Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

No ID Cards in the Future 268

Posted by michael from the bend-over-and-wait-for-it dept.
dmf writes "Throw away your identification cards! CNet is running a commentary piece on what the author perceives to be contradictions of privacy as technology continues to evolve our future. What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No ID Cards in the Future More

No ID Cards in the Future

Comments Filter:

  • Yea... so... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:41PM (#5761805)
    How will I prove I'm legally able to drink?

    • Re:Yea... so... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clbyjack81 ( 597903 )
      1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!

      -Adolph Hitler

      A little scary, isn't it? National ID Cards are just one more step down a quite similar road. Please Vote!

      • Re:Yea... so... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Moofie ( 22272 )
        Vote for who?

      • Re:Yea... so... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RLiegh ( 247921 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:05PM (#5761987) Homepage Journal
        If voting could accomplish anything, it would have been made illegal!

        [btw, I am a registered voter; but I'm under no illousions that it matters.]

      • Not quite accurate (Score:5, Informative)

        by ThinkingGuy ( 551764 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:08PM (#5762004) Homepage
        The Straight Dope on Hitler and gun control [straightdope.com]
      • Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.

        Cole's Law: Chopped cabbage and mayo.
      • By the unspoken rule of the Internet, that makes your argument null and void. Sorry.
      • You do realize that gun control is a left-wing promoted action right? And that Hitler was a Facist? As in, the total OPPOSITE spectrum of what you are talking about?

        Nice try, give me a call when you move back to reality.

      • Re:Yea... so... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        A little scary, isn't it?

        70% of Iraqi households had guns, and it didn't help them achieve freedom, did it? Do you honestly think, right now, that if a significant portion of the U.S. populace decided to revolt, that you could really overthrow the government?

        You and every other taxpayer has funded the most advanced and most powerful military in the world, and if it came down to it, the government would use that military to defend itself, even if the constitution didn't allow it. The government in power

        • Re:Yea... so... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by yourmom16 ( 618766 )
          Do you honestly think, right now, that if a significant portion of the U.S. populace decided to revolt, that you could really overthrow the government?

          yes; The reason it didnt happen in Iraq was that they werent sure others would go along. revolting with 70% of the population would work; revolting by yourself is just suicide.

  • Wait, I thought... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:42PM (#5761815) Homepage
    we were all supposed to be getting Citizen I.D. cards soon. [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004

  • tatoos or embedded bar code ID's (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that would make cards uneeded! woohoo!

  • Wha? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by The Briguy ( 612887 )
    I would like to know what is really going on here. Does anyone really have any idea? One day we hear that everything is going 1984-esque with personal ID cards and Microsoft personel watching our every move. Then the next day we hear this. Whats happening?
  • From the article:
    A Florida start-up is working on a 15,000-processor supercomputer than can essentially reconstruct the timeline of your entire life in minutes.

    Does anyone know what company he may be referring to here?
    • Obviously someone who's contracted to DARPA [darpa.mil]
    • A Florida start-up is working on a 15,000-processor supercomputer than can essentially reconstruct the timeline of your entire life in minutes.

      Imagine a Beowulf clus.... oh, wait, they already have.
    • Does anyone know what company he may be referring to here?

      I'm not sure exactly which one, but I think that good old logic can tell us what kind of company it is.

      "Startup" + incredible claim that would represent a dramatic leap in technology and change the way that at least one entire industry works = bullshit

  • OB Brazil Quote (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "My name's Lowry. Sam Lowry. I've been told to report to Mr. Warren."
    "Thirtieth floor, sir. You're expected."
    "Um... don't you want to search me?"
    "No, sir."
    "Do you want to see my ID?"
    "No need, sir."
    "But I could be anybody."
    "No, you couldn't, sir. This is Information Retrieval."

  • privacy, what privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lily2skippy ( 666831 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:48PM (#5761869)
    I gave up the ability to have privacy when I started using the internet in 1994. From that point on I have assumed that I am a public figure and anyone can know anything about me.

    I bank online, pay my bills online, and pay my taxes online.

    Choice, freedom of technology or be a hermit
    • Reducing all the complexities of life into an idiotic binary choice is how freedom will eventually be lost.

      Peoples lust for easy answers and simple choices will be the bait that lures the world to hell.

      Please wake up and realize that choices have consequences.

