The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace

[thehoodedsmack]

Dear Americans,

Since your nationality composes the majority of members here on the forums, I thought I'd bring this to attention, in case you haven't yet heard it from another news source.



President Obama has signaled that he will give the United States Commerce Department the authority over a proposed national cybersecurity measure that would involve giving each American a unique online identity.

Full Article (http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/09/obama-administration-moves-forward-with-unique-internet-id-for-a/)
Further Reading (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

So of course, this doesn't sound good when you first look at it. Nothing has been implemented yet, and I'm not sure anything is going to play out like this article implies, but if anything, I'd advise that Americans keep up-to-date on this topic.

Discuss.

[Aerowyn]

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, speaking at an event at the Stanford Institute, stressed that the new system would not be akin to a national ID card, or a government controlled system, but that it would enhance security and reduce the need for people to memorize dozens of passwords online.

Soooo on the offchance that some Chinese hacker would get into the database and steal the ONE password they've assigned me to, I assume that I'm SOL?

This short of thing just makes me roll my eyes, because it implies so many questions that have somewhat uncomfortable answers.

What need does it serve, these IDs? Does it mean that they'll know every time I look at porn, or an e-mail from my mother, or instructions on how to build a bottle rocket? How does assigning someone one password for everything make anything more secure? Don't I as an american have the right to use as many different passwords as I want? Is there a PROBLEM with memorizing my passwords that it needs to be made "more convenient"?

This just seems too "Big Brother" for me. I don't think it's likely to go through, it is too likely to invade the personal freedoms of americans.

[Rentafence]

This just seems too "Big Brother" for me. I don't think it's likely to go through, it is too likely to invade the personal freedoms of americans.

Just like how the airport body scanner bullshit didn't happen because it's too invasive

Oh wait

[Patssj6]

Just like how the airport body scanner bullshit didn't happen because it's too invasive


But they keep terrorists off the plane so it's fine they see my boner.

[ThePlague]

Does it mean that they'll know every time I look at porn
:o

Everyone else does have a point though, it can go through. I just hope it doesn't either.

[Ifafudafi]

The thing is, most of the lawmakers/judges/govt. officials behind this ruling don't know internet beyond its media image (i.e. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the worst parts of /b/), so they don't see the harm in doing this.

On the other hand I'm sure it violates some part of some protective law somehwere; I just hope somebody can find it

[Dwood]

Just check the checksum of the proposed algo's for compressing the keys. If it evaluates to essentially 3 sources with 6 digits, well, gl.

[Warsaw]

I already have an IP address. Go fuck yourself, Obama administration.

[TeeKup]

I already have an IP address. Go fuck yourself, Obama administration.

This. Seriously, what the fuck.

[sleepy1212]

Is there a PROBLEM with memorizing my passwords that it needs to be made "more convenient"?

who are you kidding, you're just a lowly citizen you can't memorize passwords. only great political visionaries like president obama can do that and they know what's best for everyone.

[Syuusuke]

OH COOL Now I dont have to memorize all the easy-guessed passwords with minimum variations I put on 20 of my online accounts!

[jcap]

You guys are all idiots. This is a blessing, and it's about time this actually happened. This is providing an opportunity for individuals to prove their identity online with a central verification system provided by the government. Imagine being able to do things that would have otherwise required your signature on paper, such as acquiring a loan or even voting, but being able to do it online. That's the purpose of this system, not to give every anonymous person on the Internet an identity. It even explicitly states in the article that this system is not forced, and anyone will be able to keep their anonymity online.

Maybe you should reverse your links. The full article is actually from CBS, with the assholes at Engadget throwing their retarded fagass spin on it.

[Dwood]

Jcap, I heartily disagree with you.

[Spartan094]

I'm fine with the current system right now, stop, just stop. I don't need the government knowing what I do to a certain extent.

[Kornman00]

You're wanting to listen to Engadget who literally says:

Obama administration moves forward with unique internet ID for all Americans, Commerce Department to head system up
When that isn't that case:


"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.
Details about the "trusted identity" project are remarkably scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

[sleepy1212]

First, we already have that. fuck, i can do my taxes online and not sign a single paper. this is redundant, no wonder the gov in interested.

Second, there's no way this will stay privatized, or rather about as private as the major credit agencies with federal oversight. If enough people use the service it will become an industry standard and you'll have to use it whether you wanted to or not. once that happens there's no reason for the gov not to pull in the reigns on their "brilliant" idea.

[DarkHalo003]

Remember when half of the members on here said that Obama's administration would be :awesome:? Yeah I do too.

This is utterly pointless in comparison to how things are done now. Do we exactly need this? No. Do you we exactly want this? Not really. So why does the government force this upon the population that actually understands the Internet? It's assumptions like the kinds that the old bags in DC make that totally mislead the actual realities of any now debatable situation. Example: the political hoopla over Columbine and other sociopathic incidents ended with Halo having an M rating. Although I understand the concern over FPS shooters and why people would initially be concerned when regarding these situations, the current evidence is to the contrary of what most politicians say.

