Ellison's ID Card Plan Gets More Attention 701
fredbox writes: "A Mercury News article reports Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and John Ashcroft have been meeting to discuss creation of a national ID database including fingerprints, facial scans, etc. Other supporters include Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy. They claim these cards would be 'voluntary', much as the act of leaving your home or purchasing groceries are voluntary activities." Update: 10/18 01:48 GMT by M : Hah! btempleton writes: "Here is a prototype of Larry Ellison's new national ID card."
Oracle and Sun... (Score:1, Interesting)
Bets?
Limits (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. The problem would come from the limitations of the system. Or more precisely, what it would limit people from doing. It may be voluntary to have such an ID card, but if it's too inconveniencing NOT to have one, it's essentially mandatory.
If it's simply for ID purposes in high-risk areas, then that's fine. If I want to get on board a plane filled with tons of jet fuel and with hundreds of other people, it's okay to check and see that I'm not "dangerous." (Who defines "dangerous" here, also?)
But if I'm going to go buy some liquor, cigarettes, pr0n, or _Catcher in the Rye_, I don't want to have to use my ID. I could care less about who knows I'm buying what, but do you REALLY need to know?
The other interesting point I'd like to bring up is: Fakes. How hard would these things be to fake? No matter how hard you try, someone with enough time and money will find a way to make a fake. I mean, there's high school kids with fake drivers licenses now.
Re:driver's license argument (Score:5, Interesting)
What if something that you do now is legal, but becomes illegal, and the go after people retroactivly?(something ashcroft wants to do)
In America there was a period of time called Macarthism whre those very things happened.
The old, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide adage has always led to abuse , and has given rise to dictorships.
This isn't theoretical, it has happened.
Re:Hmmmm, SO? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, that sounds very German. I don't know if the US should be taking lessons in how to be free from the folks who brought us WW2.
Re:Hmmmm, SO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, I don't trust my own government to do the right thing. Especially because as time passes the responsiveness of the U.S. government to Big Money increases, and the rights of the private citizen decrease. I most certainly don't trust Enron, Phillip Morris, CBS, and AOL to be interested in my well-being. Insofar as Corporate America cares about the individual citizen at all, it's as a revenue source.
There are also those among the quite wealthy and therefore influential who do not think that equal protection before the law should hold. At the very least, the rich should be more equal than others, they believe.
This proposed identification and tracking system does not actually solve any problems we currently face. What it does do is open the door to the abrogation of our every Constitutional right.
I am normally opposed to Libertarians (and libertarians), as I have problems with their philosophy. However, on this issue I believe all Americans can stand united. This is a frightening idea.
Re:What the hell for? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because when 4 guys who are at least loosely associated with a known terrorist buy tickets on the same flight, that just might trigger a few bells.
The Fed does have some seriously vast databases at their disposal. The result of which being that they do have the ability to recognize rings of communication.
I'm not sure whether I'm for or against this, but there is definately a possibility that national ID cards could have prevented the WTC tragedy.
Re:Hmmmm, SO? (Score:4, Interesting)
"It's not a good idea to carry your SSN card with you (or other documents
that contain your SSN). If you should lose your wallet or purse, your SSN
would make it easier for a thief to apply for credit in your name or
otherwise fraudulently use your number."
Now imagine if said card also contained or linked to a database containing your fingerprints, facial scans, and DNA sequencing. Better hope you don't ever drop your wallet, or get it stolen.
You're going on the assumption that it's a good thing that they can laways track you. Some people would prefer not to have the government living with them 24 hours a day.
The question is, what benefit does this new card give us? We already have "voluntary" (bleh) id cards of several sorts. What does having this gigantic database accomplish that the current system doesn't? How would this have changed the events of September 11th, and even if it did alter them, was it worth the guy at the airport being able to print out a nice copy of my fingerprint for home use?
