If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Good: strong support for immigration reform bill. Bad: the bill contains the framework for a comprehensive biometric identification system for all Americans. Silver Lining: Citizens won't be required to present their National ID's prior to voting   (wired.com) divider line 134
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2013 at 11:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-10 11:25:23 AM  
This bill is cursed.

But it comes with a free Frogurt.

The Frogurt is also cursed.
 
2013-05-10 11:28:19 AM  
So it's guaranteed to be a scuttled by the tinfoil hate brigade who will see this as a prelude to the Mark of the Beast.
 
2013-05-10 11:28:55 AM  
Let me guess. The Republicans are pushing for "The mark of the beast"?
 
2013-05-10 11:29:51 AM  
I really do not like this bill. The UK shelved their national id scheme for a reason.
 
2013-05-10 11:30:03 AM  
I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?
 
2013-05-10 11:32:16 AM  

imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?


Maybe because Obama is black.
 
2013-05-10 11:32:35 AM  

imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?


There is a black man in the WHITE House and he is going to use this information to take your gun.
 
2013-05-10 11:32:36 AM  
Holy shiat, that's going to create some incredible inefficiencies and farkups with hiring.

Aside from the whole creepy as hell thing.
 
2013-05-10 11:34:27 AM  
Remember how much of an outrage papers please laws are?

This is no different, only they don't have to even ask for your papers anymore. They can just scan you.
 
2013-05-10 11:34:27 AM  
Are we to believe something like this doesn't already exist?
 
2013-05-10 11:35:27 AM  
Wait, the government is going to start keeping photos and numbers from my government issued IDs on file?

HORRIFYING!
 
2013-05-10 11:35:39 AM  

imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?


Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights
 
2013-05-10 11:36:11 AM  

imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?


For too many people, it smacks too much of "Show me your papers, citizen." I'm all for REAL immigration reform. But not this way.
 
2013-05-10 11:37:00 AM  

max_pooper: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Maybe because Obama is black.


Granny_Panties: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

There is a black man in the WHITE House and he is going to use this information to take your gun.


Come on. This is stupid and you know it.
 
2013-05-10 11:37:00 AM  
Can I get a career chip like in Futurama?
 
2013-05-10 11:37:16 AM  

cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights


Something not being explicitly mentioned by the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

The Constitution isn't a permission slip for citizens.
 
2013-05-10 11:37:53 AM  

Aarontology: Remember how much of an outrage papers please laws are?


The reason people a lot of people didn't like those (like the AZ law) was because they only applied to brown people. Once they apply to everybody, at least its theoretically beyond race, class, gender or religion. Of course, that's precisely why this one will fail. The upper crust will not enjoy having to play by the same rules as the proles.
 
2013-05-10 11:39:01 AM  

Granny_Panties: Let me guess. The Republicans are pushing for "The mark of the beast"?


Someone dumb who I don't like thinks this is a bad idea.

Therefore it must be a good idea.
 
2013-05-10 11:40:06 AM  

Aarontology: cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights

Something not being explicitly mentioned by the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

The Constitution isn't a permission slip for citizens.


This is true. 10th amendment and all. But still, something not explicitly stated in the constitution is the reason why Congress has certain powers.  For example, weed usage isnt in the constitution, and they have banned it. Stupid law as it may be, that is how the system was designed to work.
 
2013-05-10 11:40:35 AM  

Ned Stark: Granny_Panties: Let me guess. The Republicans are pushing for "The mark of the beast"?

Someone dumb who I don't like thinks this is a bad idea.

Therefore it must be a good idea.


Well...this IS a politics thread.
 
2013-05-10 11:40:44 AM  

max_pooper: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Maybe because Obama is black.


No you misheard... It is because he is blah. A blah person! See, if you say it correctly it makes perfect sense.
 
2013-05-10 11:40:47 AM  

Somacandra: Aarontology: Remember how much of an outrage papers please laws are?

