Properly implemented, it makes faked IDs harder. It also acts as the foundation for some other applications for centralizing info and making sure it’s tracked appropriately.
The idea being that someday Joe Terrorist walks into an airport and has his ID swiped through a standardized computer card reader. Not only does the computer verify that the ID isn’t fake, it also can pop up a message saying the FBI just put Joe Terrorist on their watch list 20 minutes ago and to please alert local security and police forces.
Properly implemented, it makes faked IDs harder. It also acts as the foundation for some other applications for centralizing info and making sure it’s tracked appropriately.
The idea being that someday Joe Terrorist walks into an airport and has his ID swiped through a standardized computer card reader. Not only does the computer verify that the ID isn’t fake, it also can pop up a message saying the FBI just put Joe Terrorist on their watch list 20 minutes ago and to please alert local security and police forces.[/quote]
Not going to happen with this shitty implementation of it, and it doesn’t seem likely to happen ever, actually.
There is the little issue of how to pay for it. This is going to cost the states an assload of money. The bill’s language does the standard thing, says money should be made available for it, but doesn’t actually provide the money for it. So when it comes time to actually fund all this activity, and the money actually has to be appropriated, the states will be left with their dicks in their hands as they have been in dealing such federal issues as border control.
I believe all administrations have been known to screw over the states in this way, but the Bush administration has been especially adept at it. (See Inaugural security expenses and the District of Columbia).
Properly implemented, it makes faked IDs harder. It also acts as the foundation for some other applications for centralizing info and making sure it’s tracked appropriately.
The idea being that someday Joe Terrorist walks into an airport and has his ID swiped through a standardized computer card reader. Not only does the computer verify that the ID isn’t fake, it also can pop up a message saying the FBI just put Joe Terrorist on their watch list 20 minutes ago and to please alert local security and police forces.[/quote]
Not going to happen with this shitty implementation of it, and it doesn’t seem likely to happen ever, actually.[/quote]
I agree that the current proposed implementation has some issues but I disagree with your assertion that it is unlikely to ever happen. Forget likely, this is full on inevitable.
Properly implemented, it makes faked IDs harder. It also acts as the foundation for some other applications for centralizing info and making sure it’s tracked appropriately.
The idea being that someday Joe Terrorist walks into an airport and has his ID swiped through a standardized computer card reader. Not only does the computer verify that the ID isn’t fake, it also can pop up a message saying the FBI just put Joe Terrorist on their watch list 20 minutes ago and to please alert local security and police forces.[/quote]
Not going to happen with this shitty implementation of it, and it doesn’t seem likely to happen ever, actually.[/quote]
I agree that the current proposed implementation has some issues but I disagree with your assertion that it is unlikely to ever happen. Forget likely, this is full on inevitable.[/quote]
You really think so? People don’t seem to have any trouble getting on planes when they’re on watch lists now, even if they’re correctly identified at the gate. I’m thinking specifically of Cat Stevens here. How is a card that helps you identify them (assuming it does, which it doesn’t) going to stop this from happening?
Ahh, I mistook your statement. I thought you were saying a computerized national ID system was unlikely, but you were really saying that using to prevent crimes is unlikely.
The bonus of a centralized database is rapid response and dissemination of information. Even if Joe Terrorist was using a fake ID, it has to be one that the computer can scan to be a workable fake. So if the FBI figures out the alias and ID number of Joe Terrorist they can put their alert in the system even if Joe Terrorist is using John Smiths ID card. They just put the alert on John Smith and 20 minutes later Joe Terrorist is trying to talk his way out of hot water with airport security police.
Is this a perfect foolproof system? No. Will there ever be a foolproof perfect system for people tracking? No.
But this does make the situation better than it is now.
Won’t solve shit. A system that relies on a terrorist to be a total and utter moron is going to fail, and everyone thinking it’ll work for no apparent reason will divert us from actually effective solutions.
Properly implemented, it makes faked IDs harder.
“If gold was free, I’d be rich.” Not going to happen; any idea hard enough to fake that it matters would be unusable.
An extremely expensive system that catches terrorists so stupid they can barely kill themselves isn’t going to help anything.
Purely theoretical of course and not based upon any in-depth knowledge of the system …
Wouldn’t the disadvantage of a centralized database is the rapid response and dissemination of information?
If Joe Terrorist has access to the database, which isn’t as unlikely as it probably sounds when one looks at the sheer number of people who would need daily access to it, he can do a search for someone who fits his description well enough that he can simply create a copy of their ID and use their information as his own. So instead of a fabricated identity, he’s now got a real one that’s simply not his.
I guess I have a problem with the illusion of security this will bring in a world where people routinely defraud the very systems that will be contributing the data for the national database.
I also am very cynical about what happens when your information in the database is incorrect. At the last place I worked, five people had the wrong sex printed on their driver’s licenses. Names, addresses and other information often contains a very small spelling error.
Trying to get the DMV to change that information is a pain as it is, which is why many people simply let it go. I can’t really see a national ID system making that process easier.
I’m barely convinced that the TSA has made flying any safer compared to the costs and annoyances added to the system.
