Comments on: Citizens Against Government Waste: porkerofthemonth http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2006/02/27/citizens-against-government-waste-porkerofthemonth/ Robert Fischer and Brian Hurt on Punditry, Programming Languages, and Other Religious Issues Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:37:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: TheHawk http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2006/02/27/citizens-against-government-waste-porkerofthemonth/comment-page-1/#comment-226 TheHawk Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:56:09 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2006/02/27/110#comment-226 First off, you're two first complaints are both valid and irrelevant. Of course we need to make sure the system is implemented in such a way as to make it both secure and accurate. Any system which is badly implemented is bad, regardless. If a system can't be done well, it shouldn't be done at all. That being said, I never said this was the solution, or even a solution. All I said was it might have some merit. I realize that there are a number of problems with the implementation and there are certainly a number of other security holes which need to be addressed as well. But that doesn't mean the entire thing is bad, only that if it is to go forward, it must be done carefully and with the direct input of people in the relevant fields who know what they are talking about. And even if it is to go forward, that certainly doesn't mean we should not take steps to address the other security holes. First off, you’re two first complaints are both valid and irrelevant. Of course we need to make sure the system is implemented in such a way as to make it both secure and accurate. Any system which is badly implemented is bad, regardless. If a system can’t be done well, it shouldn’t be done at all.

That being said, I never said this was the solution, or even a solution. All I said was it might have some merit. I realize that there are a number of problems with the implementation and there are certainly a number of other security holes which need to be addressed as well. But that doesn’t mean the entire thing is bad, only that if it is to go forward, it must be done carefully and with the direct input of people in the relevant fields who know what they are talking about. And even if it is to go forward, that certainly doesn’t mean we should not take steps to address the other security holes.

]]> By: Candide http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2006/02/27/citizens-against-government-waste-porkerofthemonth/comment-page-1/#comment-225 Candide Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:12:31 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2006/02/27/110#comment-225 You're assuming then, that the database would be kept accurate enough to credibly discount someone's entry (or re-entry) into the United States? And that it would be more secure than the anti-forgery capabilities of the US Passport? And the expensive database system still wouldn't protect against bribed customs officials, which (AFAIK) is the easiest way to circumvent the border security. Yes, a good messaging system communicating which passports are bad, and the ability to have them uniquely identified, is a good thing. We have that already, though, in email. PGP encrypt it and now it's a secure(r) system. The problem which I have with both your statement and this whole movement of RFID is the assumption that somehow an expensive, complicated application of technology is the solution to these national security problems. We have the technology -- the major holes in the system are much simpler. You’re assuming then, that the database would be kept accurate enough to credibly discount someone’s entry (or re-entry) into the United States? And that it would be more secure than the anti-forgery capabilities of the US Passport? And the expensive database system still wouldn’t protect against bribed customs officials, which (AFAIK) is the easiest way to circumvent the border security.

Yes, a good messaging system communicating which passports are bad, and the ability to have them uniquely identified, is a good thing. We have that already, though, in email. PGP encrypt it and now it’s a secure(r) system.

The problem which I have with both your statement and this whole movement of RFID is the assumption that somehow an expensive, complicated application of technology is the solution to these national security problems. We have the technology — the major holes in the system are much simpler.

]]> By: TheHawk http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2006/02/27/citizens-against-government-waste-porkerofthemonth/comment-page-1/#comment-224 TheHawk Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:27:38 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2006/02/27/110#comment-224 I never said we had to, I said there probably were some merits to it. Having a digital database backing the passport could help prevent forgery. Print a scannable barcode or magnetic strip on the passports which the agents could scan and would display a digital copy of the passport information. That way they can check the physical copy against the digital for any alterations. If you don't mind irritating the privacy people, it allows for effective monitoring of people leaving and entering the U.S. I'll admit thats likely to be a touchy area and the uses of any such information can certainly be carefully discussed, but having the technollogy for it isn't that bad. Along the same lines as the first, it enables the quick, effective dissemination of information such as warrants or other legal rulings which would interfere with a citizen's right to cross the border. Not dealing in any way with law enforcement or immigration thats all I can come up with of the top of my head, but there may be others. Of course each of these or other reasons must be weighed against the cost and effectiveness of any implementation. I never said we had to, I said there probably were some merits to it. Having a digital database backing the passport could help prevent forgery. Print a scannable barcode or magnetic strip on the passports which the agents could scan and would display a digital copy of the passport information. That way they can check the physical copy against the digital for any alterations. If you don’t mind irritating the privacy people, it allows for effective monitoring of people leaving and entering the U.S. I’ll admit thats likely to be a touchy area and the uses of any such information can certainly be carefully discussed, but having the technollogy for it isn’t that bad. Along the same lines as the first, it enables the quick, effective dissemination of information such as warrants or other legal rulings which would interfere with a citizen’s right to cross the border. Not dealing in any way with law enforcement or immigration thats all I can come up with of the top of my head, but there may be others. Of course each of these or other reasons must be weighed against the cost and effectiveness of any implementation.

]]>