US National ID to be required - good idea or bad?

[mswas]

@Broomstick

No, I’m not talking about “ought”. I’m saying that 200 years ago our government could hold a census every 10 years without computers. We don’t need computers to run a government or nation. We had both long before we had computers.

Right, but now that they exist they are a reality and they have created a baseline of response time that is beyond what could be put into place 200 years ago. We can’t have a modern economy with 24/7 e-commerce with a government that is still running on paper.

I won’t disagree that computers have a lot of advantages and uses, but there is also a downside. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember before computers became commonplace - I do remember that time. It wasn’t some hideous, privative dark age. Nor have computers resulted in a paradise, either. They are a tool - like all tools they can be use well or poorly.

I don’t disagree with you. The issue isn’t that things SHOULD be on computers, but that they ARE on computers. If we are computerized we should have standards. Those standards didn’t matter when it was all on paper, but now that it’s on computer they should have access to a database.

We still have identity theft.

If the power goes out virtually all stores in my area shut down - why? We bought and sold long before electricity, why not now?

We don’t have the redundancy that I would like to see, even if it is adequate for you.

You seem to have a low tolerance for failure. Sure, I think these problems should be addressed, but I also think consolidation of data is part of the solution. Redundancy means that the databases won’t go down because of local power loss. It doesn’t mean there will never be power loss. We’re talking about data management and you are conflating it with rolling blackouts. Part of redundancy is having backup power generators in the government buildings where the data is stored.

Yes, that is precisely what many people fear - it will be easier to track data which can then be misused or fall into the wrong hands.

It is possible, but I don’t think it increases ease of access. We can still access data for nefarious purposes. I think it will only change the efficiency of legitimate usage. It’s easier to steal identity when people are not sharing the same standards. If I want to steal your ID the best thing to do is to go to a state with poor standards that won’t send up a red flag on the usage of that ID until I’ve done with it what I want. Modern passports are more difficult to fake than old ones.

I am aware that they monitor fertilizer purchases. They also monitor large purchases of diesel fuel for the same reason. Oddly enough, Real ID was not required for this to occur.

Again, more conflating of different issues. RealID is merely an update in standards.

As I said - what does this add to our current systems?

Standard practice among states.

That’s the ideal - it’s not always what occurs in fact. Ask anyone belonging to a minority group of some sort. All too many people in this world would deny one thing or another to one or another category of people - blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals, women, people over 60, under 25, whatever.

That’s a political issue, and depends upon the political climate of the nation. It’s not a reasonable argument against standardizing bureaucratic databasing procedure among the states. The idea that someone, ‘could be a racist’ isn’t compelling because they can be a racist now. I don’t see standardizing the methodology increasing their ability to do so.

Unfortunately, said moron is a senior vice president in a major corporation with nearly 100 million customers in the US. This “moron” makes decisions on a daily basis that could and sometimes does effect one out of three Americans. He’s not some minor looney locked in a back room of a small and obscure company. Being in a position of power - whether in the government or in private industry - is no guarantee of good ethics or particularly high intelligence.

I never said it was, but I don’t fear your executive moron, and I don’t fear oppression because of morons like him. Again, all it will do is change the character of how he can be a moron. I don’t see it enabliing him to be a moron on a larger scale. He already has the keys to the castle, he has the power to wreak havoc. That won’t change just because there are ID standards.

I gave you an example of where a person in power abused information that was really none of his business and which he was not qualified to evaluate. That’s not hysteria, that’s personal experience. What other bias and prejudice does this man have that influences his decisions? How many other people are in a position of power to affect others who also have bias and prejudice? What safeguards do we have to prevent abuse? At the company where I worked there was a mechanism to prevent such abuse - that’s why I continued to have a job AND my pilot’s license. I am asking what safeguards there are on the Real ID system 1) ensure data is accurate, 2) correct errors, and 3) prevent misuse of data.