[Bodzilla]

Dark halo what the fuck are you and sleepy talking about.


your not forced into anything you conspiracy loonies.

[annihilation]

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Well I got all worked up for nothing.

[DarkHalo003]

Dark halo what the fuck are you and sleepy talking about.


your not forced into anything you conspiracy loonies.
Whether they force it or not is not the point. The point is that our elected officials are trying to construct and utilize legislation to restrict something they know little to nothing about in reality. They simply make assumptions based off of the medial, which usually brings the internet as negative, a search engine, a pawn shop, or a place for jokes.

[Bodzilla]

any examples you want to give me?

[DarkHalo003]

any examples you want to give me?
I don't think examples matter in this scenario. I guarantee most politicians haven't spent time on the Internet like people who do regularly have. I'm not just talking about us forumgoers, but the casuals and other types of regular internet users as well. In other words, no matter how they want to do it, any government involvement would violate the 1st and freedom of privacy in some manner, not that that is the mainstay of my argument, it's just a reason why the government should leave this to the service providers and the like.

[Bodzilla]

if you aint got an example you aint got a leg to stand on when you say all that horseshit. your just blowing steam out your ass.

[Kornman00]

you're just blowing steam out your ass.
. ftfy

[Dwood]

any examples you want to give me?

Australian filters. Social Security system. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have)

[DarkHalo003]

if you aint got an example you aint got a leg to stand on when you say all that horseshit. your just blowing steam out your ass.
And? I'm obviously in disagreement with this concept. Of course I'll sound angry, but who here won't if they disagree too? I gave you a reasonable idea as to why I don't approve of this; if you honestly care to know the deeper details as to why, then you'd look it up yourself. What do you want as an example? The only parallel I can hand to you immediately is how politicians have handled the Violent Video Game debates.

EDIT: Basically Dwood's post. I thought you wanted references to certain politicians and what not.

[Bodzilla]

Your building strawmen, and it's raining in australia.

stop while your behind.

[sleepy1212]

Why? why would obama or anyone else in his administration care about this? what's his motivation? I don't see where Obama is going with this or why he's even involved. The only clue so far is several failed attempts at "net neutrality" by others in his party. This is just a way to get their foot into the regulatory door. When they can't legislate, get shut down by the court, and there's no public support they handle it bureaucratically (cap and trade).

[Bodzilla]

...............









......................................


your worst then dane.
"and then and then they're like gunna do this and then there gunna do this AND THEY"RE OUT TO GET ME I MUST RAISE ARMS and then they'll do this and then BAM before you know it world ends"

[sleepy1212]

no I just don't understand why a president gives a shit about how many passwords i have to remember.

[=sw=warlord]

You guys are all idiots. This is a blessing, and it's about time this actually happened. This is providing an opportunity for individuals to prove their identity online with a central verification system provided by the government. Imagine being able to do things that would have otherwise required your signature on paper, such as acquiring a loan or even voting, but being able to do it online. That's the purpose of this system, not to give every anonymous person on the Internet an identity. It even explicitly states in the article that this system is not forced, and anyone will be able to keep their anonymity online.

Maybe you should reverse your links. The full article is actually from CBS, with the assholes at Engadget throwing their retarded fagass spin on it.
Yeah.. about that.
Do you know why websites such as facebook and other social networking sites are worth so much?
Because people own personal profiles on them which can then be used for advertising products and other advertising.

Remember the days when chip&Pin were praised to be unbreakable protection measures for bank details?
Do you know what's happened since?

Consider the possibility of everyone consolidating all their passwords to every site they go to in the form of a CTI which is unique to you.
Now imagine if said login detail was "discovered" by someone through mischievous means.
How much damage could be caused if everything was linked to one central identity?

This is almost as bad as youtube demanding you to link your google account and if you decide to make a Gmail you must give them your mobile number in order to verify you are the person who just created that account.
Saying this wont pass for what ever half baked reason is just as true as how people said the TSA body scanners would never get implemented due to medical risks and privacy invasion.

[Bodzilla]

it's fucking voluntary you retard, and i can bet that about half the world us's variations of the same passwords for everything already.

your
point
is
moot.

[Donut]

yeah sure its voluntary now, but what happens when more and more companies require a central identity? thats what has me concerned. for example, i just finished filling out this thing called the FAFSA to get financial aid from the government for college. i dont absolutely have to use the FAFSA, but in my family's current financial situation i kind of really need the help, so i dont have many other options. i can easily see something like that requiring one of these identities.

other than that, as long as its optional, the only issue i see is people having everything linked to one identity and then somebody else gaining access to that identity. im still wondering why its even necessary to propose this though...

