Ellison Wants National ID Card, Powered By Oracle 666
cplater writes: "This article discusses Larry Ellison's call for a U.S. national ID card, and his offer to provide the software for such an initiative." There's an advertising slogan to be proud of: 'Oracle, the Big Database behind Big Brother'. Or 'Oracle, the All-Seeing Eye'. Or 'If it's good enough for Orwell, it's good enough for your company'. Update: 09/23 23:22 GMT by M : Richard Jones writes "The British Home Secretary is considering compulsory identity cards, despite the fact that such
cards would not have made any difference in the recent
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The British
have generally opposed their reintroduction since the wartime
system of identity cards was abolished in 1952."
SSN (Score:3, Interesting)
So now this, at least they seem to be a little more up front about the purpose.
Yes, I'm outraged by the loss off life and destruction of property. But I'll be more outraged by the sheep that allow things like this to pass.
of course! (Score:2, Interesting)
But does it make it right? (Score:5, Interesting)
So since we are already losing our privacy and our civil liberties, we should might as well give up the rest of them to Larry and Oracle.. good idea. This is just another prime example of how in this day and age people are willing to let their stand by as their rights vaporize before their eyes. Too many people are willing to simply succumb to the will of corporations like Oracle, that's how things like the DMCA get passed. Of course, the big corps know this and use it to their advantage.
Re:SSN (Score:2, Interesting)
Amen. Scary it is that we are being asked time and time again over the last week or so to get ready for a loss of 'freedoms' and how on CNN the other day Ashcroft was quoted as saying cheerfully(and I cannot find the link right now, will post)"From now on we are going to have to keep tabs on the majority of US citizens, including massive databases and databanks".
This is the part that is scaring me the most (aside from people who are profiting off of this mess CNN, Ellison, etc..)
National ID is Good, IF DONE PROPERLY... (Score:5, Interesting)
National ID cards (in the US, replacing the mishmash of Social Security, Driver's License, Military ID, blah blah) are actually a privacy enhancing thing, if backed up by the proper regulations.
Right now, in the US, we (ie the individual) have virtually no way of tracking who is tracing us, and identity theft is difficult to trace. There are a thousand and one different places to steal access to, any one of which can be used to forge access to another. And furthermore, there is almost no way to keep track of who accesses what information.
Even if the US put in reasonable privacy laws for the current system, keeping track of all accesses to your information is problematic, at best.
I'd be all for a National ID card, should they pass reasonable privacy laws with it. And my definition of privacy laws is this: I get to control who has access to what information, I decide what information can go in the system, I decide the granularity of info given to people, I own my information, nobody can collect information about me (unless as an unidentifiable part of an aggregate) unless I explicitly permit it, and no one can share any information about me with anyone else. There would be exceptions for court-ordered disclosures for law-enforcement, but that's it.
That system would be great: it would prevent a person with a suspended driver's license in one state from getting a new one in another, while at the same time prevent company A from discovering I like Mary Typer Moore shows by my viewing habits, then selling this info to company B.
Having a properly monitored and regulated central database of personal info is far better than the completely insecure mishmash of crap we have today.
But unless they put in those restrictions, Hell No!
-Erik
Unicard: Liberation Through Security (Score:1, Interesting)
John Walker, founder of Autodesk, has had an insightful, if perhaps dystopian, essay [fourmilab.ch] [fourmilab.ch] on this topic on his web site [fourmilab.ch] [fourmilab.ch] for some time.
He describes a hypothetical ``Unicard'' (universal ID card) that one might see as an advanced version of the card Ellison proposes and the future society that might result from its implementation.
Abstract:
Read the essay, then reconsider Ellison's proposal. Right now, yes, we have near-universal identification cards, but we have lots of near-univeral cards, so no one organization has the complete picture--and the resulting complete control.
What's worse is (Score:4, Interesting)
A separate system for ID (vs. tax) like you talk about the French having sounds more ideal, but the amount of education and administrative overhead would be high.
At least we could probably make it harder to forge than a Yemeni passport. But with our track record on currency...
Taliban would like this (Score:1, Interesting)
Only a few months ago the Taliban proposed that non-Muslims wear some identification such as a colored scarf or some card ID, so the religious police knew not to brutally enforce their religious law. Western nations howled, pointing to the Nazis requiring pink symbols for homosexuals, star of David emblems for Jews.
Now conservatives as well as Ellison propose that a national ID system would be better than a racial profiling system that discriminates against Arab-Americans.
Of course, if it were to be effective then US would have to issue them to illegal aliens, as North Carolina and Tennessee do. Or send the aliens home and do the dirty work ourselves.