Exactly, this does not remove the possiblity of fake IDs. Though it does make it harder than it it is currently when college kids with photoshop and an inkjet printer can make passable ones.
A national database will be no more accurate or fraud proof than the sum of inputs. Which means it will be no better or worse than the current systems.
Yep, that’s a problem with any database, whether state or national. There has to be a correction procedure obviously.
A national dbase has nothing to do with the process is easier or harder, since the data is still fed in from the local DMV. If your state has crappy procedures then that’s a state level issue, not a flaw with the idea of a national system.
I’m completely convinced TSA is a waste of govt time and money as currently implemented. A national ID database on the other hand seems very sensible.
Because not everyone wants to live in a police state?[/quote]
How does a police state follow from a national id card? Hell, a national id-card is nothing. I was isssued a personal identity number when I was born and that number is on all my official records, and most of my financial records, and despite this I see no sign of impending doom nor do I hear the trample of jack-booted thought police.[/quote]
I think you need to read everything posted above carefully.[/quote]
California IDs have been scannable (swipe-able actually) for years. I’ve seen zero places that use it, except the po-po when they pull a brother over for runnin a red. Seriously, no one uses it.
No it doesn’t.
True, but why is this a good thing? What benefit is there of tracking normal law abiding people who are the ones who will have legitimate ID cards?
Pipe dream, homeboy. Total fantasy.
Come on Nick, that’s complete hogwash. That’s like saying they can print perfectly reasonable counterfeit money on their Dell Intarweb PC.
Worse actually. As the sole source of information, it will be held to a higher standard by those who use it. An error in 1 of 5 systems can be easily corrected (reference the other 4). An error in 1 of 1, not so easy. Besides which, if it is no better, then why spend the money?
So how does a national dBase fix it then?
He didn’t, but Derek Meister did a bit:
“In [making national ID cards easily scannable], you create more of a record of your movements, and at scanning points that don’t merely record the cards they’ve seen but verify them against the national database, it creates the potential for the mapping of your activities, even if it’s not directly or deliberately designed to.”
Yep, it sure does. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours*.
[size=1]* reasoning, that is.[/size]
True, but why is this a good thing? What benefit is there of tracking normal law abiding people who are the ones who will have legitimate ID cards?
[/quote]
Err, isn’t that what I explained in the Joe-Terrorist-gets-arrested scenarios? Law enforcement information is like any other information. Computers can disseminate and synchronize it faster than humans. This is a very simple concept.
Pipe dream, homeboy. Total fantasy.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I’ll ammend my statement. The computer verifies that an ID isn’t a complete fiction, but you are correct it doesn’t determine that it is an actual govt issued piece of plastic. It could be a cunning duplicate of someone else’s ID, or some fake ID with info that clever criminals had somehow injected into the system. This would be the same problem the current system has, only the double check factor (physical ID plus db check) is harder to fool. So this is an improvement. What’s the objection?
Come on Nick, that’s complete hogwash. That’s like saying they can print perfectly reasonable counterfeit money on their Dell Intarweb PC.
[/quote]
I knew in fellow in college who made something like $10,000 a year beer money by whipping up fake IDs for minors on equipment he had in his dorm room. He had a nice (but not super nice) printer, do-it-yourself laminating kit, and some photoshop skills. Since some of the IDs that Nebraska issued back then are still in circulation now and still valid now, I imagine that there are probably still kids doing the same thing.
A computer double-check would put such operations out of the reach of the amateurs.
Worse actually. As the sole source of information, it will be held to a higher standard by those who use it. An error in 1 of 5 systems can be easily corrected (reference the other 4). An error in 1 of 1, not so easy. Besides which, if it is no better, then why spend the money?
[/quote]
A national dbase isn’t more accurate, it doesn’t magically create 100% security, there are lots of things it doesn’t so. It doesn’t do taxes or wash your car either, but those aren’t valid objections.
A nationally centralized ID database would do everything the current system does just as well as the current system, and would do a few other things that the current system couldn’t do. That’s reason enough for an upgrade.
If you want to criticize it (and feel free, I enjoy this debate), you need to stop pointing out failures in the current system and trying to cite them as reasons not to go to a national system. Instead lets discuss the benefits proposed by a national system and discuss whether those are worth the expenditure and potential loss of privacy.
So how does a national dBase fix it then?
[/quote]
Because not everyone wants to live in a police state?[/quote]
How does a police state follow from a national id card? Hell, a national id-card is nothing. I was isssued a personal identity number when I was born and that number is on all my official records, and most of my financial records, and despite this I see no sign of impending doom nor do I hear the trample of jack-booted thought police.[/quote]
I think you need to read everything posted above carefully.[/quote]
No it doesn’t.[/quote]
Yep, it sure does. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours*.
[size=1]* reasoning, that is.[/size][/quote]
Fair enough. I contend that putting a new word “national” in front of the existing item “ID card” to create the new item “national ID card” does not and cannot add one iota of security to it.
