Quoting Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, Faustine wrote:
>
> >If some fed thought it would be a "fine public service" to post all of
> OUR
> >social security numbers online (truly easier than you know) would you
> still
> >think this was anything to be glad about? The fact that such a powerful
> ID
> >number exists on anyone at all is the real outrage, why not focus on
> that.
>
> Here we have SSN's assigned at birth, and they're everywhere - mine's
> 080978-0173. The difference is, people tend to realize that knowledge of
> the identifier does not constitute proof of identity.
> If the threat is other people, security through obscurity won't cut it.
Certainly you're right, generally speaking. But if you amble on over to
http://www.loompanics.com you can pick up books on any number of nifty frauds
you can commit with SSNs because of the way things are set up in the US today.
> If the threat is the government, they already have the number. So what's
> the big deal with disclosure?
It's far more than that because of the way it's used in the US. Scott French
has a rather popular work out now called "Who are you? The Encyclopedia of
Personal Identification" that could fill you in about the mechanics of identity
theft. Anything by George Hayduke is...er..."informative" too.
> >Promoting the idea of "no expectation of privacy for anyone,
> especially people I don't like" hardly seems like a good idea.
> Well, that's the only way to do it without resorting to security
> through obscurity.
Not really: why have a state-issued personal ID number at all. And it's the
picking and choosing I have the real problem with, whether it's done by the
state, some megacorporation or the nutcase down the street. A great quote to
give you a sense of what really concerns me about it:
"For other analysts, thc key concern is the effect on govemment administration.
The potential dark side is captured in studies waring about the emergence of
a 'computer state' (Bumham 1983), a 'dossier society' (Laudon 1986), and
a 'Surveillance' that may limit personal liberty in the United States (see,
also, Bell 1979). These studies show that the new technology may facilitate the
monitoring and surveillance of people on the job and elsewhere, the amassing
and merging of enorrnous statistical data banks for profiling individuals and
their activities, and the restriction of access to "Strategic" and 'secret'
information. After all, the U.S. government has more data on its citizens than
any totalitarian government has on its citizens."*
* Quote from: "Cyberocracy Is Coming" by DAVID RONFELDT, International Policy
Department, RAND.
And I wouldn't be too quick to knock the benefits of privacy and anonymity
either: I'm sure a look through these archives can provide you with a million
reasons to reconsider the "I don't have anything to hide, so why worry" line of
thinking.
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
