Kevin's Watch

www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html

The FBI is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

Damn. At this rate. '1984 might happen in my lifetime.

Gotta love it.

Bet you google has it first, and makes it searchable.

How is this any different from the fingerprint databases they already have? Why aren't people screaming "1984" about that? We've been doing this for years.

The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect.

because you had to be arrested or otherwise obliged to provide them for security purposes. why we are screaming now is because it will invlove potentially all citizens. a fearful society needs to know where everybody is and what everybody is doing in case they might commit a crime. the fact that this is incredibly ambiguous, and overly invasive, should give us cause to be concerned, if not outraged. the fact that they can track you using your credit card purchases is just the tip of the iceberg of an overbearing and far reaching authoritarian govt.

If we lived in a real democracy, the protest would be deafening.

Esmer, I agree with you that we don't need "an overbearing and far reaching authoritarian govt." Amen, brother. However, in the article linked, I didn't see any evidence that this would affect anyone besides criminals and those needing security clearance. Sure, there was the hypothetical fears of people who are scared of this, but no evidence.

We all have social security numbers. We all have a driver's license or other ID with our picture on it. All this information is stored in government databases. I simply don't see the need to get worked up over the government trying to catch criminals.

You don't have the right to not be you. You don't have the right for the government to not know your identity. Get pulled over, and any cop can demand that you provide identification. Is that Big Brother, too? I'd wager that we all have government employees bring us mail everyday. Does it bother you that your government knows where you live? Do you think they are keeping tabs on you this way?

Look, they can't put your fingerprints and palm prints and retinal scans in a database without your permission. They can't do it without you knowing. I think I'd notice some government official pressing my palms to an inkpad. There's no reason to get all worked up about this.

Lord Mhoram wrote:If we lived in a real democracy, the protest would be deafening.

How so? I don't think this has anything to do with a "real democracy". More like apathy.

The same people worrying about the government having our palm prints want the government to provide each of us healthcare. Gotta love it.

How are you going to get your welfare and healthcare if the government doesn't know who you are and where to send the checks? You want privacy, go live in the woods. You want the government to take care of you? You give up your privacy. Simple.

Cail,

Exactly. If we were a truly democratic society, people would just not be apathetic about a possible infringement (Malik's points are good ones) on our civil liberties.

If you haf nossink to hide you haf nossink to vury about... do you?

I vould like to ask you a few questions, ja?

This issue pales in comparison to so many "infringements" that we all take for granted, I just can't worry about it. I'd much rather the government take my fingerprints than my money. But they've been taking fingerprints of criminals for decades, and that hasn't extended into the general public. So what makes people think this will be any different? Why doesn't anyone worry about the fingerprinting and mug shots of criminals?

The IRS collects detailed financial records on every one of us. That's real. That's happening now. But no one complains. Hell, I even tried to drum up support for the Fair Tax (which abolishes the IRS), and people were more worried about the middle class getting shafted than they were about their financial privacy.

Getting upset about this, when the government already does much worse things to us, just seems silly to me.

why shouldn't we know who people are if we are going to be giving them free health care and other monies? when we arrest someone at the border why shouldn't we know that they are citizens?

Lord Mhoram wrote:Exactly. If we were a truly democratic society, people would just not be apathetic about a possible infringement (Malik's points are good ones) on our civil liberties.

I don't understand how you're equating the two.

A society that values its democracy is peopled by aware and passionate citizens.

Lord Mhoram wrote:A society that values its democracy is peopled by aware and passionate citizens.

Ok, so just to make it clear, by "true" democracy you're talking about something along the lines of a "good" democracy? Like, one with citizens who believe that the way we fulfill our basic needs is as important as simply fulfilling those needs? Or something sorta grand like that?

Before I thought you just meant "a place where everything was decided directly by the full population."

The first (a "good" democracy) leads directly to the second (a "democratically" governed society). An uninterested population loses control of its governance.

Well, since we're a republic, not a democracy....

Lord Mhoram wrote:A society that values its democracy is peopled by aware and passionate citizens.

I agree completely. But imagine if we replaced that with: A society that values its democracy is peopled by anonymous citizens. I'm not sure that even makes sense. The only way to remain anonymous in a democracy is not to vote (the first step in voting is proving you are who you say you are), or to refuse all the privileges of the state. People who are apathetic and don't take part in this process remain anonymous. Illegal immigrants are anonymous. Identity is integral to freedom in a society.

Anonymity is in no way necessary for democracy. In fact, I'm not even sure an "undocumented citizen" makes sense. In order to enjoy the freedoms of citizenry, the responsibility of being identified as a citizen is necessary.

I'm not arguing that I think we all need to be fingerprinted. I'm just pointing out that the idea of identification isn't antithetical to freedom or democracy; in fact it is integral to it. Think about how fake IDs undermine freedom, undermine laws, and undermine responsibility. If identity theft is something that makes sense to be illegal--the fact that your identity is protected by law--then we have already accepted that identity is government regulated and enforced.

Cail wrote:Well, since we're a republic, not a democracy....

Damn, beat me to it.