RFID - Invasion of Privacy or good business

[Cedars]

I would ask why Dave was not informed of changes to his status?

 

The issue for Dave is his brother has used his information and now Daves information is a known alias of Andy. Read the most wanted posters at the post office. They list all known alias'. Daves status has not changed, but because of data systems and the fact his name is an alias, everyone searching his name will come up with his brothers info.

 

This same thing will occur for anyone who has had their ID stolen (like the illegal immigrants in a previous post). If any of these illegals also are convicted of other crimes, the person whos ID they stole will be an alias of these illegal immigrants.

 

 

I also would ask why the police officer didn't ask Andy for picture verification, and a physical identification such as a driver's licence or similar? A name and DOB is not enough to identify and verify that an individual is who they say they are.

 

Not relevant to the issue.

[IDMclean]

It is relevant. What you are talking about are rules of a game. There are two things about a system of rules. One is that there must be a rule explicitly or implicitly to cover the many situations that can come up (legislature), two there must be sufficient agents of the system to enforce those rules and they must be sufficently trained to do so.

 

If the rule isn't made then the system can be made to do things it's not supposed to. If the rule isn't enforced, then really it's no rule at all. Thief's moto "It ain't illegal if you don't get caught.", turn ID theft into a felony, and I doubt that it will be used in such a casual way as above. I would classify it as grand theft, myself. That is if we must assume a need to protect IDs.

[Cedars]

It is relevant. What you are talking about are rules of a game. There are two things about a system of rules. One is that there must be a rule explicitly or implicitly to cover the many situations that can come up (legislature), two there must be sufficient agents of the system to enforce those rules and they must be sufficently trained to do so.

 

If the rule isn't made then the system can be made to do things it's not supposed to. If the rule isn't enforced, then really it's no rule at all. Thief's moto "It ain't illegal if you don't get caught.", turn ID theft into a felony, and I doubt that it will be used in such a casual way as above. I would classify it as grand theft, myself. That is if we must assume a need to protect IDs.

 

Making things a crime does not stop criminals. Its a felony to sell drugs but there are still plenty of drug dealers. Locking people up because they dont have an ID on them ignores all the people who casually forget to grab their license on the way out the door (which is the majority of people who are stopped and dont have their drivers license on them). It takes time and manpower to process each individual who is stopped under that condition and there are laws in existance about misrepresenting yourself to the police (Criminal impersonation) as it was in the case of Dave and Andy.

 

Identity theft is a felony in most places:

Identity Theft State Statutes

 

Having worked in government for nearly a decade has given me a broader understanding of just how complicated it is to make/change laws, how impossible it can be to predict every aspect of impact a law/rule/statute has, of how much paperwork is generated by each change, how much manpower it takes to implement, and the added burden of law enforcement costs.

 

Everytime you open up aspects of John and Jane Doe (such as this thread topic is about) you reduce efficency regarding the data due to the expoential increase in mistakes in data handling. The most efficent method of controling the private data that is essential for Identity theft is to reduce its availablity.

[IDMclean]

Making things a crime does not stop criminals.

 

Never said it would. Infact in some cases (drug war is the specific case) making something a crime makes it worse than regulating it. Now trading the word drugs for Identity, we arrive at a similar issue. The fact that people use drugs is not a problem. The fact that some people, some of the time use drug inappropiately, and act inappropiately is a problem.

 

Now I do understand what you mean by an efficent method of controlling the private data is reducing it's availibilty. However, in doing so one reduces it's utility. If you refer back in this thread to my comment about finger print requirement, what the objection was that the availibility would be restricted. Which is counter to the function of identification, which is to make easily accessible data regarding an individual.

 

That is central to the argument I am making. You can restrict identification to the place where it's utility becomes null, in which case Identity becomes a feature, not a resource of the system in which it is intended to serve.

 

I would actually argue counter to high restriction of identity. I would argue that the better documented an individual is, and the easier the accessibility of that data, the better the utility of identification, and the less likely identity can be stolen.

 

That is rather than starting another pointless "x war", like "war on terrorism" or "war on drugs". regulate it. We have seen what happened with prohibition, and we more or less know what happens when Identity is impossible to verify. That is central to this issue, that people can steal identity because it is hard to verify who we are at a moments notice.

