truth. If you know what you're doing and the picture isn't identifiable as you, you can make a good case that you weren't driving. Of course, you also have to explain why you didn't report your car stolen that day. Maybe someone took it for a joyride, but then they left it in the exact spot and you didn't notice anything was wrong, etc. which is pretty unlikely.
This does not work either, because of that other right, the one about remaining silent. In a criminal case, you can plead not guilty and say no more. Proof that you own the car is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving it at a particular time and place. The State has to do all the work of proving who was actually driving, and you don't have to help them. (Perhaps, once the charges against you had been dismissed, they could subpoena you to testify as to the identity of the driver, but this starts costing the State more time and money than it is worth.)
As an alternative, the State might make this offense a civil matter, and avoid some of those pesky civil rights...
Oops.
Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.
Red Light Cameras
Sure, I'm familiar with ADM, but if you read the link you posted, you can see they don't do much, if any, actual corn farming. They run processing plants.
Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons),
I'd like you to introduce me to these rich corn farmers you speak of. I live in a united State with a lot of corn farmers, and not one of them is rich. If you know of some, I'd like to find out how they do it, and tell my friends.
Good point. As a practical matter, this training will probably (hopefully) be available to anyone interested, particularly lawyers on both sides. Maybe the statement about prosecuting attorneys and judges was made just to show the public that the program will have value to them.
(People being people, it is probably harder to stir up public support for programs designed to produce better criminal defense lawyers.)
Sounds right to me. Now how can we prevent the media from doing this ever, ever, ever, again?
Pure population density may not be the cause, but it might be a related factor. Consider states like North Dakota which, for years now has been seeing out-migration. Although the market may be good, there are a lot of people living there who want broadband access, the total population has been slowly decreasing as residents move to population centers in other States.
If you are an investor or broadband provider, what motivates you to invest in infrastructure in a place where you will almost certainly have FEWER customers next year?
Also, although some very good observations have been made about the spacing and distance between small towns, this analysis still leaves one problem unanswered. In states like South Dakota, more than 50% of the population lives OUTSIDE of town. (At least, according to MS Encarta, circa 2000) Many of these people live miles from their nearest neighbor. Will it ever be cost-effective to run a wire for 20 miles to serve one customer?
Actually, the federal law for witholding funds, 23 USC 158, only calls for a 10% reduction in funding, not the loss of all federal highway funds. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this section in South Dakota v. Dole. It held (arguably) that witholding all funds might constitute coercion and be impermissible, but a 10% sanction was within congressional spending authority.
Screw megapixels, I can't wait for the first Video/Camera/Handgun/Phone...
This would be a great combination, in theory. But do you really want to put a gun into a device that you frequently hold against your head? *Oops, wrong button!*
Ouch.
What are you? 13?
You hit on an interesting point here. Accusing someone of being 13 is probably the most damning thing one can say about another person online. What is it that makes 13 years the magical age of heightened folly? At age 13 (on average) are we just old enough to argue, but still too young to really think things through? Are we just old enough to participate in the great internet conversation, but still young enough that the reader can tell us for what we are?
Be nice to the 13 year olds, they have it rough. They have to deal with pimples AND work out their personal ideologies at the same time.
The Internet, one more reason why puberty is no fun.
A good headline like this should always be followed with a call for new legislation. We need to protect the industry. Perhaps we could ban trafficking in illicit news-related photographs, or the use of technologies that allow unrestricted sharing of such photographs on the internet.
On the other hand, the few photojournalists I know can usually take vastly better pictures of a newsworthy event with a disposable camera than I can with a phone/camera of any kind. Maybe talent will save the industry instead.
That an independent researcher would headline something like this, rather than some "well-funded" group. How could you ever write a grant to research something that is free of charge?
What, exactly, prohibits stem cell research in the United States? Is there a federal law that says "stem cell research impacts interstate commerce, and is hereby prohibited." Or is it more like "We're not going to provide any funding for groups that do stem cell research?"
If I recall, the DMCA prohibits trafficing in technology to bypass security measures on copyrighted media put in place by the owners of that copyright.
The limitations on Tivo are copy protections put in place by a third party, not the owner. (I can still record the same programs on my betamax with no trouble.) Have I missed something?
the state grants everyone equal rights.
This is a risky statement. It suggests that your rights exist only at the pleasure of the state, and are not intrinsic to you. If this were true, the state could easily take those rights away. This is problematic because many of the rights we cherish serve to protect us from the zeal of the state.
Due to hereditary hair, and the fact that you can't really wear a baseball cap with a suit and tie, I want nice men's hats to make a comeback in popular fashion. Maybe the growing use of CCTV will help my cause. Has anyone done a study to determine how wide a brim is needed to hide one's face from a typical CCTV camera? Will a bowler or fedora suffice, or do we need to go for a full sombrero?
If all of your personal information is publicly available, what happens to electronic commerce? Do our current norms of electronic commerce rely on certain information being "secret"? If all of my credit cards, social security numbers, and my mothers maiden names are available for anyone, would anyone dare to do business online with a person claiming to be "me"? What about public services, social security, child support, or medicaid? How would a government agency know if the person receiving the benefits was the "right" person?
On the other hand, could personal information be devalued to the point where nobody wants to collect it anymore?
Does anyone else suspect that the english language has run out of words? Our slash & burn marketing has almost completely exhausted the natural supply. We are cobbling new buzzwords together out of existing words at an alarming rate.
Tech-ade? Soloprenure? Fantabulous?
One recent study from a Canadian research group suggests that the meaning of of 28% of all naturally occuring English buzzwords have been reduced by as much as 90% through over-marketing. We need to act now. If we fail, none of our words will have any meaning anymore, and our children will be unable to communicate.
These numbers are enlightening, but I wonder how accurate they really are with respect to the United States. I notice that EU members are stated separately, but indiviudal united States are not. Does the United States figure account only for taxes at the federal level? (Some states have no income tax, and very low taxes on consumption. Other states have high taxes in both categories.)