You can guess the structure and nature with which it will operate to a certain point. Objectives aren't that hard to ascertain. The fact that they haven't is worrying in itself.

Not really. The fact that they haven't could be an indicator that they're taking due time in designing a system to make sure there aren't many kinks to work out.

Anything that's worth doing is worth doing slowly.

and transparantly?

I'm assuming that you're referring to the fact that we're not hearing much about it.

Yes, obviously they're going to draw up a plan and work on their argument for a little bit before it's presented to the public. Isn't that what you would do if you had something to pitch? Would you tip your hand right away, or come up with a plan?

Tony -

I think you should make a forum where Jag and I disagree over various things and just debate each other. He and I seem to do that everywhere - why not pull it all together? :)

Okay. I have real work I need to get done now. Will post after playing Amped when I get home. Whoo.

*laughz
It'd make life slightly easier - no more rooting though every thred trying to find the last debate.

Dham i know - i'm nitpicking. I was just expecting them te take more advantage fo the terrorist paranoia and move fast.

Lets say your ID is registered in the CA database. I steal enough of your identity to register as you in the PA database. I procede to use your credit rating, your good name in every national pizza chain, and obtain credit cards on your identification. All because you had no Identification protection. To have protection, you would have to register in every state. If the ID verfication system is localized, then you have ID verification but no ID protection whatso ever.

As for a driver's license system - it is not designed for personal identification AND it is designed for universal, insecure access by law enforcement - nobody else. A driver's license system is not to serve you - it is to serve law enforcement. A National ID system is designed to serve and protect you - which, BTW, is another reason why it will never be a threat to your privacy and why it is optional.


Another does not understand why counterfeit IDs could not be used. The technology dates back to the earliest days of encryption. When ID A interfaces with the master system, both share an encrypted common number. When counterfeit ID B is used, then the common number does not match - rejection. If the criminal is resourceful, then ID A no longer matches the database number - the Identification protection system has kicked in.

Part of my problem - I assumed this was obvious. But then I also assume the rudimetary concepts of PGP are fully understood by all here. That assumption apparently also may not be correct.


There is the silly idea that any system can be cracked, therefore no such security system should be constructed. This is twisted logic. But we don't even have the rudimentary system, or any plans for one We should be addressing the problem that already exists today so that a basic National ID verification system exists in 10 years - and so that a National ID verfication and more functional protection system exists in 20 years. But criminal types and those who fear all law enforcement will call that unfair? Yes, they would deny others access to a system that honest people require - obviously.

But alas, it takes a WTC collapse and anthrax deaths to suddenly discover that no protection exists. Governments (except those like NYC) had no response systems to terrorist attacks nor biological attack information. Sound like the FAA's graveyard mentality? Notice so many that still claim ID theft just does not exist and never will?


A silly fear that law enforcement might not get a court order or your permission to access National ID information. So what. Nothing exists in that database that threatens anyone's privacy. But if you are so criminal as to fear law enforcement - then don't use the system. You have that option. No problem.

The fear of law enforcement illegally accessing data in a National ID system is the same as a fear of law enforcement accessing the data in any local system - identification, credit card, driver's license, IRS, court records, telephone, Social Security, SMTP and POP3, etc. Those other databases contain massively more information that is a threat to your privacy and are not designed to be as secure. A National ID system contains no threat to your privacy or security - especially if you don't use it. But alas, fear of new or innovative persist. Just another example of how too many fear innovation (the anti-innovtive also still use the long obsoleted Windows 9x/ME and FATxx disk filesystems).

If you fear a National ID system, then do not use; absolutely stay away from the Internet.

If you are an extremist, then fear a National ID system because extremists must deny others access to anything that extremists fear. Extremists fear to let anyone else use a system that they would fear to use. Straw man: fear of anything that you don't have to use.

Just one question:

If the majority doesn't want it, how can detractors be called "extremists"?

Do they not want it or have they been subverted by a lack of knowledge combined with hype and fear of extremist sound bytes.