[=sw=warlord]

it's fucking voluntary you retard, and i can bet that about half the world us's variations of the same passwords for everything already.

your
point
is
moot.
Going through a scanner is voluntary as well.
Isn't calling people retards against forum rules?
I seem to remember it falls under "flaming" or "intent to undermine user by insult".
The point is, most mandatory rules start out as voluntary until officials decide since it's been about for a certain while and had success why not make it mandatory.

I seem to remember there was a time where a lot of things that are now mandatory, used to be voluntary.
For instance, over here it is illegal to smoke inside confined work spaces, be that an office, warehouse or even a taxi if that's where you work.
The choice of smoking in workplaces or not used to be voluntary now it's law.
Donating organs used to be voluntary as well, there are currently various legislations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1906459/Nurses-support-assumed-organ-donation-policy.html) that are being attempted to being pushed that will make it so new drivers are required to make an effort to say in writing whether they want their organs donated or not and if they don't then they are assumed to have agreed by default.

Don't be fooled into thinking just because this idea of a consolidated identity being voluntary in that it will always stay that way.
All authorities need is to get an idea through the door and once they've got their foot there they can easily lever that door open more until it fits what they're searching for.

[Bodzilla]

you raise 2 moot points again.

Smoking??? that is COMPLETELY different to this and the reasoning why it's illegal in work places is because you dont have to smoke to have it kill you. Do you even know about second hand smoke, jesus.

And organs?? the point is there is a critical shortfall of organs because the default is the other way around. there isn't a good excuse to not donate organs.
i mean jesus it's not like you'll need them, meanwhile you save heaps of lives.
a mate of mine committed suicide and his organs saved 5 people including a 2 year old child. and regardless of that you STILL have the option of not doing it.

MOOT POINTS.

[Dwood]

no I just don't understand why a president gives a shit about how many passwords i have to remember.

He doesn't. He wants us all under 1 identity per person, and without this identity or identifier we won't be able to buy or sell. This way he can tax/track every single transaction/action we ever make on the internet.

Bod, I dont get why you're defending this. I honestly don't.

[Timo]

Hey Bod, calm down bro

[Warsaw]

^
Nail on the head. As it is, there are no taxes on internet transactions unless you are buying from a website based in your state. With something like this, it makes it by far easier for the states to tax you on everything.

Remember folks, everything is about money at the end of the day.

Fake E: ninja'd by Timo. :cheeseargh:

[TVTyrant]

Okay, this is an extreme edit of what my original post was. This is a voluntary thing. The government is not trying to opress anyone. Get over the fact we elected a strong leftist leader so all the far righters and slight righters now believe he is Stalin. Obama does not Stalin make. Were this communist Russia, you would all be enslaved already. And Paladin would have died in a blaze of gun toting glory (Im a 2nd amendment guy myself). So sorry to break your tru TV influenced bubbles guys, but start using your heads. This is not as bad as you think it is. All this would be is a code that allows you to not have to use passwords anymore. Personally I don't need it and don't see the need for it, but I'm sure many citizens who are NOT interested in computers would find this useful.

BTW, Im glad there is no longer a -rep system here cause I would get slammed.

PS: Whoever said Social Security was a bad idea needs to leave. I hereby revoke your American rights. Move back to whatever country your ancestors oiginated from and leave us alone. We are trying to promote a free and intelligent society and your ruining it for everyone. please dont ban me I love this site

E: I also would not see ANYTHING wrong with having a U.S. internet sales tax. Sorry, but i you are buying from a state that requires sales tax, there should NOT be a way to get out of it. Taxes are there for a reason. As much as we hate them (I do too, I am human after all) they are necessary to run our government. Sorry guys, take some government economics courses.

[=sw=warlord]

I'm surprised, I didn't think you could do it but here you are, ignoring two more valid points trying to pull a strawman and ignoring the exact point I'm making.
With this in mind, let's get down to breaking it up so it's a little easier for you to understand.:ugh:
I'l spoiler this so it doesn't spam the thread too much though I do suggest you read through it Bod because you obviously need to have this stuff spelled out to you.



Smoking??? that is COMPLETELY different to this and the reasoning why it's illegal in work places is because you dont have to smoke to have it kill you. Do you even know about second hand smoke, jesus.

I'm painfully aware of second hand smoke, both parents smoke, grandfather died from lung cancer after years of smoking a pipe and various friends smoke,having your Tuma bust open and drowning in your own blood is not exactly the most pleasant way to die.
The truth of the matter is, choice to smoke or not was once a voluntary option and has now become mandatory, this you cannot deny in any way possible.


And organs?? the point is there is a critical shortfall of organs because the default is the other way around. there isn't a good excuse to not donate organs.
i mean jesus it's not like you'll need them, meanwhile you save heaps of lives.
a mate of mine committed suicide and his organs saved 5 people including a 2 year old child. and regardless of that you STILL have the option of not doing it.


