Text 20474, 78 rader
Skriven 2008-09-04 12:37:23 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Personal IDs "for tax only"
===================================
Hello Robert,

On Tuesday September 02 2008 17:12, you wrote to me:

 MV>> I have no problem with the mere fact that everybody gets assigned a
 MV>> unique number for identification.

 RB> It worries me like hell, Michiel, particularly when it's coupled with
 RB> unchangeable things like fingerprints, which sooner or later will be
 RB> the case.

 RB> Then you have a data set that is absolutely ideal for identity fraud

I am not sure what precisely you mean by "identity fraud". If it is someone
else posing as me and doing bad with it, I would say adding fingerprints
reduces that chance, just because they supposedly are unchangeable. Which does
not mean I like it. But I must admit that is partly for emotional reasons.
Fingerprinting is what we associate with criminals and I resent being treated
as a criminal.

 RB> and, once disclosed, can never be changed to eliminate it. You're a
 RB> public persion to the day of your death, and can never again be sure
 RB> your data will not be misused.

That process began when we started to record people at birth.

And no, I do not like at all the way this is going, but I see it the personal
ID number is not the problem. We are unique, the number just says that out
loud. It gives no more information than what is already in the date base. You
can trace a person just as well by the combination of name and date of brith.
The number is just a number, in itself it is harmless. That is not the problem,

No, the problem is the government's unsatiable hunger for collecting and
storing personal data. It is never enough. At each round of technology they
find an excuse to collect and store more and more. And they always promise it
will only be used for such and so and they never keep that promise.

data that can do a lot of harm when it falls into the wrong hands.

 RB> And it's not criminals, "evil capitalists" or other lawbreakers who
 RB> make this possible, but the people who _make_ the laws  - our own
 RB> governments - which are supposed to protect us.

And if you are saying it already *is* in the wrong hands, I won't argue...

 RB> Like people say, with such friends, who needs enemies?

The present excuse of course is terrorism. Through fear and doubt an atmosphere
has been created where governments get away with draconic measures that would
have been unthinkable a mere 25 years ago.

What also bothers me is that so few worry about it. Especially the younger
generation seems totally uninterested. When I discuss this woth Rosa's cousins
- they are around 30 and in their Yup phase - just shrug their shoulders and
say they have nothing to hide. They happily submit to body searching and
fingerprinting and take a plane to wherever there is some action. Alll for the
good cause. When it comes to fighting terrorists, the end justifoes the means.

I hate to say it, but you yourself made a contribution to creating that
atmosphere. When that Palestinian Sheik in a wheelchair was executed by firing
a rocket from an Iraeli helicopter, you condoned setting aside "fair trail and
assumed innocent until proven guilty" because he was a terrorist.

But we now already see an erosion of the definition of "terrorist". Not only is
labelling someone as "terrorist" - without the need to provide any proof
whatsoever - enough to set aside basic human rights, but the definition of
terrorist is expanded to cover more and more. Won't be long before kids
throwing condoms filled with water from a balcony will be labelled terrorist.
:-(


We know what "the end justifies the means leads to".  Yet we condoned it...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)