Undertoad's question is well stated. However I find it irrelevant. Emotional fear associated with no knowledge of what a National ID really is demonstrates how quickly people fear before they first have knowledge.

It reminds me of Leno interviews where they ask something like, "Do you support the elimination of the Sacrospicas in Endenouw". People were strongly opposed. One problem. There was no Sacrospicas nor a place called Endenouw. For all they knew, Sacrospicas was a disease worse than the black plague. But emotional is how most make decisions - and opposed the elimination.

There is no effort to address the National ID system. It will take the equivalent of a WTC collapse to address the problem because, as we demonstrated, the intolerant and fearful entertain their fears before they engage logical thought.

Notice the so many who had no idea how an ID system would work, what its objective were, and yet were convinced it would threaten their rights and privacy. Notice the many who could provide zero reasons why such a system would be made mandatory but instead entertained their fears, as proof, that a National ID system would be mandatory.

Notice who opposed the concept without having the slightest idea what the system was. OK, if they first understood the system, and had fears, then yes - that could be a logical thought. But please review this thread to identify who is so driven by their fears (instead of logic) as to fear a system without even knowing what the system did, or how it worked. "Its government, therefore it must be evil" is illogical and emotional thinking.

If you choose not to use the system, then it clearly was no threat to your privacy. And yet look at who still feared it anyway. It again begs the question - do you think using a head on your shoulders or the one located between your legs? Do you think logically or do your emotions determine your actions?

No, a National ID system is not a possiblity because too many still think like a hormone crazed teen-ager or have strong opinions to a fictional Leno street poll. Too many people simply fear change. Too many court their fears rather than try to push out the envelope, boldly go where no man has gone before, and use logical thinking. A National ID system is not even being planned as best I can tell making the Undertoad question, in this case, irrelevant.

What *was* irrelavent was your analergy. Whatever its final form the National ID card is nowhere near as ambigious as a couple of random names. WHile its true purpose is quesitonable and every detail still hidden then of course peopel will fear and question it. Its a bit liek haivng a big black shape flying overhead and you don't know whether its an airliner or a B52 with a tacticial nuke on board.

And you still havne't rebutted the post i made about 3 pagse ago which i'm now going to lay to rest out of frustration.

jaggy poo -

I think that the whole "opt-in" thing would go a long way to helping people accept it. Personally, from tw's assertions, I can see an opt-in National ID card as being a good thing. Now, how it is implemented will have a lot to do with whether or not it's widely accepted.

As far as people fearing it - there are those that fear free speech. Regardless, the latest polls I've seen still show people having pretty strong support for a strengthened national ID system. So, we'll see.

SSNs are opt-in too, how optional itis depends on the width and bredth of the system, if its needed everyhwere like an SSn its not very optional is it.

Of course there is support right now, it'll make those evil terrorists go away won't it?

Well, that's a problem. Of course it won't. But tw hasn't really argued for a NID card based on terrorism and its deterrence/prevention - just for identity protection.

SSN really isn't optional. As far as I can remember, I never opted in for one. If you live in the country, you have either that or a tax payer ID, pretty much.

In a sense its irrispective whats its used for - what it does is still the same. Optional - if it truely wsas - fine. but i doubt it would be for long if at all (in reality, not in legalese), i can't beleivel its being pushed so soon after the terrorist attacks etc for the government to be purely thinking - we need a new way to protect the "good name" of our citizens!

I've met people who believe that SSN is optional (probably), that driver's licenses are unconstitutional (probably not)... even people who believe that the federal income tax is entirely voluntary (definitely not). Some of these people have completely opted out of the system. Once in a while the system coughs one of 'em up and prosecutes the hell out of them to try to make a point.

From what I've seen, they work the system in their various ways, and mostly stay afloat by playing the bureaucracy against itself.

Since (in the response to lisa's comment tw continues to use agruements while refusing to respond to my rebuttles ill ignore those on the basis they are already null and void but...

