National ID card, privacy, copyright. Big Brother in general.

[Darth Avlectus]

You know, I should have titled this thread about privacy rights--THAT is more what I wanted to talk about.

 

@ Salz: with that scan thing and no holding memory (already in use with about 30 airports in the U.S.), that is quite tame and straightforward to some of the proposed ......"methods" I have heard about to be honest. Ranging from excessive to ridiculous.

 

If it has no holding memory, and will reduce time in the airport security by half an hour or MORE, actually that would be welcome. It would also deter opportunity for petty authority abuse.

I.E. Some douche jacked me of $50 while his buddy "interrogated" me over my textbooks on XHTML scripting. Entirely opportunity and human action. Though I heard a month later that same airport fired 30 security staff for hundreds of similar complaints.

 

Still, I never got my $50 back.

 

You do realize National ID Cards are not a new idea? The notion has been around forever and did gain some steam after September 11, 2001 by the Bush administration to protect us all for Al-Qaeda. Not that I would think it really would have helped since the hijackers had foreign passports, not U.S. forms of ID.

Yes I do--didn't Orson wells make the novel 1984 before that year?

Also if I have had one gripe about the bush admin it was the patriot act--you *know* this.

We have given up many of our freedoms in the name of security since September 11, 2001. Do not really like it, but I also don’t see many options. Just wish everyone involved would add a little common sense to the security equation.

That makes 2 of us.

If you are wanting keep your information private from the government, then you need to live in a different country. Because the government already has access to this information and if they are out to get you, it is way too late to worry about putting the cat back into the bag.

If your nose is always dirty, eventually you're going to get caught.

 

@ 'Rider: You misunderstood, I am not speaking out of paranoia, more out of concern for privacy rights than anything else. (That and some irritation at potential future prospects where it could go.) Though yes admittedly I'm quite wary of this issue. Mostly because of the chronic head-up-arse management of law enforcement more concerned with letter of law than actually solving problems. It isn't "trust nobody" thing, so much as it is trusting that people (who can "do things" about "stuff") won't do the right thing.

 

Clear enough?

 

Since this is the first time you've asked, I'm surprised you've got anything.

No offense, but I never know what I'm going to get out of you.

Though If you want I'll give give you a personal invite in the future.

 

Most Americans I know account for about maybe 100 people. The "people we know" are not a large enough sample size to say anything about what Americans want.

And that's why I made this thread so at least we can reach out to each other on this issue.

So fuss over something legit.

cute

We can, and we do, 9/10 times. A Lot of people still don't have caller ID, and even if they did, a lot of people have ID blockers. Which does nothing if a person called from a pay-phone in some isolated area. There are a few outliers who know what they're doing and are hard to catch, but they are the outliers.

Ah, then those in office complaining about threatening calls are just trying to get sympathy from the media. Still I would disagree how many we catch, more like 7/10 times we catch them. Much of it, yes, is due to the fact they have to brag or just do something traceable.

"officials" have nothing to do with this. This is how a lawyer plays the court plain and simple.

Hadn't considered that, but true. I'd more call it lazy cops who want an easy query of criminalizing someone who defends themselves instead of finding the culprits. But it sort of proves the law doesn't really care about the well being of law abiding citizens. Selective pursuit and punishment.

 

If this is what we can expect out of law enforcement now, how does it make them any more dependable when bureaucratic 'finger walking' is simplified? Sure we could call internal affairs for corruption, but most of the time it usually just stays right there in the department and ends up with a slap on the wrist. Maybe it was someone else but I'm pretty sure even you have said something about this in the past.

 

The internet is a public place, you are not entitled to any sense of security unless the particular website you are visiting has guaranteed you some level of security. While that still means so-in-so can tell where you went, it doesn't mean they can tell what you did there.

=======

Yes, they do, how else could I return that DVD player that broke id they didn't keep my purchase on file? And there's nothing wrong with being recorded while in a private business.

 

Good justificaitons, however,

My issues with all the forms of surveillance as well as national ID are:

1) Streamlining the process is a catch-22 because while you make it quicker and easier for yourself, it cuts both ways for hackers and ID theft. Though we're dealing with that, technology moves faster than development of security countermeasures--that's just the way it is.

 

2) Security is as much to do with technology as it is tactic. As I mentioned above how streamlining the operation cuts both ways, a "central roof" under which to report to might give "feedback response" much faster and less cluttered, but it doesn't necessarily decrease all the categories or "departments", in fact it would just make one more that interconnects it all. Basically, more to protect.