There are many people who won't donate organs for reasons ranging from faiths, lack of information available or simple skeptcism.
I personally do not wish to be "harvested" due to the fact that death and brain stem death are two different things.
The Human brain has been recorded sending signals upto 37 hours after clinical death.
I imagine if death itself is painful due to all the nerves dying and the brain stem still being alive then I absolutely would not want scalpals splicing my body in various places with the possibly that it would increase the already excruciating pain experienced.
I've been close to death my self, I know what it feel's like to have your entire organ structure to shut down on you and how painful it is to actually feel said organs straining, there was a point where I literally had approx a week before I would not have survived without treatment.
The information I've given you about brain stem death and clinical death was given to me by a consultant during the time I spent in ICU being treated for basicly every abdominal and torso organ being damaged somewhat.

With this in mind, how is it wrong that people are concerned about donating their organs if they have worries about these kinds of things.
I find it more wrong to have laws that demand presumed consent than to have fears about possible trauma as your brain finally dies.
For instance, say you had signed up to say you wished to not be harvested, what happens if ou don't happen to have carried the card on you stating that?
Alot of these organisations don't have records for these kinds of things which is WHY you carry a card in the first place denoting whether you want to be a donor or not.

This idea of having a identity locked to the government is somewhat similar to how china works their internet. (http://netcens.blogspot.com/2009/10/censorship-in-china-and-identity.html)
For the moment this idea is voluntary but how long will it be before it's assumed as standard and made law?
The government could easily enforce this idea in the name of cracking down on internet crime, can you imagine how much this could effect online criminals and online users alike?
It could breed a whole new form of identity theft, if this system was to be adopted by companies requiring it to access their servers it would make this kind of identity theft alot more alluring to those who make a living by stealing other peoples identities.

[TVTyrant]

Can I get a source from a scientific journal on the brain stem thing? That sounds like a load, not saying anything about your experience which I'm sure was quite horrific. Especially since if your conscious ability to use your body has ended, your nervous system shuts down from the extremities in. I just did a quick (key on quick) google search and could not find anything on this. Interetingly I couldn't fin anything on time for removal of organs either. I still have a hard time believing that after you are DEAD you can feel pain. This is beyond me.

[Warsaw]

E: I also would not see ANYTHING wrong with having a U.S. internet sales tax. Sorry, but i you are buying from a state that requires sales tax, there should NOT be a way to get out of it. Taxes are there for a reason. As much as we hate them (I do too, I am human after all) they are necessary to run our government. Sorry guys, take some government economics courses.


They can get the money from the business's end then. That way, they get their money, company gets money, consumers don't get taxed so they are willing to spend more, everybody is happy. You don't have to have a sales tax to get taxes. If they want to tax every single transaction, then have a VAT where a certain percentage goes to state and the rest goes to federal. They could also get rid of income taxes and get away with jacking the VAT up to compensate. Certainly beats dealing with the IRS, bunch of monkeys who don't even know their own legal code.

[Dwood]

Can I get a source from a scientific journal on the brain stem thing?

Looks like there was a documentary on it 3-4 years ago, but I don't see anything about it.

[jcap]

He doesn't. He wants us all under 1 identity per person, and without this identity or identifier we won't be able to buy or sell. This way he can tax/track every single transaction/action we ever make on the internet.

Bod, I dont get why you're defending this. I honestly don't.
I wish I knew where you are reading this wonderful work of fiction. You (and all other conspiracy theorists against this) don't sound any more stupid than the people who are against CCTV cameras protecting streets, or even the whack jobs who think 9/11 was an inside job. It's just speculation - mental masturbation.


E: I also would not see ANYTHING wrong with having a U.S. internet sales tax. Sorry, but i you are buying from a state that requires sales tax, there should NOT be a way to get out of it. Taxes are there for a reason. As much as we hate them (I do too, I am human after all) they are necessary to run our government. Sorry guys, take some government economics courses.
The problem is that sales tax is not uniform, and even if it was, there would still be disagreements between states on who gets it. It's an even bigger problem if one state doesn't charge sales tax on anything, but the other state does. Then who gets the tax?


They can get the money from the business's end then.
If they did that, only the state with the business in it would collect tax. If a company in NJ was selling to all 50 states, NJ would not just be receiving tax for sales in their own state, but the other 49 states as well. It would be a disaster.

[=sw=warlord]

I wish I knew where you are reading this wonderful work of fiction. You (and all other conspiracy theorists against this) don't sound any more stupid than the people who are against CCTV cameras protecting streets, or even the whack jobs who think 9/11 was an inside job. It's just speculation - mental masturbation.



Right because obviously with CCTV cameras you can actually steal other peoples identities by looking at the cameras and changing your form to suit the image on the screen.
Let me ask you something, How many social security numbers do you have? (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have)
I've known people who were clinically blind all their life to have seen more common sense than you.