An unhackable system? Intersting, i've never heard anyone claiming anyhting is truely unhackable, merely harder. If this is such a good point why not mention it some time instead of such a roundabout way of rebutitng it. It seems your more interested in preaching than debating on a logical and through level. If data, any data is stored on the card and the card is checked ona machine modified to copy the data off the card (as is often does with CCs) i fail to see how the card is still secure.

Patronising again, aiaiai.

This one iv'e covered before but this variant of its goes further so ill cover again. Considering what will be on the card or in the database behind it a "silly fear" this is not, i'd consider all my personal details, movement records, DNA? Fingerprint? Retina scan? and who knwos what else personal data, particulary records about my movements, purchases, etc extremely personal. If i was to stalk you it would be an invasion of privicy surely? This is the smae thing, the only difference is its remote. And the records permanant.

As for the scary "waht woudl you ever want to do in private" and "only criminals who have somehting to hide want privicy" i find truely scary, tw seems to have inadvertintly decided to live in a Brave New World indeed. For anyone who has not read the book it really is up there with 1984. Optional? How optional? Either you are relying on legalese or are making large assumptions with no factual base.

Most of which require warrants which the national ID you've decided will not. Together they contain more infomation, but they are distrubuted all voer the place to differnet authorities some of which will allow that data to be removed anyway.


Or on the flipside - If you don't agree with us completely and entirely, you are an extremist, if you want your privicy you are some kind of extremeist, if you arne't liek us you are a terrorist and must be destoryed.

I spose you have a point. If you disregarded proxies, firewalls, ip spoofers, temporoay webmail accounts, e-mail encryption and public access points.

Irrelavent as it is many sitl luse 98 beacuse well...I'ts better for games. And i keep my 2k partitiona fat because NTFS is harder to recover if something goes wrong. Seems to run slower too.

The question raises its ugly heard - will i actualy get a response or will i get the same silence of someone sitting up on high.

Barak - all interesting, legal action? Its that legally possible anyway? As for seeming to bait people myself i'm merely trying to raise a reply to rebuttles i put up, instead i jsut hear the smae agruements again. Least maggieL responds =)

Mostly they're also too dirt poor for the system to bother with. After all, the system doesn't really care if you drive around without a driver's license (ask the Phila city council), but they do care if you don't pay your taxes... but not if your total income is near zero and the sum total of your property is one broken-down 1973 pickup truck.

Mostly. But I've known a few libs who took things to an extreme, and heard about many more. Including one gent who worked for Unisys and actually sued them to force them to stop using the SSN he renounced, and then to stop withholding his pay. I believe he was successful all around; I haven't heard of him being carted off to jail, and I'm on the periphery of some of the same circles he is, so I think I would have heard about it.

Five years ago at least, the thinking was that while US citizens are required to pay taxes, the official definition of "US citizen" includes only the federally-controlled zones such as US Virgin Islands. People in the states were actually state citizens not US citizens, and therefore under the letter of the law they are not required to file. Some have also played with the legal definitions of "income", "wages" etc.

Their thinking also included the concept that the people at the top have known this all along, and that to correct this "situation" would require the closing of some rather large constitutional loopholes. The IRS itself refers to the system as one of "voluntary compliance" which they have taken to believe has serious legal implications in their favor.

The biggest flaw in all this is that judges don't act within the letter of the law. It's not enough to whip out your Black's and explain that the official legal definition of "citizen" is something different than what 99.9999% of the population believes, and that the entire system depends upon. The judge can rule however s/he likes. It's not like a logical/rational system where if you find the flaw you topple the entire hypothesis. There are arguments for and arguments against, and most judges will act politically, follow precedence, etc.

Check out this dude who believes that the mere fact they haven't gotten him for 10 years means that he must be onto something.

I like having nice interstate highways to drive on (or let Jenni drive me on). I like having the armed forces to protect the citizens of this country. I like having police to respond to domestic disturbances, and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that Medicare will be paying for my mother's medical expenses relatively soon. I think I'll keep paying taxes.