As it is we're hearing all about ID theft all the time, and every few months for a while now the news reports about hackers attacking our government networks.

This doesn't give me much confidence in it being any safer or more secure.

 

3) Privacy rights. I just wonder where the scope and reach ends. Most of the time tracing you is only used for terrorism. Understandable I suppose. (Until it becomes cavity searching granny and the baby). Still, I can already see it in the eyes of regulators of banks and medical industry for their purposes. The government may not give a crap about most of what you do but others might (if you get what I mean).

 

4) While minor: Timing and impracticality

The protection system has moved slower than the development system. Things are advancing too fast and security simply hasn't fully caught up.

Then now especially would not be a good time for it. That and we're in a recession. Furthermore I'm not convinced it will ultimately save money in the long run.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Remember that back in 1934 after the Nazis came to power, they reissued ID cards for their people. The questions were simple and innocuous until they asked for the names of your grandparents. If one of those was a Jewish name (One quarter of youe lineage), your card was marked Juden. Do you think they just used the local telephone books to find them?

 

[True_Avery]

Yes I do--didn't Orson wells make the novel 1984 before that year?

1984 has never and will never be an accurate depiction of totalitarian state. It is a book of fiction, in a fictional universe, where a government has a level of control that frankly isn't humanly possible or practical. Sorry, but I'm just really tired of that fiction being shoehorned into privacy debates when there are perfectly legitimately real life examples to pull from.

 

*vents*

[Lord Foley]

Nothing to say about the topic at large, but...

 

Yes I do--didn't Orson wells make the novel 1984 before that year?

 

...I believe you mean George Orwell.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

rosebud

[Q]

1984 has never and will never be an accurate depiction of totalitarian state.

I disagree. The example that it provided was an extreme case to be sure, but the parallels are definitely there.

It is a book of fiction, in a fictional universe, where a government has a level of control that frankly isn't humanly possible or practical.

Advancements in technology make it more possible and practical every day.

[Darth Avlectus]

Nothing to say about the topic at large, but...

...I believe you mean George Orwell.

 

Oh yeh, mybad. George Orwell...Orson Wells. lol. Thanks.

 

Point of it was (though lacking the technological know-how and vision back then) the general idea wasn't a new one.

 

Oh, and thank you for being civilized about it. You'll yet make a fine (perhaps exemplary) member of our forums.

[Web Rider]

@ 'Rider: You misunderstood, I am not speaking out of paranoia, more out of concern for privacy rights than anything else. (That and some irritation at potential future prospects where it could go.) Though yes admittedly I'm quite wary of this issue. Mostly because of the chronic head-up-arse management of law enforcement more concerned with letter of law than actually solving problems. It isn't "trust nobody" thing, so much as it is trusting that people (who can "do things" about "stuff") won't do the right thing.

A little paranoia is always healthy, but "privacy rights" gets the real paranoia cooking.

 

No offense, but I never know what I'm going to get out of you.

Though If you want I'll give give you a personal invite in the future.

I do try to keep things interesting.

 

Ah, then those in office complaining about threatening calls are just trying to get sympathy from the media. Still I would disagree how many we catch, more like 7/10 times we catch them. Much of it, yes, is due to the fact they have to brag or just do something traceable.

Of course they want attention, the more they get, the more votes they'll get. Easy sqeezy. I suspect that most of the people who sent threatening emails or phone calls were visited by some big men in black suits who were surprisingly insistent on "coming inside".

 

Hadn't considered that, but true. I'd more call it lazy cops who want an easy query of criminalizing someone who defends themselves instead of finding the culprits. But it sort of proves the law doesn't really care about the well being of law abiding citizens. Selective pursuit and punishment.

Again, cops have little say in most prosecutions, particularly for civil complaints, or events they weren't present for. Most cops I know are good people, some are complete (*@&$ though. Such is life.

 

If this is what we can expect out of law enforcement now, how does it make them any more dependable when bureaucratic 'finger walking' is simplified? Sure we could call internal affairs for corruption, but most of the time it usually just stays right there in the department and ends up with a slap on the wrist. Maybe it was someone else but I'm pretty sure even you have said something about this in the past.

I generally trust that bad people get punished. My trust is sometimes misplaced, but I still like to think that that's the way it works.

