Biometric Database Plans Hidden In Immigration Bill 365
Doug Otto writes "Buried deep in the bowels of a bi-partisan immigration reform bill is a 'photo tool.' The goal is to create a photo database consisting of every citizen. Wired calls it 'a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.' Of course the database would be used only for good, and never evil. 'This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.'"
Counter strike (Score:4, Insightful)
Create a distributed database of all politicians with current (hours old) photos, locations, sound captures, etc. Give them hell. Film them in their homes. I don't care if it's illegal.
Re:Counter strike (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Counter strike (Score:5, Interesting)
If we are going to version control, then lets do it correctly and rewrite laws with some sort of pseudocode. That way there can be no argument about what a law means or could allow someone to do.
Re:Counter strike (Score:5, Interesting)
They're already written in a 'sort of pseudo-code', legalese. Problem is it is very hard to debug and really easy to insert malicious code. But if what you really meant was a language without ambiguity, that seems to be impractical.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. I think it is only that way since lawyers lack the math skills to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
All the hard sciences use math as a tool because they go to the core of the problems, where simplifications that disregard higher order interactions still produce useful and meaningful models. Law is based on rules which describe patterns on systems of any order, mostly higher order social systems. What you're suggesting is to replace the pattern recognition for an enumeration of the possibilities, or how else would you remove the ambiguity? That's not practical.
Re:Counter strike (Score:4, Informative)
From the wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
[...] self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others [...]
Please, enumerate the situations where this would be allowed, and the reasonable uses of force as well.
Re:Counter strike (Score:5, Interesting)
Law is political. I don't think at this point the two can be separated.
I think there could be a lot of uses for this. Before that though a national ID should be considered. My preference for that would be to issue everyone passports. It would give everyone ID to vote, buy guns, etc and maybe get some folks to travel a little outside their little world.
REAL id as a national id already tried (Score:3, Informative)
15 states passed laws prohibiting themselves from implementing a national id and 25 more "rejected" the law
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/yes-states-really-reject-real-id [aclu.org]
Sounds like a dead end
Re: Counter strike (Score:3)
A good system would, in my opinion, have two parts for each law: the specific and official word of law (such as "Thou shalt not drive an automobile greater than the posted speed limit"), and another that conveys the intention ("To reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries"). The second portion is useful when ambiguities exist, and a judge or jury is called to interpret the law in an unforeseen situation.
This might help cases where, for instance, a driver is caught going over the posted speed limit, bu
Re:Counter strike (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Rand Paul? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rand Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)
The social security database in use for many years already has names, dates of birth, etc.
Worse: The medicare I.D. is the social security number followed by one letter as a "check digit".
That means every medical provider (Including places like Costco if you get a flu shot there) have your name, address, birth date, and SS# in their database and the hands of the clerks. A genealogy site profvides the mother's maiden name and identity theft is a snap. Talk about a target-rich (and predator-rich) environment.
Oldsters are observed to have a substantially higher rate of identity theft. Researchers noticing that, of course, have blamed the oldsters for allegedly being less competent at guarding their identities.
Getting Medicare to assign you qa non-SS$ I.D. is not an option. Turning down Medicare coverage is an option only for the very rich: Private insurance deducts the amount Medicare WOULD have paid from their benefits for anyone eligible for Medicare, whether they have registered for Medicare or not.
Whitehouse online petition, anyone?
so... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to.
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff
You answered your own question.
Re:so... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's really kind of an emotional reaction. There's a lot of value in having a way to undeniably prove your identity in the eyes of the law. It could help a lot with identity theft and identification wipe-out(like your house burning down). I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs in this case, but not everything that represents more information is bad.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really kind of an emotional reaction. There's a lot of value in having a way to undeniably prove your identity in the eyes of the law. It could help a lot with identity theft and identification wipe-out(like your house burning down). I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs in this case, but not everything that represents more information is bad.
Agreed, there are circumstances you may need an indeniable way to prove your identity. What happens, though, if your driver's license gets old and worn and the scanner can't pick up the proper reference points on the picture and the mag strip on back is worn out to an unreadable state? You can't prove your identity then. An RFID chip implanted on you someplace? It'd have to be reprogrammable, and being reprogrammable without it being removed means it's vulnerable to, shall we say, 'unauthorised reprogramming by non-State entities', as well as being capable of being read by said unauthorised non-State entities for purposes of their own.
