PDA

View Full Version : National ID card, privacy, copyright. Big Brother in general.


Darth Avlectus
03-27-2010, 06:02 PM
You know something, after this whole healthacre boil-over has settled, part of comprehensive immigration reform is going to include in no small part a National ID card. What do you think about this? I'm curious what my fellow members of LF think of the all encompassing surveillance ideas. Will it really make for a safer and more secure society?

What I get from most of you on, for example National I.D. cards--it's a big bowl of hooey. Totally ridiculous idea.

Most Americans I know are opposed to it. How about you? Afterall it conceivably could have:
Your personally identifiable info, your medical history, your criminal history (if any), your credit history, and who knows what else. Combine that with an urban society with propensities to
1: destroy things regardless of accident or on purpose
2: misplace and lose things

Aside fro mnational ID and more in general:

Already there are surveillance cameras and other devices *everywhere* on both public and private property so the authorities know who you are, where you are, when you are there, what you are doing, etc. etc. etc. or at least can have some kind of record of it.

BTW I cannot decide if it's more funny or sad that with all the telephone monitoring going on and caller ID and everything, that we still cannot catch people who call to make harassing or threatening phone calls. All that sophistication...for what? Picking on law abiding citizens? *facepalm*

Or how officials are allowed to get away with punishing the victim for defending his/her self in the case that perpetrators run away from a Breaking and Entering.

There are watchdogs all over the internet [:dozey:SERIOUS BUSINESS]. Some are just good citizens looking out for everyone's well being by themselves being a public informant. Others, one can never be too sure of.

Also all companies keep records of things, for security, to cover their hides, and who knows what else. Smile, you're on candid camera, and your life is a closed circuit movie. (OOH! DID I WIN ANYTHING?! :indif:)

Really is it any wonder why ID theft is on the rise?

We're told "this system will be foolproof and impossible to circumvent." (If you actually believe that, then that your head is FAR up in a dark warm and smelly place.)

Yet, our government servers aren't really even safe--every month I hear about some attempted hacking strategically done with intent of cascade crashings coming from China or something like that. All the big media brands, tech people like Kim Komando, money experts like Clark Howard.

Curious: Where are privacy rights in all this? Really now. What of unlawful search and seizure? How much to the nTH degree should copyright be pursued w.r.t. infringements and punishments? Or is privacy just a cloak the guilty use to hide their misdeeds?

Proponents say: "If you have nothing to hide then you shoudn't have a problem with it." :roleyess:

What do you people think of all the security measures in general? Do they do their job? Weigh in if you would.

mimartin
03-27-2010, 07:27 PM
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.

At first I was somewhat against it for privacy reason, but now I really don’t care. 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.

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.

Web Rider
03-27-2010, 11:23 PM
You know something, after this whole healthacre boil-over has settled, part of comprehensive immigration reform is going to include in no small part a National ID card. What do you think about this? I'm curious what my fellow members of LF think of the all encompassing surveillance ideas. Will it really make for a safer and more secure society?
It will make a messy system of state-by-state identification of persons less complicated and less confusing. I can just as easily be Joe Smith in California as I can be John Johnson in Colorado because I have to get a new ID in every state.

What I get from most of you on, for example National I.D. cards--it's a big bowl of hooey. Totally ridiculous idea.
Since this is the first time you've asked, I'm surprised you've got anything.

Most Americans I know are opposed to it. How about you? Afterall it conceivably could have:
Your personally identifiable info, your medical history, your criminal history (if any), your credit history, and who knows what else. Combine that with an urban society with propensities to
1: destroy things regardless of accident or on purpose
2: misplace and lose things
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.

Things that can be asked for at a moment's notice. Instead of going to 30 different places, taking months to do so, and lots of stress, money and effort on your part, it's on an ID. If people want to destroy their ID, who cares, if it's destroyed they'll get a new one. If people lose it, who cares, they'll get a new one.

Aside from national ID and more in general:
Already there are surveillance cameras and other devices *everywhere* on both public and private property so the authorities know who you are, where you are, when you are there, what you are doing, etc. etc. etc. or at least can have some kind of record of it.
No, there aren't. Maybe in the UK there are, maybe at street-lights there are, but there is no camera on my property, there is no camera on my street, heck, there's probably no cameras within a square mile of my home.(not counting stop-light cameras). So fuss over something legit.

