[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about additional UPIs for specirfic areas of Healthcare? For > example, > 1)for those involved in for to be involved in clinical trials > 2)mental health > 3)public health > 4)the military > 5)substance abuse > 6)prison communities (whether acknowledged or not by the government) > 7)refugees > 8)disabilities > 9)hazardous occupations > 10)long-term, unresolved conditions > 11)dental > 12)vision
Sure, but I would subdivide those much more finely. > > This short list can be extended. It may seem strange now but there > can > be justifications > built for each category. Easily - and a lot more besides. > The underlying issue is whether one secure UPI can or should cover > the > entire healthcare field. Sorry, what is a "secure UPI"? > Personally, it would be a nice umbrella and usable as such. > Drilling done into the various > specialities might result in the need for competing UPIs. Competing? Do numbers fight with each other? Tim C > The companion issue of administration, or which country controls the > UPIs is interesting. > One or more cooperative, supportive countries might be a better > solution. My preference is to > avoid situations where governments can exercise control over people > abusively as you > indicate. Find a different solution. > > Regards! > > -Thomas Clark > > > Tim Churches wrote: > > >On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 18:39, Horst Herb wrote: > > > > > >>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:21, Tim Churches wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Unique identifiers with braod scope are a real threat to personal > privacy. > >>>Unique identifiers with narrow scope aren't so bad, and can be > linked by > >>>proxies with other narrow-scope unique identifiers to acheive most > aimsunderstand). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I would rather go to the trouble of giving 5 or 6 numbers, names, > >>>>addresses, > >>>>phones to identify myself, than have a "unique" identifier. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Me too. > >>> > >>> > >>Tim, > >> > >>if you would have lived in a country that looks after its citizens > as well as > >>Norway did (does?), you wouldn't hesitate a second *demanding* a > unique > >>identifier. > >> > >> > > > >I have lived in a country (and my better half is from that country) > >which does not look after its citizens, the government of which has > a > >history (in our memory) of actively persecuting its citizens who > dissent > >from its views. Such countries are common, and far outnumber > countries > >like Norway. > > > >But as I have said, I am not against unique identifiers. But the > scope > >of each unique identifier must be very narrow, and the ability to > link > >them into broader scopes very tightly controlled by an independent > body. > >The ability to link must not be available to everyone by default. > > > > > > > >>When we immigrated in Norway, I had to sign two A4 forms. That was > all. From > >>then on, virtually anything bureaucratic was handled automatically, > no sweat, > >>no forms any more. I *never* wrote my address/d.o.b./etc anywhere > when > >>dealing with government etc. in two years, not a single time! > >> > >>My tax return for > $250,000 p.a. income involved perusing 2 > pre-printed A4 > >>sheets, and putting a tick of approval along with my signature. > That was all. > >>The tax I paid was ~30% of my income, which is considerably less > than I pay > >>in Australia for a comparable income. Why? Because the Norwegian > government > >>doesn't waste buckets of money for entirely superfluous > bureaucrazy. > >> > >> > > > >But at least the climate is better in Australia...except if you like > >skiing, ice skating or curling. > > > > > > > >>In "form countries" without PID like Australia however the most > uneducated > >>underprivileged are twice disadvantaged, because they aren't even > capable to > >>fill in the forms that would give them some public assistance. > >> > >> > > > >This is a valid point, but a gloabl UPI is not the only solution. > > > > > > > >>Trust me: all we need is constitutional embedding of civil rights > INCLUDING > >>privacy, and a PID is the passport to freedom. The only ones > disliking it > >>(once proper privacy protection is in place) are criminals or > social > >>parasites. > >> > >> > > > >Or people who disagree with their (repressive) governments. > > > > > > > >>WE NEED A UNIQUE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM. Now. All of us. > >> > >> > > > >I agree, but we don't need a single, broad-scope Unique Personal > >Identification number. It is a recipe for abuse, just as the Social > >Security Number has been in the US. Instead we need lots of > separate, > >narrow-scope UPIs, which are linkable, but only for good reasons and > >only through the auspices of an independent body charged with > carefully > >balancing privacy against the public good, and/or with individual > >consent to link. > > > > > > >