Reason I bring this up is, my Arizona driver's license was issued over 10 years ago when I moved back home, and isn't due for renewal for another 8 years. Typically, you get your 'permenant' license at 21 here and it expires when you hit 65. Address changes are printed on a little sticker they put on the back. They reissue them for women who get married and take their husband's name at a prorated cost. 40+ years of wear on a piece of plastic kept in a wallet? Serious fade even after 10 years.
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I might find fifty people who know Cro Magnon, but I'd be lucky to find five who know $MyRealIdentity.
Re: (Score:3)
None of that stuff is included in the bill. There is a database connecting state ID info to tax id info, and a requirement for employers to verify prospective employees through that system; and a requirement so that citizens can check if their number is being stolen.
The biometric stuff is for foreign nationals, who will be required to have a digitally scanable passport following existing international standards. Not all countries do that now. They will have to under this law for their nationals to get US wo
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of value in having a way to undeniably prove your identity in the eyes of the law. It could help a lot with identity theft and identification wipe-out(like your house burning down).
No, there is only a small amount of value in being able to prove your identity in the eyes of the law. How often have you been to court? For the vast majority of people such interactions are few and far between.
There is value in being able to prove your identity in a bunch of different contexts - like withdrawing money from the bank. It doesn't matter who you are, it only matters that you own the account that you are withdrawing from. Same thing with a driver's license. In order to prove your qualifications to drive, you don't need to prove who you are, only that you have passed the driving exam and don't have any black marks on your driving record. The list goes on and on.
The value of contextual identity is hundreds of times more useful than the value of a single federated identity.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that none of the things you're arguing about are the things in the bill. So when you follow these arguments with, "I don't support this legislation" it seems a little strange.
What is in the bill has nothing to do with the bank or with telling law enforcement who you are when they ask. The provisions in the bill are about what ID you show to employers when starting a job, and what that employer has to do to verify your identity and availability for work. It also requires non-citizens to have a n
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
The surveillance isn't the scary part of 1984. The surveillance is just a tool being used by an oppressive government. The warning of the story is that we must ensure our government exists to serve the people, and not the other way around. Sure, that might mean the government must serve the paranoid folks clamoring for theatrical security, but it's still trying to serve the people. In 1984, every aspect of life was controlled and manipulated by the Inner Party to serve the Inner Party.
Giant facial recognition databases are a powerful tool. That technological power can be used for good or evil, but the risk of evil is no reason to fear the technology itself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, that might mean the government must serve the paranoid folks clamoring for theatrical security, but it's still trying to serve the people.
Dystopian novels work both ways, though. The government blindly serving the people's whims against the people's best interests was the root cause behind Fahrenheit 451.
Re:so... (Score:5, Informative)
I think what you're missing here is that our Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights, was founded on the principle of denying the government too much power over the citizens precisely because the founding fathers had no faith in future elected officials using power exclusively for good. Every place where the government's actions are limited by the Bill of Rights, they are prevented from doing good while preventing them from doing harm.
History has proven that a government that holds too much power over its people will eventually devolve into tyranny. The general public has no possibility of building a database like this for their use against government tyranny, which means that the government must be disallowed from having such a database as well. We can only maintain freedom by carefully maintaining the balance between what your country can do to you and what you can do to your country.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My county has required photo ID for voting since at least the early 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My county has required photo ID for voting since at least the early 1970s.
What country is that?
Re: (Score:3)
County, not country.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My county has required photo ID for voting since at least the early 1970s.
Serious question: do you have to have a photo ID and register in advance to vote, or is the photo ID sufficient?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to register before you can vote but since each state has their voting registration laws, it varies. In some states you can register and vote on the same day, others you have to register a month or two in advance.
As to the photo ID issue, the claim that one needs to show ID to vote comes from the vast amount of voter fraud that occurs in this country. For example, in my state of PA, we had four cases over the last decade of voter fraud. Granted, none of these cases involved anyone actually voting fo
Re:so... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook can just give them the data if they ask.
Re:so... (Score:4, Funny)
Facebook can just give them the data if they ask.
Great. A photo of every citizen with a bong.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to.
"Sorry, citizen, but according the the Department of Love, you don't have the proper clearance to travel on this stretch of highway."
"Our facial recognition software has identified you as one of the suspected bank robbers 3 states away. Come with us for questioning."
"On 4/18/2020 at 3:20P, our surveillance network captured your image outside the local porno theater, when you were scheduled to be at work. Care to explain yourself, Mr. Anderson?"
"Check it out: I hacked into the government citizen tracking dat
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alright, maybe I'm grasping, but I will say this - if government officials think it's necessary and proper to put citizens on constant surveillance and place our information into a monolithic database, then would it not stand to reason that they should be subject to the same? After all, they are public officials, and if a person has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, correct?
