Tim wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I should have known that would spark a chastising _response_ in light
of your very recent comments regarding offlinking to me. Perhaps I
momentarily forgot....
Indeed, this discussion will be archived, and also indexed on the web so
that people will likely run across it when evaluating papers like the above
mentioned "Human Identification Theory and the Identity Theft Problem" Texas
Law Review, Vol. 80, Forthcoming LYNN M. LOPUCKI University of California at
Los Angeles School of Law, cited completely for reference.
> 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?
Indeed.
> That with good crypto each citizen-unit is perfectly capable of
> storing his own valuable information?
Yes, but others say infomediaries are necessary evils since individual
control would not be systemic/efficient.
> 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?
I think many people will share this sentiment, and would advocate a trusted
third party, rather than government as a repository. Of course, the
government is already a repository of this information. This is couched in
terms of a validation model.
> That governments typically push "escrow" systems which are in fact
> not escrow systems at all?
Proponents of such a solution would likely talk about "personal
empowerment," "control," "convenience," and "validation/authentication" to
prevent identity theft. Any additional biometric information (the author
suggested DNA sequences as an example) would be "elective." This is not to
say that I don't see your concerns, Tim, just framing the issues, which was
my original intent.
> 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?
Godwin's Law.
> 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.?
Yes, I am aware that even "trusted third parties" and "infomediaries" are
extremely BAD THINGS in the eyes of many, often being viewed as extensions
of government, or easily subject to government over-reaching. Here, of
course, they government and TTPs are already "trusted" with much of this
information. (Just saying that would be their argument.)
> 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?
Yes, the archives proved to be a rich place to look for this information, by
the key terms you have suggested. I notice cypherpunks have discussed these
issues in other contexts for many years, and these conversations are all
archived for public reference. Hopefully, people interested in this "web
site" solution to identity theft will Google these discussions and follow
your advice.
> That the "let us be your storer of sensitive information" proposal is
> just the latest spin on mandating such storage?
Others would claim this is domino theory, Tim.
I appreciate your response to assist me in framing the issues that might be
raised by such a proposal.
~Aimee