    • gave up the ability to have privacy when I started using the internet in 1994. From that point on I have assumed that I am a public figure and anyone can know anything about me.

      I bank online, pay my bills online, and pay my taxes online.

      Wow, what a troll. Did you give up privacy in snail mail because anyone can open an envelope? Because you bank online, you are willing to have a webcam in your toilet? OK fine for you, but don't force that choice on the rest of us. Your attitude is dangerous and s

    • I don't understand

      None of your examples represent publicly available information. Sure, the companies you deal with know a lot about you, but the general public can't see your banking habits or your tax return. Just because you have to reveal information about yourself doesn't mean who you reveal it to has the right to distribute it on a whim. I go to the doctor, but he can't sell medical records, can he?

  • the detail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:49PM (#5761871)
    " What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"

    yes..

    the problem people run into is when they follow the argument through, they end up sounding like the NRA. that's uncomfortable for millions who do not agree that everybody packing is a good idea. they want some policing. but as soon as you elevate discussion beyond sound-bite homilies you lose the massive, sadly ignorant, majority of americans. they can't follow you.

    so the trick you need is to make sound bite sense and not sound like a 'gun nut'. then you can get middle ground people to relate and vote.

    yes, that's real sad. but it's also a necessity of ignorant democracy, and if you don't figure out how to make it work, then we're fucked.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:the detail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dlakelan ( 43245 ) <dlakelan@street- ... ts.org minus bsd> on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:36PM (#5762156) Homepage
      The NRA is basically correct. Lots of people don't like this fact. It doesn't make it any less true.

      Now I disagree with the NRA's support of the "war on drugs" and their concept that we generally need more imprisonment of all sorts of criminals (as opposed to basic economic changes that reduce the incentives for criminal behavior), but when it comes to believing in the domino effect of gun rights concessions, they are dead on.

      Privacy people sound the same because they are dead on about the Domino effect as well.

      Armed [barnesandnoble.com]by Gary Kleck, and Don Kates gives a very good synopsis of this issue.

      • Now I disagree with the NRA's support of the "war on drugs"

        As do many of the (millions of) members. Unfortunately, the current NRA administration is from the laws-and-orders faction.

        and their concept that we generally need more imprisonment of all sorts of criminals (as opposed to basic economic changes that reduce the incentives for criminal behavior)

        Actually that got started as a response to the left-wingers running a revolving-door justice system (so the violent offenders were constantly being du

        • Re:the detail (Score:2, Insightful)

          by pineappleboy ( 624544 )
          Of course now that it has been thoroughly proven that relaxing the gun laws so a small fraction of the population is carrying concealed at any given time REDUCES both crime and violence

          Eh, what? I don't see that proven at all. There are many different statistics and facts flying backward and forward on this one. The case is far from proven.

          If you people in the US want to start going down that road, fair enough, but pray you don't end up in the same situation as South Africa. Car-jackers and thieves n
          • Eh, what? I don't see that proven at all. There are many different statistics and facts flying backward and forward on this one. The case is far from proven.

            Saying it doesn't make it so.

            The scholarly studies that survived peer review are the ones that showed reductions (much to the initial surprise of the researchers who conducted them). The others "flying backward and forward" have been pretty thoroughly debunked. And not just by the NRA. B-)

            If you people in the US want to start going down that roa
            • Meanwhile, the NRA is complaining that gun laws are getting progressively tougher. You don't seem to be in step with your compatriots there?

        • Re:the detail (Score:2, Insightful)

          by gid-goo ( 52690 )

          Of course now that it has been thoroughly proven that relaxing the gun laws so a small fraction of the population is carrying concealed at any given time REDUCES both crime and violence, and this fact is beginning to penetrate the general awareness, such a program is counter-productive.

          WTF? Thoroughly proven? Fact? I think you're using those terms in the same way that Congress shitheads try to base laws on "Sound Science." Which they wouldn't recognize if it bit them on the ass. This is by no means even r

    • [people who talk about privacy-invasion leading to government abuse] end up sounding like the NRA. that's uncomfortable for millions who do not agree that everybody packing is a good idea.

      Actually, what the NRA wants is for anyone who is law-abiding to be ABLE to pack if (s)he wants to. That way people going to/from a shooting sport or gun shop, or carrying to defend against a perceived threat, won't be inconvenienced.

      A couple percent carrying concealed on any given day is enough to put a MAJOR dent in
    • From the article

      How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?

