Oracle ID
September 22, 2001 10:25 PM Subscribe
posted by rushmc at 11:06 PM on September 22, 2001
posted by krisjohn at 11:06 PM on September 22, 2001
Of course- calls for National ID systems are rarely based in good sense, and questions like yours aren't supposed to be raised. Wait, "rarely" based in good sense? Hm- I think I meant to say "never".
The fundamental flaw to most of these "knee-jerk" solutions is that they miss the point: perfect security is impossible, because any attempt simply makes the workarounds more sophisticated themselves for anyone sufficiently motivated to try (and especially for those who don't care about the consequences afterwards). This could be done either through social engineering to penetrate the authorizing agencies or through technological workarounds. For example, calls for armed sky marshalls seem doomed to failure; essentially, it's an invitation for a terrorist organization to infiltrate and place one of their own in as a sky marshall- then conveniently armed by the FAA itself- and I 'spect they'd work just as hard to infiltrate someone into the National ID Agency so fake IDs could be made. And I'm sure there's a fanatical Islamic MacGyver out there somewhere who's figuring out how to make nitroglycerin out of his own saliva, a bag of unsalted peanuts, and the glue from the binding of the in-flight magazine, or some other way of sneaking a weapon onto a plane (hm- reminds me of John Malkovich's plastic air gun from "In the Line of Fire"). With enough ingenuity, you could probably hide all the necessary elements to build a bomb or a weapon among ordinary items that you'd find in a carry-on bag, from shaving cream to disposable razors to Discmans to whatever.
Anyway, given that reality, security implementations that shatter civil liberties are a perfect example of Ben Franklin's famous maxim regarding the failure of attempting to gain security through a sacrifice of liberty. Metal detectors and secured gateways are a good idea that addresses the problem closer to its root without stomping on our rights; National ID cards won't do anything to stop terrorists but will start trampling rights unnecessarily. Hell, my thinking is that if we start racially-based or citizen profiling, a smart terrorist will take us by surprise- and try to find some of the remaining Montana militia folk willing to do their dirty work. After all, it's this passage from the neo-Nazi's "bible", The Turner Diaries, that details flying a suicide plane loaded with explosives into the Pentagon. If we think as Ann Coulter does that only the "swarthy males" would be willing to attack this country, I'm sure well-funded terrorists could dig up a few blond-haired, blue-eyed All-American zealots to make the next attempt.
Not that I'm surprised by this incomprehension among those calling for ID cards, though; if the stuffed suits at the RIAA couldn't understand this basic notion regarding security, why should the stuffed suits on Capitol Hill be any wiser?
posted by hincandenza at 11:42 PM on September 22, 2001
But I read that link - has anyone in the government (say, the Office of Homeland Security) actually said that ID cards would be a good idea? Seems to me it's just Ellison spouting off. It's when the government actually goes for the idea that it'll be time to worry.
posted by Chanther at 11:59 PM on September 22, 2001
Not explicitly, but Reps. Mary Bono and Dick Gephardt have both said that such a debate in Congress is very likely to occur at some point in the relatively near future.
I wouldn't worry about the Office of Homeland Security for a while. Ridge isn't even giving up his governor's job for another three weeks, and it'll probably take months to even find the OHS some basic office space, to say nothing of determining what it will actually be able to do.
posted by aaron at 12:14 AM on September 23, 2001
"Metafilter....awakening my inner Beavis"
posted by Optamystic at 1:08 AM on September 23, 2001
posted by vowe at 2:47 AM on September 23, 2001
The carrying of an ID card, on the other hand, would be compulsory. It might be introduced on a voluntary basis, but an ID card scheme would be almost useless unless ultimately everyone was forced to carry one. The thinking is that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". But I believe it's an infringement of civil liberties. Just one example: if you're stopped by police in the UK at the moment, you don't have to give your name and address unless arrested. But if an ID card scheme was introduced, they could ask to see your card and take down your details without any evidence of you having done wrong.
posted by skylar at 3:06 AM on September 23, 2001
His professional opinion was that the phone company was "psychotic."
Cards can be lost, a chip is forever. :o]
posted by aflakete at 3:39 AM on September 23, 2001
posted by benbrown at 3:52 AM on September 23, 2001
posted by BlitzK at 7:58 AM on September 23, 2001
The News of the Screws reported 85% support for a UK identity card (based on a sample of, um, 500-odd people), which scares me, given the authoritarian tendencies of Straw and Blunkett. they'd probably love a system where cards sent out a beacon to identify you to any of the thousands of fucking CCTV cameras tracking your every movement in town centres.
posted by holgate at 8:33 AM on September 23, 2001
posted by thunder at 9:31 AM on September 23, 2001
If I were the (benevolent) dictator of a country, I would like to issue a card that not only was tied to a full database of biometric information and fingerprints, but also contain dna information. It could be used as a library card, and a card used to rent video tapes so I you wouldn't have to carry around all of those cards. You would no longer have to carry around credit cards either, because I could do you the benefit of eliminating credit card fraud overnight. It would also allow me the ability to make certain that people weren't purchasing materials that could be used to perpetrate violence on others...so maybe it should be used for all purchases. In this way I could also eliminate the counterfeit use of money.