The reason people a lot of people didn't like those (like the AZ law) was because they only applied to brown people. Once they apply to everybody, at least its theoretically beyond race, class, gender or religion. Of course, that's precisely why this one will fail. The upper crust will not enjoy having to play by the same rules as the proles.


I think one of the main reasons (Aside from the obvious racism) was that those kinds of laws, regardless of being applied equally was that they violate and go against a lot of what we're supposed to stand for.

The upper crust will find some way to be exempt from them in the same way they can be exempt from airport security, and how they got Congress to agree on something when it came to going against the sequester by refunding air traffic controllers.
 
2013-05-10 11:41:46 AM  
FTFA: This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.

Seriously folks, do you really think Congresscritters and Senators would ever allow themselves to undergo this? Its not going to happen.
 
2013-05-10 11:41:48 AM  

cman: This is true. 10th amendment and all. But still, something not explicitly stated in the constitution is the reason why Congress has certain powers. For example, weed usage isnt in the constitution, and they have banned it. Stupid law as it may be, that is how the system was designed to work.


Well, yeah you have a point there. Things that aren't explicitly numerated have a lower threshold for that "reasonable regulation" or whatever the phrase is.
 
2013-05-10 11:42:46 AM  
We knew it! FEMA camps!!
 
2013-05-10 11:43:22 AM  

Aarontology: The upper crust will find some way to be exempt from them in the same way they can be exempt from airport security, and how they got Congress to agree on something when it came to going against the sequester by refunding air traffic controllers.


Not to put it past them, but how do you get around biometric "proof of self" ?
 
2013-05-10 11:45:28 AM  

Somacandra: Aarontology: The upper crust will find some way to be exempt from them in the same way they can be exempt from airport security, and how they got Congress to agree on something when it came to going against the sequester by refunding air traffic controllers.

Not to put it past them, but how do you get around biometric "proof of self" ?


It's completely impossible, and nobody will spend any time or resources to circumvent it.
 
2013-05-10 11:47:11 AM  
Look, I don't get it: Why are people in the US so adamant to having an easily identifiable ID (biometric or otherwise)?
 
2013-05-10 11:47:12 AM  

Somacandra: Not to put it past them, but how do you get around biometric "proof of self" ?


I'm thinking more exemptions for situations when normal people have to prove it.

Like how they get around it in airports, you know? Being pre-cleared or whatever they call it.
 
2013-05-10 11:48:34 AM  
FTFA This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.

Actually, so long as this database is free to access, this seems like a fantastic way to prevent identity theft and make the numerous transactions where you already have to prove your identity (including most of the ones above...wtf article?) more convenient.

I mean, we already have plenty of forms of government ID and countless requirements to prove who we are, all of which we generally accept. I'm not seeing the issue here...just people complaining because complaint is there job. This kind of crying wolf probably isn't doing anyone any good, especially with all the real privacy issues out there.
 
2013-05-10 11:50:23 AM  

cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights


Sorry, but your comparison is stupid.

Voting is a privilege (something "guaranteed by the constitution"), not a right. Otherwise, why can the government take it away from felons?

Your freedom is a privilege, not a right. Otherwise, why can the government take it away from you (by imprisonment)?

Not to belittle the Bill of Rights, but most things that are written into the constitution are not really inherent rights. They are rules and privileges that we've all agreed to grant each other from the perspective of our community government.

Regulating them in such a way is valid within the eyes of the constitution.

As for the 'papers, please' thing-I agree privacy issues are something that needs to be considered, but that argument doesn't dissuade me from thinking that a federal ID is something that is inherently bad.
 
2013-05-10 11:50:34 AM  
www1.ucsc.edu
 
2013-05-10 11:51:14 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet.

Seriously folks, do you really think Congresscritters and Senators would ever allow themselves to undergo this? Its not going to happen.


Why would the wealthy or powerful seek to exempt themselves, either as a matter of law or as a matter of custom, given that most uses of their societal power require being recognized for who they are?

I'm ambivalent about the policy itself, but this objection sounds a little odd to me.
 