-Puk
Re:Hmmmm, SO? (Score:5, Interesting)
- What is so wrong about the card? Let's check the parent post for some ideas:
- you have to register with the city you live in
- tell them where you live and, if you move, unregister with your old city and register in the new one
- They can always track you
- You have to have an ID card [...] And I even think there is a fine if you do not carry it with you.
I think that covers that question fairly well. Now, on to the second half of your question (which you forgot to ask):- What are the benefits of this system?
- A false sense of security when I board an airplane, because all of the nice people chose to register themselves with the government, so obviously there are no terrorists on board.
- Another piece of plastic to replace when I lose my wallet.
- Another token which links all of my data to each other and to me to make the theft of my identity easier.
- Umm...
I know us Americans are paranoid about our privacy, but honestly, don't you see any problem with the scenario outlined above?A "voluntary" ID card? Who is buying this idea? Do they have any idea what are they even talking about? Why would I "choose" to carry this? If I can just choose to not carry the card, when I am challenged, I can simply state that I don't have an ID, and they will have to accomodate me, because after all, this is voluntary, right?
So the whole system is worthless. Hence, this is just a smooth way to introduce the concept. Anyone who believes this is going to be voluntary is looney.
NOT FOR US CITIZENS, according to TV interview (Score:2, Interesting)
The proposal is meant for non-US citizens entering the United States. For US citizens it would not be mandated.
My own speculation here now, why would it be useful? Well, for one, if I recall correctly, 6 out of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were already listed on FBI/CIA watchlists. Yet they entered the country legally, using legal visas, bought airline tickets, did all their activities, and at no time during their daily activities they were flagged against these watchlists. The ID itself is secondary, but the principal goal is to have an efficient way to check a name against a database of suspects
Of course, there would be all sorts of ways your Average Joe Terrorist might go about avoiding these things, including a fake id. But that sort of stuff would have to be considered as part of the design. If this were to be done.
Benbox
"Show Us Your Papers, Citizen" (Score:5, Interesting)
not living in a police state where any petty official may demand "Zeigen Sie Ihre Papiere, Kameraden!".
Yes, systems can be abused,and in the long run, all systems will be abused. If we create the necessary infrastructure for the government and corporations to track us today, they may not use it for less noble purposes now. But under a more conservative administration, after a more distressing terrorist event, they will use the database we build today to empower the big brother of tomorrow.
Promise to Senator Feinstein (Score:3, Interesting)
If you push for this national ID card, I will give money to support the campaign of any person who runs against you.
I consider myself a liberal Democrat, but don't let that concern you. I will support your opponent regardless of his or her stances on any other issues, just as long as they advocate doing away with the national ID. They could be a member of the KKK an an advocate of dumping cyanide in our drinking water, and I'll still give them money.
Why, you ask? Simple: to punish you for selling the freedom of the people of the United States down the river.
Sincerely,
MAXOMENOS of Slashdot.
Re:driver's license argument (Score:2, Interesting)
And for all those who say, "has always led to abuse", please inform me of a free society which devolved into a dictatorship *after* national identity was required. The Nazis had it, but they were always fascists. The Russians had it, but they were always fascists/socialists (same deal, different words).
And who says that the National ID card is a means of spying? It's simply a way to conglomerate the vast amount of personal data on you (at the Credit Agencies, at the DMV, and at the hospital) which exists, and whose current diverse storage mechanism is hindering the efforts of those trying to root out terrorism.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, THINGS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE. How a National ID card takes away freedom is beyond me. You already have a Social Security Card. You already have a license. You already have all of these things. Why is this conglomerate card any different?
On the other hand, this sounds suspiciously like Revelation 13:16-17: "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
If this war lasts 42 months I will be very very frightened.
Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who wants to do targetted marketing wants to track your life. Anyone who wants lists of people for risk assessment and blacklisting wants to track your life. People who plan to rob you want to look at your records and see if you own weapons. Povernment agencies who see everything as a potential threat want to monitor your activities. INS wants to track your life if you're an immigrant. IRS certainly wants to track you.