Problem is, Orwellian also includes doublethink. As in "Innocent people have nothing to hide", but "we cannot do our job effectively if people can watch what we are doing".
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is what we need to be angry about. We need to be fighting for the government to be as open as they want us to be. In the end when it's all said and done, everything should have lost their anonymity. The Government, the corporations, and the people. We're not talking police state here, we're talk'n equal playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, I wouldn't believe all the "mission creep" fuss. We've had Photo IDs for how long, now? This is literally the exact same thing. It's just on a centralized database instead of a card in your wallet. Any concerns of Big Brother database-tamperi
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any concerns of Big Brother database-tampering to frame you for a crime are equally weighted with the benefits of fewer fake IDs
No they aren't. Our founding principles are that we let some guilty people go free precisely because that's preferable than to possibly imprison innocent people. People using Fake IDs are an acceptable condition of not doing 'Papers please' checks on every law abiding citizen on every street corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Any concerns of Big Brother database-tampering to frame you for a crime are equally weighted with the benefits of fewer fake IDs
No they aren't. Our founding principles are that we let some guilty people go free precisely because that's preferable than to possibly imprison innocent people. People using Fake IDs are an acceptable condition of not doing 'Papers please' checks on every law abiding citizen on every street corner.
This isn't a "papers please" check on every law abiding citizen on every street corner, though. This is centralized photo ID. This is "leave your papers at home, please; we've got a copy." Nobody's checking anything when they wouldn't check your driver's license already. The potential for misconduct just...isn't there. You've got the physical documents yourself, so there's redundancy enough to provide a reasonable doubt in court should anyone actually get the bright idea to hack it and tamper. I reall
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares?
Let's just install cameras in your bedroom, then. We've moved so far past having any real privacy, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to."
You should care because it's not possible to have a democratic form of government without anonymity, and you can't have anonymity without privacy.
The reasons are many, but here is the upshot: if you have no privacy, how can you speak out (or vote) against oppression without fear of reprisal? Answer: you can't. History is full of examples, you shouldn't even have to think twice to come up with one you remember.
Re:so... (Score:4, Informative)
I have no social media accounts and never have.
Yes you do. Facebook has a 'shadow' account for you (which you have no access to of course).
Re:And doesn't this already exist? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you get your drivers license.. don't they already store your photo in a database?
The simple solution to this is to just NOT get a drivers license. You know that's a perfectly fine thing to do. Build your life around that fact, instead of lazily building your life around the need to drive a car on a taxpayer subsidized highway system.
These days, no ID = no vote. Opt out of a driver's license (or non-driver ID card), you opt out of voting, too. You also opt out of having a bank account. There's more, but I'll leave completing the list of opt-outs to others . . .
Re:And doesn't this already exist? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe in America you can't get a bank account without photo ID, but in Canada there's an old law that mandates you must be able to get a basic account with no photo ID. Now, if you actually try, banks will make a fuss, but it is possible.
Re:And doesn't this already exist? (Score:4, Informative)
Not in my state. They cannot legally ask for ID at a polling place (not that it'd do any good if they did as you don't even need to be in the country legally to get a DL in New Mexico).
So eliminating the Electoral College is a bad idea (Score:3)
These days, no ID = no vote.
Not in my state. They cannot legally ask for ID at a polling place (not that it'd do any good if they did as you don't even need to be in the country legally to get a DL in New Mexico).
And you have a lot of election fraud, don't you.
This is one of the reasons the Electoral College, rather than national popular vote, to elect the President is a good idea. It limits the fraction of the vote margin that cheaters in one state can achieve.
It also limits the scope of recounts. Remem
Re: (Score:3)
These days, no ID = no vote.
Not in my state. They cannot legally ask for ID at a polling place (not that it'd do any good if they did as you don't even need to be in the country legally to get a DL in New Mexico).
And you have a lot of election fraud, don't you.
Here in Oregon you don't need to show ID, you sign a ballot envelope and put your ballot into the main or in an election collection box. And no, actually, we don't have high fraud. We have less than almost any state. Basically "none." Winners and losers agree there is little or no fraud, because we've slowed down the process and included real and strong transparency and reversibility at every stage.
Re: (Score:3)
You tell them your name and address. They manually cross your name off of a printed list. There is no live database, there is no real checking.
Can you say "ripe for abuse?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem? Someone in Maryland fat fingered a DELETE action and deleted her tags instead of the ones they meant to delete. Since she was deleted she got no renewal reminder.
