Who Owns Your Fingerprint?

On a recent trip to the SeaWorld park I was asked to be fingerprinted at the entrance. As a matter of principle I have refused (they checked my ID instead), but a quick look around revealed a steady stream of patrons putting their fingers in a scanner. Not even frowning at this latest addition to our surveillance society. "It helps public perception to have biometrics deployed on a widespread basis," said a former chairman of the Biometrics Consortium. "The more people use biometrics, the more people are comfortable with it." Apparently the consortium have achieved their goal: people begin to get comfortable with fingerprinting, face recognition software, and other biometric devices.

SeaWorld and other theme parks (mostly Disney's) ostensibly introduced the fingerprinting as a way of preventing people from selling their multi-day passes. Which I guess makes a good business sense. However, two very important issues need to be raised.

First: How are these corporations going to use the data they collect? Right now they claim it is exclusively to match the pass with the person, but how long will it take before the government realizes the value of such database? Especially since many former Disney's employees are now working for US intelligence and security organizations (e.g., Eric Haseltine, Bran Ferren). Soon enough there will be a request from DHS, FBI, or some other three-letter agency to make this database available. First they will claim it will help them catch terrorists. Then it will be child molesters, drug dealers; then other criminals. Next the turn will come for deadbeat parents, anarchists, anti-globalists, Muslims, militia members, and those punks with pants hanging below waists. The agencies will ask, the corporations will deliver (remember the retroactive immunity for AT&T?), and the general population will acquiesce. Not a murmur will be raised, not a word of protest, since, as I wrote in "Life Above All" the members of our society are scared to death. Scared that a big bad terrorist will come and kill them in the night. And to protect themselves they will gladly give up the remaining shreds of their liberty and privacy.

The second issue perhaps is not so profound, but more practical, and certainly as important. Namely: How are the companies going to protect the biometric data they collect from theft and misuse. The list of companies (and government organizations) losing sensitive personal data is quite impressive (just do Google search for companies losing customer data...) The resulting identity thefts are more and more common, and more and more costly (Federal Trade Commission estimates there is about 9 million identity thefts every year, with financial costs of about several thousands dollars per incident). Now imagine what may happen if not only your social security number or bank account number is stolen, but also your fingerprint. For as little as $20 one can create a "gummy finger" from the electronic fingerprint data, which will be accepted by most fingerprint scanners. What is even more scary is that the imprint of such "gummy finger" may also be accepted by forensic labs... Imagine the day law enforcement officers break your door because of a gun with your fingerprint on it. Just because SeaWorld or Disney created the biometric database and did not protect it properly.

These companies will disclaim all the responsibility, saying, as other companies has done before in similar cases, that it is not their fault. Even though they collected and preserved the data and they did not protect it.

Here is my proposal. Let them pay the liabilities for everything that results from the data being stolen. After all, they benefit from the data they collect, while passing the cost and risks to the consumer. That need to change. Unfortunately, our weird laws assert that the fingerprint data belongs to whoever collected it, not to the actual owner of that fingerprint. (It is the same situation with any other personal and biometric data: whoever collected it is the owner, not the actual person about whom the data is). It's time to change that, and to demand laws that would make the companies that collect personal data responsible for its misuse -- whether by their own employees, by government, or by other thieves.

We need to demand more responsibility from the companies that collect personal, and especially biometric, data. And the only way to achieve that is to make them liable for the loses they facilitated.

Carnival of Political Solutions -- March 20, 2008

Welcome to the March 20, 2008 edition of Carnival of Political Solutions. The submitted articles were outstanding, and will provide a lot of interesting reading!

Shaheen Lakhan is calling for easing access to voting for elderly and disabled voters in Elderly Patients Face Tough Barriers When Voting posted at GNIF Brain Blogger.

John Phillips submitted 29 articles from The Word On Employment Law. These articles are not as much solutions as presentations of positions of presidential candidates on various topics. However, since they are rather detailed, and interesting, I have decided to include here the pointer to Mr. Phillips' blog The Word On Employment Law

Phil B. considers the effects of the minimum wage laws on the society in Minimum Wage is a Joke <<> posted at Phil for Humanity, concluding: "The minimum wage law is a joke..."