      I Dunno. Ask the authors of the PATRIOT act....

      From the parent post:

      so the trick you need is to make sound bite sense and not sound like a 'gun nut'. then you can get middle ground people to relate and vote.

      I actually think that most of this legislation comes from people feeling insecure and vulnera
  • Congratulations, Mr. Kanellos, for bringing to our attention what websites like thesmokinggun.com have been making clear for years. By the way, may I suggest a photo which does not suggest you are pinching a loaf?

  • Goodbye ID Cards (Score:5, Funny)

    by buyo-kun ( 664999 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:50PM (#5761881)
    Hello Barcodes

    Well isn't this just freakin Dandy!
    • I still want that tattooed somewhere on my body. I just can't get passed how fucking trendy it is though anymore. The guy at the shop tells me he does 4 or 5 of them a week. Oh well..off-topic, mod me off-interesting.

      • Re:Goodbye ID Cards (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pnatural ( 59329 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:53PM (#5762272)
        And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

        And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
        Revelation 13:16-17
  • What boggles the mind is how social forecasters can so easily bypass longstanding privacy concerns by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history.

    Yeah, it does boggle my mind. Yeah, that and algebra.

    ---
    GWB

  • driver's license at hotels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by faster ( 21765 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:51PM (#5761886)
    Did anyone else notice that the author of this nearly content-free article referred to Bruce Schneier's complaint about hotels requiring a driver's license, then completely ignored the REST OF THE SENTENCE where Bruce explained why that is a bad thing?

    It's a good thing the article was short, or I'd be bummed about wasting the time to read it.

  • Privacy? Laughable. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rammadon ( 305230 )
    Does the government have right to invade our lives? I think not. Life (military and police protect us from murder and such) Liberty (protect our right to freedom, to say what we want when we want to say it) and persuit of happiness (They feel the need to make us happy, not just allow us the ability to be happy. Social welfare... Ha! Let us govern ourselves!) Who are they to tell us what to do and what not to do, as long as it doesnt violate the basic human rights of another person? Seatbelt laws? HA! Dr
    • "In soviet russia, the government runs you. In Soviet America, apparently the same thing happens."

      As the old Cold-War-era joke goes:
      What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?


      Capitalism is built on man's inhumanity to man.
      Under Communism, it's the other way around.
    • You are free to pay cash for all transactions, to not have a phone, to not drive a car, etc. It is only when someone wants credit, to communicate over public telecommunications media, operate a motor vehicle on governement built roads, etc. that they must identify themselves to both other private citizens and/or the governement. Or would you have the governement not be allowed to have the white pages of the phone book, you know, with all that personal identification information like your name and phone nu

  • how?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:58PM (#5761936) Homepage Journal
    How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?


    The question is the answer. The terms "responsible" and "thinker" are not applicable to the majority of people you're worried about.

    • Re:how?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:53PM (#5762266) Homepage Journal
      If you ask a victim of identity theft whether they "think things are relatively agreeable at present" you will probably find out that not everyone agrees with that assessment. Privacy and activity requiring "automated identification" (e.g., on-line, electronic banking, voting, commerce, etc.) are mutually exclusive. The only way you can be positively identified is if a trusted third party has sufficient knowledge of you that they can verify that you really are who you say you are (good-bye privacy) or you have some sort of unique identification that cannot be forged and that absolutely identifies you (hello government IDs).

      Turn the clock back to the '50s or earlier and the only thing that has really changed is you know who knows about you. People were trusted on a simple hand-shake or signature because the person extending the trust already knew who they were extending the trust to plus where they lived, who they worked for and, most of all, whether they could be trusted. That's why people worried about their "reputation"; the local banker didn't need a credit reporting agency to find out whether you paid your bills on time. Likewise, the corner grocer didn't need to ask someone buying alcohol for an ID to prove they were old enough because the grocer knew his or her customers and their kids.

      We can't turn back the clock so get used to the idea that positive identification will probably happen.

      • Privacy and activity requiring "automated identification" (e.g., on-line, electronic banking, voting, commerce, etc.) are mutually exclusive. The only way you can be positively identified is if a trusted third party has sufficient knowledge of you that they can verify that you really are who you say you are (good-bye privacy) or you have some sort of unique identification that cannot be forged and that absolutely identifies you (hello government IDs).

