Is Digital ID a threat to freedom?

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. From my understanding of past discussions (correct me if I'm wrong Michael), Michael wants mass surveillance of everyone and to have it publicly accessible to everyone.

2. Michael is big on transparency, not big on privacy or rights like warrants for search and seizure.

3. Michael likes public order, and compliance to authority.

1. Not exactly but it's an idea that people could talk about.   There are parallel examples wherein people try to plan and monitor every thing, then find out it works better if you just open it up.  Parallel would be the economy.
2. Fair.
3. Not exactly.  I think 'authority' is a concept that people often leave unexamined.  I refer back to our past social organizations and compare to see how we have arrived at the current organization. Why did we move from hunter gatherer to specialization ?  What did we lose ?  Why did we move from Monarchy to Democracy ?  Why did religious pluralism arrive ?  People tend to see our current social artifacts as permanent and don't ask for them. 
 

[blackbird]

21 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If the government wanted to show medical records to border guards couldn't they do that today?

I have news for you Michael.  The Premier of Saskatchewan said on the news this morning it is illegal for government politicians and bureaucrats to have access to people's personal medical records.  Perhaps the laws of confidentiality have something to do with it.  He said the only people who legally have a right to individual medical information are medical professionals.  So this whole thing about using digital ID to collect personal information may already be illegal.  Government, politicians and bureaucrats are not exempt from privacy laws and regulations.  In my opinion the only people who have a right to such information are people who have a legitimate reason for it such as your doctor or medical professional working with you.  I am not a lawyer and don't know the laws on confidentiality but that makes sense.  That is why we need to protect laws on privacy.  Keep government out.

That would seem to indicate border guards are no exception;  I doubt they would have a right to an individual's medical records.  None of their business.

Edited February 13, 2023 by blackbird

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

  The only question I have is why didn't the federal health minister or Trudeau himself make this clear in a public statement to the public.  They have had months to tell the public, but as far as I know said absolutely nothing about what kind of information they were talking about.  Very strange and irresponsible.

Maybe they just underestimated the numbers of deluded thinking Canadians who would jump to weird conclusions.

Didn't the introduction of the SIN # generate a bunch of mark-of-the-Beast/End Of Times hooey way back in the day as well?

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. I have news for you Michael.  The Premier of Saskatchewan said on the news this morning it is illegal for government politicians and bureaucrats to have access to people's personal medical records.

2. So this whole thing about using digital ID to collect personal information may already be illegal. 

3. Government, politicians and bureaucrats are not exempt from privacy laws and regulations. 

4. In my opinion the only people who have a right to such information are people who have a legitimate reason for it such as your doctor or medical professional working with you. 

5. I am not a lawyer and don't know the laws on confidentiality but that makes sense.  That is why we need to protect laws on privacy.  Keep government out.

6. That would seem to indicate border guards are no exception;  I doubt they would have a right to an individual's medical records.  None of their business.

1. WIthout qualifying such a thing, this is a ridiculous statement.  "Personal medical records" are kept on computer, and innumerable bureaucrats, and technical teams have access to your data, period.
2. Define "personal information".  There is something called PII, in legal terms, but not even Facebook has any of that stuff, unless you give it away.
3. True, but they also have a utility need to access data in aggregate at least and sometimes at a lower level of detail.
4. Sure.  But when you check in at the hospitals, you give them your health card right ?  And they see your phone number, address, and any number of things.
5. As was posted here - if you don't want government, Facebook, Twitter to know about you then don't use their services.  Or at least use them as little as possible.  
6. Unless somebody sees a utility need for that information.  I just Googled and found this: 
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/infosource-eng.html

Seems like you might need to know if a Canadian coming into the country indeed has a medical need for a prohibited drug they are carrying.  This is one example of why these problems are practical.  They are best not solved with someone yelling from atop a soap box.

But - yes - again, you are all correct.  The government has to safeguard our data.  And they won't.  And politicians will get people mad over nothing.

And life goes on.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Moonlight Graham]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not exactly but it's an idea that people could talk about.   There are parallel examples wherein people try to plan and monitor every thing, then find out it works better if you just open it up.  Parallel would be the economy.
2. Fair.
3. Not exactly.  I think 'authority' is a concept that people often leave unexamined.  I refer back to our past social organizations and compare to see how we have arrived at the current organization. Why did we move from hunter gatherer to specialization ?  What did we lose ?  Why did we move from Monarchy to Democracy ?  Why did religious pluralism arrive ?  People tend to see our current social artifacts as permanent and don't ask for them. 
 

1.  The economy and democracy works on the premise that its more effective and efficient that everyone is acting in their own interests.  That people will make buying and voting choices based on what works best for them because only they can know how to run their own lives, instead of someone else deciding or guessing what they need or want for them.  But there needs to also be some rules for people to follow sometimes to prevent exploitation and enforce agreements (contracts) etc.  People need to be free to make their own choices but stay in their lane and not make other people's lives miserable or oppressed.  Same with the government, we should not be micromanaged or watched 24/7.  China and 1984 is not the answer.