[jcap]

So wait, you are concerned about identity theft? If that's the case, then your concern is even more pathetic than the concerns about privacy. Social Security Numbers are extremely flawed. Because it is just a number on a piece of paper with a database that goes back to the 50's, without any real database. That's why a social security card is not enough proof of identity for anyone who wants to do any "serious business," and it's the reason SSNs are not the sole method used for identification.

As it stands right now, there is hardly any solid method of verifying your identity. The ones that exist are expensive and not universal, so not just anyone can sign up. It's easier to steal someone's identity online right now than it is in person. That's the reason for this new system. I could actually see them requiring a smart card for anyone who uses this, since smart cards are nearly impossible to clone unless you disassemble the card to have physical access to the microchip inside to extract the keys unique to the card.

[Dwood]

....And an online identity like this is how much safer?

[=sw=warlord]

Jcap, if you think identity theft is such a petty thing then I wish you good luck when you try and arrange a mortgage only to find your credit rating has been driven down to the ground by various people claiming to be you.
Identity theft is actually a pretty serious problem and if everyone were to consolidate all their passwords into one centralized system wouldn't that by default make stealing personal details ridiculously more easy than it currently is?
I mean, what's more secure? having a centralized password that opens all locks or several different passwords for several different locks?

[jcap]

Being that they haven't released any details on the service yet, you should just hold back crying wolf until they actually reveal what the "trusted identity" will even consist of. While they have said it could eliminate the need of memorizing a dozen passwords, that doesn't mean it is going to actually store your passwords all in one place. They never said the system was going to "consolidate all their passwords," they just said they were going to eliminate the need through a more trusted digital identity. In my last post I said I hope they use smart cards to verify people, which would make your identity impossible to fake. So basically, instead of using a username and password to wire transfer $1 million, you would use a smart card that verifies your identity with the government.

However, if they only use a username and password to authenticate, then I honestly agree that it is insecure and untrusted. But, it's too soon to say anything. My speculation of a smart card to authenticate is just that: speculation.

[Dwood]

Well, then can we agree on one thing? If the idea comes true and they implement it, will they only verify the person based on password + username then the system is stupid?

[=sw=warlord]

Being that they haven't released any details on the service yet, you should just hold back crying wolf until they actually reveal what the "trusted identity" will even consist of.
Call it what you want, being careful of plans by any group of people who plan to do away with established security methods is nothing to complain about.
The same fears were made when banks started to shift towards using chip and pin over using mag-strips and signatures.
While they have said it could eliminate the need of memorizing a dozen passwords, that doesn't mean it is going to actually store your passwords all in one place. They never said the system was going to "consolidate all their passwords," they just said they were going to eliminate the need through a more trusted digital identity.
Which sounds an awful lot like creating a master user profile which then links to the various networks you are connected to.
Said profile would need some form of authentication and with that in mind, anything that uses a password online would be awkward using anything physical.
I can't see websites and other online sources using digital "smart cards", We've already seen that data can easily be accessed and edited if connected via USB and other industry standard ports.
In my last post I said I hope they use smart cards to verify people, which would make your identity impossible to fake. So basically, instead of using a username and password to wire transfer $1 million, you would use a smart card that verifies your identity with the government.
The only "true" form of security would be a device which would use a pin prick mechanism that could verify on the fly that your DNA is the same one stored in the database, but because such technology is not only expensive and cumbersome it is extremely doubtful that such a system would be adopted.
However, if they only use a username and password to authenticate, then I honestly agree that it is insecure and untrusted. But, it's too soon to say anything. My speculation of a smart card to authenticate is just that: speculation.
I'm only making speculations just the same as everyone else.
I've seen similar systems like this in the past and remember clearly when the Banks over here changed over to chip and pin security systems.
I also remember when the government over here tried to bring in a citizen card that would be used as proof of identity but barely got off the ground.

[jcap]

Call it what you want, being careful of plans by any group of people who plan to do away with established security methods is nothing to complain about.
The same fears were made when banks started to shift towards using chip and pin over using mag-strips and signatures.
But the problem here is that it's one thing to say, "I hope they don't use simply a username and password as their security," versus saying, "OH MY GOD THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO RAMPANT IDENTITY THEFT," especially when it's completely optional and details haven't been released. The latter is the same mindless and baseless fear mongering that we blame Fox News for.



Which sounds an awful lot like creating a master user profile which then links to the various networks you are connected to.
Said profile would need some form of authentication and with that in mind, anything that uses a password online would be awkward using anything physical.
I can't see websites and other online sources using digital "smart cards", We've already seen that data can easily be accessed and edited if connected via USB and other industry standard ports.
Too early to say what they will do, but if I was designing it, I wouldn't make it a "single sign on" (SSO) account like what Windows Live ID is. With SSO accounts, it means you can log into one website and signed into all others, which could be insecure for sensitive information. Each website would have to be signed in separately which would go through their system. So yes, it is somewhat like a master profile, but it's not as insecure as you really think, as long as they use proper authentication techniques.