BTW I cannot decide if it's more funny or sad that with all the telephone monitoring going on and caller ID and everything, that we still cannot catch people who call to make harassing or threatening phone calls. All that sophistication...for what? Picking on law abiding citizens? *facepalm*
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.

Or how officials are allowed to get away with punishing the victim for defending his/her self in the case that perpetrators run away from a Breaking and Entering.
"officials" have nothing to do with this. This is how a lawyer plays the court plain and simple.

There are watchdogs all over the internet [:dozey:SERIOUS BUSINESS]. Some are just good citizens looking out for everyone's well being by themselves being a public informant. Others, one can never be too sure of.
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.

Also all companies keep records of things, for security, to cover their hides, and who knows what else. Smile, you're on candid camera, and your life is a closed circuit movie. (OOH! DID I WIN ANYTHING?! :indif:)
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.

Really is it any wonder why ID theft is on the rise?
The protection system has moved slower than the development system. Things are advancing too fast and security simply hasn't fully caught up.

We're told "this system will be foolproof and impossible to circumvent." (If you actually believe that, then that your head is FAR up in a dark warm and smelly place.)
Anyone who believes anything is foolproof is a fool.

Yet, our government servers aren't really even safe--every month I hear about some attempted hacking strategically done with intent of cascade crashings coming from China or something like that. All the big media brands, tech people like Kim Komando, money experts like Clark Howard.
Nothing is "safe", nothing is "100% secure" it's impossible.

Curious: Where are privacy rights in all this? Really now. What of unlawful search and seizure? How much to the nTH degree should copyright be pursued w.r.t. infringements and punishments? Or is privacy just a cloak the guilty use to hide their misdeeds?
Sometimes the government breaks it's own rules, we're aware of this. This is not helped by being paranoid.

Proponents say: "If you have nothing to hide then you shoudn't have a problem with it." :roleyess:
Those proponents are idiots. Smart proponents understand that there is a balance between freedom and security. You always gain some measure of security by sacrificing some measure of freedom and vice-versus.

Ping
03-30-2010, 07:53 PM
I personally don't see anything wrong with it. National IDs are definitely not perfect, but I don't see a problem with it, nor do I care if it's implemented. I'm totally indifferent.

machievelli
03-30-2010, 08:39 PM
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?

Liverandbacon
03-30-2010, 09:56 PM
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?

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.

Bimmerman
03-31-2010, 03:02 AM
I'm very opposed to a national ID. I don't see it doing any sort of good, and lots of potential for bad. We already have state drivers' licenses (if you're >16 years old, you are 99% sure to have one) and national passports. What good would an ID do?

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.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Web Rider
03-31-2010, 06:25 PM
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?

Yes, what a wonderful argument, "let not do it because the Nazis did it." Lets also not build roads, or an army! I mean, the Nazis didn't wage war by throwing ID cards at people. They didn't commit a holocaust by giving people paper cuts or making them wait in long lines at the DMV. They did it with tanks and gas chambers. So why does the "lets not do it because the nazis did it" argument never come up when we're talking about the army?

Ah! it's because people understand that the Nazis did not have a monopoly on ideas, and just because they did something, it does not make a person or country a nazi because they do something similar.

I'm very opposed to a national ID. I don't see it doing any sort of good, and lots of potential for bad. We already have state drivers' licenses (if you're >16 years old, you are 99% sure to have one) and national passports. What good would an ID do?

Equally bad argument. Having a bad system for doing something is no excuse not to make a better system. The divers liscense/state ID system is bad, really bad. As I mentioned above, because it is so disjointed, I can easily change names from state to state. Not to mention most people don't have passports as most people have no need to leave the country.

What kind of "bad" exactly is a national ID card going to do? Allow me to be identified correctly everywhere I go? Allow doctors to have easy access to my medical records, which considering my medical allergies I find very useful? Or how about allow me to drive in every state without hours of lines and endless paperwork? Or how about prevent people from forging duplicates of my ID in other states because state ID-databases are not shared?

Because that sounds like it would be really helpful.

LordOfTheFish
03-31-2010, 08:57 PM
Combine that with an urban society with propensities to
1: destroy things regardless of accident or on purpose
2: misplace and lose things

That alone is reason enough for me to think it's a bad idea. It's just not worth taking that risk of your private information being stolen.

