County in Maryland collecting biometric data

[William Wallace]

Biometrics: Coming to a Park Near Me

ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) Montgomery County residents will soon be required to scan their fingers to enter recreation centers. Officials say switching from plastic passes to finger scanners will save the recreation department $50,000 annually.

Thoughts?

[El Barto]

Same shit, different day.  Such is life in a dieing empire. 

[In The Name Of Rudess]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

[William Wallace]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

It's not much of a right, then. Is it?

[El Barto]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

So would you be cool with them collecting a complete set of prints from every citizen when they're born?  How about retinal data and a DNA swab?

[William Wallace]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

So would you be cool with them collecting a complete set of prints from every citizen when they're born?  How about retinal data and a DNA swab?

Another thought. Why is it always the responsibility of the citizenry to shut the fuck up when it comes to governments collecting sensitive information? Who cares if I haven't done anything illegal? What justification is there for collecting fingerprints?

[El Barto]

9/11 changed everything!

As I've said all along, much more concerning to me than than +/- 3k people was the fundamental shift towards being an entire nation of suspects.  I suppose the tendency has always been there to a small and subtle degree, but a little random carnage to scare the masses and all of a sudden it's actually acceptable. 

[rumborak]

I heard the other day that they are already deploying devices that scan your face passively (i.e. you don't even know it's happening) , creating thousands of data points by which you're uniquely identifiable. The scary thing is, this new-fangled scan, which they call "taking a photo" is being shared all over the place, i.e. you can download that stuff straight from the internet.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

9/11 changed everything!

As I've said all along, much more concerning to me than than +/- 3k people was the fundamental shift towards being an entire nation of suspects.  I suppose the tendency has always been there to a small and subtle degree, but a little random carnage to scare the masses and all of a sudden it's actually acceptable. 

This is one of the more dangerous results of a retarded society; everybody is fine with a gradually growing surveillance state because they're comfortable with it. Why shouldn't they be?

[Genowyn]

I fail to see why the government shouldn't be allowed to keep track of when you use the services they pay for.

[Adami]

I don't have an issue with keeping track of who is in which country. Seems like a smart administrative move.

[MetalMike06]

I fail to see why the government shouldn't be allowed to keep track of when you use the services they pay for.

 

[Genowyn]

Oh, so when you invest in a company and they buy something, that means they didn't actually pay for it, but you did, right, because it was your money?

[William Wallace]

Oh, so when you invest in a company and they buy something, that means they didn't actually pay for it, but you did, right, because it was your money?

Investors aren't forced to give their money to a company. I am, however, forced to pay taxes. If those dollars are used to clamp down on my freedom, there had better be a good reason.

[Genowyn]

If you don't want them to scan your fingerprints, just don't go to the rec center. Would you have any problem if a corporation required you to scan your fingerprints to use their services?

I'd much rather the government had information on me than a corporation, because at least the government has to pretend to have my best interests at heart.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

So would you be cool with them collecting a complete set of prints from every citizen when they're born?  How about retinal data and a DNA swab?

Yes, I'd be cool with that. They can have my DNA and retinal data. Who cares? As long as I don't commit a crime I don't see how that would have any negative consequences. How would it "limit my freedom"? It may even reduce the number of innocent people that are convicted.

These kinds of subjects always seem to attract people who think they're so much smarter than the average Joe because they can see right through all these "conspiracies". News flash: the government isn't actually trying to kill you/put you in jail for the rest of your life/rob you of your valuable privacy.

For this post I will obviously get responses saying how blind I am and how I'm part of the "retarded society". I'm okay with that. Have fun being paranoid I guess, I have real things to worry about.

[yeshaberto]

I'm with Rudess, but my wife is on the other side apparantly.  there went my hope for intimacy tonight   


 

[William Wallace]

They have people's fingerprints. So what? As long as the residents don't kill people with their bare hands I don't see how that would negatively impact them. Privacy is a right, but you can take it too far.

So would you be cool with them collecting a complete set of prints from every citizen when they're born?  How about retinal data and a DNA swab?