2013-05-10 11:52:22 AM  

Somacandra: Aarontology: The upper crust will find some way to be exempt from them in the same way they can be exempt from airport security, and how they got Congress to agree on something when it came to going against the sequester by refunding air traffic controllers.

Not to put it past them, but how do you get around biometric "proof of self" ?


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-10 11:53:05 AM  

imashark: As for the 'papers, please' thing-I agree privacy issues are something that needs to be considered, but that argument doesn't dissuade me from thinking that a federal ID is something that is inherently bad.


I don't think so either, but there are better ways to go about it.

Having as much information they're going to be collecting in a central database opens it up to all sorts of potential for abuse. Not just from government farking up, but for other organizations trying ot get access to the database. All it would take is one successful attempt, and all that information gets stolen.

We see how routinely there are massive failures of security when it comes to private business and the information they keep. Given how we as a country want to do everything on cheap, with effectiveness being a secondary consideration, I don't really trust that they'll be able to adequately secure the information.
 
2013-05-10 11:53:37 AM  
Wait. Admittedly i did not read the 800 page proposal, but aside from this fark headline saying 'biometric', all the articl says is they will collect photos? I don't like that idea but it's hardly 'biometrics'.

That being said:

Fingerprints are easy to bypass and derived from questionable science also dna is not unique per individual. (If either of those are in there)
 
2013-05-10 11:57:11 AM  

Aarontology: Having as much information they're going to be collecting in a central database opens it up to all sorts of potential for abuse. Not just from government farking up, but for other organizations trying ot get access to the database. All it would take is one successful attempt, and all that information gets stolen.

We see how routinely there are massive failures of security when it comes to private business and the information they keep. Given how we as a country want to do everything on cheap, with effectiveness being a secondary consideration, I don't really trust that they'll be able to adequately secure the information.


True.

The only way that I would see this being agreed to (by myself included) is if it was something on a Constitutional, or national security priority level. This would require not being half-assed, contracted out, or done on the cheap.

Come to think of it, until the government can make the guarantee that the above would not happen, politicians have no business even playing with that idea.
 
2013-05-10 11:59:21 AM  
BafflerMeal:

Fingerprints are easy to bypass and derived from questionable science also dna is not unique per individual. (If either of those are in there)

memedepot.com
 
2013-05-10 12:00:12 PM  

Aarontology: cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights

Something not being explicitly mentioned by the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

The Constitution isn't a permission slip for citizens.


So you believe you have a legal right to withdraw money from the bank without identifying yourself? You believe you have a legal right to drive without license by the Government?
 
2013-05-10 12:04:15 PM  

Witty_Retort: BafflerMeal:

Fingerprints are easy to bypass and derived from questionable science also dna is not unique per individual. (If either of those are in there)

[memedepot.com image 152x143]


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276592/Twin-brothers-arrest ed -rapes-Marseille-DNA-tested-police-work-prime-suspect.html
 
2013-05-10 12:09:26 PM  

cman: max_pooper: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Maybe because Obama is black.

Granny_Panties: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

There is a black man in the WHITE House and he is going to use this information to take your gun.

Come on. This is stupid and you know it.


Come on yourself... the only reason anyone could ever disapprove of anything this administration does is because they're racist.  You're obviously a racist for not understanding this.
 
2013-05-10 12:09:27 PM  

Wasteland: I'm ambivalent about the policy itself, but this objection sounds a little odd to me.


DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM has a different meaning when everyone has to be scanned.

also as pointed out the super haves really don't like being treated less than special. that means no lines, no security pat downs on the private jet. and it trickles down. those who, for whatever reason, want to feel important will try to carve out little ares just for them.

besides do you really want to stand around the check out in wal-mart while the database search for your mug goes on, just so you can use your debit card?
 
2013-05-10 12:09:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Aarontology: cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights

Something not being explicitly mentioned by the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

The Constitution isn't a permission slip for citizens.