As for those that don't... get the fuck out. Thank you very much.

free riders
 

One reason I lean libertarian is that I do pay all my taxes and follow all the stupid laws. Unlike Gov. George Pataki, whose mother is reportedly now a ward of the state,I believe, if at all possible, we should pay our own medical bills and not use our fellow tax-payers to protect an inheiritance that some folks feel entitled to. I have a "friend" whose grandmother was stripped of her assetts and put on the dole so he could buy a lakehouse and blow a wad in the stock market while his sister lives off her inheiritance in the islands. I' like them and the rest of the entitlement addicted upper-class to get the f*ck out.

Well, I don't know where the line gets drawn between living civilly under rule of law and obeying even the laws that don't seem right, and fighting the system by not obeying those laws.

That is a very tough call. I guess when the individual reaches his/her breaking point depends on circumstance. A guy whose wife I knew in school is major Democrat locally and really enjoys a political scrap. He found out I was a member of the LPPA so he was ready to get on me for ducking taxes etc... and was speechless when he found out how anal I am about being law abiding. I figure many Democrats are like ex-Pres Clinton. They support new laws with good intentions but reserve the right to ignore any that have negative impact on them particularly. I'd probably break somewhere on the erosion of property rights, although I did spend a pile on a questionable state mandated septic system when better cheaper systems exist. I do live in a township with few ordinances relating to building and farming so I'm not confronted by this stuff daily.

SSNs not "recycled"
 

I'm not sure what you mean by "UID of their own making", but you are right in that it is supposedly voluntary. Most people, however, do not get that choice: their parents register them for a SSN without their consent (not that you can consent when you're a minor).

One nit: SSNs are not recycled from the dead to the living: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/...=000411-000062

Arrrgggggggh. That's one of my favorite quotes too, at least when BF isn't misquoted:

The problem with the misquoting is that it covers too much. For example, I give up freedom every time I get in my car and drive the speed limit. The security that I get in exchange is that nobody else (for the most part) is driving whatever speed they want. However, that is not an essential liberty, nor is the safety temporary.

When do the liberties become essential and the security temporary? That gets a little fuzzy.

-bb

This is the first time I have posted to this topic...probably because I don't really have a strong opinion on this. But, for what it's worth:

--I see nothing wrong with a national ID, depending on what it consists of. I don't think it compromises my freedom.

--The government probably already knows what I'm doing right now.

--"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."--unknown

--My (soon to be former) employer is getting ready to implement palm scans in order to gain access to work areas. Why this is needed for an insurance call center...no clue.

--I do worry about the whole DNA thing. I fear it would be abused as it was in the movie "Gattaga."

I think I'm going to request a copy of my FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act. I'm curious to see what it says.

Heh. Like they wouldn't take out the things they didn't want you to know that they knew. :) Or at least, they would, if you had anything in there...

It's "Gattaca", btw, in case anyone wants to look it up on IMDb or whatever. And yeah, that would be pretty scary.

bluebomber - good points. I tried to get the quote as accurate as I could find it when I reposted. At least, I remember me doing that. :) But you're right, and it's a question I ask myself (and others) a lot - where do you draw that line? How can you call one thing "essential" and not another? Doesn't this differ from person to person?

Yeah, I always thought the name of that movie was cute. I dunno if most people figured it out or not, but it took me about 45 minutes into the film to realize why they named it that.

At the risk of seeming condecending, for those who don't know, the name consits of ONLY the four letters that repesent constituents of the genetic code (forgive misspellings):

G - Guanine
A - Adinine
C - Cytocine
T - Thyamine

I apoologize if this is OT. I just found it clever enough that I had to mention it. :)

Neat. I hadn't realized that.

Here's an IMDb link - http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119177

Sure enough, the first thing on the "Trivia" page is that bit... :)

Great movie, even if I didn't figure out the title. DULP!

Heh. Being a movie buff, I wouldn't say it was great - but I'd give it something like "pretty good. Definitely enjoyable. Will probably buy the DVD if it hits $15 or less." :)

I'd honestly probably give it 3 outta 4. But now we're getting way off topic - this is the NID card thread, after all. We need to start a "Movies" forum or thread somewhere and discuss 'em. That'd be cool. :)

How bout "Entertainment"?