Not to mention people could wheel-and-deal them for money.

Tommycat
03-31-2010, 09:17 PM
That alone is reason enough for me to think it's a bad idea. It's just not worth taking that risk of your private information being stolen.

Not to mention people could wheel-and-deal them for money.

Honestly, I am leaning towards liking the idea.

Here's why:
1) Illegal aliens will have a harder time faking them, because people will likely not carry other forms of ID for job searches(like Social Security cards). Like the passport you would be able to just use that for employment, and it takes up less space than a passport.
2) It MAY cut down on some of the fraud in the welfare system where a person can draw welfare from multiple states(common in some areas).
3) When you go to a bar, in another state, the bouncer doesn't have to spend 30 minutes looking up the darned state to know I've been legal to drink for a while haha
4) something to identify you even if you moved and never had a license.
5) I wanna get card #000000000001 :D

Q
03-31-2010, 09:47 PM
It would seem that all that a national ID card would do is give the feds easier and more efficient access to information that they can already get. I don't see how that would constitute an invasion of privacy.

I think that it should be available only to citizens and it should be a requirement for receiving any state or federal aid. No ID; no nipple.

mimartin
03-31-2010, 11:11 PM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.Please list one essential liberty a national ID card would forfeit, that has not already been forfeited.

You give up way more information to the government every April 15th.

LordOfTheFish
04-01-2010, 01:26 AM
Honestly, I am leaning towards liking the idea.

Here's why:
1) Illegal aliens will have a harder time faking them, because people will likely not carry other forms of ID for job searches(like Social Security cards). Like the passport you would be able to just use that for employment, and it takes up less space than a passport.
2) It MAY cut down on some of the fraud in the welfare system where a person can draw welfare from multiple states(common in some areas).
3) When you go to a bar, in another state, the bouncer doesn't have to spend 30 minutes looking up the darned state to know I've been legal to drink for a while haha
4) something to identify you even if you moved and never had a license.
5) I wanna get card #000000000001 :D

Those are all good reasons but I'm still not sure if it's worth it...I just wouldn't want to someone getting a hold of my info I dont know, if I were to lose my card that is.

urluckyday
04-01-2010, 04:39 AM
This is a great idea...*eye roll*

Wow, Glenn Beck just sounds better and better every time the government wants to grow more prevalent in our daily lives.

What don't people realize? This isn't what our country was founded on...I understand ID's for state laws...but a national ID? What's next...checkpoints on state borders? What exactly is the point of a national ID anyway?

Tommycat
04-01-2010, 09:44 AM
Those are all good reasons but I'm still not sure if it's worth it...I just wouldn't want to someone getting a hold of my info I dont know, if I were to lose my card that is.

as opposed to if you lose your wallet and your social security card is inside... with no picture to tell people the illegal carrying it isn't you? I had my wallet stolen before. I had to change social security numbers and on down the line. My identity was sold to an illegal immigrant in Texas.

As for the government gaining more influence... wellll hate to break it to you, but they can anonymously monitor phone calls, internet, and chances are already know far more about you than your national ID will have.this may actually be a necessity with the upcoming benefits they are offering to people. Preventing people from abusing the system as badly as things like welfare have been abused.

LordOfTheFish
04-01-2010, 10:22 AM
as opposed to if you lose your wallet and your social security card is inside... with no picture to tell people the illegal carrying it isn't you? I had my wallet stolen before. I had to change social security numbers and on down the line. My identity was sold to an illegal immigrant in Texas.

But who is to say they will not have a picture? And I guess I'm thinking more on a level that I'm not involved in. But if someone, lets say in a gang, got a hold of your ID because you left it at your old house by mistake and they need info about you so they could find out where you had move to. Now I understand that is highly unlikly, but something like that is bound to happen to someone eventually.

As for the government gaining more influence... wellll hate to break it to you, but they can anonymously monitor phone calls, internet, and chances are already know far more about you than your national ID will have.this may actually be a necessity with the upcoming benefits they are offering to people. Preventing people from abusing the system as badly as things like welfare have been abused.

I'm aware that they can monitor phone calls and internet, and yes I know they know a lot more about me than I realize, but I'm not worried about the government doing anything with my info, but other normal people that hooked up in the black market or whatever.