        Actually, there is some really cool cryptography that

        • I can take the unblinded, signed credential to the bookstore now

          Forgive me, I got a bit ahead of myself here. The bookstore actually gets the complete set of signed and blinded credentials. I then unblind the entire set for the bookstore, and the bookstore verifies that the contents of all the credentials are identical (that they state the same thing about myself). Otherwise I would be able to slip one dishonest credential into the set originally signed by the school, and the school may not have checked

  • Big Brother Loves You (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hoopyfroodman ( 667019 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:59PM (#5761943)
    If we are concerned over privacy issues, we need to take a serious look at exactly who enforces the privacy laws and how these elected officials get into office. As long as it costs tons of cash to run for public office, corporations are going to pay for canidates. As long as elected officials are owned by corporations, our privacy will always be up for sale. Only dedicated citizens and vocal consumers will be able to turn the tide of the privacy battle... right now the corporations are winning.

  • My voice is my passport.... but i have laryngitis! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:59PM (#5761947)
    Actually it scares me *not* to need an ID card. With face recognition, fingerprinting, and other biometric measures in place. I don't recall being asked for permission about any of these.

    "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men--the right to be let alone."
    - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

    Consider the Patriot Act and new changes being pushed by the neoconservative administration, I can't help but think the Bill of Rights is turning in to what happened to the rights list in Animal Farm.

    Proud to post (this one) Anonymously!
  • The real problem is that people leave all kinds of electonic trails and traces, because they want things cheaper. So much of today's cost effective way of doing business all revolve around computers and the capabilities they offer about tracking, correlating and predicting patterns. So the marketer wants to market (and spend money on) to those who will probably buy. You want discounts on things that you like. So you give up some privacy so that the marketer has a clue about what to advertise to you. We

  • Privacy and DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

    by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:00PM (#5761952)
    What's interesting is that many who would decry the lack of personal privacy are also the same ones that lash out against DRM in any form. After all, isn't DRM all about protecting content (personal information) based on the wishes of the owner of that content? And just as quick as anti-DRM people like to point out that there is no perfect DRM, they hopefully realize that there is no such thing as personal privacy, at least not in the casual sense. Unless you are willing to go to extremes, much of who you are and what you do can easily be tracked. The article earlier about social engineering should give one pause enough to know that despite any safe guards and reassurances, that any information kept about you digitally (and now days that's almost everything) can be gotten to by someone who wants to get to it.

    In the information age, privacy is "virtual". The govt wants us to fight the id card, because A) it gives the illusion that we might still have some privacy B) it keeps people focused on a specific technology/item (the id card), basically a red herring.

    • Re:Privacy and DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The reason to keep personal information (medical history, etc.) secure is because revealing it would be an intrusion on privacy, not because there's anything inherent about the data itself that prevents multiple people from having copies.

      If you're talking about a published book or CD or video, one that's being hawked everywhere, there is no expectation of privacy. Indeed, privacy would be contrary to the publicity the publisher seeks.

      After all, isn't DRM all about protecting content (personal informati

    • Re:Privacy and DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:54PM (#5762281)
      It's worse than that. The two sides of those same people are also demanding that media providers create excellence and then pretend that it's a commodity. Let's build up our fads to multibillion dollar scales and recoil in shock when they figure out you can afford much higher prices. Lets spend 99% of our entertainment dollars on 1% of it's creators, and then rebel when that 1% sees you for what you are; a bemused cash cow addicted to shiny, noisy things. They're not evil criminals. They're just competing for a bigger slice of your disposable income, leaving you with less to dispose of. Poor you.
    • I don't agree. Its not about restriction of information vs. freedom of information like you're portraying it to be. DRM isn't about protecting personal information - just give me an example of a DRM system for personal use, rather than content provider use. Most DRM systems aim to take away the personal use rights we'd normally have.

      I believe that personal privacy is worth fighting for. There should be laws governing the use of personal info. (and there are) Better systems can be built to contain personal

    • What's interesting is that many who would decry the lack of personal privacy are also the same ones that lash out against DRM in any form. After all, isn't DRM all about protecting content (personal information) based on the wishes of the owner of that content?

      Fat lot of good DRM does you when the person demanding your vital statistics is some faceless minion of a large corporation. DRM is basically useful when you're a big company protecting your content (that you sell at whatever price you choose). It

  • And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

  • Not smart: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fritz Benwalla ( 539483 ) <randomregs@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:02PM (#5761964)

    Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "

    I agree with this statement, but. . .