Smart cards are the most secure and practical method of authentication today. That's why everyone in the government and financial institutions are required to use smart cards now. In the early days, smart cards were relatively insecure because the certificate could be cloned. Today, we have cryptographic smart cards that bind custom generated keys with the unique keys built into the microchip. The unique key cannot be read or rewritten without physical access to the card, an electron microscope, and various other tools.


The only "true" form of security would be a device which would use a pin prick mechanism that could verify on the fly that your DNA is the same one stored in the database, but because such technology is not only expensive and cumbersome it is extremely doubtful that such a system would be adopted.
It would still require two-factor verification with something else such as a password or a smart card. You can steal DNA off of anyone, so it probably wouldn't be as secure as you think.

[Higuy]

sounds like an other stupid plan from the government trying to invade our personal life

[Warsaw]

If they did that, only the state with the business in it would collect tax. If a company in NJ was selling to all 50 states, NJ would not just be receiving tax for sales in their own state, but the other 49 states as well. It would be a disaster.

That isn't something they can't change.

[TVTyrant]

The problem is that sales tax is not uniform, and even if it was, there would still be disagreements between states on who gets it. It's an even bigger problem if one state doesn't charge sales tax on anything, but the other state does. Then who gets the tax?

If they did that, only the state with the business in it would collect tax. If a company in NJ was selling to all 50 states, NJ would not just be receiving tax for sales in their own state, but the other 49 states as well. It would be a disaster.
Or it would be a federal tax so it would have intelligent design. But then again the US government is ridiculous so it doesn't really matter :P

[Warsaw]

^ And that is exactly what I was outlining in the rest of my post that he forgot to quote.

[Rook]

...............









......................................


your worst then dane.
"and then and then they're like gunna do this and then there gunna do this AND THEY"RE OUT TO GET ME I MUST RAISE ARMS and then they'll do this and then BAM before you know it world ends"

Just skimmed through and not gonna read any more after this but it is government wanting to take control over everything slowly. Look how things have changed from the past 40ish years to now.

[Dwood]

You need a license to own and ride a bike. 'Nuff said.

[Bodzilla]

you also needed to own a license for VHS players.

shit changes.

[jcap]

Or it would be a federal tax so it would have intelligent design. But then again the US government is ridiculous so it doesn't really matter :P
The federal government would be sued by all 50 states because they don't have the authority to do so.

[Warsaw]

shit changes.

That is a HORRIBLE outlook. If everybody thought like that, we'd be living in an Orwellian world already. Just because things change doesn't mean we have to accept it that way.

@jcap: Yes they do. Where do you think your income tax goes?

[TVTyrant]

Just skimmed through and not gonna read any more after this but it is government wanting to take control over everything slowly. Look how things have changed from the past 40ish years to now.

They are not trying to rob you man. If they were then they just would. The government of the United States could kill you, wipe you from history in a second, but they haven't We could all be fucking slaves in a month, but they don't. If the government were really so bent on controlling your life they would not do it gradually. They would just do it.

[Bodzilla]

sounds like an other stupid plan from the government trying to invade our personal life

UURRRRGGHHHNNNGNGHH

Stop posting

[sleepy1212]

They would just do it.

Not a chance. No native government has ever established control that way.

[DarkHalo003]

no I just don't understand why a president gives a shit about how many passwords i have to remember.
Basically this. I guess for me it's more like how the administration is focusing on unnecessary things instead of necessary things. We live in an economical unstable world right now; we don't have a high amount of resources to legitimately spend right now like we used to. No populace is massively in dire need or calling for this, so why try and move it through legislation or even propose it? In other words, there are so many other, more appropriate ways to use resources than to do what is currently being proposed with this idea. That's what really bugs me.

[Warsaw]

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Wikileaks ordeal has something to do with this.

[TVTyrant]

Not a chance. No native government has ever established control that way.

The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, Maoist China have all done it that way.

As far as Warsaw's post, I agree with that. If there were a way o find out things about Americans, it would probably be to see who was accessing classified overnment documents and who wasn't. Good point sir. +rep :(

[sleepy1212]

The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, Maoist China have all done it that way.

They didn't just pop up and say, "good morning citizen, you're fucked!" They were cheered all along way because Lenin/Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and Mao all took the time to convince the people. That's why our government uses scare tactics and utopian promises. It wins the support of the people for self-serving legislation.

[Patssj6]

The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, Maoist China have all done it that way.

You forgot your own government.

[Warsaw]

No he didn't. It is possibly in the process of doing it and he's using historic examples to show that it can and has been done.

[Patssj6]

No he didn't. It is possibly in the process of doing it and he's using historic examples to show that it can and has been done.

