At 10:17 PM -0400 5/15/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:42:25PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
>> From: SSRN Electronic Paper Collection
>> Human Identification Theory & The Identification Problem
>> http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=263213
>>
>> The author proposes a take on the "Dutch Digital PII-boxes" to combat ID
>> theft with a validation system, as an alternative to "SSN secrecy"
>> legislation, etc. (The Dutch are implementing a scheme where personally
>> identifying information is stored with the government, including the
>> elective storage of medical and employment information: PII escrow.)
>
>Ah, typical.
>
>> Open forum in the event anybody is interested @:
>> http://www.quicktopic.com/7/H/DcC8ShvGDefu3
>> I might sling this link around to other parties later, I think your comments
>> would likely be "illuminating," ...that is, if there are any comments.
>
>Why would we not post our comments here? There are a number of reasons for
>this, including the fact that there's a critical mass of people on
>cpunx already, that it's usually more convenient to reply via email than
>via some clunky web-based interface, that once "quicktopic.com" dies
>its posts will disappear, but cpunx archives will, for better or
>worse, live on, allowing future cpunxwannabes to RTFA.
Web-based chat tools and chat forums are abominable, IMO.
As for the "we're the government and we're here to store your
valuable information" proposal that Aimee wants to here our comments
on, what more needs to be said?
That with good crypto each citizen-unit is perfectly capable of
storing his own valuable information?
That if governments are to store such data, either the information
will flow across open lines or will have been encrypted in some form,
so why bother with the government being the holder?
That governments typically push "escrow" systems which are in fact
not escrow systems at all?
That European governments which collaborated with the Nazis, and are
even now collaborating with the Nazis in Bonn and Paris, are hardly
good candidates for being an "escrow service" for sensitive data?
That this topic was discussed at great length, and with some good
insights, during the debate several years ago about the (very
similar) "trusted third parties" proposal from the U.K.?
That Aimee has now seen adequate evidence that searchable archives of
the Cypherpunks traffic are readily available and that she would
likely find more articles by searching the archives than in
attempting to shame current list members into commenting on this
latest statist proposal?
That the "let us be your storer of sensitive information" proposal is
just the latest spin on mandating such storage?
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