    The more more important point is how much the government and corporations *think* they are gathering data correctly, and *think* they can use it to their advantage.

    We are entering an age of false assumptions and spurious conclusions drawn on anecdotal data that supposedly has "validity" because it was retreived using a SQL query.

    I think there is going to be a need for another edition of Carl Sagan's a "The Demon-Haunted World," that deals directly with peoples' (governments', corporations') willingness to add ill-conceived "reading tea leaves" type conclusions to otherwise opinion-less data sets.

    Congratulations, we've graduated. It used to be that you had to know a little science to keep from being ripped off. Now we're moving into an age where you'll need to know computer science and statistics to keep from being arrested or discriminated against.

    -----

  • Brin's Transparent Society (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zog karndon ( 309839 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:03PM (#5761972)
    I still think that David Brin has it right - personal data will get collected, collated, etc; what's important is that you be able to see what's being done with your data, and to make sure that everyone gets the same treatment - no exceptions for corporations, governments, politicians, etc.

  • One cell # = No privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dgenr8 ( 9462 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:07PM (#5761995) Journal
    Ironic that this article immediately follows one about keeping the same cell phone number for life. The "private" thing to do would be to get a different cell # every time you make or receive a call. If you don't want your friends to have to do a search every time they want to find you, you're going to need to commit to that phone #. And then what's the difference between it, and a big-brother government ID number?

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Milo Fungus ( 232863 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:16PM (#5762042)

    Several months ago I read a post here that got me thinking about my SSN. According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID). So I started noticing how often people ask me for it. I've been quite surprised at how often it is asked for. Exam registration, scholarship application, research conference registration, volunteer application, etc. I've started writing "available upon request" when it asked for my SSN, and no one has complained. But it makes me wonder how many times I've given it out without thinking twice about it?

    There was a really good discussion about privacy issues in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace [stanford.edu] by Lawrence Lessig. It gave a clear description of the problem and proposed some alternative solutions. One of his points was that privacy was formerly the default simply because no one was capable of maintaining a practical and useable database of the size that would be necessary. Because of this former impossibility, there was no need for legislation or other guidelines to address it. That makes the problem unique to our day and age because only recently have we had the technology to do these sorts of things. Lessig argues that in such cases we have two options:

    1. Interpret the Constitution as literally as possible. If the costitution says it's okay (or fails to say that it's not), then go for it.
    2. Determine a solution based upon the same principles that the founding fathers used.
    Lessig tends to lean toward the second option, and he's very persuasive in arguing his viewpoint. One possible solution that he proposed was for database owners to blind themselves to personal information and to only use the data for statistical analyses. From the article: "IBM, for instance, is tinkering with "randomizing" data, which involves fatally altering data in a database. Number-crunchers can subsequently use the randomized data to study trends in the numbers, but can never reconstruct the original data--an improvement over using encrypted data." That sounds like a good solution to some of the problems. Companies can use their database to improve marketing research but can't use them to invade your privacy.

    Anyway, just some things to think about...

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by seichert ( 8292 )
      I think what would work best is if we can choose how to protect our own privacy and decide what level of privacy we want to try and obtain. I am not disturbed by the fact that the pizza place knows my previous order and address from caller ID and let's me complete my order accurately and quickly. I do not want a camera in my shower so that shampoo manufacturers can see how I apply their product, even it will help them improve it. I know that other people have different preferences for privacy. As a busi
    • One catch: The company has to get your private unrandomized data first. There's no guarantee that they'll randomize/encypt/protect it in any way.
      • One catch: The company has to get your private unrandomized data first.

        Yep, and if you trust them to randomize the information, then you can probably trust that they don't abuse the information anyway so there's no need to randomize it.

        Next idea?

    • People need your SSN if they're going to pay you, since half of the point is for reporting payments for tax reasons. It is an ID number, although it is not a form of identification (which is why the social security card is in List C instead of List A on the I-9); there aren't official documents you can use to prove your SSN directly (without going through a document that does establish your identity).

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by legLess ( 127550 )
      Quothe the poster:

      1. Interpret the Constitution as literally as possible. If the costitution says it's okay (or fails to say that it's not), then go for it.