3. We need some authority sometimes, for people to follow the rules, because good rules (or even rules of thumb) make a functioning society.  Jordan talks about a balance between "order" and "chaos".  His book is subtitled "An Antidote for Chaos".  He believes we've swung too far into chaos in the social realm, and abandoned some important social traditions that gave our lives order and meaning. This has left many people adrift (chaos), without ways to successfully deal with some of life's challenges.  But too many rules are stifling.  People yearn to be free.  The 1950's were too stifling, but drugs, promiscuity, mass divorce, tv violence kids are exposed to, pornography at our fingertips...has a free-for-all gone too far and led to problems?  Has the pleasure-seeking led to happiness?

[West]

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have news for you Michael.  The Premier of Saskatchewan said on the news this morning it is illegal for government politicians and bureaucrats to have access to people's personal medical records.  Perhaps the laws of confidentiality have something to do with it.  He said the only people who legally have a right to individual medical information are medical professionals.  So this whole thing about using digital ID to collect personal information may already be illegal.  Government, politicians and bureaucrats are not exempt from privacy laws and regulations.  In my opinion the only people who have a right to such information are people who have a legitimate reason for it such as your doctor or medical professional working with you.  I am not a lawyer and don't know the laws on confidentiality but that makes sense.  That is why we need to protect laws on privacy.  Keep government out.

That would seem to indicate border guards are no exception;  I doubt they would have a right to an individual's medical records.  None of their business.

We just went through a period where 15 year old fast food workers could ask for your medical records

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  The economy and democracy works on the premise that its more effective and efficient that everyone is acting in their own interests. 

2. That people will make buying and voting choices based on what works best for them because only they can know how to run their own lives, instead of someone else deciding or guessing what they need or want for them.  But there needs to also be some rules for people to follow sometimes to prevent exploitation and enforce agreements (contracts) etc.  People need to be free to make their own choices but stay in their lane and not make other people's lives miserable or oppressed.  Same with the government, we should not be micromanaged or watched 24/7.  China and 1984 is not the answer.

3. We need some authority sometimes, for people to follow the rules, because good rules (or even rules of thumb) make a functioning society.  Jordan talks about a balance between "order" and "chaos".  His book is subtitled "An Antidote for Chaos".  He believes we've swung too far into chaos in the social realm, and abandoned some important social traditions that gave our lives order and meaning. This has left many people adrift (chaos), without ways to successfully deal with some of life's challenges.  But too many rules are stifling.  People yearn to be free.  The 1950's were too stifling, but drugs, promiscuity, mass divorce, tv violence kids are exposed to, pornography at our fingertips...has a free-for-all gone too far and led to problems?  Has the pleasure-seeking led to happiness?

1. 100%
2. Also agreed here.
3. Sure.  

And the thing that will help us is that "we" the public can't imagine future states of our community.  This is why politicians to a person campaign on protecting the nation as they simultaneously negotiate international agreements that the public barely understands.

Similarly, things like "surveillance" "privacy" "democracy" and "money" bring to mind ideas from 50 or 100 years ago when all these things have changed.  Probably too heady a conversation for this thread though, but I would like to have it.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And the thing that will help us is that "we" the public can't imagine future states of our community.  This is why politicians to a person campaign on protecting the nation as they simultaneously negotiate international agreements that the public barely understands.

The public knows things that affect their daily lives, or easier to digest issues they read about.  They don't have the time to understand the complexities of a trade agreement, but they should have some say.  They don't, its typically done on their behalf by their reps without consultation or community feedback.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Similarly, things like "surveillance" "privacy" "democracy" and "money" bring to mind ideas from 50 or 100 years ago when all these things have changed.  Probably too heady a conversation for this thread though, but I would like to have it.

Yes the world has changed.  But we should still be in control.  What has changed is technology, the ability to watch people and get into their private communications and movements etc are far easier.  That means the laws need to change to keep up with the times.  The government doesn't want that.  They want the information so they can control the population how they want.  There is a conflict of interest.

If you MH are ok with giving up your privacy for security & public order or whatever other reason then you should have informed consent to do that.  If you want to force me to give it up also without informed consent I don't think this should be for you or government to decide for me.  I'm willing to risk less security for more privacy instead of living in a 1984 surveillance state, which can be prevented with a few clicks of a button.  There's no difference in the gov going into someone's email account vs the filing cabinet in their house, or putting a bug on your phone vs creating a backdoor into Bell mobile infrastructure to listen to our calls.  This gov doesn't worry much about security from foreign threats anyways, they only have started to care recently.  They seem much more willing to clamp down on Canadians for security's sake than foreign threats.  They think as you do.