Driver's licenses would no longer be needed. It's too difficult for the many states to administer their own programs. This wouldn't impinge upon their individual sovereignty as states (much), and would make it easier for people because they wouldn't have get new licenses when they moved.
Likewise with health and welfare programs. There's just too much redundancy in having all of the states administrate their own programs. Everytime you visit the doctor, or purchased medicines, the Center for Disease Control would be given that information - all details - so that they could effectively battle disease. We would be a much healthier nation, and could quarantine the ill so that communicable disease no longer would ravage the nation and its economy the way it does now. Training programs would be introduced to those who don't have jobs so that they can become useful members of the society that they live within. If someone doesn't show up for their training, or for work, because of the card we would know and the appropriate people would be notified.
Using radio frequency identification technology in the cards would enable us to trace, and track the locations of individuals, and could be used in conjunction with surveillance cameras to win the battle against crime. Of course, to keep people from masking their locations by wrapping the cards in aluminum foil, we would have to ban that product. It's a small price to pay for the safety of you and your loved ones.
There would never be a need to carry another kind of card again. all of your religious, political, social, and economic affiliations, and work related security measures could be incorporated into the card. No more employee security badges.
There are some who would try to circumvent the National ID card system by making the outrageous claim that they have lost their card. That's ok. These potential criminals could be detained until their identity was verified, and a new card was issued. The detention and verification time would only be about a week, which would be a sufficient amount of time to guarantee that they are whom they claim. No holding facilities would need to be built to accommodate these people. With the vast reduction in crime, prisons would be nearly empty, and could be used to detain these possible malefactors.
Regular checkpoints, and unannounced checking of cards would add an enforcement ability that would nip illegal movement and actions in the bud.
Of course, the above are a parade of horribles, a method of argument that is often frowned upon because it tends to become outrageous quickly. But, like topic creep happening in message boards, function creep often happens in identification systems. One of the best examples in the United States is the social security card, which was never intended to be used in the may ways it now is. Would this happen in a system of internal passports tied to a database. It's not difficult to image that it wouldn't.
posted by bragadocchio at 9:41 AM on September 23, 2001
If a National ID makes identity theft just a little bit harder --by establishing a better security infrastructure, by creating a form of ID that every clerk in the country can identify and check, possibly electronically, or by imposing very stiff federal penalties for fraud around the National ID and its DB-- then I think privacy will be *gained* with such a system.
The $0.02 of a data-miner...
posted by costas at 11:36 AM on September 23, 2001
What about a bug in the code? What happens if the database gets corrupted? Can we create non-persons just by wiping them out of a computer file somewhere? What if the system gets hacked?
I don't like having all my eggs in a single basket -- especially one designed and maintained by Oracle.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:42 AM on September 23, 2001
Now, to be sure, you better have your passport (or original birth certificate) out and ready for them to examine. How easy is it to forge either document? Quite. Not that I've done it or advocate it, but the older Canadian passports have the picture "pasted" on and laminated over. Duh. The US ones now have digital pictures printed on them, but who knows where my image is being shared?
Speaking of function creep, you can well imagine your NID# (national ID card number) becoming your student ID number, your insurance card number, your you number. We in the US have reversed the function creep for SSN#, but this is one globally unique number that just begs to be used everywhere, for everything.
posted by abrahamson at 11:49 AM on September 23, 2001
Add to them the people who just think its a bad idea... the feds could never pull it off. People just wouldn't show up at the Federal Identification Systems office.
posted by zodiac at 11:53 AM on September 23, 2001
With the provision that copyright on our identities reverts to Disney whenever they so wish... after all, it's what Sonny would have wanted.
posted by holgate at 12:17 PM on September 23, 2001
"Heh heh...just kidding. We're just gonna slip it in your manbag."
Actually, I think these people should get the contract.
posted by tpoh.org at 1:14 PM on September 23, 2001
posted by adampsyche at 8:45 AM on September 24, 2001
Anyone from those countries in the house?
Would the card specify religion overtly? In case of death...
Would people undergo surgery to avoid being 'classified' by a government they didn't feel represented them?
As per greg egan's novel 'distress' where he envisions some of the advantages and disadvantages of having your 'identity' defined by the government, and contained by an external device. Also, future wars fought by remote control...
Mobile phones can be used to track whereabouts. remember 'targetted advertising', using your phone to advertise goods/services in your cell (terminology prescience?) e.g. local taxis/food/anyone who can afford to advertise?
posted by asok at 10:39 AM on September 26, 2001
« Older just plain wrong | Huh? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mathowie at 10:56 PM on September 22, 2001