Yes, I'd be cool with that. They can have my DNA and retinal data. Who cares? As long as I don't commit a crime I don't see how that would have any negative consequences. How would it "limit my freedom"? It may even reduce the number of innocent people that are convicted.

These kinds of subjects always seem to attract people who think they're so much smarter than the average Joe because they can see right through all these "conspiracies". News flash: the government isn't actually trying to kill you/put you in jail for the rest of your life/rob you of your valuable privacy.

For this post I will obviously get responses saying how blind I am and how I'm part of the "retarded society". I'm okay with that. Have fun being paranoid I guess, I have real things to worry about.

Nobody is alleging a vast conspiracy. But there's is always a tendency for governments to invade privacy when given the opportunity. Just look at what the Bush administration did after the September 11 attacks, for example. People were detained without being charged with a crime, the NSA was writing its own search warrants and tapping phones, and there was (and is) that whole torture thing. 

Furthermore, there are many innocent people whom have suffered thanks to the the idea that the government can be trusted with sensitive info on private citizens. How do you explain that?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Nobody is alleging a vast conspiracy. But there's is always a tendency for governments to invade privacy when given the opportunity. Just look at what the Bush administration did after the September 11 attacks, for example. People were detained without being charged with a crime, the NSA was writing its own search warrants and tapping phones, and there was (and is) that whole torture thing. 

That may be true, but 9/11 was a one-time event. The events you are describing didn't last more than a month at most. And in a case like 9/11 I think the government is allowed to do things like that. Except for using torture, but they were heavily criticised for that in the international community.

Furthermore, there are many innocent people whom have suffered thanks to the the idea that the government can be trusted with sensitive info on private citizens. How do you explain that?

Could you give an example of that?

[icysk8r]

Anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin

That's a common misquote. The actual quote is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In this quote Benjamin Franklin was referring to the people who would bow down to the (then British) government because they said that they would maintain order and keep those nasty injuns from killing them and stealing their women and children: thus providing security. Franklin obviously didn't want them to defect to the enemy, so he said this quote. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we are discussing here.

But if you must use it in the context of this topic: the quote refers to "essential liberty." To this I must ask what "essential liberties" are and if they have been sacrificed in the name of security. Everyone will give you a different answer to what essential liberties are. I think the right to not have someone take a picture of your eye is not an essential liberty. Some people may have different opinions about this. This means the quote can be subjectively interpreted and thus can't be used effectively in an objective discussion.

Here's a fact: You can't get security, or really government at all, without giving up SOME small liberties.

[El Barto]

I would say that in the context of this discussion, the Franklin quote is dead-on in spirit.  Essential liberty in this case could certainly be construed as not being tagged suspect at birth, which how I view an invasion of privacy done in the name of law and order.  For two hundred years, the law in this country has been crafted in such a way that The Man has an obligation to stay the hell out of our business until he has an articulatable reason to believe that we're up to no good.  Gradually, we're becoming more and more expected to stay out of his business while he spies on us. 

These kinds of subjects always seem to attract people who think they're so much smarter than the average Joe because they can see right through all these "conspiracies". News flash: the government isn't actually trying to kill you/put you in jail for the rest of your life/rob you of your valuable privacy.

That's a pretty pointless assumption.  They also attract people such as myself who are neither conspiracy-minded nor paranoid.  While I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that I certainly am smarter than the average Joe, my position on this has more to do with a personal set of principles than some grandiose enlightenment.  I've spent 40 years trying to be a honorable and honest man, and frankly it offends me to no end when someone assumes that I'm a bad guy for no reason whatsoever.  That's not what I like to see in a society whose inhabitants still brag about being the freest on Earth. 

[William Wallace]

That may be true, but 9/11 was a one-time event. The events you are describing didn't last more than a month at most. And in a case like 9/11 I think the government is allowed to do things like that. Except for using torture, but they were heavily criticised for that in the international community.

Bullshit. Alien and Sedition Acts, both red scares, Japanese WWII internment - just to name a few. Government's abuse people's privacy often.

Could you give an example of that?

See above.

[Genowyn]

What does requiring a fingerprint scan to use a government service have to do with being labelled as a suspect?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Bullshit. Alien and Sedition Acts, both red scares, Japanese WWII internment - just to name a few. Government's abuse people's privacy often.