Yeah yeah, I know. But what to call it? "Movies"? Then what do we write in there? Notable movies we've seen? I already tried this with "favorite movies" and it got a couple responses but that was it. Can we trust it to be updated enough? I dunno :)

When's IotD gonna be up? :)

...and if we talk about GATTACA on the entertainment section/thread, we're likely to get into a discussion about how this reminds us of the National ID idea and how we feel about that! :)

Just reminds me of the proverbial "I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out" joke. Not that I'd tell one that bad, or anything. :)

Never heard it. Please enlighten.

As for a Movies thread, I'd more enjoy just reading a person's views on a single movie. Maybe make a post, each one being about a single movie. Your thoughts on it, etc. I think it'd be neat. Firstly, because I enjoy movies. Secondly, because I enjoy seeing what people think and feel. I think we definitely need to get a "movies" thread started - I'm just not sure exactly -how- it should be started.

It's more up to us to stay on topic, and start a new thread if we want to discuss something off-topic. And that's something we oughta just get in the habit of doing, if just for the sake of the newbies.

I'll get right on top of that, G-man. :)

Back on topic - uh. Like. National ID card. Uh. Or something.

Know what else? We need a "Joke of the Day" area. Where someone posts something funny every day. That'd be cool. :)

*slaps dham* very offtopic
should be under
cellar comments and suggestions | joke of the day?

Well, I'd say that the concept of a national ID system that won't be abused becuase it's unhackable qualifies as a pretty good joke of the day. :)

(Ooooo... I can just forsee the flames that this will provoke)

You're one of those people who pour kero on smouldering fires aren't you ;)
Just don't post a full rebuttal of anyhting - you'll never get a response ;)

Re: What did he ask?
 

Boy, can I appreciate that:
I'm still waiting, for two weeks, for jaguar to post the question he says was never answered.

9 posts down
page 3

The whole area of quoting, thread-spawning and cross-reference on th ecurrent incarnation of the Cellar is ripe for further development. It's a PITA to do an ordinary interlinear quote-and-reposte such as was common in the heyday of the Cellar a-la-Waffle. And with all the Cellar content server based, a cross-reference to another post or thread should be an easy thing to do...at *least* as easy as a reference to a page at external site. Poor Jag is reduced to "nine posts down on page three". That sux.

So now I'm going to spawn this thread to the "Cellar comments" forum....let's see how hard that is....

Well, I I spawned a new thread, and was able to link it from here. But I couldn't backlink to this specific post, even though I know the postid. So we have enough granularity to point to another thread, but not to a specific post.

Ut could you mod the sitecode enoug hto add a flag type thing to the postid of each post?
as in you link ot the post http://www.cellar.org/XXX#13243

Well, now we're say into the esoteric and way off topic. But one might try putting

showthread.php?postid=XXX#postXXX

...on the end of cellar.org to see whether that gets one directly to a specific post.

I don't know for sure that this is the right format though.

Hey, I *started* a new thread for this topic. You can lead a force to order but you can't make it think. That's one problem with thread spawning; posters are afraid of losing their audience when spawning a new thread.

It is. It works. So the semantics of that would be display the thread containing postXXX and position the browser to that post.

Hadn't realized there were post-level anchor tags....very cool.

that's the word i was looking for
anchors
already there, schweet =)

From Here.

Interesting, no?

he he

http://www.whitehouse.org/homeland/tattoo.asp

It all comes down to one thing... I have rights... the government does not.
End of story.
It is not my responsibility to keep a record of who I am for them.
If they think I may have done something, as always, they have a job to do.
As always....
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

If you live in one of the Provinces, Commonwealths or other "States" that are not states, legally, you do not have to pay federal tax.
If you do not drive, you do not have to carry ID.
If you do not work, you do not have to have an SS#.
All perfectly legal.
They don't like it because bureaucrats and cops are control freaks and anything they can't control scares them, but legal.
People should not fear their government, the government should fear the people. If you don't like that in the job... don't do it.

Hello from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Whomever told you that was repeating a rumor. People have gone to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for using that logic.

