Out of everything you could trust, the government is the one thing whose trustworthiness should be questioned the most.

fixxed

if i understand the ben franklin quote right:
security is broken over time. when the new security measures are broken, you'll have the same security as now, but less freedom.

take your pick

[ 09-30-2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Zero Alpha ]

More to the point - you are not only trusting government, you are trusting everybody in it and you are trusting their information security system.

I don't like the photo I.D./fingerprint scheme. I can understand it as part of a "voluntary" program - e.g. military, etc. that has some aspect of choice about it. But required for ordinary citizens? No.

Let's use the "thin edge of the wedge" argument - how long until the government will want to keep everyone's DNA on file? That might cut down on crime as well, or at least make investigation a lot easier.

Getting back to the topic of terrorism safety measures, I don't quite see the connection between having photo/fingerprint ID and combatting terrorism. Can someone enlighten me?

It is not a violation of freedom to have a photo ID, fingerprints, DNA or any other things on record! How these things are used is what constitutes wiether there is a violation of freedom or not! Now understanding this FACT of life, I want to be on as few records as I possibly can be, because there is another overiding FACT of life: People are lowlife sacks of horse manure, and ALL gov't bodies are run by people.

No. Never. Not ever. Axiomatic.

Bing-bang-boom. I agree with the both of you.

And I still don't see how gov't having all our vital information will help them keep people "secure" from terrorists. I know I'll be a lot safer from ordinary criminals (e.g. from identity theft) if my records aren't held somewhere in a handy-dandy database.

Exactly; technical flaws aside, one assumes as a null hypothesis that these will be misused.

That aside, if one assumes in the same thread that all of these can be faked -- I can guarantee that all can be, to a degree -- any security gained from this loss of freedom is worthless.

I get the feeling that the general consensus is I shouldn't allow my fingerprints to be taken.

It's a great pity - but I think I'll decline.

Too bad, D1, that you decided not to visit. If you get out Chicago way ever, I'll be glad to buy you a beer or four.

BTW, I had to get no less than 4 photo ID's made in London. Everything from ISIC card to underground card. I thought it overly-regulatory, but I didn't complain because I was visiting someone else's land, and even being there was a privilege, not a right.

[ 10-01-2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Four will not be enough TL - not for D1 ;) - that dude has a huge thirst and a great head for liquor [img]smile.gif[/img] . I still smile when I think of the manner in which he totally destroyed poor Mouse last year.

As to the fingerprinting - it ain't never going to go away now. It is in, and it will be in to stay. It will spread too - it won't be long (I give it less than 5 years) before the majority of the world's nations adopt the same measures as the states have brought in. Some will do it on a tit for tat basis and some because of rational thinking, but Pandora's box is open now and the lid won't get replaced anytime soon.

Our choices will become either "I ain't never gunna travel outside my country", or "sod it - have the damn prints you jumped up red tape jockey - now let me in". I would miss too much of the world taking option 1, so it will be option 2 for me.