Posted on 06/28/2002 11:50:41 AM PDT by Asmodeus
WASHINGTON--In what is becoming a classic debate of the electronic age, panelists at an e-government show here discussed the difficult balance between privacy and security, particularly surrounding the issue of national ID cards.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had given the card tacit approval in his keynote speech earlier Wednesday at the E-Gov 2002 conference here. The topic has been hotly debated by privacy advocates and security experts. Today's panel, focusing on the future of e-government, was no exception.
"We all benefit from 'practical obscurity,'" said Jay Stanley, who runs the technology and liberty project at the American Civil Liberties Union. While there is much personal data available on each of us, it's difficult to pull that information together. But as more and more data is moved onto computers and the Internet, pulling the information together gets easier.
But older technologies pose their own threats, said Mark Forman, associate director of information technology and e-government for the Office of Management and Budget.
"When I joined the government I probably filled out 15 different forms, which I'm sure were entered by 15 different clerks," Forman said. "Is my privacy safer with one form or 15?"
Not surprisingly, panelist Greg Papadopoulos, chief technology officer at Sun Microsystems, said the solution may lie in technology using predefined standards for identifying information. Data wouldn't need to be gathered in a single place--an issue of concern to privacy advocates--but it would still be possible to authenticate identifying information.
The authentication issue seemed to concern attendees, one of whom questioned why people should be allowed on to Web sites or computer systems without stating who they are, when "you would never let someone into your home if they wouldn't say who they were."
Panelists also expressed concerns that other forms of ID, including drivers licenses and social security numbers, will turn into national ID cards, even if that was not their initial role.
Setting up national standards and agreeing to share data between motor vehicle bureaus does not equal the creation of a national ID, said Linda Lewis of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
There is a difference between being anonymous and protecting privacy, she said. "We need to know who you are, and that you are who you say you are."
Recent terrorists attacks in the United States of America (most notably, the destruction of the twin World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon, and the delivery of Anthrax spores to public officials and the media in the U.S.A.) has most citizens more willing than ever to give up more individual freedom and privacy in exchange for the promise of greater security.
Long denied the right to violate basic individual rights and freedoms and privacy, the world's law enforcement and surveillance communities and their governments are seizing the day, and making rapid steps to pass relatively permanent legislation giving the government powers which - prior to the acts of September 11, 2001 - would have been considered by the general populace to be powers properly unleashed only for temporary periods of national emergency.
In the process, questions are being raised as to whether the surrender of individual freedom will actually result in greater security, or whether we, in giving up freedom for security, are satisfying the aim of the terrorists to begin with: to undermine individual freedom of choice, equality under the law, and the dignity of every individual.
1984 has long been the first book to which we have turned for a vivid picture of a government that has used war to justify infringement on freedom; that has used speech codes to limit everyone's ability to understand higher concepts or concepts that favour human individuality; that uses powerful media to build unwarranted consensus and rewrite history; and that has used technology to nip political opposition and individualistic or eccentric practices in the bud.
Far from being a charicature, it insightfully and skillfully characterizes the the tendencies and motivations of unlimited government power, and the horrifying, hopeless result of such government: humanity denied its freedom to think, to be rational, and to dissent...its freedom to be human.
If, after finishing 1984, you find yourself nervous and paranoid, then: good. You have just taken a step closer to respecting the importance of human freedom and dignity, and the dangers in allowing governments to usurp your freedom to dissent or be different. All that remains is to fight to maintain or regain your ownlife (read the book, you'll know what we mean). [end quote]
Once they have the data in the databases it's all over.
Right, it only creates a national ID for those who wish to drive and have a life.
Its time to outlaw the government monopoly on certification of driving skills.
There is a difference between being anonymous and protecting privacy, she said. "We need to know who you are, and that you are who you say you are."
No you don't. Besides, we that value freedom of movement, privacy in financial and medical affairs and anonymity do know who you are.
The government Linda Lewis expects people to trust in confidence...
