agreed. not encrypting it is just plain dumb, and an invitation for abuse. the obvious problem, as always, is who gets the key and how it's distributed.
as long as they don't expand the information to include data I don't carry anyways, and secure it against snooping, I'm much more comfortable with having the data in my possession than available in a database. not that it isn't already, but access would be easier.
i think "fishing" would be the biggest problem with a database, and while not allowing it is a good idea, try telling law enforcement they can't use it when it's there. eventually they'll get access, and then you have that information in the hands of essentially unaccountable people.
I think you are right in assuming the mess will be the agreeing on standards, but I would see this as a situation where first adopters will have a lot of influence, and with the US pushing implementation and other countries mostly reacting to those ideas, what we decide now, even unilaterally, frames the discussion. remember this is government, and forcing change is extremely hard (especially so when they're asked to give something up), and increases in difficulty at perhaps an exponential rate as more governments become involved. whatever we implement becomes the de facto standard, and changes, if agreed on, will be on details not substance. all the more reason to make it as minimal as possible while maintaining efficacy.
RTFA: from the first sentence - "broadcast on command an individual's name, address and digital photo to a computerized reader."
(most of us) already carry all this and more around in our pockets in an unencrypted form. the difference is now people could probably read it without us knowing.
i'm glad they did think about it for more than that millisecond. i think "unutterably stupid design" would be to have a database.
having "a serial number which can be used to pull up actual personal information from a (suitably secured) database" is a LOT worse, imo, than having the RFID chip contain the information. as has been mentioned, a passport pouch that includes a faraday cage easily and cheaply eliminates 'rogue reader' problem, and the possibility of a chip designed to DOS readers was also raised.
i read the article waiting for them to drop the 'linked databases' to facilitate 'securely sharing passport authentication information between partner states' line.
i was mildly surprised and very relieved when it wasn't mentioned: for once, they thought through the privacy implications, or at least decided foreign governments having access to our passport data was maybe a bad idea. slapping everyone's information into a database is the obvious quick fix but the "suitably secured" is the problem, since the people I would want it secured against are the people running it.
Local transportation will probably not be a problem, simply because of the logistics involved.
someday they'll get rid of cash (gov't dislikes it, untraceable->underground economy they can't tax), and the only way you'll be able to pay for the bus/subway/taxi is with the RFID chip embedded in your driver's license (or skull).
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.
point me to the clause in the constitution where it says the government can force me to identify myself before boarding private transportation, or while traveling within the country.
don't bother with the interstate commerce clause, it's weak at best (traveling != interstate commerce, even if i cross state lines), vastly overused at worst.
in fact now that i actually read it.. Article I,Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with the foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." yea, nothing about travel.
Elastic Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carring into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof."
i guess you could argue this one, but the telling detail in this bill is that Congress didn't actually create a true national ID card, they went in through the back door and will try to enforce their will by coercing the states, rather than using a legitimate Constitutional power. If they truly thought it was Constitutional, they would just pass a national ID card law. by instead leaving ID issuing power in the hands of the states, they are implicitly stating they don't have the power to do so.. and while I don't think it will be challenged (successfully) soon, I think this steps outside their Constitutional powers, actual or 'necessary and proper.' their tactics in this case seem a lot like forcing every state to up the drinking age to 21 by making it a requirement of receiving Federal highway funding.
people keep saying europeans require ID to travel between states. i'm fairly sure you are referring to travel between countries, not between internal states, so the analogy is false. if not, that's pretty screwed up.. but even so, just because they do it, doesn't mean we should.
The problem isn't what these guys will do with the system, the problem is what CAN be done with the system by someone who comes along later.. sure it won't be abused (too much) by the people in power now, but internal passports have generally preceded moves toward, and made easier the transition to, more authoritarian government. and i think that's a Bad Thing.
"Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither." --Benjamin Franklin
exactly. what incentive do drug companies have to develop an actual cure for cancer, rather than a treatment? treatments cost a *lot* (my chemo drug was $5k+/litre, and some people don't respond to any drug) which means bigger profits as people stay sick longer (since most of the cost is developing/marketing the drug, not producing it).
drug companies want to maximize profit, they don't necessarily want to help people (if it hurts their bottom line: notice how much r&d money is put into malaria treatments). that's why governments and private organizations fund medical research, to correct (hopefully) market failures.
we produce enough food to feed everyone, and surplus.
the problems are distribution, in the short term, and population increasing geomterically (mostly) while food production (mostly) increases linearly, as well as the fact that a population always increases as much as its food supply allows. both make it necessary to produce more food to feed a growing population, which leads to more people, in a positive feedback loop (unsustainable in a limited resource system).
the greatest problem facing humanity is itself: the population doubling by 2050 won't exactly make that problem smaller, especially when oil runs out, the green revolution (cheap pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers) ends, and we can only produce and distribute a fraction of the food we do now.
Slashdot Mirror
no.. Markets determine prices. Individuals determine values. You need to take a introductory micro class, then come back.
