National ID and databases

It's not just over the top but pretty ridiculous. A National ID is not going to make any difference in what they portrayed. Social Security number is already a de facto for almost every piece of information displayed in that little hit piece. What isn't can be easily reconciled from database mining that many companies are more than willing to sell access to. In most cases, that is information the consumer agreed to give and did not pay attention for what they were agreeing to in order to get a $2.00 discount on a grocery bill. The health records are the info that is just plain wrong because of patient privacy laws. I would be more concerned on an assault on them.

Private industry holds so much more data than the federal government already. I have less concern about the data the government has on me than I do private industry. Credit reports, purchase records, what music do I buy, what websites do I go to... all in the hands of private industry, where I have little influence and control over it. Much of what the ACLU displayed is already out there. If they are concerned that a simple National ID card and number is going to make a big difference, they missed the boat because it sailed a long long time ago.

Do I want a National ID? No. However, the database already exist and are cross linked. Having worked on some data mining projects, I know what it is already out there. I think what the ACLU talks about is a little more likely than a soviet style "Papers Please" system because we can influence what government does. We have much less control over corporate databases. I know it is going to be attached to a Drivers License. Heck, I have an old laminated DL from 1995 that I have been able to avoid replacing simply because I don't want the state to have a digital photo of me to sell (as they tried in around 2000 and got a major slap down from the people of Florida). I don't have any of the frequent shopper cards for grocery stores either. I refuse to shop at places like Albertsons and Winn Dixie that require you to have the card for discounts (although, half the time, the cashier will have a card and is more than happy to swipe theirs for you). I don't wear a tin-foil hat; but I am wary.

Now if you want to talk about embedding RFID chips, I will put on my tin-foil hat.

Such foolish overreaches are a hinderance to substantive change. If someone doesn't find the real problems scary or annoying enough, this doesn't make them pay attention. It just makes the message more dismissable.

IMO, there's plenty to be scared about when it comes to real stuff like identity theft and the easy availability of information that the vast majority of us would prefer to be private. If such stuff gets collected and leaked, it'll at least be on a "very useful to know in order to exploit you" basis.

And that's where I'd like to see a fair-minded discussion go...towards:

1)insisting that businesses do better than factoring in identify thefts as a cost of doing business and eschewing the sorts of security that gets redlined because the cost-benefit analysis has the luxury of not needing to factor in our individual grief...

2)having a serious discussion about what sorts of information we (Americans in a democracy) regard to be private, and allowing us to opt out from being profiled if we don't want to be profiled. Or even better, allowing us to remain anonymous unless we opt in in a relatively explicit way.

My general belief is that laws and regulations should be targeted at those actually doing wrong, with as minimal as possible an impact on ordinary, mostly law-abiding citizens.

I'm happy to grant that this has a certain syrup, but there is enough devil in the details that it doesn't always pour. For example, I like the idea of punishing identity thiefs directly, but I do want to make law-abiding companies set a higher threshold of checking to prevent fraud. That could count as BOTH targeting the thieves by making theft harder and as troubling ordinary folks who generally want to conduct every given transaction as quickly as possible.

My concern is that if we don't insist on such safeguards as a matter of right, identity incursions will become more and more common, and then the folks we failed to regulate will SELL US the safeguards we deserve. For only an extra $9.95 per month, we'll check your signature, or put a photo on your card, or add a password, etc, etc. Skip the security responsibility, and then profit from our pain. if your identity has been stolen, must it feel to discover that the credit card companies eager to profit from your trauma?

Here's the message I feel like I keep getting:

If you

? send us a detailed letter
?or visit our website and take 15 minute treasure hunt,
?or read the 6 point fine print on the right piece of paper on this wad of junk we sent you,
?or are lucky enough to discover a phone number that connects you to an actual human,

then we may refrain from doing all sorts of things with your personal information that you'd prefer us not to do, if only you knew we were doing it. At least for the time being. We resever the right to trick you into giving us permission again tomorrow.

That doesn't cut it for me. Does the godshead of free markets really insist that things like having a credit card, going to the doctor, paying a bill, or contracting for a simple a service (phone, internet, what have you) must always be equal parts intelligence test and endurance test?

FWIW Pat, I recognize this as the place where you might lean towards saying "unfortunately, yes" and then I say "there has to be a way" and then you say....

Even if you're just leaning a hair more that way than I. It is to laugh, mi amigo. No?