> It is obvious that the government amassing all the more data for it's citizens impacts personal freedom, from privacy, to dissident control, to squashing protest movements etc etc.
It may be obvious to you, but that's a pretty handwavy dismissal. Once again, please explain how a government knowing biographical/demographical information about its population impacts personal freedom (or more importantly, how reliable identification impacts personal freedom in a way that unreliable identification does not).
>And a few decades ago, before prevalent credit cards, it was not a right someone would defend, it was what everybody assumed to be the normal situation, unlike nowadays where almost all financial transactions are tracked and catalogued.
Tracking and cataloging financial transactions is not just an integral function of a bank, it's the definition of a bank. The term "bank account" long predates credit cards, and for a reason: banks keep track of the money you've put in and taken out, and what they've done with that money inbetween.
Old school, small town banks identified people by gasp facial recognition; it's just that their facial recognition happened to be manual. And if the bank manager didn't know your family, you were probably out of luck. Reliable government-issued identification made credit available to people who don't have "roots" in any particular community.
It is never and was never good business to make a loan to someone (accept a "promise to pay") without a means of extracting that "promise to pay" should the debtor choose to break it. If you're going to make the outlandish claim that one could anonymously take out a loan before the advent of the database, you're going to need to prove it.
>It may be obvious to you, but that's a pretty handwavy dismissal. Once again, please explain how a government knowing biographical/demographical information about its population impacts personal freedom
Once again? It has been explained in extenso by history. Every oppressive regime or bureaucracy works by gathering biographical/demographical information about people. Ask senator McCarthy or J.E. Hoover.
If you think you're safe because you're an ordinary citizen, then you might be right --it's not about ho-hum, average Joes. It's about people that are agents of change, from MLK to union leaders, to gay rights activists, and what have you. Heck, even John Lennon, a mere singer, had a huge FBI file. Those are used to track their moves and in many cases entrap them.
Even an improvement in the way the government tracks crime impacts personal freedom. An example: imagine drug laws being able to be enforced 100% and with perfect tracking of individuals. Half the population would be in jail, including perfectly functional teens and adults. No "stoner rock" for you, no sixties hippie communes, Cheech and Chong or Timothy Leary. Not even Henry Miller, Velvet Underground and of course no Grateful Dead. Heck, even a certain Jobs could have ended up in some jailhouse, not to mention most CEOs with their cocaine habits.
(or more importantly, how reliable identification impacts personal freedom in a way that unreliable identification does not).
Reliable identification means the government has the (potential) power to know where everybody is, all the time. Do I really have to explain the consequences of this? Your whereabouts used to be considered parts of your PRIVACY --in fact for the police to follow you around and/or wiretap you required a court order.
>Tracking and cataloging financial transactions is not just an integral function of a bank, it's the definition of a bank. The term "bank account" long predates credit cards, and for a reason: banks keep track of the money you've put in and taken out, and what they've done with that money inbetween.
We're not taking about them "keeping track of the money you've put in and taken out, and what they've done with that money inbetween" --rather, we're discussing about them keeping track of what YOU HAVE done with that money, which is something else altogether. My bank has no reason to know I bought a XXL-Vibrator 3000 or that I like to read Firefly fan finction.
>Old school, small town banks identified people by gasp facial recognition; it's just that their facial recognition happened to be manual.
The same thing can have very different consequences once it can be automated and obtain far more reach and capability. Think papyrus vs the printing press. So, no, the fact that "facial recognition" was also used in small towns is not the same as the ability to real-time track, index, catalogue and store people and their movements nation-wide.
>Every oppressive regime or bureaucracy works by gathering biographical/demographical information about people. Ask senator McCarthy or J.E. Hoover.
McCarthy's information was patently false, and J.E. Hoover went far, far beyond biographical data. There is a difference between your address and the conversations that take place inside it.
>imagine drug laws being able to be enforced 100% and with perfect tracking of individuals.
This has nothing to do with ID. I can only assume you're talking about mandatory drug testing, which is driven primarily by the social-conservative leadership of businesses rather than government (except when the GOP wins mandatory drug testing in order to receive welfare). The contents of one's bloodstream are and should continue to be private. Whether this information is in distributed or centralized storage isn't relevant; it should never be collected in the first place.
>It's about people that are agents of change, from MLK to union leaders, to gay rights activists, and what have you. Heck, even John Lennon, a mere singer, had a huge FBI file. Those are used to track their moves and in many cases entrap them.
The FBI would have surveilled prominent civil rights activists whether or not they carried ID cards. Dr. King's demographic information was on the front pages of newspapers. COINETELPRO et al violated civil liberties by listening to private conversations and making death threats. Reading the paper and knowing King's name and face wasn't a violation of privacy; bugging his hotel rooms was.
Also, take a look at his FBI file sometime, if you haven't already. Included are dozens of letters from citizens to the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, thanking and congratulating the Bureau for pursuing what they considered a dangerous and evil man. Good old red-blooded "law and order" American conservatism was responsible for surveillance of activists; their drivers licenses had little to do with it.
>--rather, we're discussing about them keeping track of what YOU HAVE done with that money, which is something else altogether. My bank has no reason to know I bought a XXL-Vibrator 3000 or that I like to read Firefly fan finction.
This particular "tracking" was brought on entirely by the free market. Credit cards are held by willing consumers and accepted by willing merchants. Bitcoin presents a fascinating opportunity to escape this disadvantage of credit cards.
That doesn't change the fact that I want the power to securely prove my identity.
Nobody is talking about requiring biometric identification at the bookstore, and I'd be just as opposed to that as you. India is giving its citizens the ability to prove their identities to the government should they choose to seek government assistance. Unless the Indian government should hand out money to whoever asks for it, as many times as they ask for it?
It may be obvious to you, but that's a pretty handwavy dismissal. Once again, please explain how a government knowing biographical/demographical information about its population impacts personal freedom (or more importantly, how reliable identification impacts personal freedom in a way that unreliable identification does not).
>And a few decades ago, before prevalent credit cards, it was not a right someone would defend, it was what everybody assumed to be the normal situation, unlike nowadays where almost all financial transactions are tracked and catalogued.
Tracking and cataloging financial transactions is not just an integral function of a bank, it's the definition of a bank. The term "bank account" long predates credit cards, and for a reason: banks keep track of the money you've put in and taken out, and what they've done with that money inbetween.
Old school, small town banks identified people by gasp facial recognition; it's just that their facial recognition happened to be manual. And if the bank manager didn't know your family, you were probably out of luck. Reliable government-issued identification made credit available to people who don't have "roots" in any particular community.
It is never and was never good business to make a loan to someone (accept a "promise to pay") without a means of extracting that "promise to pay" should the debtor choose to break it. If you're going to make the outlandish claim that one could anonymously take out a loan before the advent of the database, you're going to need to prove it.