Yes, I am an economist.
agreed. not encrypting it is just plain dumb, and an invitation for abuse. the obvious problem, as always, is who gets the key and how it's distributed.
as long as they don't expand the information to include data I don't carry anyways, and secure it against snooping, I'm much more comfortable with having the data in my possession than available in a database. not that it isn't already, but access would be easier.
i think "fishing" would be the biggest problem with a database, and while not allowing it is a good idea, try telling law enforcement they can't use it when it's there. eventually they'll get access, and then you have that information in the hands of essentially unaccountable people.
I think you are right in assuming the mess will be the agreeing on standards, but I would see this as a situation where first adopters will have a lot of influence, and with the US pushing implementation and other countries mostly reacting to those ideas, what we decide now, even unilaterally, frames the discussion. remember this is government, and forcing change is extremely hard (especially so when they're asked to give something up), and increases in difficulty at perhaps an exponential rate as more governments become involved. whatever we implement becomes the de facto standard, and changes, if agreed on, will be on details not substance. all the more reason to make it as minimal as possible while maintaining efficacy.
RTFA: from the first sentence -
"broadcast on command an individual's name, address and digital photo to a computerized reader."
(most of us) already carry all this and more around in our pockets in an unencrypted form. the difference is now people could probably read it without us knowing.
i'm glad they did think about it for more than that millisecond. i think "unutterably stupid design" would be to have a database.
having "a serial number which can be used to pull up actual personal information from a (suitably secured) database" is a LOT worse, imo, than having the RFID chip contain the information. as has been mentioned, a passport pouch that includes a faraday cage easily and cheaply eliminates 'rogue reader' problem, and the possibility of a chip designed to DOS readers was also raised.
i read the article waiting for them to drop the 'linked databases' to facilitate 'securely sharing passport authentication information between partner states' line.
i was mildly surprised and very relieved when it wasn't mentioned: for once, they thought through the privacy implications, or at least decided foreign governments having access to our passport data was maybe a bad idea. slapping everyone's information into a database is the obvious quick fix but the "suitably secured" is the problem, since the people I would want it secured against are the people running it.
Local transportation will probably not be a problem, simply because of the logistics involved.
someday they'll get rid of cash (gov't dislikes it, untraceable->underground economy they can't tax), and the only way you'll be able to pay for the bus/subway/taxi is with the RFID chip embedded in your driver's license (or skull).
the bill makes provisions for that - states will have to issue similar ID cards to non-drivers if that person wishes to travel.
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make. point me to the clause in the constitution where it says the government can force me to identify myself before boarding private transportation, or while traveling within the country. don't bother with the interstate commerce clause, it's weak at best (traveling != interstate commerce, even if i cross state lines), vastly overused at worst. in fact now that i actually read it.. Article I,Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with the foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." yea, nothing about travel. Elastic Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carring into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof." i guess you could argue this one, but the telling detail in this bill is that Congress didn't actually create a true national ID card, they went in through the back door and will try to enforce their will by coercing the states, rather than using a legitimate Constitutional power. If they truly thought it was Constitutional, they would just pass a national ID card law. by instead leaving ID issuing power in the hands of the states, they are implicitly stating they don't have the power to do so.. and while I don't think it will be challenged (successfully) soon, I think this steps outside their Constitutional powers, actual or 'necessary and proper.' their tactics in this case seem a lot like forcing every state to up the drinking age to 21 by making it a requirement of receiving Federal highway funding. people keep saying europeans require ID to travel between states. i'm fairly sure you are referring to travel between countries, not between internal states, so the analogy is false. if not, that's pretty screwed up.. but even so, just because they do it, doesn't mean we should. The problem isn't what these guys will do with the system, the problem is what CAN be done with the system by someone who comes along later.. sure it won't be abused (too much) by the people in power now, but internal passports have generally preceded moves toward, and made easier the transition to, more authoritarian government. and i think that's a Bad Thing. "Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither." --Benjamin Franklin
exactly. what incentive do drug companies have to develop an actual cure for cancer, rather than a treatment? treatments cost a *lot* (my chemo drug was $5k+/litre, and some people don't respond to any drug) which means bigger profits as people stay sick longer (since most of the cost is developing/marketing the drug, not producing it). drug companies want to maximize profit, they don't necessarily want to help people (if it hurts their bottom line: notice how much r&d money is put into malaria treatments). that's why governments and private organizations fund medical research, to correct (hopefully) market failures.
we produce enough food to feed everyone, and surplus. the problems are distribution, in the short term, and population increasing geomterically (mostly) while food production (mostly) increases linearly, as well as the fact that a population always increases as much as its food supply allows. both make it necessary to produce more food to feed a growing population, which leads to more people, in a positive feedback loop (unsustainable in a limited resource system). the greatest problem facing humanity is itself: the population doubling by 2050 won't exactly make that problem smaller, especially when oil runs out, the green revolution (cheap pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers) ends, and we can only produce and distribute a fraction of the food we do now.