 

I would argue for the implants in this case, virtually eliminating the circumstance of forgotten identification at home. A person who does not have an identity matching known, independently verified, and stored data (like DNA, or Finger print). or simply are missing identification, then we have reasonable cause. We eliminate much of what you are talking about. The system can be made more efficent with the realization that it isn't as efficent, nor secure as we would like it to be. Restricting will serve, as you have observed, to confuse the problem, not solve it.

 

I am not arguing for de-regulation, but rather more rigorous regulation, and objective, critical, integral legislation and enforcement.

 

I understand the fear that your data is going to be abused, it is a common fear, but it comes from a lower state, not a higher. The problem is then that we do not know enough, not that we know to much.

[Turtle]

I understand the fear that your data is going to be abused, it is a common fear, but it comes from a lower state, not a higher. The problem is then that we do not know enough, not that we know to much.

 

So the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did because they were 'lower state' folks? :weather_storm: Give me a break.

[IDMclean]

Psychologically, and sociologically the founders were advanced for their time. They were advanced psycho-classes, however yes they were and to a degree are lower state.

 

I am saying that all ideas go through four stages (maybe 5). Silence, Denial, Anger (or ridicul), and finally Acceptance. A lower state is one in which reasoning is based in the throws of those biases. People object to things which will make their lives better all the time, the reasons are many but rarely are they what would be considered rational.

 

I am not saying a lower state individual can't advance up the scale, nor that a higher state individual can't descend down the scale.

 

Merely commenting on the fear space from which a number of individuals have been arguing from in this thread. I say don't let fear get the best of you, it creates biases that may obscure one's objectivity.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat. :weather_rain:

 

Cheers :weather_storm:

[Turtle]

Merely commenting on the fear space from which a number of individuals have been arguing from in this thread. I say don't let fear get the best of you, it creates biases that may obscure one's objectivity.

 

Cheers

 

fear

Note: The degrees of this passion, beginning with the most moderate, may be thus expressed, -- apprehension, fear, dread, fright, terror.

 

If the cat is a lion, then fear is a good thing objectively.

 

The fear of your adventure would counsel you to a more equal enterprise. - William Shakespeare :ud:

[IDMclean]

Once again, fear is still non-useful in this case.

 

If you run from a preditor like a lion, all you do is entice it to chase you. Fear is going to cloud or stop your capability for reason, and fear is going to get you into a situation where you will be within reach of that lion. As it has so far.

 

However often enough lions don't attack you unless they are hungery. In which case you should be running, but only because A) you have gotten yourself close enough that it might cross the distance between you before you can get to safety, The lion has given signs that it intends to chase.

 

I am saying that the problem is not being approached rationally, and that fear is driving the discussion at current. Not to say that fears voiced shouldn't be considered but that one should channel their fear in a rational way. Irrational fear makes you a liability to survival, not an asset.

 

Take the events of 9/11 for example. The people in the buildings calmly shutdown and filed out, where they could, in the case of immediate, and impending danger they were alot more into the flight mode, and towards the end it became more frantic, but mostly people controlled their fear, and urge to panic.

 

Panic is not useful. Except in the special cases. As a rule it does not play well with rational thinking, and will lead to inefficency, further complications, and other such things which result from incomplete thinking, and planning.

 

Yes, these technologies have the potential to be abused, but they are tools. Let's figure out how to use them and not get used by them, or the n'v'r do-wells. Remember the house always wins. Statistically speaking, The average law abiding citizen is the house. You get cheaters in the system but the system should be setup so that statistically the game comes out such that the house has more positive feedback than negative and is on top of zero sum.

 

If the system statistically breaks then the system is inefficent and part or all of it needs to be revised in someway. With technologies like this, credit cards and other such techs, the old system strains under things it never was intended to deal with, and statistically speaking again, it is in all probability with the rise of these technologies and similar will break the system.

 

A new or revised system must be devised to meet these changes. We can not simply patch the boat and hope it doesn't sink with the coming storm. We need to change out this old poorly maintained clunker for a more up todate model, or bring the clunker in for major repairs. Either way it needs work.

[Turtle]

Once again, fear is still non-useful in this case.

 

Once again, you misrepresent the point.

 

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin -

[IDMclean]

That last post is enigmatic, care to de-obfuscate your point, so that I can stop "misrepresenting" your point, whatever it maybe?

[Turtle]

That last post is enigmatic, care to de-obfuscate your point, so that I can stop "misrepresenting" your point, whatever it maybe?

 

It is self evident. If you can't figure it out, no amount of further explanation is sufficient to change your understanding. :naughty:

[IDMclean]

Mood: :Whistle:

 

Well from the point of view of a journalist your post lacks the essential qualities to express for who, what, when, where, why, and how.

