From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:42:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  The Law Loft: Surviving the Biometric I.D. Card
In-Reply-To: <199603281944.LAA20391@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960328121803.1107A-100000@elaine50.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Hal wrote:

> If they really want to give people a card which proves their legal
> residence in the US, a less intrusive approach is possible.  Rather
> than set up a database of all employees, and/or give each person an
> official identity card, instead have people come and prove their residency,
> then give them a card with the biometric information and a blind signature.
> No other information goes on the card, no information goes into a
> database.  The signature is a certificate testifying that the person
> with the particular thumbprint is legal to work in the US.  The card
> can't be transferred since no one else has that thumbprint.  But no
> identifying information is recorded.  There is no advantage in people
> coming in twice to get more than one card since their print will be
> the same each time, so no database is needed.

The only problem I see with this approach (from the government's
perspective, and assuming that the only state interest is in immigration
control -- you can all stop laughing now) is that the government can't
revoke citizenship. There are several reasons they might want to do this:
an erroneous or fraudulent application, a political-driven expulsion, or a
resident-driven renunciation of citizenship (usually for tax/inheritance
reasons).

Of course, the real reason they want this proof of residency is for work
authorization, which means income tax, which means database. And heck,
since we already have a database, why not track child molesters and
deadbeat dads the same way. Or anyone else we don't like, for that matter.

The replacement of income tax with sales and real estate taxes -- despite
the fact that such a move would be incredibly regressive -- would be a
very good thing for freedom.

-rich