Tracee Sioux presents Stop Abortion Vote Healthcare! posted at Blog Fabulous, saying, "With healthcare for disenfranchised women on the table, those who consider abortion the number one issue should jump on the opportunity to drastically reduce the abortion rate by voting for a healthcare candidate."

John Phillips calls for action against race-, gender-, age-, and anything else- based discrimination in Ferraro, Race, Gender and No Change posted at The Word On Employment Law.

aprocrastinator analyzes the options for the healthcare reform in excellent article Socialized Medicine: Replacing Health with Politics posted at Will's Perspective, saying, "Does nationalizing health care lead to free and efficient care? Or, do price controls lead to rationing, waiting lists, and deteriorating quality? Ending the employer-provided care monopoly and replacing it with empowered consumer choice (individual coverage options) is the solution to health care reform. We shouldn't socialize health care and replace the current monopoly with a government monopoly."

aprocrastinator list the most important issues and the ways the ideal political candidate should address them in Voting Issues Guide posted at Will's Perspective, saying, "From taxes to health care to education: what should candidates for public office say about today's issues?"

Hear hear! Phil B. list the reasons why the Economic Stimulus Rebate is bad for everyone (except the politicos) in The Top 6 Reasons Why the Tax Rebate Won't Stimulate the Economy at Phil for Humanity.

Phil B. presents few excellent ideas in A Few Humble Suggestions to Get Out of this Recession <<> posted at Phil for Humanity.

Christine looks at the war plans of one presidential candidate and finds it lacking in Why Obama's War Plan is a Bust posted at Me, My Kid and Life: An American Single Mom Living in France.

Wenchypoo presents a libertarian leaning self help guide in The Self-Help Guide to Living in a Free Society (Super L-O-N-G) posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Thursday Bram calls for open source voting machines in Can Open Source Save Electronic Voting? posted at One Vote Matters.

Michael Bass presents From the Headlines: Home Power and Reason magazines posted at Debt Prison, saying, "I would like to propose some legislation of my own. We’ll call it “The Greenest of Green Energy Bill to Reclaim America’s Hazeless Sunsets and Clean Mountain Water.”"

And we end this edition on a lighter note with What The Promised Recession Means To You As An American presented by Brent Diggs at The Ominous Comma and
Alton Brown for President (An Interlude) presented by Richard Parrish at One Vote Matters.

That concludes this edition. Thank you for the excellent articles! Submit your blog article to the next edition using our carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

blog carnival.

It's Time to End the Executive Privilege

"Democracy dies behind closed doors." Never in our country these words were as poingnat as now. On every turn the current administration hides all it can, whether important or not, from the public eyes. The number of documents classified by the Bush administration in 2006 was over 20 million - the same as during the whole second term of Clinton. The government increasingly delays and denies requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, especially after the infamous 2001 memo of ex Attorney General John Ashcroft urging all government agencies to deny disclosure of any information under any pretext. We know of the “black site” detentions, renditions, domestic eavesdropping and other murky dealings only because of leaks and unintentional disclosures. The administration even tried to close deportation hearings due to "security needs", even though the only information needed is whether someone has a valid visa.

Such devotion to secrecy is very dangerous, for many reasons. The 6^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati stated in one of their rulings: "A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution." I couldn't say it better. Ill-informed citizens cannot make proper political decisions; their behavior, and voting patterns will be ruled by fear and ignorance. But well, maybe this is what the administration wants, a frightened populace docilely doing everything the government orders?

Executive privilege is yet another expression of these inclinations. This administration refuses to disclose information on anything, hiding behind the executive privilege. Just a few examples: US Attorneys' firing. Rove testimony. Miers papers. Cheney's Energy Task Force. Patrick Tillman's death. Abuses in the Boston FBI office. You name it - every piece of information sought from the White House is meet with "No, we claim executive privilege."