Now we scale this up to, no I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you don't exist, therefore you must be trying to subvert the system.
Re: (Score:3)
And when this database is breached and suddenly you find that YOU aren't you?
Then you get sued by some corporation for unauthorised use of your own genetics.
Re: (Score:3)
Our privacy was freely given up by our grandparents, and the New Deal. The minute it became the government's job to keep track of people our privacy started slipping away. We expect, and ask the government to keep track of people. We ask the government to PREVENT crime. We ask the government to do things for us beyond "defending our shores." In doing so we sacrificed, and continue to sacrifice, our time/money and our privacy. Time and Money seem to pay for convenience. Privacy seems to pay for security.
Ending with? (Score:3)
Ending with? I think in my state (plus federal laws/reg) we've got at least 4 of those already. And that's not counting opening an account with the gas company.
Re: (Score:2)
Ending with? I think in my state (plus federal laws/reg) we've got at least 4 of those already. And that's not counting opening an account with the gas company.
It's so hard to craft sarcasm in writing so that it's recognized for what it is.
Papers please (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does this sound like every old WWII depiction of the SS coming to life?
Mission Creep? SSN (Score:5, Insightful)
Utility (Score:2)
It turns out that having a universal unique idenitifier is really handy. There are reasons you WANT to be able to be affirmatively and uniquely identified as "you", but you want that capability under your own control. Even with PKI (a system that could be trusted, anyway), someone has to hold a central database. Guess who that would likely be? And if it shouldn't be "the government", then who?
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a whole lot of fun when you go to open an account with a company and find that the record of a previous customer - one whose account was terminated for non-payment - erroneously had that universal unique identifier tied to it.
Not that I'm speaking from recent personal experience or anything...
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Next mandate, fixed IPv6 IP addresses for all devices. Your devices and their IPv6 addresses get added to the definition of "who you are".
No more internet anonymity except when using a proxy.
Which proxies do you trust?
Re: (Score:2)
The OUI can be used for part of the address, but doesn't have to be. Microsoft by default does not use it when generating the IPv6 address as of Vista and instead generates a random address to make it harder to track a device across connections.
I don't know where you got the idea that a serial number was used at all.
Re:Mission Creep? SSN (Score:4, Insightful)
Were you around in 2001? First, we had 9/11. Then on 10/24 the House passed the USA Patriot Act 357-66. The Senate passed it 98-1 the next day, and on 10/26 it was signed into law. SIX WEEKS!
If you look at the size and scope of this bill and the bewildering number of changes it made to existing law, it's rather obvious that it had it ready and waiting long before 9/11/2001. Do you really need more evidence to demonstrate that there is a "conspiracy" to deprive U.S. citizens of their civil liberties?
You already need proof-of-self to buy a gun. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two, actually. Yes, even from dealers at gun shows.
For some reason it's racist to ask for ID to vote.
Vote early, vote often!
Re: (Score:2)
Not in my state. ID is required. And you can only vote once. They cross your name off. I know several people who were not allowed to vote even though they had ID because someone had shown up earlier than them at the poll and voted using their name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to know people in other states.
Re: (Score:3)
"Unable" is an awfully high bar. What if I said "everyone can vote, but, without a notarized doctor's order showing you can't, you have to hike ten miles on foot through a bog to get to the polling place" --- the vast majority of people are "able" to do that, but would probably choose to not vote instead. So yes, there are hundreds thousands of people who are technically "able" to lose a day's wages and the cost of a license to stand in line for six hours at the DMV and get an ID just to vote --- but won't
Somewhat redundant (Score:2)
But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.
Don't you sort of already have to do this for everything above, minus "attend a sporting event" or "log on to the internet"?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, some sporting events also require a photo id to validate that you didn't buy your ticket from a secondhand reseller (scalper). That leaves logging on to the Internet - and while I don't have to have an ID to log on, I do have to provide ID to get service of my own.
In the UK we have been through this already (Score:5, Informative)
The Identity Cards Act 2006 [wikipedia.org] mandated national ID cards. In October 2006, the Government declared it would cost £5.4bn to run the ID cards scheme for the next 10 years, and by November 2007 this estimate was revised to £5.612bn. The Identity Documents Act 2010 [wikipedia.org] cancelled this with at least £256 million already spent [independent.co.uk].
It is generally acknowledged that this scheme would not have delivered any increased security, as applications would be verified against passport and driving license databases that were already known to be inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
It is generally acknowledged that this scheme would not have delivered any increased security, as applications would be verified against passport and driving license databases that were already known to be inaccurate.
