We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “But another real benefit is that once you have registered no-one can steal your identity”
– Home Office minister Meg Hillier, explaining the benefits of getting an ID card. Good to know that the science is settled, there.
Seriously, though. What are these people smoking?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I think we’ll all have to wait for ‘the mark of the Beast’ before that happy day arrives.
Hmmm….
And another real benefit is that once you have registered, all your carbon credits can be easily administered and mapped against the chip in your right hand.
And that will come in very handy when the Euro is replaced with the Carbo.
–GJ–
Well, just as a bit of a reminder on the technology: Technical Aspects of the National Identity Card.
The use of biometrics might help a bit in making identity fraud more difficult. However, face contributes only a very little to reliable biometric identification; fingerprints are slightly better, but will have a poor failure to capture rate for many people. It would be better if iris had been included as well.
However, biometrics are only useful in making identity fraud more difficult if scanners are available at appropriate outlets. For example, banks and building societies could require use of the identity scheme and biometric scans for opening a new account, and for large withdrawals.
Do (m)any banks and building societies have such scanners? If not, it’s difficult to see how the Minister’s claim can be justified.
Best regards
DNA Registration and monitoring is the way to go.
You want to buy something then lick the stick or however it will be done (DNA detection and recording – DNADAR.)
Then we shall know not only what you do and when you do it, but also with a bit of mind mapping we can begin establishing what you are thinking, too.
Much safer that way.
John B – what about twins etc? DNA sample manipulation technology? Or (taking a page from Gatacca), ‘broken ladders’? Think, man, think!
I am more partial to alternative methods shown in sci-fi, myself: implants! Almost immediately after birth, insert the core information repositories next to the back of the spine at the base of the skull, and have them tied with matching communicators implanted in one’s wrist for easy-swiping when necessary. For extra fun, make it so that once activated they can’t be exposed to air or tampered with else they detonate. In the event a patient needs surgery of the area the doctors should first require vetted government officials (hey, integrate it with socialised medicine!) to deactivate the security mechanisms, and if it turns out that the patient dies well hey it’s better that this happen than the security of the state be compromised.
Implant IDs: the modern and more discrete replacement for tattooed barcodes.
JJM
Oh wow, my first haul-up before smite-control! I’m all glowy inside 🙂
JJM
Plus of course, the system will be expoited by bent staff (as these kinds of things always are) and targetted by criminal gangs for inserting fake identities, making other people’s lives awkward etc.
That’s before you take into account the number of errors the database will contain.
Never mind what they’re smoking, Michael- where can we get some of that? It’s powerful stuff!!!
Interesting paper, Nigel. Identity cards of various types work perfectly well in all sorts of situations. It’s not immediately obvious that they will fail on a technical or practical basis at a national level. The objection is a moral/political one rather than a practical one.
Part of me would quite like to see them build the system just to see how the technical challenges are addressed. But the rest of me would be happy for them to quietly drop it.
The greater threat to liberty, comes from relaxing the conditions of use of the various theoretically non-compulsory databases on which we all appear (DVLI, NHS, Experian, IRS etc. etc.) – a whole other sad story.
Nuke: I am not sure, although it can no doubt be claimed on your parliamentary expenses….
Believe me, these IDs are nowhere near as safe as they seem. Technically safe, no doubt – but practically, they leak like, well, they leak.
That’s because of social factors, and nothing can help with that.
J writes at:
That is a very good view, especially if “more” is inserted before moral/political.
J also writes:
It is also true that there are a great many technical concerns, on performance and practicality, that need to be taken into account: especially with the UK Government’s chosen National Identity Scheme, and also overall. These cover the inability of the proposed biometrics to provide an adequate level of detection of multiple applications by the same person (with such a large number: 47+ million of persons to be enrolled). They also cover the need for operational procedures to deal with failure to enrol and failure to capture for fingerprints; with reliance on alternative and reliable biometrics such as iris being one good way forward on that. Finally, for now, there need to be protections against various attacks on biometrics, such as infiltrator selection and artefact attacks: putting all (or too many of) the biometrics on the card, and holding none or insufficient in reserve, facilitate those sorts of attack.
So for now, there are technical arguments against the scheme. In the longer term, as the technology, government technical decisions, and overall cost-effectiveness improve, the political and moral arguments against over-zealous statism come more to the fore.
Best regards
Simplicity. It always comes down to simplicity and ease of implementation. I definitely favour the DNA route because its all there, already. Just record at birth and you’re A for away. If there are twins, okay, we’ll have to have that DNADAR record as (a) and (b). Then we’ll know there are twins involved, as well, in case they try and pretend to be each other while smuggling food across the Green Line, or anything disgusting/heretical like that.
Keep it simple guys.
And hey. There won’t be any leaks. This will all be “by computers, for computers” surely? There won’t be any grubby human factors involved. As if!
PS: I’ve been smited repeatedly. It’s this computer thing. We like each other.
Well…….the government could always tattoo ID numbers on our forearms…….a lot of people would probably even use them as a fashion statement.