From: VirgilT7@aol.com
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 09:36:55 MDT
In a message dated 7/3/98 10:01:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su writes:
<<
Passive, pigment-marked (laminated) cellulose ID is one thing.
A smart card, possibly with a short-range transponder is
another thing entirely. Or ubiquitous biometry readers.>>
I agree that it's another thing entirely.
<<For what's this is worth: I am against compulsory
IDs of any flavour. Having reliable, remote, realtime
identification/authentication is crucial, but it should be
a) voluntary b) retractable at any time. Orelse this opens up
a can of worms, economy size.
>>
Hmmm... all right, I actually somewhat disagree. I think that identification
should be compulsory when engaging in certain functions at which security is
extremely important. And I think that the ability to present some proof of
who you are to government agencies AND to private agencies who are not
familiar with you is extremely important. So I think that everyone ought to
at least be issued an ID. I don't however think that you should be required
to carry it when, say, taking a stroll around the neighborhood.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:16 MST