Bloggers I Have Met

Privacy Policy

Frames of Reference

I, being a very active gun rights advocate, was compelled to comment on someone saying it was the responsible thing to do to NOT carry a gun. The frame of reference these people have from which they make decisions was completely foreign to me.  They took things for granted as true and correct that I viewed as obviously flawed and even an invitation to great evil.  I don't think they really understood my frame of reference -- they, at least Yona, dismissed my concerns as belonging to the same people that...

... feared the fluoridation in the water was a Communist Plot, and that one has to have a one year food supply in their basement along with anti-tank guns and automatic weapons in preparation for the invasion by aliens from above or the Communists from below. But I find it hard to understand the fear of intelligent persons that fill out Internet forms that grant far more personal information to a third party that they have no control over when ordering a book or a record, than they are willing to grant to their own elected government.

In others words, "It can't happen here" and if you think it can you are a nut.

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:53:40 -0700
Sender: The Biometric Consortium's Discussion List
From: Alpha Geek
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows

It's interesting how much different a conclusion one can reach from a
different viewpoint...

David says, "For example, it may be my RIGHT to carry a gun, but I am
not to." In the world view of many the responsible thing to do is to carry
a gun to protect yourself and other innocent people. To not carry a gun is
the irresponsible thing. For example, it is my understanding that in Israel
all school field trips must be accompanied by one or more armed adults.
It's not only the responsible thing to do to protect the kids, its required
by law. Perhaps Yona can confirm or deny this...

And Yona's conclusion is almost mind boggling if one has the viewpoint of
government being such as that of Germany in the late thirties or of the
Soviet Union of the last 80 years. The cliché of a Gestapo officers
demanding "Papers!" at random checkpoints certainly must raise the specter
of abuse in the minds of some.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Biometric Consortium's Discussion List On Behalf Of yona flink
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows

I would like to continue with David's view on citizens residing outside of
the United States.

There are many countries today that require by law that every citizen carry
an ID that will identify him as who he claims to be. Is this Big Brother,
and does it infringe on my rights to privacy? Does it infringe on my right
to privacy that my driver's license has a digital photograph of me that also
resides on a central database along with my ID photo, and passport photo? I
do not believe it does, as long as that information is used to protect my
rights as a citizen. If I have no criminal record, or suspended drivers
license, or trying to leave the country illegally under an alias, why should
I have any fear of a certified and authorized authority being able to know
who I am. I believe it would be in my interest to be able to prove that I
am not the person that they may have mistaken me for, because I can prove
who I am immediately. How many time has an American citizen be pulled over
by a police officer and arrested because of an offense committed by another
person using his social security #. There are thousands of US citizens that
are facing credit fraud because people simply obtained their Social Security
# on the Internet and became that person. Using a government ID card that
contains a biometric verification of who you are, protects innocent citizens
from police harassment, stolen identification, and provides ease of travel.
Here in Israel, there are well over 100,000 Israel citizens that leave and
enter Israel without having to show their passport. They have been enrolled
into a biometric verification system that allows them to simply swipe their
credit card of choice into a kiosk, their biometric template is called up,
they are verified as who they claim to be, and in 10 seconds the exit or
entrance gate is opened and they can continue on their way. The whole
process takes less than 30 seconds. That is definitely not an infringement
on my rights.
I find it very strange the claim that the same country which is supposed to
protect my individual rights as a citizen has no right to know who I am. I
if demand from my country that they protect my rights as a citizen, then
that country has a right to be able to know who they are protecting in order
to protect them.

Biometrics is not an infringement of an individual's rights to privacy, no
more than giving the Post Office your name and address to be able to deliver
mail. Can you image if citizens demanded their right to privacy by
demanding that the Post Office have no details on who they were or where
they lived, but demanded delivery of mail on time? Can you image a passport
without a photograph (which is a manual form of biometric verification),
because I demand my right to privacy? Can a person demand unemployment
payments without identify himself? Unfortunately yes, and this has led to
fraud. Some persons have been know to collect unemployment payment under
several alias, and who pays for all of this? The citizens who pay taxes,
work everyday, and are not afraid to identify themselves.
In short, what is the fear of being able to have an authorized organization
know who you are, and when requested to identify yourself to prove your
innocence, be able to immediately verify who you are?

Best regards,

Yona Flink
OptiSec Technologies Ltd.
Tel: 972 3 5445920
Cell: 972 54 308727

-----Original Message-----
From: The Biometric Consortium's Discussion List On Behalf Of David Heath
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows

My apologies in advance if this appear off-topic, but it is not! In
essence, because the majority of biometric research and development occur
in USA, it is fundamental to the industry.

Those of us outside the USA are constantly amused by the appeal to "my
rights" and "constitution."

Whatever happened to the balance between rights and responsibilities?
People are far too willing to claim their rights without offering up their
responsibilities. Perhaps it's because it is far too easy to be negative.

For example, it may be my RIGHT to carry a gun, but I am REPONSIBLE enough
not to.

The same with biometrics. I am an honest, socially-abiding (not just
law-abiding) citizen of my country. I don't much care what details are
collected on me in my day-to-day life - it's not going to hurt me because
I'm not about to go out and rob a bank, kill someone or whatever. And if I
did, then there's nothing wrong with being caught more quickly because of
the information about me stored in some central repository.

Perhaps more of us should read and understand John Stuart Mill before we
assert the triumph of rights over responsibilities.

<stepping off soap-box>


David Heath
Sales & Technical Manager
Triton Secure Limited

Level 10, Zurich House
151 Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Tel: +61 2 9252 6668
Fax: +61 2 9241 4606
Mob: +61 41 263 7633