1
   

ID Card for Use at Security Checks

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 08:58 am
Venture to Offer ID Card for Use at Security Checks

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: October 23, 2003
Quote:

Americans hate to wait. But will they pay - and submit to security screenings and even high-technology fingerprinting - to avoid the long lines snaking behind checkpoints in airports, office buildings and sports arenas?
Steven Brill is betting that the answer is yes. Mr. Brill, a journalist and entrepreneur, will announce today a new company, Verified Identity Card Inc., which will offer customers an electronic card containing data showing that they are not on terrorism watch lists and do not have certain felony convictions on their records.
If businesses, airports and government agencies sign on to the plan and put Verified's card readers at security checkpoints, cardholders would be able to zip through, avoiding the most thorough searches.
Mr. Brill, who created CourtTV and The American Lawyer and Brill's Content magazines, joins a wave of companies hoping to fill a need and make a profit as government agencies and businesses scramble to shore up defenses against terrorism.
The card, he said, could serve as a more palatable alternative to a government-mandated national ID card, which is opposed by privacy advocates and the Bush administration.


This it would seem is nothing less than a national identity card being generated and maintained by a private entity. What do you think of the scheme?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/technology/23secu.html?th
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 671 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:02 am
Your assesment sounds about right. Didn't the airlines themselves propose doing this at one point?
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:22 am
This also just disturbs the heck outta me because anyone could simply behave until they got the card and then be zipped through and oops, here's a box cutter....

The idea that people might change after the card is issued doesn't seem to be addressed. The idea that innocents might be duped into getting cards and then committing acts of terrorism isn't addressed although that is sometimes how suicide bombers are recruited.

Oh yeah, and privacy, too. I had to be fingerprinted for the Bar exam (makes sense; they really don't want anyone taking the test for you). But otherwise, I have no desire to ever be fingerprinted in any way or for any reason. Fingerprints mean criminal records.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:37 am
jespah
Quote:
Fingerprints mean criminal records.


Not really. I have been fingerprinted at least four times as a result of being on a mission that was considered secret by the government and several times to obtain top secret clearance, a need due to the industry I was in. However, I have no criminal record.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:45 am
No Way!!!!!!

This is a pretty meaningless gesture in the war against terrorism. Drug dealers routinely breach this type of security by simply recruiting better mules.

I somehow doubt that airplanes will be used again. If billions of dollars are being wasted on airplane security why wouldn't would-be terrorists attack somewhere else?

This is a pretty significant gesture in the war against my privacy and civil rights. I would gladly take my shoes off a thousand times to aviod haveing my data and my fingerprints in another database.

I may except a card if I were sure I could somehow subvert it.

My supermarket gave me a card that allows them to track my purchases in exchange for "discounts". I have traded cards with several different people since then.

I don't have the slightest idea where my card is now, or what the database says I buy, but it ain't me!
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:46 am
I know - I'm not getting myself across well. Fingerprints are generally associated with criminal records and the public should mainly see them that way. I think it's a good thing to make that association. To my mind it's disturbing that people would hand over their fingerprints for the sake of convenience.

There are reasons (other than being booked in a police station) for giving up your fingerprints. These are, like you note, for things like gettting security clearance. Or taking the Bar. In these instances, there is a definite societal interest in accuracy and identity that far outweighs personal privacy interests. We have to be sure that people with security clearance are who they say they are, and it should be tough (with hurdles!) to get security clearance. We should also be sure that the people who take the Bar are who they say they are, because justice is important and lawyer competence and ethics are a part of that.

I have no problem with these uses of fingerprints. They are legitimate.

But using fingerprints for the sake of convenience strikes me as being just so many sheep in terms of handing over privacy considerations. Will urine and blood samples come next?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:54 am
ebrown_p wrote:
This is a pretty significant gesture in the war against my privacy and civil rights. I would gladly take my shoes off a thousand times to aviod haveing my data and my fingerprints in another database.


How would this card be an invasion of your privacy and/or civil rights? Getting one would be entirely voluntary. You could take your shoes off as often as you'd like. Unlike the National ID card proposals you aren't forced to have this card.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:07 am
OK, the fact it is voluntary I guess makes this OK. (Somehow this idea troubles me, but I won't argue it yet since I need time process why).

But personally I certainly wouldn't do this. Having my fingerprints in a database is just not worth it.

It is a problem of privacy because presumably a government agency could identify me from my fingerprints at any time.

What bugs me is these efforts to increase security are ludicrous. They don't increase security - the only benefit is to make goverment hacks look like they are doing something.

Let spend the time effort and money somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:25 am
Brown
Not only is it voluntary but you must pay for the "privilege"
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:32 am
I seriously doubt I'd ever get one of these cards unless I was forced to either just because I don't relish the thought of giving up info that I don't have to (not that I haven't done it a million time in the past but..).

But hey, the guy thinks he has an idea that he can make money off of. That's free enterprise for ya. I think he's fooling himself and this will float about as well as the idea pushed by the airlines right after 9/11..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ID Card for Use at Security Checks
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 03:39:37