Tommycat
04-01-2010, 11:12 AM
What's to stop them NOW. If you leave your Driver's license, or even an old cell phone bill, they can track down your new address if they want to. A national ID might make it harder for them to track you down, as they would have to contact the FED for it.

If you're woried about criminals doing something with your ID, well they'd do it with your Driver's license, SSID, bank statements, old credit card bill, old cell phone bill, or just flat out with a gun.

Interestingly enough, it might actually make stealing a wallet a federal crime haha.

mimartin
04-01-2010, 11:37 AM
What exactly is the point of a national ID anyway?

Now, police and law enforcement officers have to be able to evaluate 51 or more different forms of State IDs know it a form of ID is valid (that does not even include the difference in state IDs and DLs). All of the systems databases must communicate in real time in order for the officer to do his/her job. If a officer in TX pulls over someone with a AK form of ID, it would be nice for the officer to know if the person is a wanted sex offender in WA before the officer is done with the traffic stop. However, that just may overly pro-government attitude showing itself.:rolleyes: Say the person on the watch list. But who is to say they will not have a picture?
No point to it if it does not have a picture. We already have a national card without a picture “Social Security Card.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the card did not include a thumb print too. Which would make me have a moment of two of second thoughts about supporting it, but personally it would not matter as the Feds have all my prints in their database from my Securities License.

Tommycat
04-01-2010, 12:42 PM
Now, police and law enforcement officers have to be able to evaluate 51 or more different forms of State IDs know it a form of ID is valid (that does not even include the difference in state IDs and DLs). All of the systems databases must communicate in real time in order for the officer to do his/her job. If a officer in TX pulls over someone with a AK form of ID, it would be nice for the officer to know if the person is a wanted sex offender in WA before the officer is done with the traffic stop. However, that just may overly pro-government attitude showing itself.:rolleyes: Say the person on the watch list.
No point to it if it does not have a picture. We already have a national card without a picture “Social Security Card.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the card did not include a thumb print too. Which would make me have a moment of two of second thoughts about supporting it, but personally it would not matter as the Feds have all my prints in their database from my Securities License.

I wouldn't say it's pro government so much as pro LEO. It does make more sense to have on nationally known form of ID. I also wouldn't mind a federally issued CDL.

as for thumb print, I would have a problem with that. Not that the FBI doesn't already have a nice file on me already(of course being a person with a TS clearance automatically means you've been investigated by the Feds). And it really would not affect ME specifically, however it becomes a privacy issue if we are all required to have it.

mimartin
04-01-2010, 01:49 PM
One thing I would like is the thumb print would make it extremely difficult to steal your ID.

Tommycat
04-01-2010, 02:08 PM
One thing I would like is the thumb print would make it extremely difficult to steal your ID.

Only as difficult as the ID itself.

Now if you were to have an ID with a holographic image of yourself, THAT would be difficult to fake.

Bimmerman
04-01-2010, 02:13 PM
Please list one essential liberty a national ID card would forfeit, that has not already been forfeited.

You give up way more information to the government every April 15th.

That was in reference to the Sept 11 justification for taking away our rights, not necessarily the IDs.

My question is why do you need to be identified all the time? With a new fancy ID.......so what? It's not going to do anything to stop terrorism.

You have medical records for a reason, you take them to your new doctor. They aren't coded to your ID.

IDs are very fakeable, what's to stop a new one from being so as well?

What possible benefit is there to yet more bureaucracy and stupidity? They won't do anything to combat anything, just provide the same thing a driver's license does.

A national ID isn't needed.

mimartin
04-01-2010, 02:36 PM
My question is why do you need to be identified all the time? With a new fancy ID.......so what? It's not going to do anything to stop terrorism.
Answered in post 18 in this thread and again “somewhat” below.

They won't do anything to combat anything, just provide the same thing a driver's license does.
Not true. National ID would give a data base that all state law enforcement could access. It would also give a single standardized identification for law enforcement agents to know and understand. Much easier to spot a forged document if you actually know what the original document should look like.

Yes, all IDs can be forged. Is that an argument against our current system or are you implying that a national ID would make that process easier? I fail to see how it is an argument against national IDs. To me that is a much better argument against our current system.