So you believe you have a legal right to withdraw money from the bank without identifying yourself? You believe you have a legal right to drive without license by the Government?


First, withdrawal from accounts is not a question of law.  If I go into the bank, I must give them my name or my account number so the bank knows which account to draw from.  If I give them neither, they will probably not give me money.

As far as driving goes, I don't need a license to drive a car.  I need a license to drive a car on a public roadway.  As a side note, driving privileges are a state function, not a federal one.  With the feature creep associated with national id cards, eventually that state function will probably be usurped.  Whether that's constitutional or not remains to be seen.
 
2013-05-10 12:09:51 PM  
Just require finger prints and Retinal scans for drivers license and passports. You'll get 90% of people and the wealthy who would complain already gave the information to TSA Precheck or Global Entry.
 
2013-05-10 12:11:32 PM  

Wasteland: Why would the wealthy or powerful seek to exempt themselves, either as a matter of law or as a matter of custom, given that most uses of their societal power require being recognized for who they are? I'm ambivalent about the policy itself, but this objection sounds a little odd to me.


Because it would make their crimes all the more trackable? Plus the inconvenience of jumping through hoops of bureaucratic recognizance for mundane tasks? Because they're already accustomed to as little a gap as possible between what they want and what they can have?
 
2013-05-10 12:11:50 PM  

another cultural observer: Philip Francis Queeg: Aarontology: cman: imashark: I understand concerns about security, accuracy, and database integrity, but I don't understand why such a database is so "booga booga" to so many.

I have all kinds of ID with different organizations that I have to have in order to access services or use rights (driving, student ID, banking, etc). What makes this different?

Driving, education, banking are not guaranteed by the constitution. They are privileges, not rights

Something not being explicitly mentioned by the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

The Constitution isn't a permission slip for citizens.

So you believe you have a legal right to withdraw money from the bank without identifying yourself? You believe you have a legal right to drive without license by the Government?

First, withdrawal from accounts is not a question of law.  If I go into the bank, I must give them my name or my account number so the bank knows which account to draw from.  If I give them neither, they will probably not give me money.


You can go into a bank and give them your name and account number and they can still not give you money if they aren't sure abotu your identity. Most bank's contracts allow 7 days to verify who you are before handing over funds if they choose to.
 
2013-05-10 12:12:48 PM  

Somacandra: Wasteland: Why would the wealthy or powerful seek to exempt themselves, either as a matter of law or as a matter of custom, given that most uses of their societal power require being recognized for who they are? I'm ambivalent about the policy itself, but this objection sounds a little odd to me.

Because it would make their crimes all the more trackable? Plus the inconvenience of jumping through hoops of bureaucratic recognizance for mundane tasks? Because they're already accustomed to as little a gap as possible between what they want and what they can have?


The wealthy already give over their biometic information. It is required for Nexus, global entry, TSA precheck or any of the other services that let you skip the immigration line.
 
2013-05-10 12:12:59 PM  

redmid17: Witty_Retort: BafflerMeal:

Fingerprints are easy to bypass and derived from questionable science also dna is not unique per individual. (If either of those are in there)

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276592/Twin-brothers-arrest ed -rapes-Marseille-DNA-tested-police-work-prime-suspect.html


Very interesting.  I always wondered about this.  Also, should note that there many examples of people who have more then one set of DNA.  Chimera or genetic mosaicism is really odd.  Your blood may have one DNA type and different organs (including reproductive organs) but have another set.
 
2013-05-10 12:16:01 PM  

redmid17: Witty_Retort: BafflerMeal:

Fingerprints are easy to bypass and derived from questionable science also dna is not unique per individual. (If either of those are in there)

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276592/Twin-brothers-arrest ed -rapes-Marseille-DNA-tested-police-work-prime-suspect.html


Twins exist so DNA is stupid. That's your defense?

memedepot.com memedepot.com
 
2013-05-10 12:16:16 PM  
Don't worry, states can still add in their own law requiring NRA membership to vote.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report