Which is really just another way of saying "Try and make us". When the Congress issued subpoenas, the administration refused anyway. If the Supreme Court issues an order, the administration will still refuse. They dress the refusal in a legalistic mumbo-jumbo, but the core message is plain: "We control the law enforcement agencies, so how are you going to enforce your subpoenas and orders?"

Obviously, all three branches of the government understand that, and try to play the chicken game. Who blinks first, loses. It would be easier if there is anything in the Constitution that mentions the executive privilege, but there is nothing. No law, just "implicit" and "assumed" powers. And tradition: the presidents tried to claim such privilege for a long time (starting with Washington and Jefferson). Sometimes they prevailed, sometimes not.

But in all cases it created problems. One of the most important issues I have already mentioned: excessive secrecy, for which there is no place in a country like ours. Another is that the claim of executive privilege effectively places the members of the administration above the law, and that is the real danger. From there to authoritarian rule and dictatorship is just a small step.

The justification given most often by the presidents is that they need the executive privilege because they need "candid and unfettered advice" from their consiglieri, who may be unwilling to give it if they know that they may be called to testify publicly about it.

But in fact this is the most important argument against the executive privilege! This is the very reason why we need to end that nonsense, and end it right now.

What would be reason for not wanting to make your advice public? Are you afraid people will think you are warmongering? Disregarding constitution instead of protecting it? Calling for policies enriching your friends and pauperizing the population? Disenfranchising people? Well, maybe you are!

In a democratic country like US, if someone's advice is such that it cannot stand to public scrutiny, it is better not given at all.

whereistand.com issues: here.

On Lack of Candidates

Here we are, left with three presidential candidates that have any chance to be elected: Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. And no one to vote for.

The Democratic Party candidates try to appear dissimilar, but in fact they are pretty much the same. Their voting record (as I pointed in "Obama's I didn't do it") is essentially identical, especially with respect to the Iraq war and economy. Both are determined to increase entitlement programs as much as they can, increase the role of the central government in our lives, and legalize the illegal immigrants. All these will be paid by tax increases: either direct tax rate increase across the board, or selective tax increases (e.g., as promised in one TV ad spot "closing tax loopholes on corporations"). Of course that will cause the corporations to raise prices, which ultimately will make us pay these taxes.

John McCain, on the other hand, promises to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. Since increasing taxes is not that great idea for a Republican, he will either finance it by borrowing money, or by printing money. Printing money is bad. Very bad, close to economical suicide for a country: it entails deeper inflation, further devaluation of the currency, and deeper recession. Borrowing is not that much better, and it will not be easy anymore. Dollar is losing its safe currency status as fast as it is losing its value. The interest rates on Treasury notes are not attractive for foreign investors, and increasing the interest rates will push US deeper into recession. And, of course, the debt servicing will make a hole in the US budget only bigger. If he understands that, he will have no choice but increase the taxes, which would have its own negative impact on economy - just like the tax increases brought by the democrats.

Thus we are left with such a dreadful choice: pick the one that promises to tax and spend, or the one that promises to borrow and spend. Which one is the lesser evil?

Obama's "I didn't do it".

I have heard Mr. Barack Obama claim that "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I did not vote to authorize the Iraq war." Duh. Obviously: when that resolution was introduced, Mr. Obama was not a member of the senate yet. He could not possibly voted for it even if he wanted. What was said may have been "technically true", but in fact is an disingenuous lie intended to deceive the public.

I took the trouble to check the voting record of the two democratic contenders (using the US Senate web site and Project Vote Smart web site). Surprise there! On all matters related to the Iraq, Defense, Appropriations, National Security etc. these two voted identically. When they voted (and they missed disproportional number of votes, about 10%), they voted the same. There were only 7 bills among more that 250 I have checked where their votes were different. Two energy-related bills, two tax reconciliation bills, some judge appointment. One "Cluster Munitions Amendment". And that's it. On every war-related bill senators Obama and Clinton voted exactly the same.

In his own words, Barack Obama was against the war from the beginning, unlike Hillary Clinton. In his actions, the two are impossible to tell apart.