Right now, it is impossible to know if the overprojections made by executives at WorldCom were the result of deliberate fraud or simply came about because of boom-induced calculations. Everyone now knows that those calculation were in gross error, yet under the conditions that existed because of the Fed-caused artificial boom, WorldCom’s projections might very well have been reasonable. Congress, Accounting, and the Free Market (McCain is grandstanding again)
Just as politicians and bureaucrats have the gall of pointing their fingers at Enron, WorldCom etc, -- taking the "high road" when the government is by far the champion at cooking the books -- they would expect WorldCom guilty of following government bureaucrats destructive lead -- it was politician and bureaucrats irrational exuberance that lead the charge. The trio of Clinton, Greenspan and Rubin lead the charge followed by the unsuspecting business community and investing public.
The irony is that putting money in the stock market is speculation. Investment instruments or vehicles are savings accounts, guaranteed certificate of deposits (CDs), savings bonds and annuities -- if a person wants to speculate there's the commodities and futures markets, FOREX currency markets and stock markets. To name a few of each.
In terms of freedom of investment-and-speculation information the government has always held an oppressive and protectionist relationship with the financial and speculation markets as well as with the individual investors and speculators. Information about foreign investment instruments and speculation markets is basically non-existent in the United States. That's not because they're undesirable, for many lucrative off-shore opportunities do exist, rather, it's because the government controls an unfair market advantage against the people and their business community. Speculative and investment instruments are not advertised in the U.S..
That does not mean those projections were a good thing, given the conditions of the boom. Credit-induced booms are unsustainable, and someone must ultimately pay the piper.
We had businesses that had no choice but to compete amongst themselves in an artificial boom. We had close to one hundred million investors that were in effect, speculating in markets. ...Speculating in markets orchestrated by the Clinton/Greenspan/Rubin trio's money/debt-bubble economy bound to protectionists' financial-market oversight was a sure to be followed by a proportionately-sized bust.
The unmitigated gall of politicians and bureaucrats to be blaming the business community and yanking on inventors bruised-emotional chains -- intentionally adding fuel to the fire -- encouraging them to call for "lynchings".
The government is not the solution, it is the problem! Ceaselessly creating a never-ending array of problems that need not exist in the first place.
The Genie is Out of the Bottle.
Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite politicians creating on average, 3,000 new laws each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to justify their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from self-destruction.
Again, despite not having this year's 3,000 must-have laws people and society increased prosperity for years and decades prior. How can it be that suddenly the people and the society they form has managed to be so prosperous for so long but suddenly they will run such great risk of destroying their self-created prosperity?
The government is the all time champion of cooking the books and it has the gall to point fingers at the whole business community because of a few bad apples. The entire business community and employees that support it should stand tall against a government feigning to protect the little guy from organizations that cook their books.
If there was ever a prime example of the fox guarding the hen house it is the government claiming to protect the little guy from organizations that cook their books. President Bush will have to militarily smash down terrorism. For that is his job. It's not the President's, congress' or the government's job to manipulate the economy.
The business community with their employees will have to stand tall against the PC-status-quo fox -- self-proclaimed authorities claiming/feigning they'll use the government to protect the little guy and a complicit media and academia that supports them; for they are all the fox -- to regain their rightful place as the champions of honest business that has always increased the well-being of people.
The government, having already manipulated the economy to almost no-end, President Bush can play the unbeatable five-ace hand of replacing the threat-of-force IRS and graduated income tax with a don't-pay-the-tax-if-you-don't-want-to consumption tax. For example, implement the proposed national retail sales tax (NRST). Not only would that win votes for Bush and republicans in congress it would boom the economy.
Where will it lead?
War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers
Politics is not the solution. It's the problem!
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society -- which there are but a few -- could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
* * *
After all, in calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commissioner Harvey Pitt, McCain declares, “Government’s demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well." Does that mean U.S. senators? Congress, Accounting, and the Free Market (McCain is grandstanding again)
"Too often, we have cooked the books, exploited off-balance sheet accounting, fudged budget numbers and failed to disclose fully the nation's assets and liabilities. If we in Washington are to have credibility in the public eye as we address the corporate accounting mess, we must reform our own fiscal practices," said McCain. Social Security Called A Bigger Fraud Than Corporate Scandals
Prove it first. It's not like it's a new discovery or problem. It's a seventy-year-old problem. It's just that now politicians and bureaucrats have trapped themselves and the general public is becoming increasingly aware. They've been caught and McCain is getting interview time to peddle gussied-up compassionate government.