I don't know any government that has controlled its citizen over such a long period of time having their support on every war as the United States.

Less Germans stood behind Hitler than Americans stand still today behind their government. If you kill 10 Million in 5 years or 75...for me there is no difference.

[Kornman00]

Right, never mind the the fact that population grows over time in a country multiple times larger than Germany. Never mind the fact that the USA does good too (just ask all of those earthquake victims over the last decade). Never mind that you're trying to compare a gov't to a single person. Never mind there's separation of powers.

Just Nevermind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAFR1wVUFY).

[Patssj6]

Don't want to debate because it's the internetz but if you would go yourself and not send the media to the countries under yours then you would know they don't give a fuck about donations...

Let's see...Argentina, Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Mexico (yes Mexico), El Salvador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Colombia...I am pretty sure they are so thankful for your donations and "help". Strangely enough if you would go there all the people there hate America...could it be maybe because your donations have political interests and in the end resulted in local privileged people taking all that money and people killing each other on the street? American marionettes should shut the fuck up.

A gov't to a single person? America shouldn't even take the word "power sharing" in their mouth unless of course you talk about all the companies then yes then you have the "American Power Sharing".

America has and will always be a bigger threat to the world than any of those dictators mentioned above. So Iraq didn't work, Afghanistan all your allies are retreating..lets see the next target...North Korea? Oh yeah America please kill that dictator there because he has done so much harm to this world. While you are at it send some troops to Iran as well because obviously the oppose a threat to the world as well. Kill some 100.000 innocent civilians while you are at it...I hope Assange will make a twitter post on it.

[TeeKup]

All Hail Britta- I mean America.

[sleepy1212]

All Hail Britta- I mean America.

I don't think so!

http://www.semidoppel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/zero.bmp

[TVTyrant]

They didn't just pop up and say, "good morning citizen, you're fucked!" They were cheered all along way because Lenin/Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and Mao all took the time to convince the people. That's why our government uses scare tactics and utopian promises. It wins the support of the people for self-serving legislation.

Except for Lenin, who oppressed half of Russia's population over the course of two years and caused the deaths of millions of farmers. Or Stalin who was exactly the same. Or Saddam, who gassed thousands of Kurds on a whim. I don't see our government isolating particular groups of people. I don't see our military marching through the streets like its mother fucking May Day. If you tryng to say this idea is out of line that is fine, but other than the PATRIOT Act, I don't see too many direct acts of congress that our linking to a Nazi/Soviet/Military-Dictator style of takeover.

As far as what Patssj6 is saying, I see his point and ask what his solution is. What would be your solution to the problems that ill the world of today? I'm sure many people across the world hate the US. But from my limited experience travelling to foreign nations (just the border countries of Mexico and Canada), I didn't see alot of people who hated the US. In Canada I saw alot of frustration with policies that I mostly agreed with. But in Mexico all I saw were poor, frightened people trying to get TO America, and make a better way for themselves.

[=sw=warlord]

As far as what Patssj6 is saying, I see his point and ask what his solution is. What would be your solution to the problems that ill the world of today? I'm sure many people across the world hate the US. But from my limited experience travelling to foreign nations (just the border countries of Mexico and Canada), I didn't see alot of people who hated the US. In Canada I saw alot of frustration with policies that I mostly agreed with. But in Mexico all I saw were poor, frightened people trying to get TO America, and make a better way for themselves.

The bigger question out of all of this is; if the change is causing more troubles than what it is trying to correct, is it worth doing in the first place?
A lot of the people who hold America in distaste seem to have the impression of the American country as a whole being some form of arrogant.
I know personally of a few people who absolutely would not travel to or through America purely for the impression that America as a whole has the thought process of "our way or die", it's a crude thought that's the most straight forward way I can explain it.
There are some people who are sure in their own minds that America only get's involved in international affairs for self gain, financial self gain, resource self gain and the list goes on.

The truth is, America was once thought of as the land of the free, a place where people went if they wanted to grab themselves a little pocket of land to call their own and to become wealthy.
Today that image is fading fast if not already gone, the reported news regarding the country is less than flattering for the majority of the time and these legislations that are trying to be rushed through are not helping the issue.

[TVTyrant]

I agree that most of that is true. I have already said that I don' see much point to this bill overall. Other than the stimulus (I'm going to get alot of flak for this), I haven't seen much point to most national legislation since the early 2000s. You were saying that some people you know don't ever want to come here and that makes me sad. Here in the Pacific Northwest I've met alot of people/ some of my best friends at college have been Arabs who came to study engineering from the Middle East. For me its hard to see are country as made of arrogant rude people because when politics come up, that's how everyone acts. Maybe people out here are some weird exception to "our way or die", but I've known alot of people out here who would be called hicks or rednecks, and everyone of them has been nothing but kind to my Arab friends I've brought to shooting gatherings or to campfires. That's why I have such a hard time believing that that's true, because out here I don't know anyone who truly thinks that way. I just can't accept that the rest of America is full of arrogant pricks who don't know shit about shit.

