Give Me The Freedom To Know That You Know That

Printable View

04-18-2003, 11:12 PM
ne1GotZardoz

If everyone in this country had to have their identity verified before they did anything involving money transfers, etc, Terrorists would no longer have the freedom of movement they now have, but non terrorist, honest Americans would still retain that freedom.

At least that seems to be the case.

How difficult would it be to impersonate a microchip's signature?

How available is the technology?

If every place you visited would have a device that read the chip, how hard would it be to crack the encryption code for duplication?

$500.00 programs that supposedly must be registered to get full benifit, are easily cracked into by 12 year olds.

Is it that easy with the microchip?

Would a terrorist have that kind of technology?

Veteranarians currently use the microchip for pets.

Does anyone on here have more info on this subject?

Thanks
04-22-2003, 09:20 PM
sArA

The use of biometrics is the most likely form of universal identifiers. This is being worked out now, (I am actually scenario building for a seminar that will include this issue) Biometrics are the only form on ID that is practically impossible to forge. However there are issues at the moment with accuracy and the protection of that information once it is in the data bases of governments. The proposal in the US is that the DMV will administer it on the renewal and provision of driving licences. Needless to say...this is not too popular.
04-22-2003, 11:17 PM
ne1GotZardoz

Quote:

Originally posted by sara5564@22 April 2003 - 16:20
The use of biometrics is the most likely form of universal identifiers. This is being worked out now, (I am actually scenario building for a seminar that will include this issue) Biometrics are the only form on ID that is practically impossible to forge. However there are issues at the moment with accuracy and the protection of that information once it is in the data bases of governments. The proposal in the US is that the DMV will administer it on the renewal and provision of driving licences. Needless to say...this is not too popular.

Are you talking about a DNA print on record?

What would they use for the sample?

Hair, skin, blood?

My only concern there, is that if you want to frame someone else for a crime, all you need is a strand or two of hair and a time when they will be alone.

Or are we talking retinal scan?

I've heard that they can be faked but its not easy.

Finger prints are easy enough using a thin film impressed with someone elses prints.

I would love for there to be a foolproof way to verify identity.

If biometrics is not any of the things above, what does it involve?

It may be giving away a certain level of freedom, but the freedom of knowing that we could not be wrongly condemned of a crime we didn't commit would be worth it.
And if we didn't need to worry about terrorists because the technology to detect them was foolproof, that would increase my feeling of freedom. And if kidnappers could be easily tracked down due to that technology, so that I felt safe letting my son go to the store with a friend by themselves, or if kids could again be kids without having to worry that some adult would think they were 'up to no good'...Well...The less stress on kids worrying what someone may think of their actions, the less the desire to rebel in the first place.

I want some form of awareness. Part of the reason people get paranoid is because of what they don't know.
Governments are no different because in the end, they are only people after all.

If they know what we're up to, they can't be paranoid.
If they're not paranoid, we get more freedom.

I know that's gonna get some negative feedback. :)

Peace
04-23-2003, 12:10 AM
clocker

Quote:

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@22 April 2003 - 17:17

I want some form of awareness. Part of the reason people get paranoid is because of what they don't know.
Governments are no different because in the end, they are only people after all.

If they know what we're up to, they can't be paranoid.
If they're not paranoid, we get more freedom.

I know that's gonna get some negative feedback. :)

Peace

What a charming belief in the infallibility of technology and government you have. Willing to sacrifice quite a bit of your personal freedom at it's altar from the sound of it.

I barely trust a ball point pen to work with the level of reliability you so easily grant completely new concepts.
04-23-2003, 12:18 AM
Bass

I think basically it`s finger imaging, like finger-prints..........mmmmmm........certainly something to think about. I thought that was just for criminals <_<

cheers,
Bass.
04-23-2003, 12:23 AM
Jibbler

Quote:

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@18 April 2003 - 18:12
Veteranarians currently use the microchip for pets.

Pets dude, not people. This would be the single greatest invasion of privacy on the planet. :lol: :lol:
04-23-2003, 02:44 AM
MagicNakor

Quote:

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 01:10
I barely trust a ball point pen to work with the level of reliability you so easily grant completely new concepts.

I haven't had a ball-point pen work past three days for me. ;) But a good ol' pencil won't let you down.

:ninja:
04-23-2003, 07:45 AM
ne1GotZardoz

Quote:

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 19:10--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@22 April 2003 - 17:17

I want some form of awareness. Part of the reason people get paranoid is because of what they don't know.
Governments are no different because in the end, they are only people after all.

If they know what we're up to, they can't be paranoid.
If they're not paranoid, we get more freedom.

I know that's gonna get some negative feedback. :)

Peace

What a charming belief in the infallibility of technology and government you have. Willing to sacrifice quite a bit of your personal freedom at it's altar from the sound of it.