Wall street was pissed too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Larry Ellison is a dick.
Reread 1984 first. (Score:2, Interesting)
National identification cards have nothing to do with fighting terrorism or crime. Like all other legislation, a national identification system, if passed, would only affect honest people. Criminals and terrorists would find ways around the system, such as counterfeiting or hacking the database. Government clerks could be tricked--or bribed--into placing false information in the database. Criminals could even stay clean long enough to get into government offices, only to help other criminals get false IDs and database records. There are workarounds to every law, and so anytime a new law is created, an infinite amount of new troubles are created as well.
Now let's talk about the Social Security Number mentioned by several folks. Before I say this, I am not a lawyer, but this information is the result of a LOT of reading. Ask an expert in this complicated field before believing anything I'm saying here...
The SSN was originally a simple account number, yet it is now used as a national identification number by federal and state government agencies and corporations. (Example: I think every state requires your SSN before they issue a drivers license.)
By the way, the issues mentioned here about SSN and employment are a big misunderstanding: Your employer has no business knowing your SSN, as they are not required to act as a free agent to the IRS or to Social Security. Nearly all companies do because they don't know this, or wish to avoid possible troubles with the IRS. There are companies out there that don't withhold payments to you. [arrowplastics.com](See Arrow Custom Plastics' "Withholding Statement." [arrowplastics.com]) Also, check out the Yahoo! group: legality-of-income-tax at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-t ax/ [yahoo.com].)
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the IRS is a voluntary system--enforced only because of contract law! Nearly all Americans have no clue what their signature means on the social security form, or on the IRS forms they mail to the government every year. These forms are contracts, and by signing them, you are voluntarily agreeing to abide by various sections of government code which, as far as I understand are not positive law. (The constitutional amendment was never ratified [devvy.com]!) The whole system operates on smoke and mirrors, as most Americans simply aren't aware of what's going on. Do you honestly want to give the government more power to track you around? My suggestion: the various government agencies should start doing their current jobs, before inventing new ways to bury themselves in work.
Don't misunderstand me: I love this country. I pay my taxes. I'm pissed off about what happened on the 11th and I certainly hope the government gets the "folks" who committed these atrocities, but when it comes to big-brother type things that won't help prevent another disaster, I say go back and reread 1984 before you take these matters so lightly.
Just my $.02.
One bright side (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, I consider anything which facilitates a police state to be harm. A true national ID will be used to tie you to EVERYTHING, just like other near national IDs are now. That level of tracking is simply not justifiable.
The beginning of the end. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How About a Tatoo on Our Forearms Instead ? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Why don't we just take this national identity thing to its logical conclusion and require all US citizens to have their national ID tatooed on their arms, with a microchip with all the relevant data imbedded under the skin. It should be a crime for anyone to cover thier arm in a fashion that would cover their tatoo. To avoid fraud, special custom inks should be used, just as is the case for currency."
Daschele, Elison, and Fienstein, and any other idiot that advocates this national id card idiocy should be reminded by whatever means are necessary that we will not tolerate their attempts to use our constitution as toilet paper. What you are seeing in the behaviour of these individuals is exactly why our founding fathers put the second amendment in the bill of rights. This is exactly the sort of tyranny that they wanted to prevent.
America: Where freedom is against the law (Score:2, Interesting)
How is the validation of an individual's identity ensuring his sanity on a flight? If I carry this card, and prove that I am indeed the holder of the thumb and body which the card indicates, what is stopping me from running into the cabin of the plane with a fork, and declaring the plane in the name of Homer Simpson? Nothing.
Stop trying to fill your pockets, Larry, at the expense of the very same freedoms which made you rich.
We have Microsoft [microsoft.com] trying to pull everyone's personal credit information into Passport and .NET, so they can control where you go, when, and how you get there, and we have Oracle [oracle.com], trying to capture and store and "manage" your
very identity. I don't think so.
We also have the DMCA [educause.edu], the SSSCA [cryptome.org], backdoored [wired.com] "encryption" (anything with more than one keyholder is not encryption), the RIAA [riaa.com], MPAA [eff.org], gps tracking devices in rental cars [cnet.com], cameras at every intersection [msnbc.com], Dmitry Sklyarov [freesklyarov.org] vs. US/Adobe, and traffic tickets being sent in the mail for infractions you were never stopped for.
How is this giving me liberty again?
