Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (20021)	11/15/2001 11:33:21 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Excellent points, Karen. I think only acceptable goal of a national ID card is for all of us to have unique identifiers which cannot be forged. We're actually born with them, whether it's fingerprints, DNA, or some other unique biological characteristic. Not everyone has their fingerprints in a government database, but many of us do. I had to be fingerprinted when I applied to be admitted to the bar. I remember being fingerprinted as a kid at school - I think it was something the police used to do, come to all the schools and fingerprint the children. So far I haven't noticed any appreciable loss of personal freedom due to the government having my fingerprints on record. But I question whether the technology we are discussing is as advanced as we seem to be assuming. Several years ago, I was court-appointed to represent a man who had been in jail for burglary. When he was arrested, he gave an alias, and when he was released, told his probation officer - he had a very long record - that he had told his real name to his court-appointed lawyer, who had not told it to the court. So there was a bar investigation. Despite the fact that the man had been fingerprinted when he was arrested, and despite the fact that he had multiple felony convictions, there was no flag anywhere that he was using false identification. Not only that, but the police were not sure what his name really was, even after learning that he was using a fake name, and having his fingerprints. I finally told the prosecutor that I had no way of knowing whether this man was telling the truth about anything - as a lawyer my duty of loyalty to my client is superceded by my obligation to prevent a fraud on the court - and that all I knew about him for certain was that he was white, had blue eyes, was 5'10" or so and appeared to be male.

To: Lane3 who wrote (20021)	11/15/2001 11:34:32 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I didn't see your post of yesterday, so I can't respond directly. But in response to your post of today, 1. The burden of proof that national i.d. cards will serve a useful purpose is on its proponents, not on its opponents, who it appears are being assigned the impossible task of proving a negative. Nobody I've seen has shown how these I.D.'s would have prevented 9.11 or would prevent another one. That's the first question to be answered. 2. All sorts of ideas have sprung up about vast areas and categories of information and databases that would be linked, even eliminating the need for credit cards and drivers' licenses. Thus, it's much broader than simply an "i.d." -- it's integration of a person's personal and economic life that is nobody's business unless the government has "probable cause" to go into it and gets a judge to sign a search warrant. Remember right after Clinton's first inauguration when his subordinates obtained and read the FBI files of mere "political enemies"? Remember the scanal about curious IRS workers who were snooping into their neighbors' tax returns? Can you imagine what would happen if every personal tidbit of your purchases, preferences, etc. were accessible by a mere curious snoop, without the requirement of a search warrant? Certainly the FBI can obtain that information now, but not just because they are "sufficiently motivated." The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect individuals against mere motivations and require probable cause. 3. Government wouldn't have to store all the data itself, but merely be able to access it through the national i.d. card. Presumably, just the push of a few buttons would do it. At the risk of sounding overbroad, historically, whatever is possible tends to be realized. Again, how would these I.D.'s would have prevented 9.11 or would prevent another one? That's the first unanswered question. I'm surprised that conservatives, libertarians, and liberals alike aren't shouting out against this idea, each group for its own reasons. <edit> See also, Message 16661874

To: Lane3 who wrote (20021)	11/15/2001 11:47:00 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

A RAND study was done in the 1970's to look at the best way to create and control a dictatorial government, one that can follow the subjugated people's every move. They looked at all manner of secret police, paper-based tracking, etc. Their conclusion: use credit cards Eventually, it is claimed by Robert Metcalf, there will the "the end of privacy", where interconnected databases and networks will allow knowing or deducing anything about anyone. The government may already be there; but the real concern should be this: the Government should not operate in secret. Ever look at your credit history? One third of all credit records have errors of omission or comission. Our government records should be mandated by law to be available to each of us - no secret records, our personal ones, nor our servants in Washington, the Presidency and Congress. This attempt to destroy records or keep secret the inner workings of our officials is un-American, but seems to be the way this administration wants to proceed.