-Alien and Sedition Acts: Seriously? That's over 200 years ago. Every politician from that day is obviously long gone.
-1st Red Scare: Almost 100 years ago. Also, the population itself was for the most part responsible for this. The government never told them to do the things they did. Granted, George Creel did say some things, but that was just one person, hardly the entire government.
-2nd Red Scare: You could say that people's privacy was violated here, but it did reveal a huge Soviet spy network that was infiltrating the federal government. So I think it was justified in this case.
-Japanese WWII internment: 60 years ago... Also, this was during a World War. I don't think it's weird to check if Japanese people are spies when you are at war with Japan.

I don't see how any of these events really abused people's privacy for unfounded reasons. So, do you have anything from the current generation of politicians, so that means an event less than 60 years ago where the privacy of a large part of the population was violated without any foundations?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

I would say that in the context of this discussion, the Franklin quote is dead-on in spirit.  Essential liberty in this case could certainly be construed as not being tagged suspect at birth,

You're seriously blowing this way out of proportion.

That's a pretty pointless assumption.  They also attract people such as myself who are neither conspiracy-minded nor paranoid.  While I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that I certainly am smarter than the average Joe, my position on this has more to do with a personal set of principles than some grandiose enlightenment.  I've spent 40 years trying to be a honorable and honest man, and frankly it offends me to no end when someone assumes that I'm a bad guy for no reason whatsoever.  That's not what I like to see in a society whose inhabitants still brag about being the freest on Earth. 

I was talking about people like Wallace who claim that anyone who is in disagreement with them is part of a retarded society. You say you're not conspiracy-minded or paranoid, but some of your ideas certainly come across that way. Like the thing you just said about being tagged suspect at birth.

[rumborak]

For the most part I find this whole thing hardly more than a bad publicity accident. They should have known that doing anything "biometric" is going to get activist groups on their tail.

Looking at it rationally, finger vein scans are in no way more of an issue than photographs on plastic cards. In fact, they are less of an issue, because you have to actively place your finger onto a machine, whereas everybody could (if they wanted) take a photo of you without you knowing, run it against a database and know who you are.
So, actually, finger vein scans, from a liberty standpoint, are better than photographs since one can only establish your identity based on your explicit cooperation. Photographs are much more of a liberty issue. But, hoping on a rational discussion in these matters that would actually lead to a reasonable policy is a futile exercise, when everybody just waits to drop Franklin quotes and slippery slope argument in the discussion.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Rumbo, that is a fantastic point.  Any camera on a building is looking at you from many viewpoints and most of us never try to avoid them.

[rumborak]

I think the age of anonymity is officially over, seriously. Data acquisition, be it photos, voice identification etc. are so cheap and easy to do these days, it has become an idealistic folly to hope that somhow we can retain our absolute anonymity. We're much better off focussing our energy on managing that information (both from a personal standpoint, i.e. what do I put on the net, but also from a societal standpoint, i.e. how much transparency do we require from gov't agencies and companies regarding our information) than chasing down an ideal that can not be achieved.

It's a bit ironic how the people who scoff and laugh at the RIAA for their lack of being realistic about file sharing, are often the same people who fight the quixotic fight to disallow technology use for identification purposes.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

Excellent points Rumbo.

[El Barto]

To be clear, I don't think that this particular issue is such an egregious invasion of privacy.  I think it's just another example of people writing off another very small infringement as justifiable because it isn't such a huge deal.  Small infringements add up very quickly.  I've said often that we as citizens are moving into the realm of being automatically suspect.  I see that as the total result of all of the little things like this--not any one specific.  Most importantly, the prevailing attitude that some people here are demonstrating that if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear. 

As Rumbo correctly pointed out, we have passed the point of having any expectation of privacy; most unfortunate in my opinion.  However, I think that makes it all the more important to keep tabs on what happens with all of the information that we're giving up.  If the Parks Department here demonstrated some plan to insure that these scans could never be used for anything other than gaining entry to the rec centers, it wouldn't bother me quite so much.  However, I'd say that anybody who thinks that these scans wouldn't be added to the ever growing amount of data on all of us is stunningly naive. 