What people in our government fail to see is that the collection of these events, coupled with those who are trying to restrict stem cell research [washingtonpost.com], our encryption, our liberties, and now, in a very delicate potential time of war, issuing lethal foreign policies. People are leaving this country, and taking off for other places where the opportunities may not be as vast, but the freedoms certainly are.
I'm very close to taking off as well, before the borders are closed, and I have to show my passport, fingerprint, and biometric validation, along with government approval to leave this country, and I'm taking all of my loved ones with me.
ID cards will hinder, not help. (Score:2, Interesting)
In Germany, you can buy an ID very easily, one's identification is all based on one or two pieces of paper (or plastic rather) that are easily forged or stolen.
In the UK, on the other hand, there is no ID card and creating a fake ID is (paradoxically) more difficult. There are no cultural or social reasons to assume that someone is what the piece of paper says they are, and therefore other, less obvious, forms of identification are expected. Letters to your address, bank references, signature of a local professional person and so on.
When Blunkett (in the UK) talks about imposing ID cards, its not because he believes it achieves anything, but because he gets some political mileage out of it.
People here in Germany are amazed when I tell them that in UK to change your name involves nothing more than deciding what name you want to be called. And then telling all your banks etc.... In Germany it is close to impossible to legally change your name.
My 0.2c
This sentiment might come back to haunt me, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I consider myself a staunch libertarian when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and to personal freedoms in general. So I can hardly believe I'm saying this! But hear me out. I propose a few rules for a national identity card system that would provide us with all the benefits of nearly unforgeable proof-of-identity without compromising our right to privacy or any other right which we currently enjoy.
1) Central to the identity card system is a suite of protocols for digital signature operations; key signing, verification and exchange; and key revocation. The principals of public-key cryptography form the basis of the system and can be used to implement rest of the features, which I outline below. The system is designed to facilitate cryptographically secure communication between private citizens, thereby giving us rights that we practically don't have today!
2) Nobody can ever be compelled (forced) to show his card. Similarly to the right of a business to refuse service if you don't wish to furnish your social security number, organizations may choose not to talk to you if you won't furnish some proof of identity, but proof of identity can never be required by a government agency, or in relation to the fulfillment of certain human needs (food, water, air, clothing, shelter, communication).
3) Every individual can create new, anonymous identities at will. These pseudonyms can be nothing more than a keypair and a globally unique identifier (and perhaps some optional contact information). The private key of each pseudonym is only stored in encrypted form, having been encrypted with the public key of the person who uses the pseudonym. Thus, the owner of the pseudonym can prove that he "is" the pseudonym, but only with his consent, and only under circumstances that he controls.
4) When a citizen's keypair is created, the private key is split using a keysharing algorithm into a large number of shares (~10,000 should do, or fewer for pseudonymous keypairs). The keyshares are distributed (in secret) to randomly chosen individuals. We perform the keyshare operation such that 60% of the shares must be recovered in order to recover the key. In a situation where some person, organization or government needs to crack the identity, he can appeal to these 10,000 people as a sort of "jury of peers" to see if he can convince them to divulge their keyshares. Once an identity has been cracked, private communications to that identity can be decrypted.
5) In order to protect against algorithmic attacks, a number of various symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic algorithms are supported by the system. Communications between agents in the system take place using algorithms and keylengths agreed upon by the participants.
One caveat: This all assumes that the identity cards are perfectly secure automomous computer systems. That is: the identity card is solely responsible for performing all the cryptographic operations, and information can never be read from an identity card without the consent of its owner. This daydream is probably the biggest flaw in my plan.
An optional federal ID? (Score:3, Interesting)
What can we learn from this that could be applied to a Federal ID? Perhaps the ID could be purely optional. People could get one if they wanted a secure ID. To make it popular, the government should also make it so that the ID grants the user permission to do something useful or fun, so that way a lot of people would sign up for one. Even combining all current Federal IDs (like pilot's licenses) into one would probably not have enough users to make the ID popular for identification. Another permit (or permits) need to be invented and added in to increase the IDs popularity further. A federal driver's license wouldn't work unless it was easier to get than a state one, and I don't like that idea because we have enough people who can't drive on the roads already. Making it so you need an ID to do anything that you currently don't need an ID for (like air travel) is going to meet political resistance (perhaps deservedly) from whatever lobbying group engages in that activity, so for the Federal ID to make it into law the activity should be something that you can't do now, but that a large enough group of people might want to do to kick start the use of the ID as a form of identification.
