Wouter said:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:42:25PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
> > 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.)
I don't doubt some of what I have read as been "overblown." I would
appreciate any good references.
> For what it is worth, the focus of this Dutch proposal is not about
> storing _new_ personally identifying information but about a new way of
> providing centralized access to information already stored by the
> government (name, place and date of birth, the Dutch equivalent of a SSN
> etc).
I believe this is the context of the proposal I referenced. Not only is the
government a TTP, this information is easily publicly available. Indeed, the
proposed measure could be of concern to information brokers and several gray
industries, depending on the ramifications and how it is implemented.
> The idea is that this gives the citizens more control over the
> correctness and distribution of the information.
Same idea here.
> It did note that such a centralized location _could_ also be extended
> for storage of other information.
Yes.
> This proposal is compatible with the project to replace the current
> version of the passports with a version that includes a smartcard (with
> appropiate personal keys and certificates). The idea was that this
> smartcard could be used for strong authentication to access these
> "personal vaults".
Viewed as a courtesy and convenience service by the majority of the
population?
> In my opinion this is better then current situation where much of the
> same information is already used by the various government agencies, but
> is difficult to manage and audit due to its distributed nature. Just
> changing your address in all these databases when you move is
> non-trivial, even when most of these databases are interlinked now.
> The information is already out there being used, so let it be in a place
> I have some form of control over it.
That is the argument here.
> > 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.
> Frankly, I dislike webchats in general and this one in particular.
> Declan's arguments hold for me too.
>
> > ~Aimee
Thank you for taking the time to add some clarifications, and give the other
side of the issue. I think this proposal takes much the same tact. Of
course, we have numerous SSN laws being considered, and wheels are hard to
stop. It will be interesting to see how the US will address this issue and
secure the support of some powerful stakeholders.
> With kind regards,
> Wouter Slegers