I barely trust a ball point pen to work with the level of reliability you so easily grant completely new concepts. [/b][/quote]
By any chance did you notice the line in that post that read:

Quote:

I would love for there to be a foolproof way to verify identity.

?

I never said I believed it COULD be done.
Only that I wish it could.

Whats one of the biggest mistakes a parent can make?

Accusing their kid of something the kid didn't do.
How does the kid then feel?
Angry and distrustful.

How much more confident would we be in our daily activities if there was no question who was guilty and who was innocent?

People make a big deal about how our privacy is being invaded.
If that were really true though, there would be no false accusations.

People get upset that our government might know what they are up to, then they say things like, "God is watching over you", or, "You'll answer to God for your sins".

The truth is, people don't like Government snooping because the Government "Doesn't" know everything.

What I'm saying is that I don't want the Government to only know half truths.
People spend life in prison or get lethal injections because of half truths.

Since they are going to be involved anyway, (thats what we pay them for), why don't we give them the power to do the job they are paid to do.

And if the technology was that reliable, I'd definately accept it.
04-23-2003, 09:09 AM
myfiles3000

Quote:

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@23 April 2003 - 08:45
I never said I believed it COULD be done.
Only that I wish it could.
Whats one of the biggest mistakes a parent can make?
Accusing their kid of something the kid didn't do.
How does the kid then feel?
Angry and distrustful.
How much more confident would we be in our daily activities if there was no question who was guilty and who was innocent?
People make a big deal about how our privacy is being invaded.
If that were really true though, there would be no false accusations.
People get upset that our government might know what they are up to, then they say things like, "God is watching over you", or, "You'll answer to God for your sins".
The truth is, people don't like Government snooping because the Government "Doesn't" know everything.
What I'm saying is that I don't want the Government to only know half truths.
People spend life in prison or get lethal injections because of half truths.

Since they are going to be involved anyway, (thats what we pay them for), why don't we give them the power to do the job they are paid to do.

And if the technology was that reliable, I'd definately accept it.

ne1, your thinking blows my mind. on a regular basis.

regarding false accusation of a child, and the analogy to crime, the relationship we have with our father and our attorney general doesn't have a whole lot in common, mostly because the constitutional right to equality and privacy only applies to the man, not the old man.

You ask how much more confident we'd feel if state pronouncements of guilt and innocence were infallible. honestly, the thought of being falsely accused of a crime doesn't concern me, and it doesn't affect how i live my life -- on a conscious level, anyway...

the argument is: government doesn' know everything, so we are at risk of being falsely accused. This risk could be eliminated, hypothetically speaking, if the government had an technology that perfectly identified everyone. As long as we sacrifice our "bio-anonymity" by submitting dna samples (voluntarily or otherwise, you don't specirfy), then this risk of false accusation would disappear. In other words, the only problem with the justice system is technological, and as soon as humans can develop the proper technology, we'll all be truly free.

assume such a technology is possible. there's still lots of ways to falsely accuse someone. All the dna does is open another avenue of investigation, its HUMANS that conduct the police work, and humans who prosecute the offenders -- just like in law and order! you haven't eliminated human judgement. I'm not an Ani deFranco fan, but her lyrics spring to mind: "a tool can be a weapon if you hold it the right way."

Some say we should have a camera on every street corner, it would be just like having a cop on every corner. The response from privacy-minded people like me is, "you're right, it would be like having a cop on every corner, and we entered world war 2 and cold war to prevent such a nightmare!"
04-23-2003, 09:30 AM
ne1GotZardoz

Quote:

Originally posted by myfiles3000+23 April 2003 - 04:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 23 April 2003 - 04:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@23 April 2003 - 08:45
I never said I believed it COULD be done.
Only that I wish it could.
Whats one of the biggest mistakes a parent can make?
Accusing their kid of something the kid didn't do.
How does the kid then feel?
Angry and distrustful.
How much more confident would we be in our daily activities if there was no question who was guilty and who was innocent?
People make a big deal about how our privacy is being invaded.
If that were really true though, there would be no false accusations.
People get upset that our government might know what they are up to, then they say things like, "God is watching over you", or, "You'll answer to God for your sins".
The truth is, people don't like Government snooping because the Government "Doesn't" know everything.
What I'm saying is that I don't want the Government to only know half truths.
People spend life in prison or get lethal injections because of half truths.

Since they are going to be involved anyway, (thats what we pay them for), why don't we give them the power to do the job they are paid to do.

And if the technology was that reliable, I'd definately accept it.

ne1, your thinking blows my mind. on a regular basis.

regarding false accusation of a child, and the analogy to crime, the relationship we have with our father and our attorney general doesn't have a whole lot in common, mostly because the constitutional right to equality and privacy only applies to the man, not the old man.

