Watching Freedom Dissolve
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:06
VIEWED: 2076
PAGE 1 of 2
My post was far too long for most. So, here it is again, in a nutshell. (or see below)
To start, mandatory electronic drivers' licenses are now a fact of law.
An author for Government Computing News (a radical hotbed for sure) objected to them on technical and privacy issues.
The technical objections are simple: no encoding is required to protect the treasure trove of personal information found on each card. ANYONE who puts it through a reader has a copy of ALL of it. If you rent a car, get on a plane, or submit your ID to make a purchase, the person behind the counter can copy your ID. This is just a petty temptation for individuals, but there certainly are large-scale operations that make it their business to access your life.
In addition, there will now be large databases with no apparent rules for who can access the data, or what they can do with it, and no way for you to check to make sure your data hasn't been compromised.
At this point, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. It's a done deal.
The second article basically said your employer can fire you for what you say at home, online, on your own computer on your own time - even if you don't say anything about the company. While the constitution may guarantee freedom of speech, it is only freedom from the government. Corporate interests can and do rule what you say and do in your 'private' life. So, only post anonymously, and find a way to hide the computer you post from.
Your freedom is being eroded by big government and big business working hand in hand, while YOU are being titillated with the runaway bride.
Quote:
http://www.gcn.com/24_7/tech-report/35391-1.html
Cyber Eye: National ID standards could create “ID theft kit” 04/04/05
By William Jackson,
GCN Staff
I wrote last month that the State Department was making a mistake by leaving personal data stored on electronic passports unprotected. Congress is contemplating a similar mistake in its national standards for state ID cards.
Title II of the Real ID Act of 2005 (HR 418, passed by the House in February and now pending in the Senate) establishes minimum requirements for driver’s licenses and state-issued ID cards. The usual personal data, including name, address, identification number and digital photo, must be put in a machine-readable format. What is missing are any requirements for encryption or other security on the data, or any restrictions on who could access it or how it could be used.
The bill also would require any state that wanted to receive federal grants to pay for the program (and what state doesn’t want federal money?) to make databases of this information available to all other states. Again, there are no requirements for security or restrictions on how the data could be used.
Richard Hunter, research director and Executive Program fellow of Gartner Inc. of Stamford, Conn., said the new card would amount to an “ID theft kit.”
“In 2005 it is a bad idea to demand data from a person without stipulating how that data can be used,” Hunter said. “That is just not acceptable.”
The data is not that different from what already is included on most driver’s licenses. But cards today usually have this data only in printed form, with maybe some supplemental information on a magnetic strip. Making all of the data, including a digital photo, machine-readable means all of the data will be available to anyone with a reader.
Digital data is different from printed information. Printed information can be verified with a glance. Reading digital data provides the reader with a copy of the data.
Handing a bank teller or a bartender a driver’s license to verify your identity or age is minimally invasive. But if someone swipes the card to verify it, all of your personal data could be captured. It now is out of your control or the control of the state that issued the card.
The difference between looking and machine reading is not trivial. You might become uneasy if you saw the bartender copying your personal information from your driver’s licenNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere."
-Robert A. Heinlein
That's why I like Firefly so much. It kind of gives me hope.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Makes me think of the old Dead Kennedys album, "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death". The only way you can have credit cards, quick credit checks, mortgage approvals, online purchases, etc. is to have your information widely available. Otherwise you could rip folk off right and left. Most of the info mentioned in the Real ID Act is already out there if someone is willing to spend a few minutes on the net to find it. If you want to opt out of this, cancel all your credit cards and just deal in cash. BTW, there's nothing in the bill to prevent individual states (who have to implement the ID) from providing encryption or other security.
As for employers checking what you say on a blog site, is that so much different from you standing out in front of your employer's office with a bullhorn and telling people not to deal with them just because you disagree with some of their policies? First Amendment rights apply to control of free speech by the government. Your boss can still fire you for inappropriate behavior. Choose who you want to work for or be careful.
ps.
You have some responsibility for maintaining your individual level of freedom. There are plenty of sources of information out there to show you how to opt out of the system. It just takes a bit more work on your part. Freedom isn't free.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah Geezer- ever the defender of the police, corporations, state, and military! Here are REAL CASES about coporate abuse of power:
-------------------------------
CASE ONE
I divorced my husband, and as part of the settlement he left me the house. One year later, I find that my house is being re-possessed. It turns out that my ex-husband took out several loans on my property by forging my signature on the papers... and of course being the improvident alocoholic that caused the divorce in the first place, he didn't make the mortgage payments.
The forgery was really a bad job- even the most cursory comparison to an exemplar would have shown that was not my real signature. So I take the lending bank to court, arguing that I should not be held liable for a fradulent contract that the bank itself should have caught if they were performing their job diligently. The State Appeals Court rules against me, arguing that that it is MORE IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN A BUSINESS-FRIENDLY milieu than to do justice in my individual case.