"Allowing Americans to invest responsibly a small part of their payroll taxes will not only save Social Security, but will provide them with greater retirement income than those who no or will soon depend on Social Security checks," said McCain. Social Security Called A Bigger Fraud Than Corporate Scandals
Notice McCain so readily wants himself and government to allow Americans to invest part of their own money. But he has a condition; it most be done responsibly. And who decides what is responsible? Certainly not the all-time champion, cook-the-books bureaucrats and snake-oil-salesmen politicians.
They are running citizens and society headlong into destruction.
* * *
How mainstream media fits into the picture.
Robert Tracinski, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, said, "People leading the hysteria about corporate crime are eager to expose and condemn any alleged fraud by private businessmen, but they ignore or excuse actual fraud committed by government officials. [That would be reporters and journalists neglecting honest ethics.]
"They demand strict accounting regulations to prevent billion dollar business frauds while they evade responsibility for a trillion-dollar government fraud," he added.
He said it's ironic that no one in Washington is demanding an end to Social Security. Social Security Called A Bigger Fraud Than Corporate Scandals
It's only ironic if the person thinks the government has high standards of ethics, integrity and honesty. Or ironic because that's the image they want people to perceive. That's where the mainstream media and academia join the party -- a government party. Honest, hard-working citizens need not apply.
Reporters are too lazy to put forth the effort. They choose to open doors wherever possible and keep them open. The very people the media should be reporting as crooks, criminals and scoundrels are the ones they praise. What a colossal hoax it is. For of course the interviewee -- the bigger the better to which politicians and bureaucrats are among the biggest with academics and "specialists" bought by the media mantra of open all doors coming in right behind -- those people/ crooks being interviewed would never open the door if he or she knew that the reporter intended expose them as frauds.
There's a large and growing cadre of articulate, well-thought-out writers on the WWW. They are the opposite of the lazy reporters that rely on the easy-to-open doors of covering for crooks. In essence, they are unreal doors that can slam back shut in their face.
For the articulate writers on the Web, their open doors are among themselves, and their readers. Their essence is that they have to honestly earn an open door policy with their interviewees and they welcome their readers feedback. Often looking for other articulate writers of integrity and honesty among the feedback they get from readers.
That the mainstream media is liberal biased is not a reflection of congress or the alphabet bureaucracies. It is with both Republicans and Democrats that the government is what it is. The whole good-guy-bad-guy betwixt political parties is a ruse. For voting for the lesser of evils still begets evil.
As Mr. Brown used to jokingly ask us neighborhood kids, "Do you want a fat lip or a busted eyebrow?" That was not lost on me. From Democrats you get one, from Republicans you get the other. There are no winners and losers in politics for they (reps and dems) are two sides of the same coin. The only losers are the citizens, their prosperity and well-being which is mostly represented by the business community. The only winners are parasitical politicians and self-serving bureaucrats. ...Hot on their heels the mainstream media and academics catering to government crooks.
"Uniformity" ?? Uniformity!! As if this is a question of appearance and format.
Excuse me but spending millions on embedding chips containing biometric and 'other' data, both specified and potential, as well as operability as a national database IS NOT "greater uniformity"... it is "conversion of a fairly innocuous document to a cancerous, Orwellian blight on the underpinnings of liberty itself -- to be free of intimidating controls that squelch the viability of the counterthreat that deters tyranny: the independence of the sovereign individual".
First we bind one hand, then another, then your feet, then gag you a little... after all, you may be a bad guy... now just slip your head in this noose...
... just 'in case'.
Soon to be unknown and unremembered here, too.
The SS is essentially an inescapable 'work permit' that is foisted on us by our own ignorance and apathy.
I understand it is possible to recind this number but impossible to eradicate it. In seeking employment after that point one will likely be forced to confront potential employers with a 'religious objection' claim and reminders of federal statute on discrimination based on religion.
Not exactly a great way to make an impression. Who wants to hire the next Timothy McVeigh after all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.