RE: More info that US passports will get RFID and digital signatures

["Owen Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 01 November 2004 10:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More info that US passports will get RFID and digital
> signatures
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roland Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:13 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: More info that US passports will get RFID
> > and digital
> > signatures
> >
> In the case of crypto,  either the services gave up and
> recognised that the
> genie was already too far out of the bottle (hence perhaps the
> pressure for
> increased powers of surveillance in other ways in order to
> compensate),  or
> they allowed widespread encryption because they recognised the benefits it
> could bring to commerce might outweigh the problems,  or they allowed it
> because they already have mechanisms that might break it - an explanation
> can be chosen based on viewpoint and tinfoil hat-size.

I'd opt for the middle one (mainly). Crypto is essential to E-commerce and
that implies unregulated use of most crypto. A totally different scenario to
even 40 years ago, when e-commerce was insignificant and almost all crypto
use could be and was closely regulated.

>
> In the case of ID cards, centralised databases and related
> technologies, the
> powers that be do seem to be pushing altogether harder to get
> what the core
> has decided we should all want,  and there seems very little
> likelihood that
> our "representatives" will actually take any opportunity to
> "represent" us,
> but will, as so often, merely follow the policy dictated by a core for
> reasons and on bases that are unlikely to face external scrutiny.
>
> Democracy sounds like a great system - maybe we **should** try it
> some time.
> Until then,  the power of the whips and the power of the services
> mean that
> what we actually have is a system of electing front men for an
> interlocking
> set of semi-permanent power oligarchies.

I don't disagree and I cannot see any real change coming from within our
current political model. A change in the method of governance, to one where
what was to be done in all matters of principle was settles by plebiscite
(and many of them), could largely fix the problem. But, as others have
pointed out, this evolutionary change in of method of governance is most
unlikely ever to be volunteered by the political parties (who would be
advocating their own extinction) or by the body of senior public servants,
who might find the new method of governance less 'steerable' than the old.

Whether we the people would find our lives improved for having to take
direct responsibility for their shaping is by no means certain. However,
then and only then would the people have no one to blame but themselves if
the outcome was less than satisfactory. It could require some growing up by
many and learning for all as to how a ship of state can be steered
effectively.

Owen