If you have taxable income. Or if you want to do business with any of the organizations, mostly financial, that require it nowadays.

Correct, legal "taxable income".
As for your first statement... the feds break Constitutional law all the time.

RFID Blocking Wallet :tinfoil:

I work for the government. Most that do, except for the Executive Branch, actually do care about privacy and liberty.

I just can't bring myself to think that National ID would not be abused, somehow, someway. Otherwise, I would think it would make sense; but not now.

It was promised at one time that social security #'s would never be used for identification. Of course we all know how that worked out.

Once you have something like SS#'s or national ID cards it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of it.

First, it was only verbally stated that SS# would not be used for ID. One prerequisite of a national ID program is that it is only to serve the person - not serve government. Having not created such a program, then government is slowly forcing ID programs on us - that are only to serve government. Latest legislation now requires picture ID and now defines what government wants on your 'papers'. These restrictions are becoming so universal that one without a driver's license (or its government equivalent) is denied access to more services every decade.

Second problem with SS# - it cannot be changed. Even your credit cards numbers (so that you can prove to them that they will get paid) are routinely and easily changed because it is a function to serve you. But even worse, once they have your SS#, then it is only time before they can strip your wealth or trash your record - irreversibly.

We desperately need an National ID that is intended only to serve us - 1) so that we can prove we are who we say and 2) so that we can confirm no one is stealing our identity. That means a system intended to serve us - not government (and stated so bluntly), and designed so that we can protect our identity (including a new ID number when necessary).

I went round and round with the boss of the census office in Philly, this summer. He kept telling me his employees are sworn not to blab any information.
I kept telling him those people didn't worry me at all. What bothered me was information, once gathered, has a way of seeping through large government databases.
As an example of possibilities, I cited some ass at Boeing Corporate, losing a laptop containing unencrypted personal info, including SS numbers, bank account numbers (direct deposit), addresses, employment, etc.....on 191,000 employees. :smack:

I gotta disagree with you tw. I see your point of course but any national ID system, even if designed with the citizen in mind, is rife for a abuse. It does not matter how it's designed if a president or congress gets into office and changes the laws / intent of the system. In your example you use credit cards. One of that factors with those is if you feel they are not protecting your privacy enough you can go elsewhere. Not so with the government, unless you wish to leave the country.

Return to earlier posts. There is nothing that says you must use the system. But the system must be provided since - and again earlier posts - since there is no other alternative to a centralized system. Without a centralized system, then you cannot confirm others are not using your ID.

As system designed to serve the citizens means a system that is not mandatory. Currently, because we have no such system, then the government is slowly imposing a system that serves the government.

An ID system is inevitable. Simply put: do you want one designed to serve you or will you be forced into one designed to serve the government? Current ID legislation put forth by the George Jr administration puts new demands on you only for government benefit. That is the system we will get IF we don't have a system designed to serve citizens.

Remember they are Democrats and Republicans. Just another form of communist party where loyalty to a party is more important than to America. Do independents get what they need or do politicians get what they want? Your choice - but only if you decide up front before the Rush Limbaughs spin more lies for political agendas.

You cannot make me believe that any national ID would stay voluntary (in the true sense of the word) for very long. How long until they just want to see your "voluntary" ID for buying a new home or applying for a new job or new credit card or any other number of things? It's no longer voluntary at that point since you'd be at a disadvantage not to have one. And no matter what the intent (like say, oh, social security) it can be warped by any new administration that sees it fit to do so.

It is no one's damn business who the fuck I am, unless they have a reason, a real fucking reason, to ask.
If I am just walking down the damn street and Joe Cop decides he does not like my swagger... fuck-em'... it is not his place.
You know this is true TW.
I don't need papers in a free nation. There is no reason to prove who I am unless I am, TRULY, suspected of a crime... to the point of being charged.
If I want to drive a car, I need a license. That is all.
"A people need not be afraid of their government, the government should fear the people". It is very sad that seems odd now, it has been a truism that was accepted as a given for so long... we need it back as something unspoken again. It will come back soon.