Friday, July 6, 2012


BTC Commentary -

The following is a rebuttal to a second round of propaganda towards a nationalized Social Security card, this time c/o Diane Dimond who wrote "Show your papers -- But what Papers? That's a Good Question"

Dear Ms. Dimond,

You just do not know what you are talking about. I respect the fact that you're trying here, but National IDs are not what this country needs right now. They can't respect individual privacy AT ALL. There was a little law passed in '07 on the back of the Patriot Act called FISA where anything in your phone goes to a government database sitting in the wilds of UTAH. You were out that day in class.

People's unanimous hesitancy to make it even easier for the government to track their goings and doings is based on a little thing called consent. Consent is not something you and your ideologues have for a national ID card because 25 States banned the Real ID Act - which codified the closest thing we have to a national ID card.

That's not "crazy talk" - that's the law - in 25 States - with precedent for banning a national identity card.

This government trespasses daily with relentless assaults on privacy. You're asleep at the wheel.

There is no real incentive to make it more convenient for a bureaucrat at schools or the DMV to find me when they abuse what they've got with internal fraud and general contractor corruption. I don't owe these people a living. In fact, I wish I could fire them all because they make my life more difficult.

Don't insult the reading public's intelligence. You're not in favor personal liberty or individual privacy. People giving up their location data is discouraged by those who advocate privacy. You're all for it.

Unfortunately - over half of America can't be wrong on this one and you won't get their consent.

Sheila Dean

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you. The only error that people have when they consider these types of things okay is that they totally misunderstand human nature and the state of things today. And that's pretty much the whole issue.

At the core here is control and trust. I do like the original author's idea of having the data under our own control and physical possession- But the truth is that that wouldn't really work for long in today's world. It is much easier to store data "in the cloud" and it would eventually happen.

I'm okay with making databases more efficient and even some cross-references with very strict legal rules, but giving one organization all that info on us is too much- especially for the government.