But the whole point of doing this exercise is to reduce terrorism (isn't it?). And many people here have rightly pointed out that a better ID system would not have prevented this recent act of terrorism. The passengers were not wanted felons. The FBI was suspicious of some of them, but we don't restrict people's air travel whenever they are under suspicion by some federal agency of maybe being associated nefarious activities. Even the knives they used on the plane were, from all accounts, small enough that they were not restricted items, and could have been carried onto the plane in plain sight of the security guards (I used to legally fly with my pocket knife all the time, I would just put it in the little tray as I went through the detector and no security guard even hesitated to hand it back to me on the other side because it was small enough to be permitted on the plane). Is it possible to have a federal ID that is optional, provides the user with permission to engage in some new activity, and would also somehow reduce the likelihood of terrorism? Yes. Make it a federal concealed carry weapons permit. I still wouldn't let anyone carry a gun on a plane unless they had taken the FAA's (supposedly very difficult) course on the use of firearms in an aircraft, but that could be an option like having a commercial or motorcycle rating on your driver's license. Who would want to go through the time and expense of training for and passing the FAA course just so they could carry a pistol* on an airliner? Well, after recent events, I think a lot of pilots and commercial aircrew would like to have that option. Don't forget the first thing the terrorists did was apparently to slit a stewardess's throat, so a lot of flight attendants are no doubt feeling very nervous and unlike the rest of us aircrews spend a lot of time in the air so their chances of being hijacked are much better. A lot of people would still get the regular (non airplane rated) version of the permit to allow them to carry a pistol in any state. Body guards (or "executive protection specialists") are an example of a profession that could greatly benefit from such a permit (so much so that it is amazing that one does not exist already) and whose presence deters terrorism. Salesmen or other business travelers who have to travel between multiple states, and may have to travel through dangerous neighborhoods or carry valuable items would likely flock to such a permit. Former police officers**, DA's, and other people who may make dangerous enemies would want one, as would people who have been victims of violent crimes and/or rape before and now feel the need to be able to protect themselves, and a lot of the normal everyday citizens who now get state carry permits because for whatever reason they want to be able to defend themselves from attack. Of course the permit would be in addition to, not in replacement of, the current state concealed carry licenses, otherwise the proposal would be plagued by state vs. federal jurisdiction turf wars (and rightly so) and would never get out of the courts.
Of course the permit should require a thorough FBI background check in order to limit the chances of a terrorist or criminal being able to get one. As long as the FBI had the attention of such a proactive chunk of the population, they could even take that opportunity to provide a little education on what unusual or suspicious behavior might indicate a terrorist cell or impending terrorist activity, give them the appropriate contact information (maybe a federal crime hotline printed on the card somewhere?), and ask people to give the Bureau a call if they notice anything. Sure that doesn't technically have a lot to do with carrying a gun, but that would be a good opportunity for the FBI to increase its chances of getting a useful tip; and, hey, what does donating organs have to do with driving a car? Even if a terrorist did get a federal carry permit, it is likely that a LOT more upstanding citizens would have one as well. Without such a license, the terrorist would still carry his weapon (a terrorist who won't break the law is not very effective), but the odds of a law abiding citizen that could offer resistance to the terrorist having one is much smaller.
Before anyone starts a gun-control argument over this, I would like to point out that this is not something that most states don't already have. The problem is that different states have different reciprocosity agreements with other states so that most state concealed carry permits are valid in some, but not all, other states and will accept some, but not all, permits form other states... resulting in a confusing hodge-podge of conditions. A federal permit would clear up the red tape by providing a universal standard simplifying the bureaucratic mess that currently exists. Also, the background check and qualifications could be made more difficult (at the risk of making the ID less universal) to further reduce the chances of criminals or irresponsible people from getting one. Surely only the most extreme gun control proponent would want to prevent even someone like a bodyguard, or an ex-DA who has prosecuted organized criminals, or the administrator of a medical facility that has received death threats from anti-abortion groups from being permitted to carry a weapon for self defense. The gun control politicking could be saved for when it came time to figure out how tough the standards should be for getting one. If you can think of a different optional federal permit or license that a Federal ID could be based on (espeically if it would actually reduce terrorism), then by all means suggest away. I admit, after all, that even if you combine a federal carry permit, pilot's license, and other federal ID's together, it still may not have the "critical mass" of users to replace the ubiquitous driver's license.
* Before this restarts the "what does a bullet do to a pressurized aircraft?" argument, the FAA obviously covers what type of ammunition can be used in an aircraft and what areas of the plane are vulnerable to gunfire.
** I'm sure that the police in a lot of areas would show turn a blind eye to an ex-cop who was illegally carrying a weapon because he was worried about being recognized by criminals but a such favoritism might not be universal, like the license would be.