 

Good justificaitons, however,

My issues with all the forms of surveillance as well as national ID are:

1) Streamlining the process is a catch-22 because while you make it quicker and easier for yourself, it cuts both ways for hackers and ID theft. Though we're dealing with that, technology moves faster than development of security countermeasures--that's just the way it is.

Yes, and no, sure, a single, large database makes for an easier target. However, it also makes for a more securable location, while multiple, smaller databases are less appetizing to target, they are often much less secure.

 

2) Security is as much to do with technology as it is tactic. As I mentioned above how streamlining the operation cuts both ways, a "central roof" under which to report to might give "feedback response" much faster and less cluttered, but it doesn't necessarily decrease all the categories or "departments", in fact it would just make one more that interconnects it all. Basically, more to protect.

As it is we're hearing all about ID theft all the time, and every few months for a while now the news reports about hackers attacking our government networks.

This doesn't give me much confidence in it being any safer or more secure.

Identity theft mostly comes from banks being hacked, not federal databases, or people making stupid purchases online.

 

3) Privacy rights. I just wonder where the scope and reach ends. Most of the time tracing you is only used for terrorism. Understandable I suppose. (Until it becomes cavity searching granny and the baby). Still, I can already see it in the eyes of regulators of banks and medical industry for their purposes. The government may not give a crap about most of what you do but others might (if you get what I mean).

if they have access to the system, they probably have access to the data now.

 

4) While minor: Timing and impracticality

Then now especially would not be a good time for it. That and we're in a recession. Furthermore I'm not convinced it will ultimately save money in the long run.

Dunno, sometiems you gotta spend to make.

[LordOfTheFish]

Advancements in technology make it more possible and practical every day.

 

I agree. I have a feeling that someday the government may be in charge of all the nations of the world, and we would be without a president. While not the entire world, a vast portion of the known world at one time was controled by Alexander the Great.

[machievelli]

The fact is, the governments of most western nations already have access to this information. A national ID database would just centralize what they already have. If the government wanted to go Nazi, this wouldn't have much of an effect either way.

 

Also, the Nazis built highways, which let their troops move around and oppress people more effectively than they could on older roads. In my mind, an ID system like the ones currently being thrown around as ideas aren't any more threatening than highways.

 

Now a national DNA database, or an ID database that calls for far more information than the government already has... that's a different matter. Luckily, most of the people I know in law enforcement are against that sort of thing both due to principles, and the fear that the important data would be far too easily hidden by the crowd of useless info.

 

The Nazis showed what could be done, and it is the primary reason people who want the government as far from their lives as possible will complain.

 

As it is, the only thing the Feds do not yet have is a fully comprehensive data base with all of this information in it. We do not want to give the government more control, as much as politicians believe they have to do this for our own good.

 

As for how well the ID is made, there are people who will find ways to duplicate or expunge it. Call them anarchists, terrorists, criminals or just people who don't want that kind of control. Or perhaps since you took that line in the argument, call them fools who can't see the government's helping hand inside that Iron fist and velvet glove.

 

1984 has never and will never be an accurate depiction of totalitarian state. It is a book of fiction, in a fictional universe, where a government has a level of control that frankly isn't humanly possible or practical. Sorry, but I'm just really tired of that fiction being shoehorned into privacy debates when there are perfectly legitimately real life examples to pull from.

 

*vents*

 

 

Agreed. The technology wasn't even close when the real 1984 rolled around, but considering medical and surveillance technology, it could have been retitled 2024.

 

As for practical, back in the early 1800s, one state voted to have the definition of Pi in math books changed to read 3. Hardly practical if you expect the kid to figure the volume of a sphere.

[mimartin]

As it is, the only thing the Feds do not yet have is a fully comprehensive data base with all of this information in it.

Writes someone that obviously has not been audited recently by the internal revenue service. Trust me, the IRS data is very comprehensive and in my experience surprisingly accurate.

[machievelli]

Writes someone that obviously has not been audited recently by the internal revenue service. Trust me, the IRS data is very comprehensive and in my experience surprisingly accurate.

 

Having never made enough to use a form more complex than the 1040A, it's unlikely I will ever be audited.

 

However I have dealt with bureaucracy both on the local and Federal level several times. Having the INS stop me on the street shouting at me in Spanish because the idjit thought I was an illegal was the most fun, while the Secret Service questioning me because I might go real anarchist and slaughter politicians in job lots when I was in my 20s gave me an idea of what they really knnow.

 

I'm not saying the Feds don't have all of the information they might want about me; only that it is not in one comprehensive database. At least not yet.