Publicani

The Italian government published every Italian’s earnings on the Internet. What does it confirm?

1. “The biggest threat to your privacy is the government.” Ron Paul

2. No government is able to keep secrets unless it’s about the government.
We still don’t know what happened to John Kennedy and Vince Foster. We do know though, that over 490 IRS laptops are lost or stolen over three years.

3. National ID card, the first step toward publishing your earnings on internet, is coming. Well, it’s already here.
Congress has already passed the requirement for a national ID card in 2005 (the Real ID Card). Heritage Foundation supports it, as does John McCain. For some reason Wikipedia says that Barack Obama oppose the Real ID act and Hillary Clinton does not have a postion, even though a few paragraphs above it says that “… the Real ID Act … was unanimously passed by the Senate on May 10, 2005,” when both both Obama and Clinton were senators.

4. The only presidential candidate who was and is aganst national ID card is Ron Paul.

A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform

Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

5. In the near future, we will see on the Internet our neighbor’s earnings and we will see nothing wrong with it.

Some “civil libertarians” see nothing wrong with the national ID cards. Alan Dershowitz, Why Fear National ID Cards? could easily use the same reasons for putting everybody tax returns on Internet.

The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see … [the information.]

It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms — especially racial and ethnic profiling — that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don’t believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same.

American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy.

would not you agree with the last statement?