What do you believe: his words, or his actions?

Carnival of Political Solutions

We all know the problem. You know the solution.

If so, this is the place for you. This carnival is intended for posts that offer a political solution to any of the current issues in the United States. The problems we all know: education, budget deficit, healthcare, you name it. If you thought of a solution, send your post here. Any solution. Well, there are some conditions: the solutions must be grounded in science (e.g., "statistics show that.." or "research points to..."), or, in the very least, common sense. Wishful thinking ("imagine world without borders..."), religious methods ("let's pray for..."), and pure fantasy ("call the Godzilla!") will be rejected. Of course, extremely violent or unlawful proposals will be rejected as well.

The carnival will be published once a month, on the 20th. Submission of articles can be done via
carnival submission form. Please limit number of your submissions to three.
Thank you!

Modern Tribalism

"My tribe is better than your tribe." Unfortunately, such infantile statement lies at the foundation of the current state of affairs in the US. People are convinced that their particular tribe is the best, that it is the only one that matters, and the good of their tribe is their foremost objective.

The tribe they feel so strongly about can be almost anything nowadays: a particular religious group, shared national origin, a street gang, political party affiliation, sports team; anything, really.

In particular, the two major parties function as the modern day tribes. Party affiliation replaces common sense, judgment and plain observation. "I am a Republican, you are a Democrat, so, obviously, you don't know what you are doing." "I am a Democrat, you are a Republican, so you are a thief!" The politicians make their decisions based on the potential benefit for their particular party, rather than for the country as a whole. Sadly, the voting public increasingly display the same sentiment. So often they vote for wrong reasons: "yeah, that guy is a felon convicted for public funds embezzlement, but he is in my party, so I'll vote for him." (If they bother to check who they vote for at all, as most often they just do "straight party ticket").

As with other things, the modern tribalism has its positive and negative aspects. A positive aspects would include competition and balance. These are important forces in our society. The proponents of the divided government principle will list (and rightly so) a number of very positive consequences of the situation when the president and at least one part of the Congress are from opposite parties. Regrettably, the changes in people's mindset render that positive aspect less and less relevant. What we see is the insurgence of "the worse the better" mentality. I have heard people saying (in a radio interview): "I'll vote for the worst possible democratic presidential candidate. She will do such awful job, she will bring the country so low that the people will finally realize they should vote republican." Never mind the harm it will do to the country. Never mind fellow citizens. Never mind that the depressed economy, lack of security or lax law enforcement will negatively impact the speaker himself. As long as "they" get blamed, it is good for "us".

And that is the problem.

It may bring a short term benefit to the chiefs of the tribe (i.e., top politicians and their sponsors), but it definitely brings a lot of harm to everyone else in a slightly longer term.

The desire to belong to a tribe is one of the fundamental needs of men, the social animal. Thus, calling for abandoning the tribalism does not make sense. People will simply not discard their affiliations, nor should they. However, we need to work towards changing the "the worse the better" mentality. We should bring back the competition and balance.

Or soon enough there will be only "worse", and no "better".

Re: Electoral College in Republic

In a small piece entitled: "The US is a republic not a democracy" Brady Cuthbert argues the virtues of the Electoral College in the US. I would agree with him 100%, except one small detail: the Electoral College does not work as envisioned by our Founding Fathers any more. I would be more than happy to elect someone I trust, who can spend time and energy studying and investigating the presidential candidates, and making the best decision. But that not the case anymore. No one knows, or cares, who are the electors. People cast their votes for a particular candidate, or particular party, and the party makes sure the "electors" elect the party's candidate. The end of the story. It is very unfortunate, as most people that are voting nowadays really shouldn't. They have no clue what are the proposed policies of the candidates nor how would they affect the country. Most are voting either because they like the candidate's hairdo, their populists slogans, or just because they belong to a particular party. And any of these criteria are not really good.

If it was possible to go back to the original Electoral College idea, I would, in a blink of an eye. But it is not. As it is right now, it brings more harm than good (as I argue here), and therefore should be abolished. Before the elections, preferably.