True, but why is this a good thing? What benefit is there of tracking normal law abiding people who are the ones who will have legitimate ID cards?
[/quote]
Err, isn’t that what I explained in the Joe-Terrorist-gets-arrested scenarios? Law enforcement information is like any other information. Computers can disseminate and synchronize it faster than humans. This is a very simple concept.[/quote]
It was connecting “Joe Terrorist” to “ID card which contains Joe’s info” that lost me. How will the system guarantee that Joe Terrorist is carrying the card by means of which he will get caught?
Pipe dream, homeboy. Total fantasy.[/quote]
Fair enough, I’ll ammend my statement. The computer verifies that an ID isn’t a complete fiction, but you are correct it doesn’t determine that it is an actual govt issued piece of plastic. It could be a cunning duplicate of someone else’s ID, or some fake ID with info that clever criminals had somehow injected into the system. This would be the same problem the current system has, only the double check factor (physical ID plus db check) is harder to fool. So this is an improvement. What’s the objection?[/quote]
Well the objection is over-arching. In this small bit of my reply I was only objecting to the “non fake verification” piece. :) But to reiterate, if what is needed is a unified database architecture, I’m more inclined to agree. But adding new national ID cards and all this is redundant and a waste of resources.
Come on Nick, that’s complete hogwash. That’s like saying they can print perfectly reasonable counterfeit money on their Dell Intarweb PC. [/quote]
I knew in fellow in college who made something like $10,000 a year beer money by whipping up fake IDs for minors on equipment he had in his dorm room. He had a nice (but not super nice) printer, do-it-yourself laminating kit, and some photoshop skills. Since some of the IDs that Nebraska issued back then are still in circulation now and still valid now, I imagine that there are probably still kids doing the same thing.
A computer double-check would put such operations out of the reach of the amateurs.[/quote]
So as I said just above (for clarification) a database check I’m personally OK with.
Worse actually. As the sole source of information, it will be held to a higher standard by those who use it. An error in 1 of 5 systems can be easily corrected (reference the other 4). An error in 1 of 1, not so easy. Besides which, if it is no better, then why spend the money?[/quote]
A national dbase isn’t more accurate, it doesn’t magically create 100% security, there are lots of things it doesn’t so. It doesn’t do taxes or wash your car either, but those aren’t valid objections.
A nationally centralized ID database would do everything the current system does just as well as the current system, and would do a few other things that the current system couldn’t do. That’s reason enough for an upgrade.
If you want to criticize it (and feel free, I enjoy this debate), you need to stop pointing out failures in the current system and trying to cite them as reasons not to go to a national system. Instead lets discuss the benefits proposed by a national system and discuss whether those are worth the expenditure and potential loss of privacy.[/quote]
Part of the disagreement I think (correct me if I’m wrong) is that I’m disagreeing with the national ID card portion of the whole. National databases exist now, just in a decentralized and disconnected format. I can hardly see a reason to not come up with an infrastructure that ties them all together in cross-operability.
My reasoning on why this will make IDs less secure, rather than more, involves the counterfeit detection pens in use at convenience stores nationwide. If people start relying on easily-defeated or non-relevant technology, they will slowly lose their ability to detect what really matters. My father had about 20 years in banking, and his experience was that counterfeit bills were always caught by feel. The stupid little pen is just filled with iodine, and would only detect a counterfeit that was printed on starched paper stock, i.e. the crap in the copier down the hall. Any counterfeiter worth being concerned about isn’t going to use letter paper to print money; it doesn’t feel, look, or weigh right. But, I guarantee that the monkeys manning the cash registers these days would pass any crap at all, provided the iodine didn’t turn black.
In the same way, any place that has these “smart cards” will start to dumb down the people’s ability to detect fakes by behavior, appearance, or how poorly the fake is printed. They’ll just hit the machine, and if it doesn’t signal the roof-mounted lasers, the person will pass through. When’s the last time that the checker at the supermarket caught an incorrect price, rather than the customer? So long as it scans, they couldn’t care less about what actually gets charged.
Nick, I don’t really know what to say other than you’re falling for the “technology limits is what’s stopping us from catching terrorists” fallacy. The 9/11 terrorist went undetected because of the structure of the bureaucracies responsible for them; a unified database would have caught zero of them.
And do you realize exactly how unlikely your “catch a terrorist” scenario is here?
We figure out X is a terrorist and in the country. Note this is 99.99% of the hard part, and a national id system will do nothing for it.
We then try to find them and keep them out of airports. A national id would only help with this if they’re still using the id we thought they are and they have made no attempts at misdirection.
Does the second bullet point sound like it’s worth 100s of billions to you? If we need that part, we’re fucked.
Is that the infamous debate-via-imaginary-statistics method I see? ;-)
Like I keep saying, the national database idea isn’t perfect. It inherits all of the flaws of the current system and only improves in a few areas, but incremental improvement is still improvement.
As for the cost, I’ve already said the currently proposed implementation has some problem. I’m not a fan of unfunded federal mandates. That doesn’t mean that the idea of a national ID database is a bad one in and of itself. Thats the idea I think offers benefits.