You ask how much more confident we'd feel if state pronouncements of guilt and innocence were infallible. honestly, the thought of being falsely accused of a crime doesn't concern me, and it doesn't affect how i live my life -- on a conscious level, anyway...

the argument is: government doesn' know everything, so we are at risk of being falsely accused. This risk could be eliminated, hypothetically speaking, if the government had an technology that perfectly identified everyone. As long as we sacrifice our "bio-anonymity" by submitting dna samples (voluntarily or otherwise, you don't specirfy), then this risk of false accusation would disappear. In other words, the only problem with the justice system is technological, and as soon as humans can develop the proper technology, we'll all be truly free.

assume such a technology is possible. there's still lots of ways to falsely accuse someone. All the dna does is open another avenue of investigation, its HUMANS that conduct the police work, and humans who prosecute the offenders -- just like in law and order! you haven't eliminated human judgement. I'm not an Ani deFranco fan, but her lyrics spring to mind: "a tool can be a weapon if you hold it the right way."

Some say we should have a camera on every street corner, it would be just like having a cop on every corner. The response from privacy-minded people like me is, "you're right, it would be like having a cop on every corner, and we entered world war 2 and cold war to prevent such a nightmare!" [/b][/quote]
From your post, it looks like you agree with me.

You wish the government were infalable to.
04-23-2003, 01:44 PM
clocker

Quote:

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@18 April 2003 - 17:12
If everyone in this country had to have their identity verified before they did anything involving money transfers, etc, Terrorists would no longer have the freedom of movement they now have, but non terrorist, honest Americans would still retain that freedom.

At least that seems to be the case.

Sorry.
Your entire theory is based not so much on a flawed leap of logic but the failure to consider the most glaringly obvious alternatives.
While you blithely stroll about your technologically gated community ( with an implanted microchip, no less!) any terrorist worth his salt will be taking potshots from the trees outside.
You make the assumption from step one that a terrorist would attempt to work from within your proposed system.
My hypothetical terrorist would respond:

Badges? We don't NEED no stinkin' badges!

Bang, you're dead.
05-20-2003, 07:37 AM
ShockAndAwe^i^

And the look on those bandito's faces were priceless!
But I have to agree with him about the concept of the identity/microchip thing.
It is more than just mentioned in the bible.....which I believe.
It's amazing that this is so clearly said 2000 years ago. thump thump
The Ultimate no hack is on the way!
05-20-2003, 08:23 AM
jetje

Quote:

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@19 April 2003 - 01:12
If everyone in this country had to have their identity verified before they did anything involving money transfers, etc, Terrorists would no longer have the freedom of movement they now have, but non terrorist, honest Americans would still retain that freedom.

At least that seems to be the case.

How difficult would it be to impersonate a microchip's signature?

How available is the technology?

If every place you visited would have a device that read the chip, how hard would it be to crack the encryption code for duplication?

$500.00 programs that supposedly must be registered to get full benifit, are easily cracked into by 12 year olds.

Is it that easy with the microchip?

Would a terrorist have that kind of technology?

Veteranarians currently use the microchip for pets.

Does anyone on here have more info on this subject?

Thanks

Well i managed to stay out of the debates in here for a long time...
But this post...

This must be post by "Dumb & Dangerous"

I really hope you just wanna shock and start a debate??
Cause otherwise your a danger to man kind with these thoughts.
See my doubt in this above... your post tends to be a questionaire but also concludes.
So i'm not real sure on what your stand is on this one? But anyway...

Probably the problem will not be civilians, you say they have nothing to fear because they're not doing anything so they don't have to worry...

Did you ever imagined what and how the world would look if Sadam Hussain had the control over such system. Or better what if El qaida had hacked the chip from Bush.
Do you really think politician wouldn't start using it fo their benefit.
Marketeers would try to get a hand on this infosysteem. is a goldmine for those and so worth a lot of money. Who's gonna control the systems?
Wouldn't Bill Clinton manipulate the system to prove he was on different places as Monica was.
Should a terroris not just kidnap civilians, force them to made money transfers. (And then kill them).
Who do you think should control this system, and who's gonna control them.
You really trust your governement with such a powerfull weapon in their hands. You really thinkthey wouldn't use these info on their political campaigns.

Really i think these systems are no danger to all that wanna play dirty Terrorists, politicians, dictators/regimes people with economical intrest and power (like Microsft/bill gates). They all will only benefit from these kinda systems.
The normal people are the ones who must fear this kinda threats and fight i with all they can! they will be the real victims in the end... <_<

You really think this will ban terrorism? There are way to many what if's in this... more that are a danger to freedom then they are for world peace....