So? What makes you think that the point of taking yet another step towards a police state is to provide any benefit for citizens?
There's a part of "1984" that makes this point very well. O'Brien is interrogating Winston, and asks him why the Party does what it does. Winston comes up with the standard lines about it being necessary for Oceania, or for the benefit of the people, etc. Finally O'Brien stops him and essentially says: "No Winston. We do it for power. It is solely power for the sake of power."
Little tidbit (Score:2)
"Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo."
Are employers officials of the state now? This sounds very un-American, and very un-doable too.
Re: (Score:3)
Employers have been doing clerical work gratis for the government for a long time. For example, they're already required to process income tax withholding and to verify the immigration status of job applicants.
Why they put up with this escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike how they now have to look up to see if they're verified to be able to work in the US?
Or exactly like it?
Conservative Sell Out (Score:2)
Stuff like this really pisses me off. Doubly so because the people who normally run around talking about preventing government interference in business seem happy to create programs like this (and the already existing e-verify) that boil down to having to get permission from the federal government in order to work.
It is hard to imagine a more pervasive and intrusive control over society than having to get President Obama's permission in order to feed and clothe your children. And yet the people who should b
Re: (Score:2)
boil down to having to get permission from the federal government in order to work
That requirement has existed for a very long time. You have to be a citizen or have the proper visa in order to legally work in the US. That hardly seems draconian. E-verify helps solve a real problem, but the big biometric database is a wet dream of KGB wannabees.
You already have to have that for many of these (Score:2)
You already have to have proof of self to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane.
It may not be by law, but those folks already want to see id. I am 99% sure the gun one is a law.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be by law, but those folks already want to see id. I am 99% sure the gun one is a law.
100% - it's part of the BATFE check process.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember handing over drivers license last time I bought a gun. Had to fill out a bunch of paper work too that was totally pointless. They should have been able to scan the card and get a response way faster. I think it was faxed or something instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, except the shop didn't have a fax machine, so they had to call in and read off everything I had written on the form.
centralized databases completely unnecessary (Score:2)
Neither citizenship verification, employment verification, or any of these other functions for which these databases have been proposed actually need centralized government databases. All that you really need is a reasonably secure way of identifying yourself and proving your citizenship. You should be able to store your credentials (physical or electronic) in some secure way if you like, but that should be your choosing. The traditional thing to do is to store your birth certificate, passport, and similar
This just in... (Score:2)
They've also been given Commodore 64 emulators for Linux and a copy of the classic game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QP5X6fcukM [youtube.com]
Not only the Netherlands (Score:2)
Classic strawman flamebait (Score:2)
You already have to show photo ID for most of the things listed. Tagging on "and logging onto the Internet" at the end is just sensationalist trash.
Hint: if you have a driver's license, the Gubmint knows who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Is This Data Not Already Available? (Score:2)
Does anyone here *really*think that... (Score:2)
such a huge system will *ever* get implemented? The Feds have a long and sucky track record of managing huge IT projects that explode in budget and go down in flames a decade later.
Thus, I'm not worried.
Sounds Great.... until... (Score:2)
Am I a hypocrite... (Score:3)
...if I have voluntary given up my personal info to have a passport and driver's license, yet act incensed about all this?
In principle, the very act of collecting data on us goes against every moral fiber in my body. Yet if I think about it, I've already given in by securing a passport and DL. I am sure there are pockets of people in this country who want to remain "off the grid," and I respect that and even support their right to do so. But realistically, discounting this very small minority, is there really anything left to fight for given that most of us have voluntarily given up this information to the government in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Papers, please.
Ihre papiere, bitte.
Re: (Score:3)
Ihre papiere, bitte.
No, in Germany they ask for your Personalausweis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_identity_card [wikipedia.org]
Mark of the beast (Score:2)
by AdmiralAl (1136661)
Your user ID brings to mind something that we could exploit to get the right-leaning fundies riled up about this. John of Patmos wrote in Revelation 13:16-17 [jw.org]:
I can see how fingerprints could be spun as "a mark in their righ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fear that next, they will require a blood / saliva / sperm sample as in the movie Gatica?
"Gattaca". There's no "i" in DNA, so to speak. Clever, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprinting for a DoD security clearance seems reasonable. It's a special category and is hardly required of everyone.
However the credit check thing that has become so popular for employment is ridiculous. No one has ever shown a correlation between credit rating and risk of employee theft or other dishonesty. Hell, credit ratings aren't even a very good measure of how much of a credit risk you are! Using it for employment is just a way for HR and the credit ratings agencies to make a buck and pretend