Well, I don’t have any more data on the safeguards than you do. That’s the kind of thing you should be in a dialogue with your congresscritter about. Simply trying to halt the standardization process strikes me as counterproductive. I’d rather focus on making sure that your concerns are addressed during the implementation process. Morons in power will be morons in power with or without this data.

Then why are so many state bureaucracies so opposed to this “minor upgrade”?

Because they don’t want to foot the bill or do the work?

As I said, that “idiot” is in a position where he makes decisions affecting nearly 100 million people. I’m sorry if that rocks your view of the world, but frankly, I don’t want that person knowing any more about me than absolutely necessary - do you? Nor is the only person in a position of power with bias and prejudice.

I don’t think that just because they implement ID standards that your boss will have greater access to my personal info. He’ll be engaging in a relationship with me that is mediated through consumer data. I’m not concerned about him knowing that I am one of thousands who purchased an iPhone and a Macbook this month. Nothing you have said has rocked my world. I am perfectly aware that there are morons in power, I’ve lived the last 7 years under the Bush administration, same as you.

I have no objection to beneficial and legitimate use of information - I do have concerns about misuse.

Sure, and that’s legitimate, but it’s not a reason to oppose it, it’s a reason to make sure that congresspeople hear your concerns and work to safeguard your interests.

I am a secretary supporting a husband who is disable and therefore unemployed - how much freakin’ money do you think I have? Yet I managed to get a pilot’s license. In fact, a semester at a typical college costs as much if not more than getting pilot’s license.

I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Just because you chose to spend the money, that means that airplanes are not expensive?

True, airplane gas is more expensive than what you put in a car. On the other hand, the airplanes I fly get better mileage than, for example, a Ford Escapade. As I said, I’m a secretary - I’m not even upper middle class, yet I could afford to do this. Granted, it required budgeting and making decisions about what I would spend my money on - I can’t fly airplanes AND take a two week vacation in Paris AND a month long Caribbean cruise every year.

That and it’s not a vehicle that you can fly from your house to your friend’s house, which is what differentiates it from a car. You need to pay the money for the plane AND your car. A flying car would be both your plane and your car.

Flying costs me around $100/hour these days. People spend more than that on tickets for a concert. The cost of flying for a private individual is not as much as assumed. You don’t need to be a millionaire (although it helps…)

I’m not saying that it’s unattainable, only that it’s an expense most people choose not to shoulder.

Well, why don’t we just require everyone to get a freakin’ passport, for heaven’s sake? Is this about driver’s licenses or about ID? Isn’t the passport the gold standard? Don’t we have those already?

RealID as I understand it is standards for state IDs. It’s not quite a national ID. If we had a national ID, I’d hope that it will double as a passport so we won’t need to get a passport any longer.

What about people who either don’t have a license, or can’t drive a car due to medical reasons? Are they SOL? Blind people don’t deserve a Real ID? OK, OK - I’m sure they do have an option for the disabled or those who never learned to drive (although I’ve heard nothing about it). But should we link ID’s to driving? Shouldn’t an ID be primarily for that - identifying a person?

Huh? I have a state ID that isn’t a driver’s license. I don’t see this changing that in any qualitative way.

Please do not put words in my mouth or make assumptions about my though process. I won’t consider it a failure if terror occurs after implementation because I am POSITIVE we will suffer more terrorism at some point REGARDLESS of whether we implement Real ID or not. Again, it’s like security cameras - they won’t stop crime, just make it easier to document when a crime has occured. The 9/11 guys had entirely clean records - not faked records that were clearn, they’re REAL RECORDS were clean. They had not been involved in a criminal act prior to 9/11. The books they read and the training they took were entirely appropriate for commercial pilots - which status they had either achieved or were on their way to achieving. Depersonalized data-points would not indicate that these guys were more threatening than any of the other thousands of foreign pilots that came to the US for flight training. What tripped the alarm regarding Mossasoui was NOT a data point but rather his attitude which was picked up by human beings, not computers.

Yes, and even with applied Federal standards people will still present IDs to human beings.

Yes, I am concerned that we will become over reliant on computers and databases and forget to use our own squishy human brains.