Bullshit. Alien and Sedition Acts, both red scares, Japanese WWII internment - just to name a few. Government's abuse people's privacy often.

-Alien and Sedition Acts: Seriously? That's over 200 years ago. Every politician from that day is obviously long gone.
-1st Red Scare: Almost 100 years ago. Also, the population itself was for the most part responsible for this. The government never told them to do the things they did. Granted, George Creel did say some things, but that was just one person, hardly the entire government.
-2nd Red Scare: You could say that people's privacy was violated here, but it did reveal a huge Soviet spy network that was infiltrating the federal government. So I think it was justified in this case.
-Japanese WWII internment: 60 years ago... Also, this was during a World War. I don't think it's weird to check if Japanese people are spies when you are at war with Japan.

I don't see how any of these events really abused people's privacy for unfounded reasons. So, do you have anything from the current generation of politicians, so that means an event less than 60 years ago where the privacy of a large part of the population was violated without any foundations?

You asked him for examples and he demonstrated 200 years worth of tendency to abuse the "law and order" mentality.  He and I both maintain that similar affronts continue to occur, yet rather than be so obvious as rounding up every Japanese person, citizen or otherwise, they happen in much smaller increments.  You want a more modern example?  Howabout setting up a system that allows for surveillance on US citizens that doesn't require a warrant until after you need one to cleanse your poisonous fruit?  Our society is actually starting to view the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments as a pain in the ass to be circumvented rather than essential to a free society.   

[William Wallace]

-Alien and Sedition Acts: Seriously? That's over 200 years ago. Every politician from that day is obviously long gone.

The point, as El Barto said, is that the precedent for violating our right to privacy was set long ago. It's inconsequential that the laws are old.

-1st Red Scare: Almost 100 years ago. Also, the population itself was for the most part responsible for this. The government never told them to do the things they did. Granted, George Creel did say some things, but that was just one person, hardly the entire government.

Palmer Raids

-2nd Red Scare: You could say that people's privacy was violated here...

Yes, I could; and I did. McCarthy's witch hunt was entirely separate from the cases where soviet spies were caught. This relates to the larger point that freedom and security don't have to be exclusive.

-Japanese WWII internment: 60 years ago... Also, this was during a World War. I don't think it's weird to check if Japanese people are spies when you are at war with Japan.

Of the 100,000 people they rounded up, none turned out to be involved in espionage. And why is war a justification for locking up American citizens?

So, do you have anything from the current generation of politicians, so that means an event less than 60 years ago where the privacy of a large part of the population was violated without any foundations?

I gave you the examples from just a few years ago. Warrantless wiretapping, the feds writing their own warrants, extraordinary rendition, etc - all withing the last five years, under both our most recent Presidents.

[icysk8r]

-Alien and Sedition Acts: Seriously? That's over 200 years ago. Every politician from that day is obviously long gone.

The point, as El Barto said, is that the precedent for violating our right to privacy was set long ago. It's inconsequential that the laws are old.

-1st Red Scare: Almost 100 years ago. Also, the population itself was for the most part responsible for this. The government never told them to do the things they did. Granted, George Creel did say some things, but that was just one person, hardly the entire government.

Palmer Raids

-2nd Red Scare: You could say that people's privacy was violated here...

Yes, I could; and I did. McCarthy's witch hunt was entirely separate from the cases where soviet spies were caught. This relates to the larger point that freedom and security don't have to be exclusive.

-Japanese WWII internment: 60 years ago... Also, this was during a World War. I don't think it's weird to check if Japanese people are spies when you are at war with Japan.

Of the 100,000 people they rounded up, none turned out to be involved in espionage. And why is war a justification for locking up American citizens?

So, do you have anything from the current generation of politicians, so that means an event less than 60 years ago where the privacy of a large part of the population was violated without any foundations?

I gave you the examples from just a few years ago. Warrantless wiretapping, the feds writing their own warrants, extraordinary rendition, etc - all withing the last five years, under both our most recent Presidents.

I agree with everything you are saying, as well as El Barto.