rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP (07/23/87)
In article <1051@water.waterloo.edu>, jmlang@water.waterloo.edu (Jerome M Lang) writes: > Careful with social security numbers. It is widely overused. > Giving it yet another use is an invitation to disaster. I have never understood why so many Canadians are paranoid about identity numbers. I would find life much simpler if my SIN, my drivers license, my OHIP number, my public library card number, my passport number, my citizenship number, my private pilot's license, my student id, my etc. were all the same number. That number should automatically be issued to me when I am born in, or admitted to the country. (You can even have a copy of my fingerprints ;-) It could have a changeable prefix (like the SIN's leading 9 for non-residents) to indicate one's status. It would make things a lot easier for everyone (except for illegal immigrants, welfare fakes, tax evaders, library book thiefs, wanted criminals, etc.).
brad@looking.UUCP (07/24/87)
In article <9903@orchid.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >I have never understood why so many Canadians are paranoid about >identity numbers. I would find life much simpler if my SIN, my >drivers license, my OHIP number, my public library card number, >my passport number, my citizenship number, my private pilot's >license, my student id, my etc. were all the same number. > >It would make things a lot easier for everyone (except for >illegal immigrants, welfare fakes, tax evaders, library book >thiefs, wanted criminals, etc.). Yeah, that's right. If you're innocent, you don't need a lawer, and if you're guilty, you don't deserve one! The less information the Government knows about me, the better. The harder it is for them to correlate it, the better. Computers can use names as easily as numbers. There is no excuse for ID numbers in a world of cheap machines. If you have a non-unique name, you can further codify it until it is unique by providing any unique string of your own choice -- including numbers, your mom's name, your hometown or whatever. Stamp out ID numbers. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
lamy@utegc.UUCP (07/24/87)
In article <9903@orchid.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >I have never understood why so many Canadians are paranoid about >identity numbers. I would find life much simpler if my SIN, my >[...] >It would make things a lot easier for everyone (except for >illegal immigrants, welfare fakes, tax evaders, library book >thiefs, wanted criminals, etc.). Correlation of huge databases would be greatly facilitated by unique IDs. This raises interesting questions wrt the presumption of innocence that underlies our legal system. While it is easy to see why correlating people who get UI with people who are dead and people with jobs is probably a valid use, there are more dangerous situations. For example, a recent case involved a US government agency that was correlating phone records with a list of prominent Washington reporters, in an effort to stop unwanted leaks (source: Time magazine, issue on the 200th birthday of the American Constitution). But the battle may already be lost. The junk mail I get is so nicely targeted that I sometimes feel there is not too much an ad agency does not know about me (age, sex, profession, money I made, when I last changed my car, marital status, what kind of house, what kind of neighbourhood, and so on). Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) AI Group, Dept of Computer Science lamy@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!lamy
jmlang@water.UUCP (07/25/87)
In article <8707241453.AA03690@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >In article <9903@orchid.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >>I have never understood why so many Canadians are paranoid about >>identity numbers. I would find life much simpler if my SIN, my >>[...] >>It would make things a lot easier for everyone (except for >>illegal immigrants, welfare fakes, tax evaders, library book >>thiefs, wanted criminals, etc.). > >Correlation of huge databases would be greatly facilitated by unique IDs. >This raises interesting questions wrt the presumption of innocence that >underlies our legal system. There is also one major problem, and that is the one that worries me most. No matter how competent the maintainers of a data-base are, a substantial number of records will contain errors. These might be of the "obsolete" nature: info that is no longer relevant. They might be address changes that are not yet done. In general, transactions not yet processed. Plain entry errors. Malicious errors. etc... I remember seeing an article showing the cost of reducing the number of wrong entries from 8% to 7% as phenomenal. As a rule of thumb, 1 entry out of 12 has some errors. And that is in the best of worlds. I do not have any qualms about somebody having accurate information about me (within reason, that is.) I do have serious misgivings about wrong information about me, especially when I don't know about it until I try to get a loan, or a job with the RCMP or... If you think that this will not happen to you, think about the last time you move. I am still getting mail for somebody that lived in my current apartment so long ago (more than 2 years) that the lady next door doesn't remember who it might be (and she's lived there for eons). I wonder where my mail ends up. Remember, 1 record in 12 about you contains an error. Having a unique identifyer allows EASY computer match on wrong information about me. And these are costly, time-consuming, etc. in order TO PROVE THAT I AM INNOCENT. The onus, and expense, should be on the other side of the fence: but in many cases that is too expensive, they will investigate if there is a complaint. I try to not give any information unless I know what it will be used for. For instance, the bank does need to know about my credit record before approving a loan to me. The bank does not need to know the size of my shoes. -- Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet jmlang@water.uucp Dept of Applied Math || jmlang%water@waterloo.csnet U of Waterloo || jmlang%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/03/87)
> It would make things a lot easier for everyone (except for > illegal immigrants, welfare fakes, tax evaders, library book > thiefs, wanted criminals, etc.). Marijuana smokers, women who get abortions, store owners who open Sunday in Ontario, newsmen working on stories critical of the government, members of the Communist party (or the Socialist party, or the NDP...), anyone who lies on his tax forms, anyone who ever gets a traffic ticket... "I'm sorry, sir, your credit is no good -- you have an overdue library fine, and Visa has cancelled your card because of this obvious dishonesty. It's really too bad that the library notice got lost in the mail, sir, but they all say that..." The idea would be reasonable if (a) governments never made unpopular and unjust laws, (b) neither governments nor corporations ever abused their access to personal information, (c) both governments and corporations were forgiving of minor transgressions, (d) both were very careful to avoid errors, (e) both were utterly incapable of making unfair decisions for irrelevant reasons, and (f) both were utterly incapable of screwing up accidentally. However, none of these preconditions is anywhere near being true. Which means that life is a whole lot easier and fairer if the big bureaucracies are *not* too efficient at talking to each other. Have you really managed to make it to adulthood (or at least university) without ever having had a bureaucracy goof in a way unfavorable to you? -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry