OT - 1984... this is frightening!

[Dekonick]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Cybersecurity-Commerce-department-gary-locke-howard-schmidt,news-9667.html

No matter how you look at it... this is frightening... slippery slope :(

[sg8357]

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

[fiamme red]

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.In the Daily News a few days ago: Councilman Peter Vallone rings alarm on fluoride in tap after fed study rips city's drinking water (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/08/2011-01-08_pol_wants_fluoride_flushed_after_fed_study_rips _citys_water.html)

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.

General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

[nahtnoj]

Weird. It sounds exactly like all the things dude is saying it is not.

[drewski]

:crap:

[drewski]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/American_flagg2.jpg


This sounds like something from a Howard Chaykin comic book featuring
Mark Thrust, Sexus Ranger

[Dekonick]

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

What on earth does fluoride have to do with big brother tracking your every move?

I see a tracking number as having a LOT of abuse potential. Well intentioned or not, a single way to track your every move online (already possible, but not easy) can only lead to loss of privacy. Tracking cookies are bad enough. :crap:

[RPS]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Cybersecurity-Commerce-department-gary-locke-howard-schmidt,news-9667.html

No matter how you look at it... this is frightening... slippery slope :(
That ship sailed a long time ago.

Yesterday I was sitting at a mega-size doctors’ office along with about 100 others being processed and moved around like cattle by dozens of employees when I realized that one of the forms they handed me already included all the data anyone needs to steal my identity; and I had not even given my SS number to them. I was livid that so many had such easy access to information I try to protect. Seems to me 1984 is literally in the past.

[ckamp]

..

[William]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baPSplXYBpk/S_Gfi7ig95I/AAAAAAAAA60/577Yniu0764/s1600/Signs_foil_hat-thumb-550x373-17996.jpg

[Dekonick]

..

Awesome picture! :hello:

[avalonracing]

From the article you linked to:

"We are not talking about a national ID card," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke during an event at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

"I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," explained White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt. He also added that there won't be an emerging centralized database, and that anonymity and pseudonymity will still remain possible on the Internet. He also stressed that the private sector will need to lead the plan's implementation, not the government.

[sg8357]

What on earth does fluoride have to do with big brother tracking your every move?

I see a tracking number as having a LOT of abuse potential.

The gummint is just trying to catch up with Experian.
As we all know gummint is a bunch of idiots, if they want to drown in
more useless data, more power to them.

The Dr. Strangelove quote is just to remind us not to fall into paranoia.

[happycampyer]

In the Daily News a few days ago: Councilman Peter Vallone rings alarm on fluoride in tap after fed study rips city's drinking water (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/08/2011-01-08_pol_wants_fluoride_flushed_after_fed_study_rips _citys_water.html)

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.

General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

[retrofit]

Full speed ahead on the Pineapple Express...

[johnnymossville]

Don't worry, there will be waivers for all those who vote for or give enough campaign contributions to the right people. Keep your party affiliation current everyone!

[1centaur]

Stepping back, let's think about why this is being done at all.

My guess is that the Obama administration is being told by cybersecurity experts that the anonymity of the Internet is a national security issue, i.e., the bad guys are and will be using the anonymity they have to harm US interests. When that reality gets to politicians, particularly those whose instincts are against the Patriot Act and who have many friends who associate IDs with McCarthy and official enemies lists, or even pre-war Germany, the instinct is to defuse that worry. That's done by moving the IDs to the Commerce department and spinning a story about easier transactions on the Net. The problem is that regular people are not screaming about needing easier transactions on the Net, and the people would not get warm fuzzies for a national ID if the proponents were big business. The normal reaction to that would be to tell the truth: this is about national security and we're looking for a way to make our country safer without burdening normal folks with national ID worries. But maybe telling the truth and developing solutions in public gives the bad guys too much information along the way - maybe the secrecy of the process is part of the web of difficulty the government is trying to weave. Or maybe they don't want negative feedback related to illegal immigration.

If this were coming from a disliked Republican administration the reaction would be much like it is in the comments on the OP's website - massive condemnation. That it's coming from a Democratic administration should be an advantage for keeping the rhetoric subdued from the left if not from the less-government right, but is a hindrance because the politicians are so attuned to current perceptions that telling the whole truth becomes a problem from both left and right. Hiding the truth amplifies the appearance of sliding something over on the public, and we're stuck with widespread suspicion, a genuine political problem.

If we need reliable identification on the Net, I hope there are one-time keys with instant record disposal that can be devised by a variety of businesses and not tracked by the government, but somehow I doubt that. I suspect we are inevitably moving towards a world where knowing exactly who people are and what they are doing is required to keep the rest of us safe. I think some day the notion of no national ID will be quaint. When anybody can affect everybody via buttons and mouse clicks, anonymity becomes a luxury. I don't think this is world view, I am just trying to be logical; I don't think this is political, just analysis of an electronically intertwined society. The Net is like an electric utility - you don't just invite strangers to come in and play around. In the physical world walls can keep strangers out, but in cyber world there are too many holes for the rats to sneak through.

Tough topic, and even the experts probably worry they don't know enough to keep up with all the possibilities. Therefore tough for politicians to make easy, popular choices when dealing with a population that can't begin to understand the complexities and so will argue only principles and common sense. Even I, being right of center, think it's notable that a president known for taking an intellectual approach to his job has decided this sacred cow topic should be engaged in right now. Makes me worry more than if the move were coming from the usual suspects.

[Dekonick]

Even I, being right of center, think it's notable that a president known for taking an intellectual approach to his job has decided this sacred cow topic should be engaged in right now. Makes me worry more than if the move were coming from the usual suspects.[/QUOTE]

+1

Like I said - in simple terms: This is not about politics, it is about losing freedom. Any tool that makes it easy to 'spy' will be too great a temptation not to be abused. :no:

[Pete Serotta]

:crap: :crap:


All do not have a computers and those that do have multiple IDs.


This would be a administrative nightmare for all. And I do not think it is possible. Spotlight is on what was on social accounts about the Arizona shooter

The school had the police in 5 times for the social interaction of the shooter before he was expelled for conduct or outbursts. System could not handle that face to face - - -so I am not bright enough to understand what the ID would do on internet. There were even laws in ARIZ to commit the guy to evaluation and treatment prior to escalation on violence,


Pete


IDs are tied to IPs which are tied to computers which are tied to other things.

[1centaur]

My worry is not about losing freedom, though I would like to keep that too. My worry is that the national security threat must be greater than I imagine.

Pete: One approach may be that rather than focusing on billions we can focus on a few who are not "known" in our security efforts. Ironically, perhaps, the impersonalization of the Net makes dealing with outliers easier than doing so in person. Blocking outliers electronically would seem to be very doable. Separating nuts from grouches and eccentrics in person, especially if being nice is a priority, has to be very difficult.

IDs are tied to IPs but anonymizers route through other IPs and people don't always connect from the same IPs. An ID that transcends IPs would separate those who are not trying to be anonymous from those that are, and allow sites to block those who are because they don't want the risk of dealing with them. This concept requires that the vast majority of people sign on to the concept; if 25% don't then most commercial sites can't afford to refuse to handshake with that many people.

How IDs are not fakeable I have no idea.

[Ahneida Ride]

that social security # ????

SS cards used to say right on them .. "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES"
Somehow that text disappeared.

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/09/4/0/8/29562813040933105.gif

Just kike the terms of redeem-ability on fed reserve shopping coupons.
note the "pay to bearer on demand" "redeemable in gold on demand"

http://www.pearlegg.com/500_note.jpg

Yea right !!!!!

SS # is now your government ID. exactly what they said would not happen

It is ALWAYS sold for your protection. Yea right ....

[93legendti]

Don't worry, there will be waivers for all those who vote for or give enough campaign contributions to the right people. Keep your party affiliation current everyone!
no doubt!

[SamIAm]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle goes something like:

<Uncertainty in position> X <uncertainty in momentum> >= hbar/2 (a constant)

So if you must know a particles position exactly, you have no information on its momentum and vice versa.

This strikes me as similar to the balance between freedom and safety. To have infinite safety is to forsake freedom and vice versa. Personally, I would rather be much less safe and much more free, but I can understand how others would choose differently.

[Ahneida Ride]

cheap, lite, sturdy

Pick two

Certainty, Freedom ..

Pick one

[Rueda Tropical]

Google and Facebook already know more about you then your own mother does.

[97CSI]

Tracking cookies are bad enough. :crap:Was wondering why I keep seeing those little toll-house cookies behind me when I turn around. :cool:

From the article you linked to:

"We are not talking about a national ID card," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke during an event at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

"I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," explained White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt. He also added that there won't be an emerging centralized database, and that anonymity and pseudonymity will still remain possible on the Internet. He also stressed that the private sector will need to lead the plan's implementation, not the government.This is what happens when you bring in that clown who runs Google as one of your "advisors". His vision of the future certainly does not jive with mine.

[dimsy]

http://www.egodialogues.com/words-language/huxley-orwell.php

[xjoex]

I have some knowledge of this space.

It is not a national ID, it is a unique identifier no different than SSN for financial transactions online only. For example when you log on to your:
-bank
-credit card company

You would have the same UID throughout. Then the gov would not maintain the db, private industry would.

Do I think this is a good idea? I don't know, you already have a unique id, your SSN so what is one more?

Besides, every single computer has a unique ID at this point any how, your network card has a unique id called a MAC address and your service provider tracks IP traffic to some extent. There really is not that much anonymity on the internet. Sure you can route traffic through proxies, but if you get a warrant it is not difficult to track sessions through a proxy.

-Joe

[avalonracing]

I have some knowledge of this space.

It is not a national ID, it is a unique identifier no different than SSN for financial transactions online only. For example when you log on to your:
-bank
-credit card company

You would have the same UID throughout. Then the gov would not maintain the db, private industry would.

Do I think this is a good idea? I don't know, you already have a unique id, your SSN so what is one more?

Besides, every single computer has a unique ID at this point any how, your network card has a unique id called a MAC address and your service provider tracks IP traffic to some extent. There really is not that much anonymity on the internet. Sure you can route traffic through proxies, but if you get a warrant it is not difficult to track sessions through a proxy.

-Joe

Dude, quit brining sanity and reasonable information to the tinfoil hat discussions.

[Rueda Tropical]

If this were coming from a disliked Republican administration the reaction would be much like it is in the comments on the OP's website - massive condemnation. That it's coming from a Democratic administration should be an advantage for keeping the rhetoric subdued from the left if not from the less-government right, but is a hindrance because the politicians are so attuned to current perceptions that telling the whole truth becomes a problem from both left and right. Hiding the truth amplifies the appearance of sliding something over on the public, and we're stuck with widespread suspicion, a genuine political problem.

On all important issues of privacy and individual rights Obama is in lock step with Bush. From the Patriot act to Guantanamo to his attitude towards whistleblowers there has been no change at the top. This has brought criticism from both the left, Goldwater type conservatives and Libertarians.

This particular issue is not the same as an internal passport system or national ID as in let me see your papers but give them some time and they will find ways to make it more like one. However now a days in the US what corporations know about you makes government look pretty bush league in terms of who is most like the big brother of 1984.

Everyday on the internet we voluntarily give away to business the sort of info we fought and died to keep from government.

[ti_boi]

I'm so scared right now. I'm just gonna to do what's sensible, I'm gonna file for unemployment. Then I'm gonna try to get a job at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, because they got an excellent corporate structure and they... *they* give *you* the tools to be your own boss.

[veloduffer]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Cybersecurity-Commerce-department-gary-locke-howard-schmidt,news-9667.html

No matter how you look at it... this is frightening... slippery slope :(

There are so many ways to track a person now (cell phone signal, use of ATMs, EZPass, credit cards, surveillance/public safety cameras, frequent buyer cards like at grocers). To not get tracked, you would have to live in the wilderness and totally off the grid.

[1centaur]

If it's a unique identifier for business transactions, why does government need to be involved?

And tracking after the fact is not the same as knowing before the fact/real time identification. We could track the 9/11 bombers after the fact too.

Looking only at tracking, I know that there are companies that make a good living just correctly matching A to B across cell phone companies or ATM networks. The world has developed lots of proprietary identifiers as linkages have formed, and it would be convenient not to be matching databases so laboriously. Again, that's a business concern, not a governmental one.

[xjoex]

...never mind...

[Fixed]

they tell you it is for your own good or it is to keep you safe
it all the same old line
capitalize on fear of an unknown and dangerous enemy .
cheers imho

[Ahneida Ride]

they tell you it is for your own good or it is to keep you safe
it all the same old line
capitalize on fear of an unknown and dangerous enemy .
cheers imho

Amen

and the Public falls for it every time !!!!!! :banana:

[rustychisel]

Everyday on the internet we voluntarily give away to business the sort of info we fought and died to keep from government.


Such a topic is as much about individual perception as anything else, so I feel justified in asking just exactly how many times you have died in striving to keep secrets from the government.

In all seriousness, we had a similar debate over a National ID card in Australia in the 1980s; and this seems a digital format debate of the same topic and magnitude. There's a hoary old line 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' which remains disingenuous, but the simple truth remains, same as cyphers, codes, good works and bad.

"Anything which can be designed by the human mind can be defeated or thwarted by another human mind."

The notion might be good and well intentioned. It might be ignorant and clumsy. Yet if people want to use this for bad rather than good that i where the danger lies. In a country which prides itself on being a democracy it behoves the citizenry to scrutinise the debate, the arguments for and against, and the intended outcomes. That is why the debate itself is worth having; and to ignore or shoot down the question for emotive reasons makes you a very poor servant to your country.

[pbjbike]

However now a days in the US what corporations know about you makes government look pretty bush league in terms of who is most like the big brother of 1984.

+1

Exactly. The horse is already out the barn door and in the next county.

[Dekonick]

+1

Exactly. The horse is already out the barn door and in the next county.

You are missing the whole point! Govt. sanctioned tracking is my issue with this.

[SamIAm]

You are missing the whole point! Govt. sanctioned tracking is my issue with this.

Exactly.

[97CSI]

You are missing the whole point! Govt. sanctioned tracking is my issue with this.Let's see.......... Google saves your searches with your identity for 2.5 years. Gov't doesn't care. Therefore, defacto Gov't sanction. It is all ready here. Simply not codified.

[sg8357]

You are missing the whole point! Govt. sanctioned tracking is my issue with this.

The FBI misses the good old days when they could easily tap your phone,
nowadays the baddies plot via facebook. The Feds need a way to tap your
social network, so think of it as a phone number for facebook.
So the FBI gets a warrant to tap you, Bob Smith, phone# 555-6666,
network id# aaa-555-6666 and can follow thru the internet just like
they used to be able to follow you thru the Bell System.

[Pete Serotta]

Such a topic is as much about individual perception as anything else, so I feel justified in asking just exactly how many times you have died in striving to keep secrets from the government.

In all seriousness, we had a similar debate over a National ID card in Australia in the 1980s; and this seems a digital format debate of the same topic and magnitude. There's a hoary old line 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' which remains disingenuous, but the simple truth remains, same as cyphers, codes, good works and bad.

"Anything which can be designed by the human mind can be defeated or thwarted by another human mind."

The notion might be good and well intentioned. It might be ignorant and clumsy. Yet if people want to use this for bad rather than good that i where the danger lies. In a country which prides itself on being a democracy it behoves the citizenry to scrutinise the debate, the arguments for and against, and the intended outcomes. That is why the debate itself is worth having; and to ignore or shoot down the question for emotive reasons makes you a very poor servant to your country.
:crap: :crap: yep

[Dekonick]

Let's see.......... Google saves your searches with your identity for 2.5 years. Gov't doesn't care. Therefore, defacto Gov't sanction. It is all ready here. Simply not codified.