We already are. That is a real problem.

Should be following REASONABLE and SENSIBLE standards. Are the requirements of Real ID reasonable?

Well that’s a good question. I am not qualified to judge the legalese of exactly how it’s implemented. In theory, I think standards are a good thing. If you want to address a particular aspect of the legality, I’d be interested in such a dissection, but as of now we’ve been addressing the issue as a whole in the theoretical abstract. Look at the way it’s worded and dissect some tangibles for us to discuss.

No, it’s a new program. Oh, maybe not in California which apparently has to make few changes but yes, in many places this is a significant change and constitutes a new program imposed by the Federal government on the States.

Correct.

Yes, but failure to CORRECT false-positives IS a sign of failure in my eyes. The people who set up a no-fly list that bars toddlers from flying and has no means to correct this error are the ones behind Real ID. Of course I’m concerned.

Yes, failure is failure. But the RealID program seems to me like the attempt to put a system in place that will allow them to correct false positives.

I oppose the Federal government imposing another program in the name of security when their prior one is so fucked up and they show no signs of fixing it. Maybe if it was a different administration which displayed some sign of competency in this area I’d feel differently.

I don’t see it as another program, but as an innovation to the same one. I think that’s the difference in the crux of our arguments. I think that this IS the fix to the old problems. This administration has a year left. This programs implementation will largely occur during President Obama’s term.

Again - if they had fixed the problems with the security systems already implemented I’d feel a hell of a lot better about this new program.

I think that this is a fix, and you are opposing it.

[Broomstick]

@mswas

I don’t disagree with you. The issue isn’t that things SHOULD be on computers, but that they ARE on computers. If we are computerized we should have standards. Those standards didn’t matter when it was all on paper, but now that it’s on computer they should have access to a database.

I disagree - standards mattered when everything was on paper, as well.

You seem to have a low tolerance for failure.

Yes, I do. I like backup systems.

Sure, I think these problems should be addressed, but I also think consolidation of data is part of the solution.

If you put all your stuff in one basket… and something happens to the basket… what then?

I actually viewed the Y2K “crisis” as a GOOD thing because it made people think about things like this and actually led to the development of backups and redundancy as a sound business practice, including off-site storage of back-ups. 9/11 also encouraged this view, and I know of at least one business that was able to resume business within two weeks of the total destruction of their offices in the WTC because the Y2K backups were still in place and all their vital data was duplicated in an off-site facility in another state.

It doesn’t mean there will never be power loss. We’re talking about data management and you are conflating it with rolling blackouts. Part of redundancy is having backup power generators in the government buildings where the data is stored.

I’d feel better if it wasn’t just a matter of back up generators but a secure duplication of vital information updated at regular intervals and stored at a sites located significant distances apart from each other.

It is possible, but I don’t think it increases ease of access. We can still access data for nefarious purposes.

The problem is when all the data is in one place you need only break into one place to steal it. Unless you have Fort Knox level security it’s not unreasonable to have some concern. “How secure are these valuables” is a question that needs to be asked, and asked more than once.

That’s a political issue, and depends upon the political climate of the nation.

And political climate changes over time. What is benign today may be malevolent tomorrow.

It’s not a reasonable argument against standardizing bureaucratic databasing procedure among the states. The idea that someone, ‘could be a racist’ isn’t compelling because they can be a racist now. I don’t see standardizing the methodology increasing their ability to do so.

It would make rounding up “undesirables” ever so much more easy, though.

I never said it was, but I don’t fear your executive moron, and I don’t fear oppression because of morons like him.

Maybe you should - he’s in a position to affect what sort of medical care 100 million people can receive, and where. Matters of life an death, you know. He’s a not a total moron, but the problem is that he thing competency in medical matters gives him competency in all matters.

I’d rather focus on making sure that your concerns are addressed during the implementation process.

I would, too, but I don’t see that happening.

Morons in power will be morons in power with or without this data.

That doesn’t mean we should make it easier for morons to abuse power and information.

Because they don’t want to foot the bill or do the work?