----------------------------
CASE TWO
I work for a clothing manufacturer. But I have not been paid my full wages for the past three weeks running, and I'm rapidly running out of money. I've talked to my boss about it each week, but today's paycheck is- once again-short. The state labor board takes too long to resolve my complaint. So I steal an equivalent amount of underwear, worth about $300.
The corporation is charged with a misdemeanor and is allowed to pay a $100 fine. I am charged with a felony and spend six months in prison because stealing from a corporation in an automatic felony, but a corporation stealing from me is a misdemeanor unless it totals $500 or more.
------------------------------------
CASE THREE
An aerospace company suspects me of a drug habit. They go to my LOCKED car which was parked OFF COMPANY PROPERTY, break into it, find a pipe (Which they asume is for non-tobacco use) and fire me. I take them to court, arguing that I have a right to privacy off company property. The Supreme Court rules against me, citing that my right to privacy protects me from the government, but not from corporations because "they have a financial interest" in my lifestyles.
Of course, if I tried something like that (even if I had a financial interest) I'd be charged with breaking and entering.
--------------------------------
One of the things that our LAWS are set up for is to protect individual freedom. The rise of the corporation and the various mechanisms that corporations now have to track and reward (or punish) your speech, spending habits, movement, and lifestyle were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers. However, I find it difficult to believe that they would condone a system that gives economically all-powerful entities LEGAL advantages over less-powerful individuals. The obvious solution is to change the laws to protect individuals or AT LEAST put them on equal legal footing with business interests. I suppose that is too obvious, too RADICAL, too freedom-oriented for some people to envision. And BTW Geezer- the Benito Moussolini version of fascism was very much as you espouse- government in service to corporations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah Geezer- ever the defender of the police, corporations, state, and military!
Not really. Just noting that, for good or ill, our society provides lots of methods for others to get and use our personal information. Sometimes they have a legitimate interest, such as credit checks, security, etc. Sometimes a $500.00 charge from a Wal-Mart in Quebec shows up on your Visa statement when you've never been to Quebec(ask me how I know). The information genie is out of the bottle, and isn't going back in. You just have to decide how you want to deal with it. As I noted, there are methods for opting out of the system, but they are neither easy or always legal.
As to the bosses, sorry you've had such a run of bad luck; what with the foreclosure, the jail term, and the car breakin. Those sure sound like abuses to me. They don't relate very directly to the topic at hand, though.
Note in the blogging article Rue quoted that some companies, like Sun and Plaxo, are setting up blogging rules and even providing sites for employee use. Bosses actually do have an interest in how their employees reflect on their company, and deal with it in different ways. The employee also has some responsibility to look into the employer's record and policies before taking a job, or deciding to blog against them.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not really
Geezer- Yes, really.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is exactly how I feel. Here is a bunch of people who would rather live the inconveniences (and dangers) of space, take complete responsibility for whether they live or die, than to live under the comfortable heel of the Alliance.
Originally posted by sgtgump:
That's why I like Firefly so much. It kind of gives me hope.
Love the quote too.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My post was far too long for most. So, for anyone who reads threads from the bottom up, here it is again, in a nutshell.
To start, mandatory electronic drivers' licenses are now a fact of law. An author for Government Computing News (a radical hotbed for sure) objected to them on technical and privacy issues.
The technical objections are simple: no encoding is required to protect the treasure trove of personal information found on each card. ANYONE who puts it through a reader has a copy of ALL of it. If you rent a car, get on a plane, or submit your ID to make a purchase, the person behind the counter can copy your ID. This is just a petty temptation for individuals, but there certainly are large-scale operations that make it their business to access your life.
In addition, there will now be large databases with no apparent rules for who can access the data, or what they can do with it, and no way for you to check to make sure your data hasn't been compromised.
The second article basically said your employer can fire you for what you say at home, online, on your own computer on your own time - even if you don't say anything about the company. While the constitution may guarantee freedom of speech, it is only freedom from the government. Corporate interests can and do rule what you say and do in your 'private' life. So, only post anonymously, and find a way to hide the computer you post from.
Your freedom is being eroded by big government and big business working hand in hand, while YOU are being titillated with the runaway bride.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it wonderfully ironic that the new bankruptcy law makes it much harder for people who have had financial setbacks to declare bankruptcy and escape their contracted obligations but United Airlines has been allowed to escape their contracted obligations to their pensioners.
Once again corporations getting benefits we mere citizens are not entitled to.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your employer can fire you for what you say at home, online, on your own computer on your own time - even if you don't say anything about the company. While the constitution may guarantee freedom of speech, it is only freedom from the government. Corporate interests can and do rule what you say and do in your 'private' life.
And some people can think of a dozen rationalizations why it's all okay. Other people kid themselves into thinking they can do the "Serenity" thing (operate under the radar)... sort of forgetting that "moving out a little farther" isn't an option under corporate globalization.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME