On 15/09/06 10:52 +0100, Vivek Rai wrote: <snip>
> I dont see how medical history is suitable for any such database.. (unless > we are a nation full of 'sick' people ;-) ).. AGAIN, this CANNOT be a SECRET > FILE ON EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY CITIZEN. > *SIGH* Oh, so the next time you go to a doctor, your identity is established by using this card. Then the insurance comany uses the same primary key. Then you file your tax returns. Then someone correlates this data (_all_ of which _will_ be made accessible to the government, and rich private organisations). > Even for financial information, the only thing useful for CIS to keep (or > help keep) would be some sort of credit history record, (as we dont have a > proper centralized credit history system in India, and that hurts our > economy badly) > Oh, the threat isn't CIS itself. The threat is the creation of a primary key to identify a person everywhere. > Would you be willing to be > >searched randomly, because only those who have something to hide will > >opposed such searches? > > > If it is a system used to prove my credentials and credit/criminal past.. > why not?.. In fact they already use such systems in UK/US etc.. > Losing freedom, one bit at a time. The US and UK are good examples of repression today, not freedom. > You guys are forgetting that not all such information needs to be publicly > available.. In the west, credit history systems CHARGE MONEY for each query > that you make. Also, their are proper restrictions on their usage. > Erm, there are no such restrictions. Also, these companies do not even claim to maintain records properly. Have you even heard the horror stories of people whose credit has been ruined because of identity theft, or errors in these databases? > If you have so much time and money that you can buy a subscription to the > "full access" (meant to be for organizations like banks and police etc)... > just to randomly search for details of other people.. . yes, go ahead.. > I don't need money, I just need to be friends with the admins (or bribe or threaten them enough). > Think not of how it impacts criminals, but how it impacts the innocent. > > by that logic, we shouldnt search air travellers before boarding the > plane... 99.99% of the time, it mostly affects the innocent ... right? > I agree. Whatever made you think that the searches were for the safety of the passengers? If they were for passenger safety, they would be done outside the airport and away from crowds. A terrorist can still walk in and explode a bomb before the first security check itself. Those are for aircraft safety, because aircraft cost lots of money. > What is your concept of perfect e-governance? That you can download and > print the forms at home, and then queue up at the government office? Or do > you want to be able to submit them online too? > You do so miss the point. I don't have a problem with e-governance, I have a problem with a single identity everywhere. > How do you propose to implement identity verification for any such facility > requiring "authorized access"? Why dont you suggest an alternative system > that we can compare against? > Digital signatures would work fine, even though the government mandates a socially broken implementation. > Remember, such systems are already in place in many countries. The society > in these countries is doing just fine. It helps prevent identity theft, > money laundering, tracks credit frauds, promotes easy financing, easy access > to a lot of government services.. etc etc etc. I don't know about you, but I do deal with people involved with this stuff as part of my job. I can tell you that what you are saying is bullshit, and it does exactly the reverse. It encourages identity theft, credit fraud (against merchants rather than banks/CC companies), does nothing for government services ... Devdas Bhagat -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