      I doubt very much that Lessig said this, and I hope very much it's just a bone-head typo on your part. While you're interpreting the document literally, perhaps you should read this:

      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      This puts a n

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Informative)

      by An El Haqq ( 83446 )

      Several months ago I read a post here that got me thinking about my SSN. According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID).

      Find someone older who has an SSN card. It was printed on the card itself that the number was not to be used as an ID.

      You could also read the FAQ at the ssa ( http://www. [ssa.gov]

  • "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

  • Bread & Circus (Score:4, Informative)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:26PM (#5762104) Homepage
    michael writes:
    "How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"

    A lethal combination of:

    Any of these suck, alone. Together it could get nasty.

  • What to resist (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amcguinn ( 549297 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:30PM (#5762130) Journal

    Like almost all articles on privacy, this glosses over the distinction between data that was never private, but in the old days was not widely accessible, and true privacy.

    Your address, your occupation and the approximate value of your house are not private information: lots of people know them.

    The contents of your personal diary, your conversations with your SO in your bedroom, and how you voted at the last election are private information: no-one else can get them unless the government forces you to reveal them, someone burgles your house or a trusted person breaches your confidentiality.

    We are approaching the point where all non-private data are easily accessible. That has some unfortunate effects (and many fortunate effects), but there's nothing that can be done about it.

    There is however no reason why truly private information should become less private. The only cause of this loss of privacy is a growth in the ambition and power of government which has nothing to do with technology and which needs to be fiercely resisted.

  • Republicans are *not* your friends (Score:4, Interesting)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:34PM (#5762151) Journal

    The thing that infuriates me is that if this were a Democratic administration pursuing these legislative goals, we would see the neocon propaganda machine going balls-to-the-wall with apocalyptic wrath. Limbaugh and his lesser clones would daily be spewing out crap about how this is yet another example of how the Democrats are in cahoots with the commies and blah blah blah. But since we have Republicans in office there is next to nothing coming from these mindless sycophants who are responsible for propping up this administration.

    I oppose any measures which lessen civil liberties no matter who is in office. Democrat, Republican, Green, don't care, doesn't matter. The "PATRIOT" Act was a complete load of shit, and kudos to the lone Senator who voted against it. (I think it was Feingold.)

    Meanwhile, this so-called conservative administration is doing everything in its power to roll back civil liberties, and is succeeding in doing so on a daily basis. Congress is compliant, and the courts are becoming packed with judges friendly to the administration's views.

    "Gotta give the cops MORE power! MORE! MORE! MORE, I SAY!" And if you complain about it, you are slandered as being unpatriotic or (worse!) a liberal.

    Fuck all. These guys are power hungry goons the likes of which the Clinton administration never even got close to pursuing. Vote em all out, war success be goddamned!

  • Good Point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LISNews ( 150412 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:42PM (#5762193) Homepage
    The author, Michael Kanellos, says:
    "Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "

    This is an excellent point, and it is exactly part of the problem. It's not just when they use this information correctly it's when they screw it up as well. It's when they confuse me for a terrorist, or make connections in my data that aren't really there. So this remote problem is only one thing to worry about, it's also the rest of the time they get it wrong.

  • And things are always only *relatively* agreeable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @04:42PM (#5762197)
    There's always room for improvement. Always some niggling little problem, even in "relatively" good times.

    What do we do to improve things? Why, that's easy. Identify that group of people holding things back.

    And if those people are listed in some database and are required to carry "papers" rounding them up is easy peasy.

    And thus things "now" become things down the road, in easy, popular, and politically advantageous tasty little bite sized morsels.

    America's founding fathers understood all of this very, *very* well and took steps to lay logs across the rails of such "progress."

    Good thing we've gotten rid of most of *those,* eh brother?

    You *are* a brother aren't you? Let's see your papers to be sure, shall we?

    KFG

  • ...by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"

    This is a perfect example of why gun ownership is a good idea and why our forefathers thought the Second Ammendment was a good idea.

    • ...by simply ignoring the horrific examples of abusive governments throughout history. How can a responsible thinker so easily shrug off the need to protect oneself from the unknown abuses of the future just because one may think things are relatively agreeable at present?"

      This is a perfect example of why gun ownership is a good idea and why our forefathers thought the Second Ammendment was a good idea.

      Ummm... I suspect that a "responsible" thinker would pick the appropriate weapon, rather than recommend
    • "This is a perfect example of why gun ownership is a good idea and why our forefathers thought the Second Ammendment was a good idea."