Customer databases are worth a lot of money, so big business wants as much information in there as possible. Just because your life seems pointless to you doesn't mean businesses don't see interest in you as data for their statistics.
Re:Ashcroft & Fienstien like it? (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a Bay Area liberal democrat, but I voted for her Republican opponent, and I'd vote for a roach-infested bag of moldy rice before I'd vote for her.
Re:"Show Us Your Papers, Citizen" (Score:1, Interesting)
Take a breath.
Ok. You aren't giving up any freedom. You want to fly with an ID card? Great, it helps the check-in process. You don't? Ok, check-in an hour earlier for security screening.
They aren't even talking about tracking where people go, you think they have that much storage? Think about it, 100 million people get the card and as you paranoid-folk think, are being tracked when they go shopping for instance. Say 20% of them go shopping, 20 million new records tied in to store records and other indexes. In a 24 hour period. Through a week.
Now we have 140 million rows. How the fuck do you expect anything to sift through that. Not only is it (currently) technologically infeasible, it's just assinane and mundane for people to do so.
All they are talkin about is coming up with a standard federal issued ID. You already have one probably, it's called a drivers license or state issued identification card. This is just the next tier, so shut up about your blathering about america being free and deutchland being a nazi regime. You have to show your passport or drivers license to board a plane now, this is just a more secure mechanism. I don't see you spewing mental diarhea out about that being an attack on liberty.
Yes, some bad will arise from a national ID card. The same bad that can come from using credit cards and state ID cards. Hell, it's easier to track people with credit cards now. So go support your freedom-loving-grassroot-fuckup-view by parading around credit card companies saying they shouldn't record that information too..
This has a way of being inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Australia we had a proposal for the `Australia Card' -- basically the same as this proposal, only not as technologically sophisticated. It was put to the people's vote (referendum or an election issue? I don't remember) and the people's response was to tell the proposers how to fold it into sharp corners, and where to stick it afterwards. That's Ok, though, because then they introduced the Tax File Number, which is a wannabe SSN -- you need it to earn an income (failure to provide a TFN is not illegal, but automatically results in you being taxed at 49.5%), to open a bank account, or just about anywhere else where you are using money in a non-trivial way.
The TFN was possible because we (the Australian population) had just fought furiously and won against a more draconian scheme, and were tired. Also, this almost slipped under the radar without comment, as the parliament rushed it through with very little debate, in the house or in public.
This may turn out to be another High Aim Tactic. Ask for something which is absolutely ridiculous, and let yourself be beaten back to what you wanted in the first place. Even if Ellison is serious (surely not...?) his overtures can -- and probably will -- be used by others with the same barrow to push.
The question is where to draw the line. How much freedom from surveillance do you want? Once you have figured that out, don't settle for one jot less! As soon as you rationalise that `I don't really need to be able to X' and bargain away the right to be able to do so, then you have just lost something precious which you will never get back.
Of course, things are rarely that simple, and some things are obviously stupid. (Such as, eg, `I demand the right to stockpile Anthrax spores'.) But the apparatchiks will use these examples to persuade you that the right to freely assemble, for example, is just too dangerous for you to have. It will not be put to you like that. It will be that some travel may have to be restricted, or that restrictions based on profiling [Hmm, you have travelled in the middle east, your family name is arabic, and you talk funny...] will be instituted `for the time being'.
If history teaches us anything, it is that `for the time being' can be translated `for the foreseeable future', and that just means `until it is no longer profitable to do so'.
Wasn't it a Founding Father who said `the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance'?
Just have to wonder.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bzzt! Wrong! (Score:2, Interesting)
And since the at least one Supreme (Santra Day O'Connor) has indicated that "some freedoms will be lost" (or something like that); who's to say how things work out? After all, as a practical matter, the Constitution says whatever the Supremes say it says. Not what a plain common-sense reading of that document might say (this was already the case even before this new bill).
Right now, many of our elites (media, goverment, business) are scared shitless (in fact, more scared than the rest of us, since they have been explicitly targeted). They don't care about any damage to the fabric of our freedoms, they just want to be "safe".
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re:Hmmmm, SO? (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically you have said, I have right X and thus I should always have right X and fight to defend right X. Just because I have a certain right now, doesn't mean I should have that right.
For instance, in WW2 Germany soldiers could shoot Jews just cause they felt like it. That was their right, though I doubt most of the world would agree they should have that right. You are opposed to "vulgar American ideas", but should I have the right to pursue what you dislike? Maybe yes, maybe no. If my rampant consumerism will lead to environmental disaster then perhaps the answer is no.
The point is, that just because the members of a group are given the right to do something doesn't mean they should have that right. We believe that laws can serve a useful purpose in abridging some rights for the common good. Times change, laws changes, the needs of the people also change.
I'm not saying that National ID is such a case. I don't know, but I would full well expect government to show just cause before doing anything that will affect my rights. Whether or not they will or even can justify it, I don't know. I won't however accept any argument that reads: "It hasn't happened, so it shouldn't happen." You make other good points, and I respect your efforts in the military, but in part you sound like you are opposing change merely for the sake of opposing change.
Re:SSN, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Credit Reports are filed under SSNs, which I think is a bad idea.
Of course my father is retired Army. It took while after he retired to get used to NOT having an ID card.
All you civil rights experts (Score:1, Interesting)
Registration Required [nytimes.com]* * *
An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.
As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms ? especially racial and ethnic profiling ? that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.
* * *
Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same. American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous ? even to create a false identity ? in this large and decentralized country. A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do.
* * *
From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few ? especially since those few are usually from a racially or ethnically disfavored group. A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.
* * *
Now what I want to know is: What do all of the hot heads spouting off on this site know about civil rights and constitutional law that Mr. Dershowitz does not know?
A Reactionary Piece (Score:2, Interesting)
No. I would feel exactly the same. How is knowing the true identity of a person going to guarantee you that they're not a suicide terrorist? It doesn't. I don't really appreciate it when a multi-billionaire with vested interests tries to guess what me, Mr. Joe Schmoe, wants. Hell, if Ellison manufactured door locks, he'd probably lobby to get door locks for all the cockpits. That I might support.
"There has to be some ID," Feinstein said. "We have had a major catastrophe. This is a very serious time. The country is at war. The purpose here is to protect ourselves."
I don't know if Swine-stein could have made any less sense. How does being at war, seriousness of the times, or need for protection equal a need for identification? One, we aren't at war. Two, today is no less/more serious than two years ago. Three, who needs protection, Members of Congress? I don't feel any need to be protected.
Maybe we should lock all members of Congress into an air tight room for their safety. When they start kicking off, we would hold elections. You solve a lot of problems that way. You get term limits, you ensure that only the most dedicated people run, and you don't have goofballs like Swine-stein making assinine proposals because she's scared of the bogeyman.
Rotenberg and other opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, worry it could be required to board buses, apply for jobs, or even enter cities facing terrorist threats.
But supporters say those concerns are overblown.
Yes. Corporations and the government have never abused the power that we relinquished to them. Never ever.
"I've had a military ID card since I was a cadet at West Point and I haven't lost any freedom," [Schwarzkopf] told a cheering crowd.
Right. And I suppose being in the military wasn't a restriction of freedom. You're the property of the United States, and you get to be an unwitting guinea pig for exciting new drugs like LSD and who knows what else. And of course people cheered. Who could boo the Gerber baby?
"Four Arab-looking guys reading the Koran are much less suspicious if they have the cards and can just slash them through card readers," [Dershowitz] said.