All part of a verrrrrry slippery slope! As it is obvious few here care, when will you? How much is too much? When do you say when? Can you say when then?

Again, my fear is not 'lawful' use, but the abuse potential.

[97CSI]

All part of a verrrrrry slippery slope! As it is obvious few here care, when will you? How much is too much? When do you say when? Can you say when then?

Again, my fear is not 'lawful' use, but the abuse potential.Sorry, but you are 'preaching to the choir' with me. Patriot Act(s) are unAmerican, IMHO, and also illegal. But, I'm not on the Supreme Court.

[xjoex]

Wow there is a lot of misunderstanding in this post so far.

The idea is not to tie your facebook id/serotta forum id/ip address to web browsing or that identity. The ID is only for online financial transactions. It was mentioned before that there is some fear mongering behind this, but there is tons of online financial fraud from organized crime and more importantly nation state. There is a real need to make online transactions more secure as more and more of our economy moves to online transactions.

The governments goal is not running or maintaining this database, only pulling in private businesses to work together to make a usable product and leave it to private industry to maintain.

But lets think about this another way, you already have a unique id to anything you purchase online, its your credit card number.

To address another point in this thread, if the govt wants to tap your phone its really easy, they just need a warrant same as before to get a T3 or Pen Trap and Trace. It happens every day.

-Joe

[rwsaunders]

Enter your address in Google and ask for directions. Then link your address to Google Earth click the street view...invasion of privacy doesn't end with the government.

[Dekonick]

Enter your address in Google and ask for directions. Then link your address to Google Earth click the street view...invasion of privacy doesn't end with the government.

And this does not bother you? Anyone bent on causing you harm can track you down. Another unique ID is just another step that makes it easier.

It seems to me that freedom's are slowly eroding away. I dare not bring up totalitarian states of the past, but they usually begin slowly... until it is too late for the populace to react.

:no:

[Kirk Pacenti]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle goes something like:

<Uncertainty in position> X <uncertainty in momentum> >= hbar/2 (a constant)

So if you must know a particles position exactly, you have no information on its momentum and vice versa.

This strikes me as similar to the balance between freedom and safety. To have infinite safety is to forsake freedom and vice versa. Personally, I would rather be much less safe and much more free, but I can understand how others would choose differently.

This echos a quote that has often been attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and one of my favorites on the topic...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Cheers,

KP

[1centaur]

Who asked whom to the meeting? Industry standards have traditionally been developed by industry associations. It would be unusual for business to plead for government mediation if they just wanted to save themselves from fraud.

[Dekonick]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle goes something like:

<Uncertainty in position> X <uncertainty in momentum> >= hbar/2 (a constant)

So if you must know a particles position exactly, you have no information on its momentum and vice versa.

This strikes me as similar to the balance between freedom and safety. To have infinite safety is to forsake freedom and vice versa. Personally, I would rather be much less safe and much more free, but I can understand how others would choose differently.


Well put. Unfortunately, freedom is as hard to grasp as quantum mechanics so your example will fall on deaf ears. :crap:

[Ray]

Well put. Unfortunately, freedom is as hard to grasp as quantum mechanics so your example will fall on deaf ears. :crap:
Freedom is also an ideal/concept that has very different meanings to different people. If we can't even agree on what it is, it makes it that much harder to maintain or get back that which we've lost. The kinds of things we willingly looked the other way to after 9/11 was one kind of freedom lost. And some people see any intrusion of government into the bedroom as freedom lost and some of the same and other people see any govt intrusion into the boardroom as freedom lost.

Today everyone seems to want to be famous and is more than willing to put stuff online that many of us cringe at. Open information is a disease/cure that affects us all. As with most coins and swords, it has at least two sides and some good implications and bad ones. And we all have different ideas about what constitutes each.

-Ray