Why should they foot the bill? If the Federal government wants this, shouldn’t the Feds pay for it? They can find money for an unpopular war but not for new ID standards? Many States are having budget problems, maybe they feel medical care for the uninsured or upgrading various other services are more important than an incremental improvement in an ID system.

I don’t think that just because they implement ID standards that your boss will have greater access to my personal info.

HE WAS NOT AND IS NOT MY BOSS!

That’s part of the point - he discovered ONE data point about someone he knew *nothing *else about and wanted to summarily throw me out on the street. Sure, responsible people won’t make knee-jerk assumptions like that, but not everyone is responsible or reasonable.

He’ll be engaging in a relationship with me that is mediated through consumer data.

Please remember that if your health insurance company decides it’s cheaper and “better” to send everyone needing surgery to India for the work rather than having it done locally with equally competent doctors. But I digress…

Sure, and that’s legitimate, but it’s not a reason to oppose it, it’s a reason to make sure that congresspeople hear your concerns and work to safeguard your interests.

Maybe I’d feel better about that if one of those Congresscritters was one of the people I actually voted for… but somehow the candidates I like never get elected. >sigh<

I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Just because you chose to spend the money, that means that airplanes are not expensive?

My point is that people spend money on a lot of things equally or even more expensive. Of course, it’s *easier *to drop 10k on a new big screen TV that is delivered to your home and set up for you rather than doing the work of getting a pilot’s license.

That and it’s not a vehicle that you can fly from your house to your friend’s house, which is what differentiates it from a car. You need to pay the money for the plane AND your car. A flying car would be both your plane and your car.

Um… no, actually I don’t. I can easily reach my home base airport by bicycle, and weather permitting I do. I have friends who have landing fields in their back yards. What were you saying about needing a car…?

Yes, it’s nitpicking. The problem is that people have been trying to combine car and airplane for over 70 years, and what is usually discovered is that a good car makes a lousy airplane and vice versa. Helicopters actually come closest to what you describe, but they are even more expensive than airplanes, and significantly harder to learn to fly.

RealID as I understand it is standards for state IDs. It’s not quite a national ID. If we had a national ID, I’d hope that it will double as a passport so we won’t need to get a passport any longer.

Real ID is national ID through the back door. I’d be happier if they just admitted they want a national ID card, but that is politically unpalatable.

Huh? I have a state ID that isn’t a driver’s license. I don’t see this changing that in any qualitative way.

Everything I’ve heard about Real ID ties it to drivers’ licenses - so, again, what provision is there for non-driver ID? Is there one?

I think that this is a fix, and you are opposing it.

I’m not convinced it’s fixing anything, much less what needs to be fixed.

[mswas]

Broomstick I think both of our positions are clear at this point so I am not going to address your points individually, but I want to talk about redundancy. I think you are making a big assumption about a lack of redundancy. I am certain that the government would keep redundant backups in multiple locations and have security protocols in place. They do it for the military that have weapons systems on computer networks, why not do it for sensitive civilian data?

[Steve_MB]

@mswas

You treat it like it’s a matter of ideology. It’s simply the evolution of the way we use technology. Human beings are treated as data by the government. Ultimately it will lead to a more equitable government to have a government that thinks of you as a data object, rather than through the lens of the traditional prejudice of our bureaucrats.

In the real world, politicians and bureaucrats are never going to treat people who threaten their power (or simply annoy them personally) as “a data object”. The existence of the “data object” infrastructure simply gives the politician additional tools for harassment (or worse).

[Steve_MB]

@mswas

The breed of bureaucrats at the Federal level are all looking over spreadsheets of data. They aren’t looking at you as an individual. Herein lies your protection.

Sure worked for the Nisei, didn’t it?

If they took an interest in every person who bought a copy of Qutb, Nietzche, Proudon, Hakim Bey, Leary, and Hubbard, the system would be overwhelmed.

Taking an interest in each person who annoys someone in a position of power until they find something (trivially easy, given a combination of massive data consolidation and the plethora of laws and regulations on the books) would be well within the capabilities of such a system (especially after most people learned to bow and scrape if they know what’s good for them…).

