Comments on: NY Mayor (Possible Prez Candidate) Wants You Fingerprinted To Get A Job

By: TimT

TimT — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:09:47 +0000

I remember Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com) relating about a year ago how the fingerprint biometric is currently forged with silicone glue…

By: Mr. H. Fusion

Mr. H. Fusion — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:51:52 +0000

When Hoover ran the FBI, there was data collected on anyone of importance. Many times it was used by Hoover to blackmail politicians into leaving the FBI alone. Would anyone care to explain why the Democrats and Republicans have basically shut up about NSA wire tapping and other Bush invasions of privacy?

By: art

art — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:17:51 +0000

#11 “and understand that stating “Who I Am” can and should not be easily be able to be falsified”
Lou,
Couldn’t agree more!!! I am not against national ID or national driver license or whatever card, what I am against is huge databases with everyone’s DNA, fingerprints, etc. In my opinion such card should be either impossible to forge (doubtful) or it should be too expensive to forge, or both (it’s like with money, I think Germany had a huge problem with their currency being forged (before Euro), what they did was they put a platinum strip in it so the cost of manufacturing was higher than the face value).
Back to the topic, my info should be on that national card and it should be my responsibility to protect it. If I lose it that’s only one card, if some poor overworked (?) dude loses whole database or some teen hacker gets access to it that would be whole nation.
Other aspect of government keeping records on everybody is that I don’t trust this nation, and who we put in charge – history shows that politicians are capable of using whatever they can put their hands on to gain advantage. What or who can guarantee that one of those idiots won’t misuse such info?
I guess the best example of big databases and the effect they have on politicians/people could be found in Eastern Europe in post communistic countries. After democracy took over they discovered those huge libraries of records collected by their secret police on their own citizens. I believe some countries still debate what to do with this info. Of ‘course the type of information and purpose for collecting it, was different, but the effect on some democratically elected officials cold indicate what can happened here (and please don’t tell me that they have different politicians than we do)

By: Allen

Allen — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:54:26 +0000

I’ve had to be fingerprinted six different times to work for four different employers — schools and banks. The legislation is not a change in quality, only in degree. I’m curious how hard people argued against having all teachers fingerprinted (which became common in the ’80s) when that started to become general practice.

By: Daniela

Daniela — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:58:09 +0000

Since I work for “Uncle Sam” I had to give my fingerprint…so what’s the difference if that would be a law? Might be interesting to see how many serial killers are out there once they run it through the database of the FBI…

By: GregAllen

GregAllen — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:50:41 +0000

I don’t understand the opposition to a national ID card. Isn’t it reasonable for a nation to have some sort of ID system?

Right now I have a drivers licence, a social security card and a passport. All of these are used as an ID card but none were meant for that purpose and have their flaws, the worst probably being the social security number.

But, even though I accept the idea of an ID card, I absolutely don’t trust the Bush administration or these Republicans to create a national ID card that also respects my privacy. They have shown again and again that they don’t understand the value/need/right of personal privacy.

By: George of the city

George of the city — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:04:43 +0000

Since you can not get a job without giving a urine sample I find this funny that you all worry about fingerprints.

By: catbeller

catbeller — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:16:22 +0000

11: Identity theft? What are the odds? I don’t care how scared you are, or how pumped up the issue is, what are the numerical odds of someone stealing my identity, compared with, say, getting hit by a car? If cars are more dangerous, why not eliminate cars? If they are more likely to hurt you than your identity be stolen, then OBVIOUSLY the only commonsense solution is to outlaw cars, for I have reason to fear them.

And isn’t the real problem not identity theft, but the lack of will and law to force companies and the government to rectify identity theft — like forgiving the charges and CLEARING THE CREDIT RECORDS, which they refuse to do in any sane fashion?

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:20:27 +0000

art: What is the alternative? Better laws? (What’s that mean?) Enforcement, sure, but explain in detail….

Illegal immigrant on payroll… should they be immediately jailed and exiled (so to speak)?

I’m a libertarian, and believe in very strict enforcement of existing laws, but I’m also practical (and an IT person), and understand that stating “Who I Am” can and should not be easily be able to be falsified. Heck, with the exception of a few governmental rights (voting, schooling, etc), that’s not what most people worry about. We worry about our IDENTITY being stolen, and any means to improve that are fine with me. Getting a loan, and education, a job, is NOT A RIGHT in the constituion or decl. of ind. so to speak, we ask our private citizens and companies to do this, and if they want to verify who they “do this for”, fine with me.

By: art

art — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:34:53 +0000

#9 Lou,
If you trust this (or any) government with your DNA, SSN, health records, etc., than I’m not sure how common is your “common sense”.
As a veteran, it will be decades before I’ll trust them with anything..
Better laws (not soooo corporate driven) and enforcement of those laws will do much more than tracking, big databases, RF tags and other crazy ideas.

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:06:48 +0000

C’mon people, its just common sense. Today, you need identification to work. This is no different.

BHK: It has nothing to do with freedom, or dignity, or governmental “control” of people. It has to do with what’s right.

The government has to collect taxes, and expend resources to its citizens. A government (or corporation, or whatever) needs a way to ACCURATELY do its job in that regard. Since current forms of ID are easily bypassed, we are talking about the general technical “arms race” that exists, trying to outwit the criminals.

What bothers me about a lot of people is that everyone expects the government to be “better” than they are. I’m sure, BHK or whomever would not be happy if their bank identified them only by voice, or just “their word” (Hey, I’m BJK, can I have $500 from my checking account?).

Well I want my government to only spend MY/OUR money on LEGAL immigrants and citizens. If it requires biometrics or other advanced identification, so be it. (I understand the slippery slope argument very well, but I”m not ready to believe that DNA identification leads to genetic profiling).

(or is their something you don’t understand about the words ILLEGAL).

By: BHK

BHK — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:37:52 +0000

Freedom eh? You no longer have the right to work unless you have persmission from the government. You no longer have the right to associate unless you have permission from the government. Even if you have permission to associate, you may not have permission to travel.

Human dignity is gone. We are all now automatons for the government, but at least we are protected from terrorists and migrants who might want a job!

By: AB CD

AB CD — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:37:02 +0000

Supposedly Hillary’s campaign team feels most threatened by a Bloomberg run for president.

By: khisaak@isaakscherr.com

khisaak@isaakscherr.com — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:55:26 +0000

Problem is what happens when someone steals your
identity ? How do you get a new finger print ? This
is the basic failure point of all biometric identification
systems. Almost any fingerprint id system currently
available can be spoofed with some creativity and
maybe a few gummy bears.

By: Gary Marks

Gary Marks — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:33:48 +0000

One of the problems I see with a DNA database, vis-à-vis the privacy issue, is what might be done with it in the future. As scientists continue to unravel human genetic code, associating particular genes with specific personality traits, certain people might be flagged for having genetic predisposition for criminal activity, among other things.

Should people whose DNA contains genetic warnings become targets of more intensive surveillance? It’ll be interesting to see who gets to do what with the DNA collected. Of course, I completely trust that the government always looks out for our needs, so misuse of the data could never be an issue.