Four arab-looking guys reading the Koran are much less suspicious if you get your head out of your ass and realize that the arab-terrorist to arab-non-terrorist ratio is extremely low. If the average American would talk to more than the 3 people he sees at the water cooler everyday, he might realize that there's a whole world of non-threatening people out there.
Ellison said that if he does donate the software, maintenance and upgrades won't be free.
I'll give you some crack, but I won't support your habit. Thanks. Now I don't have to buy anything from Oracle anymore. Makes my life simpler.
In vaguely related news [yahoo.com], don't bother mailing your Congressman about this as he's not going to open it anyway. He'll either get 'Net-savvy or just ignore his constituents (as usual).
Ack! Thppt!
Re:Too hard to keep up with... (Score:2, Interesting)
published about this.
Is IBM:Hermann Goering as Oracle:John Ashcroft?
Re:ID cards in Europe inefficient against terroris (Score:5, Interesting)
My goodness... physical security is not a good means of preventing copying. A well run ID system with enough memory on the card to do real cryptographic signatures would provide both security and tracability making forgeries nearly impossible to do.
A good ID card would contain a very small memory chip on it which contained a cryptographically signed message including the person who issued the ID, expiry time, issue time, distinguishing characteristics and possibly a photograph that was directly linked to a read-only id number embedded on every card to prevent the transfer of the information and signature to another card.
Information about each applicant would be captured on a machine which generated it's own cryptographic signature to ensure tracability. If in the case of a falsified record being entered into the system, you could expire every single ID card on the back-end and require each applicant to come back in.
You of course make providing false records a felony in federal courts punishable by a hefty amount of jail time.
These kinds of cards could eliminate drivers licenses and social security cards and as long as there was no physical printed number on the card itself and the readers for such cards were only issued to specific areas (aiports, police cars, etc), corporate interests would not be able to ask you for the information.
The only way to forge this particular type of cards requires either cracking the key, social engineering or some level of corruption.
Cracking the key is unlikely, but the nice thing about a realtime lookup system is you can do things like revoke CA keys and make IDs invalid. You then proceed to stagger the issue of cards with different signing keys so that the number of cards you'd invalidate if worst came to worst would be kept to a minimum.
Social engineering is a problem, but again, with a nice lookup system you could not ever get two IDs with different names. Once you registered, your biometic information would be checked against a master database to insure you haven't registered before. Obviously, registering under the wrong information the first time would lead to some rather nasty concequences down the road in case you actually wanted to have a life.
Corruption is a harder problem to deal with, but as stated before, revoking cards is not a problem with this type of system. You also have a nice paper trail which would make corruption very risky. Obviously paying the people who have control over the system well would help immensely.
Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
I go into a WalMart (I know, first mistake, there and then,) and attempt to purchase about $10 worth of stuff with a cheque. The lad on the till asks me if I have an in-state driving licence. I reply that I don't, as I am foreign, but I do have a UK passport on me.
He looks at the passport, kinda flicks through it, and then passes it back saying that it is not satisfactory ID, as the only thing WalMart accept as ID for cheques is an in-state driving licence.
They don't accept passports? WTF?
To quote from the inside of the front leaf of the UK passport;
Her Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all these whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hinderance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
Apparently, shopping in WalMart doesn't count...
In the end, my friend paid for the groceries with his card, as WalMart simply would not accept my cheque without that all important in-state driving licence.
But they are voluntary...
Wonderful from student POV (Score:2, Interesting)
My proof of eligibility to work requires the presentation of ALL of:
Stamped Canadian passport.
Letter paper sized form.
Entry card (conveniently bigger than my passport)
Social Security card
Confirmation letter from visa sponsor.
Confirmation letter from host company.
The piece of paper alone costs $500 to replace. The entry card is irreplacable. The passport requires visiting the embassy.
If they got a national card that can functionally replace these in the US, plus using my fingerprints to prevent it from being usable by a thief, I'd be first in line!
Gimme one!