 

You make the statement that I am misrepresenting your point of view, but you fail to address how I am misrepresenting your view, what exactly your view is, why it is relevant.

 

If this were english I would give you a "c" at best. Your responding in incomplete sentences, that fail to address essential expressive qualities about the question(s).

 

I would hardly call your point then "self-evident". Unless you expect me to read through all of your previous posts to come to a conclusion what your view *is*. That's asking allot is it not? Also, your writing at least in part for an audiance, I would think. It might be obvious to you or me, but for people who aren't involved behind the scenes it is far from obvious.

 

In short that post is lacking in contextual information, and is incomplete. I would ask that you elaborate.

[anglepose]

has anybody heard of this new experimental justice system being tested where police jump out of cars and round up people then dna fingerprint and take down details of them so that if crimes occur in the places you have been your suspect.

 

guilty until proven innocent....

sounds like minority report

[IDMclean]

Being suspect is not the same as being guilty.

 

A suspect of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof resides on the prosecuting party and the defendant, irregardless of outside circumstances is entitled to an attorney, though they may refuse that right. It is the responsibility of ever citizen to know and understand the majority of the law and how it affects them. Not to say that everyone knows the law, or that our schools (or parents due to common ignorance) do much to teach students the legal and due) processes.

 

One of the things to remember is that what you do shouldn't matter to the legal system unless it is illegal. If you walk through a store and you purchase a candy bar and walk out, getting stopped by security or the police, and are accused of theft. The charge can only stick if: 1) they have court admissable evidence of the crime linking you as a suspect (Reasonable cause is the phrase I think), 2) you commited the act that they are accusing you of.

 

This means if you commit no illegal act, then they can't do anything. If you commit an illegal act but the law making that illegal is wrong, you can appeal and given time and effort change that law.

 

"It is the moral duty of every citizen to oppose immoral laws!" -Gandhi

 

The system is what you make it, as you are a key element to it's working. IF they round up people they must A) store those people, deal with their needs, C) Fulfill the productive slot(s) that person occupied within the society. There are real practical constraints on this. There is really no "them" only "us". I don't know about you but I stand against underhanded totalitarian tactics, and if even a sizable minority of the people oppose these things no social contract can be made that is enforcable.

 

Also to note: A contract that is formed and is from the get go, or found out later to be illegally formed, is null and void as if it had never been created.

 

We are the system, and I am moral, reasonable, integral, and productive. I trust that you are also.

[Turtle]

I would hardly call your point then "self-evident". Unless you expect me to read through all of your previous posts to come to a conclusion what your view *is*. That's asking allot is it not? Also, your writing at least in part for an audiance, I would think. It might be obvious to you or me, but for people who aren't involved behind the scenes it is far from obvious.

 

In short that post is lacking in contextual information, and is incomplete. I would ask that you elaborate.

 

In short, what is lacking is your ability to discern; a conclusion I have drawn by reading all your posts here. I'll leave it to other readers to go through the entire thread, as well as your other posts, and make of it what they will as well as to whether to respond or not or place any validity in your retorts.

 

To bring this back on topic, the RFID schemes may have value for business, but there are those intent on using these devices to violate the right to privacy the US Constitution provides. Unless challenged, these business interests will continue to erode this right. Don't tread on me.

[Cedars]

has anybody heard of this new experimental justice system being tested where police jump out of cars and round up people then dna fingerprint and take down details of them so that if crimes occur in the places you have been your suspect.

 

guilty until proven innocent....

sounds like minority report

 

We're getting a bit off topic (but then again..) hopefully to answer your questions, heres a couple of links:

 

UK National DNA Database - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

DNA traces criminals in the family - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

 

expanded from its original 5 marker system to a 10 marker system:

 

Second Generation Multiplex Plus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

USATODAY.com - White House seeks to expand DNA database

[infamous]

First, the US Constitution guarantees the right to privacy without regard to any reason a person may assert it. People can, and are, using these RFID devices to corrupt that right and I decry it.

I agree with you Turtle, I prefer to stay as anonymous as possible.

 

 

 

Everyone has the right to mind their own business.

Agreed once more my friend. The government's position is: You can only control what you can measure. As for me, I prefer they not have the ability to achieve those ends. If we continue to allow our freedoms to wane, it will soon be impossible to find that cool breath of fresh air we as humans often find so very refreshing............................Infy