You have medical records for a reason, you take them to your new doctor. They aren't coded to your ID.You haven’t purchase Life or Health insurance lately? There is a database and your records are there if you have any medical procedure done in the past 5 years. It is much like a credit report, but that information is out there.

:scare5: a thread where I agree with both Tommycat and Web Rider on the same subject, is it 2012? :xp:

Web Rider
04-01-2010, 03:15 PM
My question is why do you need to be identified all the time? With a new fancy ID.......so what? It's not going to do anything to stop terrorism.
To buy a car, to take out a loan, to buy a drink, to get a pack of smokes, to rent a house, to get a job, to file your taxes, to get your tax rebate. Oh, I dunno, for just about everything to prove you are who you say you are.

You wouldn't be very in favor of a system where I could walk into a bank, claim to be you, and then get all your money just because nobody happened to ask me for ID.

You have medical records for a reason, you take them to your new doctor. They aren't coded to your ID.
You don't "take" your records to a new doctor. Your doctor keeps them and your new doctor has to request them EVERY SINGLE TIME they want to look something up on them. Yes, you may fill out the basics at every different doctor, but if your doc wants to know who did your open-heart surgery, that's a request.

Yes, this won't be fixed by a new ID, this is a problem with our medical system. The problem can be helped with a new ID system as they won't have to have 6 different pictures of an ID in your medical records every time you go to a new state.

IDs are very fakeable, what's to stop a new one from being so as well?
I dunno, there have been a lot of advances in making non-fakeable things these days. It won't be foolproof, but it should be better.

What possible benefit is there to yet more bureaucracy and stupidity? They won't do anything to combat anything, just provide the same thing a driver's license does.
No, there will be LESS bureaucracy. As every single state will not need to invent it's own license and ID system, every single state will not need it's own rules for what they look like, how they're offered, who can get them, and so on. You won't have to get a new one every time you change your state, or even in some cases, move between parts of your states.

Salzella
04-01-2010, 04:39 PM
No, there will be LESS bureaucracy. As every single state will not need to invent it's own license and ID system, every single state will not need it's own rules for what they look like, how they're offered, who can get them, and so on. You won't have to get a new one every time you change your state, or even in some cases, move between parts of your states.

Indeed. Just look at the ID cards many of the prominent EU member states use (not the Euro-phobic brits naturally...). It streamlines the process - a rarity in European beauracracy i admit - as you can freely move between states with it, thus cutting out a large proportion of the red tape involved. I wish Britain would embrace it, it would make inter-EU travel infinitely easier.

re: the 'Big Brother' concerns. My main problem with these concerns is how paranoid and narcissistic they are. Who cares what you do? You want to buy this from a store, that from there, the authorities aren't taking a personal interest in you unless there is a reason to, in which case it seems reasonable that they should be able to intervene. The main complaint seems to be 'it's wrong', with the fact that it is protecting you seemingly ignored largely. It's similiar to the - ridiculous i might add - protests about the 'strip-search' scanners in Heathrow i believe it is. (it might be said that its label sort of prejudices opinion against it in the first place as it is in fact nothing of the sort...). it produces a blurry, non-detailed image of the person which could hardly be said to be erotic or even invasive in any sense, is looked by exactly one person who would presumably be innoculated against bodies by this point anyway, and is not kept in any shape or form. It would also have stopped 'underpants bomber'. and yet people are having mass hysteric circle-jerks about it breaking child pornography laws which is just nonsense. by that logic so does every holiday snap of a kid in a swimsuit.

but yeah that's just a wee beef of mine. carry on.

Darth Avlectus
04-01-2010, 07:48 PM
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. :dozey:

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. :indif:

@ '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. ;P

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
04-01-2010, 07:52 PM
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?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v1aljo.gif

True_Avery
04-01-2010, 10:34 PM
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
04-01-2010, 11:10 PM
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
04-01-2010, 11:35 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/16hpyeh.jpg
rosebud

Q
04-01-2010, 11:57 PM
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
04-02-2010, 12:15 AM
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
04-02-2010, 04:12 AM
@ '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. ;P
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
04-02-2010, 10:11 AM
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
04-02-2010, 03:33 PM
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
04-03-2010, 03:44 PM
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
04-04-2010, 05:43 PM
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.