Re: The End of Privacy ?

Michael Lorrey (
Sat, 04 Jul 1998 00:32:21 -0400 wrote:

> In a message dated 7/2/98 11:49:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
> << Thanks for pointing some of the more obvious problems with this
> reasoning.
> By this way of thinking, the govt should have bugs in everyones homes to
> protect
> us from every concievable harm. After, if you're not breaking the law, what
> have you got to worry about? Making the govt even *more* efficient at
> tracking every
> move makes me shudder. Haven't we all read 1984?
> >>
> You're comparing a national identification card, basically the equivilant of a
> state I.D. card or drivers license, to 1984? Are you kidding me? And the ID
> cannot make the government more efficient at tracking every move simply
> because, first off, you don't use ID to do everything, in fact you don't use
> it to do most things, and many of the things you DO use it for don't involve
> your number being sent to some map where your movements are plotted in real-
> time. This paranoia over an ID card is silly. Frankly, an ID card is
> extremely useful.

Ok, here is another here and now factoid for your consumption. Last fall, my brother was fishing in a stream. As he left the stream, he came across a gentleman in a pickup staring intently at the screen of a laptop computer, which had a RADAR-like display with little dots moving up stream. When asked, it turned out that this man was a fisheries officer, and was tracking the migrating salmon via needle sized chip/transponders that had been implanted in them prior to their release as youngsters. The officer said that he had a range of up to a mile in tracking these fish....

Yes an ID is extremely useful. That is the point of its being used as a tracking device as well. The more difficult it is for each and every one of us to get through life without one makes it that much easier for big brother to use it as a platform when and where they find the neccessity/excuse to use it to violate the rights we take for granted. You do not even need to know that your rights are being violated for it to happen.

> I'm sorry that I didn't see the post that you quoted and responded to it
> directly, but a government that governs least does not necessarily govern
> best. To make that principle, often quite useful, dogmatic and apply it
> blindly to every conceivable service government could provide is simply
> foolish. In our society we have need for a reliable form of identification.
> And to have the government provide simply does not violate any rights. It
> does not give the government power to violate any rights. So what's all the
> fuss about, besides getting worked up over wild predictions of an Orwellian
> future? Note, of course, that it seems rather implausible that whether or not
> we have such a future ahead of us hangs upon the issuance of a card form of
> government identification.

If the government makes the platform upon which they can track you a mandatory item for you to get through your day, then you no longer have a choice about it, and therefore your rights are violated.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?