      Really?

      Although America took the all-out war option to rid themselves of British rule, I think I remember another country that got the Brits off their backs, without the use of any weaponry, whatsoever.

      Doesn't that rather undermine the example?

      You Americans... it's all asses and guns with you lot... asses and guns.

    • You're forefathers thought the second amendmant was a good idea cause they needed their guns to wipe out the native americans that were runing your land opportunities by existing. Stop waving around an outdated right-wing idea as a godsend.

    • So, I'm going to reply to my own message in response to those who replied to the original.

      What I gather from what all three of you have said, is, that we can think governments have been and might in the future be oppressive when it comes to something that liberals abhor, such as a national ID card, but governments are always nice and respect the best interests of all their citizens both now and in the future, when it comes to a something that liberals love such as gun control.

      All you who believe that we

  • Some comments (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @05:57PM (#5762575)
    Privacy in the electronic age has become a massive, intractable paradox. People are terrified about the ability of corporations to track their lives, but the world economy has come to depend upon all-seeing computer systems.

    I'm not sure "terrified" is a word I would use..."deeply concerned" yes, but not "terrified". If people were terrified, then people wouldn't use technologies like the Mobil SpeedPass, the I-Pass for Illinois' automated tollbooths, or even credit/debit cards.

    People scream for privacy, yet at the same time use online banking, crecit cards, and unencrypted e-mail. It was pointed out in a particular blog that RFID tags such as what Benneton or Michelin have proposed to use are a very deep threat to privacy...amongst other abuses, stalkers could conceivably use the technology to track their victims. While true, it is also unlikely, as tracking would require placing RFID scanners in strategic locations and linking to them. Not impossible, but improbable.

    "Dragging all human behavior into the public is literally totalitarian," said Bob Blakely, chief security and privacy scientist for IBM's Tivoli Systems. "If you erode privacy, you erode liberty, because people don't tolerate things going on in front of them that they don't approve of."

    I would tend to think that all human behavior is public in some fashion, technology or no. If you do not want your shopping/eating habits known to the general public, then don't shop or eat in public places. Anybody who has sat on a park bench and just watched people go about their lives can tell you a lot about human behavior, since it is so public. It's like the arguement regarding women who wear revealing clothing then get mad when men look at them. If you don't want me looking (note I said look, not leer) at your cleavage, then don't wear the ultra-low cut supertight t-shirt that shows nearly all to the world.

    On the other hand, few people really want to restrict the flow of information. Search engines such as Google have made the world a smaller and far more accessible place. Collaboration among researchers on diseases such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) would be far more difficult without the ability to share patient data rapidly.

    Very true. We are a "live in the now" society, wanting what we want when we want it. Instant messaging, downloaded music, instant credit for thos big purchases are such examples of an "immediate need" society. We have a need, we want it fufilled NOW. Not ten minutes from now, not in a few days, but NOW. Remember when eyeglasses took several weeks to get? Now you can walk into a Sterling Optical, get your eyes checked, and, you have your new glasses ready to go home with you.

    Ultimately, though, business, government and individuals are going to have to agree to a compromise. Companies will likely have to take consumers' objections more into consideration when it comes to collecting or selling personal data. The legal fees and fines that come with misusing data will also help whip businesses into line, said John Tomaszewski, chief privacy officer at CheckFree, which specializes in payment systems.

    Total agreement here. What information I give to you isn't really your information. It is still mine, but I am loaning it to you so you can provide the goods/services I am arranging, and that is it. No more, no less. If I haven't agreed to let you use my information for any other purpose, then you have no permission to do so. In a sense, your personal information is copyrighted (that dreaded word, I know) by you and is only released under your terms.

    My two cents for the evening.

  • Logic is a pretty flower.... that smells bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <{moc.sja} {ta} {sja}> on Friday April 18, 2003 @10:09PM (#5763555) Homepage Journal
    "Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote."

    Yes, that's quite true. Woefully, the chance of their gathering it incorrectly, taking no useful advantage of it and incidentally screwing over thousands of people's lives is pretty huge based on prior track records....

    What people always forget is that most of the damage caused by large beauracracies is not caused by the focused, well-managed efforts of sinister authority figures. It's usually the broken bungling of incompetent peons who have been given a pointless role to serve and are terrified that someone will realize that fact.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Close