[Warsaw]

@=sw=warlord: That's actually rather funny that the world thinks that, because I see more arrogance from Brits (specifically, not Commonwealth) than I ever see from Americans. It might just be the internet, but EVERY SINGLE BRIT I have EVER played with in ANY game starts talking shit about the United States as soon as he enters, completely unprovoked and before playtime has even started. Then you get to forums, where there can be a discussion not involving the United States at all, and somehow it turns into something along the lines of "at least it isn't as bad as <insert US action here>" or "things suck right now because of something you guys (you guys being the US) did." What the fuck? If ANYTHING, the world is the way it is because the British Empire couldn't get the fuck over itself and had to divvy the world up in the least intelligent ways possible. That includes South America, which actually had more British investment than US. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but that's just how I see it. Most of it is all uncalled for vitriol against the United States because we have it better than they do and they don't agree with some of our policies, policies that end up letting us have lower taxes, cheaper gas, and a higher standard of living. When we do go out of our way to do something in the world, they look at all the things we did wrong while completely ignoring any good that came out of it. Sorry, but libel and slander won't elevate your nation to hyperpower status. Only economic dominance will. De-socialise, and you too can become a world hyperpower.

Apart from that, the "American Dream" is not being shattered by policy as much as it is by the one thing that has sway over most of the population: media. Our own media destroys it with its increasingly biased reports (or lack thereof on important issues), and foreign media destroys it after playing off of what our media says. The other thing is that media is run by corporations, and corporations want to make money. They are not going to advertise anything that gives them less sway in government, thus the public remains largely ignorant of issues regarding those interests.

If you do come here, I recommend staying away from northern cities, since they tend to have the worst examples of "American" culture. If you must pass through, go through the South where people generally remember how to act like human beings. Don't even have to go deep south, Lexington, VA or below will do.

@Patssj6: I'm beginning to think you know less and less about what you are blathering about. We don't all support our government's wars 100%. Look no further than Vietnam. If you have to, look at our media and citizens condemning the Iraq and Afghanistan wars today. Us being a threat to the world? I daresay we are all that stands between you and Chinese domination. Sure we have some politicians doing questionable things, but you know what? Out court system hasn't let us down yet, throwing out unconstitutional legislation left and right. We aren't trying to take over the world; that isn't profitable enough, and it would also stretch us thin. We also won't step into Iran or North Korea unless our interests get attacked first, after which we would be justified in doing so. Besides, we aren't the only ones who want Iran gone: most Middle Eastern countries do, too. Also, North Korea is a special case where we might not do anything because we are so intertwined with China at the moment. Stop being butthurt over the fact that Germany has become an insignificant player in the world market despite its domination of the EU. I love Germany (it is 90% of my heritage, after all), but today the country is a joke and a sad shadow of its former self. I would never want to live there.

[sleepy1212]

I heard the regular people of Europe hate us because we don't have the balls to be free anymore.

[Donut]

you know i never realized it before, but now that i think about it, in the 3 years iv been playing on xbl, there has only been ONE brittish person who wasnt talking shit about the US. on that same note though, there are a bunch of american retards online too with the blatant racism and slander. i cant help but wonder if thats making a significant impact on foreign view of the US, at least on the younger generation. i know that seems silly, but think about it: tons of people around the world play xbl. if people in other countries are constantly being exposed to the idiots in the US that spew racism into their headsets, it would go right along with that stereotype of "my way or die".

just a thought...

[Bodzilla]

Basically that. but you cant blame just XBL kiddies for it.

theres alot more to it.

[Warsaw]

I heard the regular people of Europe hate us because we don't have the balls to be free anymore.

Lololololololololololololoolol

As for the comment about XBL: I can believe that might have some sway, but more people watch the news than play videogames. It's the n00z man, it's borderline libel and slander.

[Dwood]

Borderline Libel? Man, they made that Loughner kid out to be a freaking Pro-Life Conservative Tea-Partier when he was as Pro-Choice and Liberal as they come.

That's outright libel bro.

[Bodzilla]

He wasnt anything other then batshit insane.

I've watched his video's and i cant understand a single fucking word he types.

The world is exposed to america in a whole heap of media ways, XBL is a part, albeit a very, very small part of that exposure.

[Warsaw]

^Exactly.

I would say we need a censor that forces media to tell only the facts straight up, but that would be ultimately counter-productive and against the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

[Dwood]

I've watched his video's and i cant understand a single fucking word he types.


Read the book 1984? Bet you that's where he got his ideas from. Think he read it and got high.

[Bodzilla]

have you seen his fucking videos?

or you just spouting nonsense again.
The dude was fucking INSANE.