RE: Cashless? FDIC to Monitor All Transactions??

["Hegge, Roy" <Roy_Hegge@adc.com>]

	>  How might it come about? Well, what always "justifies" totalitarianism 
	>and the loss of freedom is a perceived national threat. Usually it is a 
	>war. I wonder how much further the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the 
	>war on crime, etc., all couched as "war" in order to justify the violation 
	>of privacy and rights, will take us. How much will we as a nation sacrifice 
	>in the interest of the perception of personal security?

	And this is the real point.    I have had numerous conversations with
	friends/coworkers who have justified what I would consider to be rather
	extreme and anti-constitutional law enforcement as necessary because the
	threat to our persons is severe enough to warrant such actions.  We have
	experienced such things as searches of vehicles when stopped for minor
	traffic offenses; searches of person (for guns) when stopped on the street
	because one fits a profile and is in a 'high crime' area.  The police 
	here have used bulldozers to raid suspected crack houses, they have used
	tear gas attacks on suspected crack houses (one such raid on what turned
	out to be the wrong address resulted in an elderly inhabitant dying).  I
	personally am in favor of vigorous police activity to enforce safe streets,
	but if I fear that erosion of constitutional rights here will work their 
	way into a lessening of freedoms for the law abiding citizen as well (such
	as the elderly person that got teargassed).


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Greg Peisert [SMTP:gpeisert@jamesgregory.com]
> Sent:	Friday, January 15, 1999 5:09 AM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> Subject:	RE: Cashless? FDIC to Monitor All Transactions??
> 
> Roy;
> 
>   You raise a good point about the thumbprint issue. Anyone who has ever 
> been in the armed forces is finger-printed. It's just SOP. If you need to 
> get a security clearance (just a NAC [National Agency Check] for Secret) as 
> thousands of people in and out of government must do, your prints must be 
> on file. Same with a host of other jobs. So, my pinkies are on file as 
> well. I don't view that as a big deal. We are to the point in our society 
> where the government databases are sufficient to pretty much carry out the 
> worst-case scenarios, if it came to that.
> 
>   How might it come about? Well, what always "justifies" totalitarianism 
> and the loss of freedom is a perceived national threat. Usually it is a 
> war. I wonder how much further the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the 
> war on crime, etc., all couched as "war" in order to justify the violation 
> of privacy and rights, will take us. How much will we as a nation sacrifice 
> in the interest of the perception of personal security?
> 
>   Speaking of the Y2K issue, I made ten predictions back on 1 Jan, as I 
> like to do every year. [Maybe I ought to share them with this list, just 
> for fun.] One of them was that the Y2K problem will be more nettlesome than 
> many folks [particularly those of us in the IT business] want to admit, 
> with more unpredictable or unanticipated ripple effects, but that it will 
> be quite manageable. It will be annoying, not disabling. Issues like the 
> 9th of April will be interesting tests this year. (April 9th is the 99th 
> day of the year. It could be registered in computers as "9999", which in 
> many systems signals an EOF [end of file]).
> 
> Best,
> 
>   --Greg
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:00 PM, Hegge, Roy [SMTP:Roy_Hegge@adc.com] 
> wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > As a computer professional I can attest that the idea that banks would 
> use Y2K as an excuse to stop distributing cash is totally rediculous.  This 
> is one of those turn of the century scare stories that we are going to see 
> more and more of this year.
> >
> > The thumbprint thing could be true.  It's proven technology and easy to 
> do.  Is it the right thing to do?  It all depends on what they do with the > 
> print. If they simply use it  to catch a prepretrator in case the check or 
> signature turns out to be fraudulent, maybe that's ok.  But it will most 
> likely wind up populating a law enforcement database.   In my case, as an 
> ex-GI and one who has partied a bit too much on occasion as a teenager and 
> spent the night in jail, it doesn't really matter because my prints are on 
> file anyway.  For someone who has never had
> > reason to be fingerprinted, perhaps they would not want to frequent that 
> bank so that they can maintain that sense of secrecy.  But to be frank, I 
> have not worried much over the years because my fingerprints are on file.
> >
> > Roy
> >