[Siam_Sam]

As for computers, it’s true that we did without them for years and years, but I don’t think we could do without them now unless all the other countries likewise did without them. We’d be at a terrible disadvantage now if all US government computers were to break down or vanis overnight but no other government’s.

[DMC]

SELECT
    c.*
FROM
    Citizens AS c
    
    INNER JOIN SpousalIntermediate AS s ON
            c.CitizenID = s.CitizenID
    
    INNER JOIN Citizens AS c2 ON
            s.SpouseID = c2.CitizenID
            
    INNER JOIN Employers AS e ON
            c.EmployerID = e.EmployerID

    INNER JOIN BookPurchases AS b ON
            c.CitizenID = p.CitizenID
WHERE
        c.Gender = 'F'
    AND c.State = 'IN'
    AND c.IsPilot = '1'
    AND c.PastScrutiny = '1'
    AND c.Profession = 'Secretary'
    AND b.PurchasedAuthor = 'Samuel Delaney'
    AND b.PurchasedAuthor = 'Octavia Butler'
    AND e.CustomerCount > 100000000
    AND c2.Status = 'Disabled'

Given mswas’ “Brave New World”, I just found Broomstick. I don’t want to be able to find Broomstick, and I certainly don’t want the government to be able to.

PS Yes, it’s a crappy data model with very little normalization, etc., but remember, this is the government that’s doing the architecture.

[Sockmunkey]

@Steve MB

Sure worked for the Nisei, didn’t it?
Taking an interest in each person who annoys someone in a position of power until they find something (trivially easy, given a combination of massive data consolidation and the plethora of laws and regulations on the books) would be well within the capabilities of such a system (especially after most people learned to bow and scrape if they know what’s good for them…).

See, it’s this point that troubles me. The possibility that improving data handling efficiency will also improve the efficiency of harassment and misuse.
We need to have reasonable, reliable, safegaurds in place and effective means of redress.

Right now, I don’t see very much of that.

One of the few suggestions I’ve come across is to make access transparent both ways.
Like for us to be able to easilly tell when and who is looking at our data, or even for the systen to automatically notify us.

Then we have the beginning of a fair system. There are of course further refinements that would be needed.

[mswas]

DMC It also ignores a little thing called ‘Security Clearance’. Not all politicians have unlimited security clearances, and the politicians who do have the higher clearances already can access that kind of info on you via the CIA/NSA/FBI databases. It’s not like some guy running for Mayor is going to be able to find out that you buy women’s lingerie in your own size via the national database, he won’t have access to that kind of information. So as much as he may hate you for exposing his misappropriation of funds to build a pool in his backyard, that won’t give him sudden access to every bit of data on you just because he works for the ‘government’.

The agencies who are going to oppress people en masse already have access to that kind of information.

[Sockmunkey]

Unless Mr. potential mayor has political friends with that clearance…

Darn, I gotta stop eating those parnanoia cookies.

[DMC]

@mswas

DMC It also ignores a little thing called ‘Security Clearance’. Not all politicians have unlimited security clearances, and the politicians who do have the higher clearances already can access that kind of info on you via the CIA/NSA/FBI databases.

Sure, if you “trust the system” completely. I don’t. The government has repeatedly shown that they have no reason to be trusted.

I’m perfectly fine with an optional National ID, as long as there are zero repercussions from the government against those who opt out. Feel free to get one.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@mswas

The more data that the government has to handle, the less involved in your day to day movement it will be. This is why we work on a market economy. It is not in the government’s best interests to interact with our every movement. Just because they are collecting the data doesn’t mean that a human being is looking at it. There is just too much data to be monitored individually. Until you perform some series of actions that red flags you, you are unlikely to be affected by human prejudices.

That first sentence is an absolutely bizarre (and false) assertion. The very act of gathering/storing data is involvement; more gathering is more involvement. Similarly, the last sentence is also bizarre and false – at the root of the rules used to analyze “some series of actions” lie human prejudices. As an AI researcher with a hand in developing such rule sets, I can attest to it. And that disregards any decisions made after the data is “flagged”. And finally, the fact that a human being is (most likely) not looking at the data is disturbingly sociopathic. Perhaps you need to rent Brazil.

There’s more I’d like to add, but I don’t have time right now. Oh, and DMC – I think the response about optional ID is that, for any individual, this is optional (subject to SCOTUS rulings on it). That is, you don’t have to get a driver’s license or use an airline (which I’d personally claim is untrue in that driving is a necessity for most folks in day-to-day living); RealID is, in this sense, just a standard for the states to follow.

[fatgail]

I’m against it if only because it will invigorate the “Revelations: Number of The Beast” screamies for many many months to come.

[Tripler]

@mswas

. . .and the politicians who do have the higher clearances already can access that kind of info on you via the CIA/NSA/FBI databases.

(snipped for brevity)

. . . um, what? Are you implying that any ol’ Mayor can go ahead and access criminal databases on a regular basis? :dubious: Because this is exactly why I don’t want a combined system–so Mayor Quimby can’t follow the hyperlinks in your magical database.

Last I heard (from my own information security folks), you either need to sign a voluntary disclosure agreement or have one inherently in place–that for specific purposes, certain individuals can review the information you provide for investigation purposes. This does not include your mayors or ‘politicians’ that don’t have an investigation/warrant/subpoena but have a grudge. I won’t be so naive to think it doesn’t happen on occasion, but just in my little agency here, there are policies in place for that. Methinks there are others similar in different agencies as well. Maybe like the Privacy Act of 1974 and such. . .

Tripler
There’s compartmentalization of information–and that’s a good thing.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

Currently, my remaining privacy exists only because all of the existing databases aren’t linked. My home/car insurance company can’t see what my health insurance database contains. My employer can’t see what my credit card records look like. My bank doesn’t know what my driving record is.

My biggest fear is that the mere existance of a national ID and attendant records will lead to the consolidation of all the current seperate databases. Someone will thing “Gee, we already have an ID entry for ToC, let’s link in her driving record.” The next person thinks that adding my healthcare records would be a good idea. Insurance companies lobby to get access “for actuarial purposes”. Credit scores are added, and the insurance companies are even happier. My local library decides not to reinvent the wheel, and tacks themselves onto the database. Pretty soon, employers are required to submit the names and IDs of employees, to ensure they are here legally, and now the database know who I work for. The ID replaces a passport and now all of my international travel is on the same record as well.

Then, someone takes home their laptop computer, and leaves it in their car, where it gets stolen. Now, my life history, all in one nice package, is available for anyone that wants to buy it. Everything from my favorite books, to that embarassing little issue I talked to my doctor about, to the jewelry rider I have on my home insurance.

I just don’t trust the government to 1) limit what gets attached to this database, 2) control how this information is used and 3) keep this goldmine secure.

[mswas]

Tripler The exact opposite of what you think I meant, is what I meant.

Tastes of Chocolate Perhaps, I’m simply not that concerned about it.

[mswas]

Besides RealID will probably forego the need for a National ID.

[Tripler]

@mswas

Tripler The exact opposite of what you think I meant, is what I meant.

Again, I reiterate my one comment in my last post:

" . . . um, what? "

Tripler
You have confused me. Thoroughly.

[mswas]

I was implying that any old Mayor won’t have the security clearance to access your financial records and such.

[Tripler]

@mswas

I was implying that any old Mayor won’t have the security clearance to access your financial records and such.

Then I will reiterate that politicians with “higher clearances” won’t either–they don’t have the authority to look at that information. Just because you have a Top Secret clearance doesn’t mean you can look at anything labeled ‘Top Secret’.

It’s one of the principles of ‘Need-to-Know’ the whole program works on. I don’t think you understand how those programs work.

Tripler
Yeah, it’s not like I can waltz back into one of our divisions and ask, “Hey, can you show me the arming codes to someone else’s bombs?”