The devil is in the details with Digital ID and online harms laws.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

yelling from atop a soap box.

Seems like you do a lot of yelling.  I still can't figure out if you are in favour of government intrusion into people's lives where they have no business.  You sound much like some kind of mouthpiece for the Ministry of Truth in government.

If you read the privacy laws the government describes it is very complicated and sounds like it leave the door open for almost any kind of intrusion into people's lives.  Canadians appear to have even less freedom than I thought.

Summary of privacy laws in Canada - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Your idea that border security can have any medical records sounds ridiculous if it is true.  Looking for the legality of any drug you might have even if it is a prescription drug sounds like a good excuse to demand all kinds of information that has nothing to do with it.  The funny thing is you seem to be in favour of bureaucrats having the power to do almost anything.

Here is a link to a government website that proves how complex the subject of confidentiality really is.  The more rules, laws, and regulations there are, the less freedom Canadians actually have.

Its like the flawed Charter of Rights.  Government interprets it to mean any citizen only has the right to what is spelled out in the Charter and how the courts interpret it.  Anything not clearly spelled out means citizens do not have those rights.  We actually have a Charter that is a negative rights charter.  You have no rights unless the government says you have rights and spells it out for you.  What kind of neo-Marxist country is that?  Must we bow to the benevolent government for giving us human rights now?  A government which generally does not believe in God and therefore does not believe in God-given human rights.  They prove it with legalized killing of citizens.

Never assume you have any rights in Canada.  You might find you have none when it comes down to it.  You approve of that.  Are you a neo-Marixst, i.e. believes that Government is God and can never do wrong?

Edited February 13, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. WIthout qualifying such a thing, this is a ridiculous statement.  "Personal medical records" are kept on computer, and innumerable bureaucrats, and technical teams have access to your data, period.

That might be true, but do you think they are limited to what they can do with the data?  Do you not think they are restricted to only using it in a way which serves a specific purpose for the data being there?  Or do you think they can move the data between various departments that have nothing to do with the health care of the citizen for example?  

I am not sure what business a bureaucrat would have with someone's personal medical records.  I would think it is only stored for the business of a person's treatment.  While bureaucrats may have access to it, they like a doctor's secretary would not be free to use the data for any other purpose than what is expected for the person's medical care.   

You seem to think otherwise.  There is no free-for-all.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The public knows things that affect their daily lives, or easier to digest issues they read about.  They don't have the time to understand the complexities of a trade agreement, but they should have some say.  They don't, its typically done on their behalf by their reps without consultation or community feedback.

Yes the world has changed.  But we should still be in control.  What has changed is technology, the ability to watch people and get into their private communications and movements etc are far easier.  That means the laws need to change to keep up with the times.  The government doesn't want that.  They want the information so they can control the population how they want.  There is a conflict of interest.

If you MH are ok with giving up your privacy for security & public order or whatever other reason then you should have informed consent to do that.  If you want to force me to give it up also without informed consent I don't think this should be for you or government to decide for me.  I'm willing to risk less security for more privacy instead of living in a 1984 surveillance state, which can be prevented with a few clicks of a button.  There's no difference in the gov going into someone's email account vs the filing cabinet in their house, or putting a bug on your phone vs creating a backdoor into Bell mobile infrastructure to listen to our calls.  This gov doesn't worry much about security from foreign threats anyways, they only have started to care recently.  They seem much more willing to clamp down on Canadians for security's sake than foreign threats.  They think as you do.

The devil is in the details with Digital ID and online harms laws.

The government does care about security.  And that's one example where individual rights don't matter.  It's everybody or nobody, and so everybody is surveilled.

There's too much talk about rights today and not enough about responsibility.  We're citizens not customers in a store.

People who spend ten minutes watching a YouTube video feel it's their right to spew garbage and get offended pretty quickly if you tell them to stop.  The marketplace if ideas requires bad ideas to die.

The digital ID should be discussed in terms of real risks and benefits by grown ups and the conspiracy folks should know their place.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The government does care about security.  And that's one example where individual rights don't matter.  It's everybody or nobody, and so everybody is surveilled.

There's too much talk about rights today and not enough about responsibility.  We're citizens not customers in a store.

People who spend ten minutes watching a YouTube video feel it's their right to spew garbage and get offended pretty quickly if you tell them to stop.  The marketplace if ideas requires bad ideas to die.

The digital ID should be discussed in terms of real risks and benefits by grown ups and the conspiracy folks should know their place.

Michael, do you believe the government is above God?  Or do you believe the government is subject to God like everyone else?   If government is subject to God, then tell me what gives them the right to pass laws that are flagrantly against the commands of God's laws which are eternal? 

quote

The preamble states: “ Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law. ” The Supremacy of God clause is supposed to be a reminder to our lawmakers and judges that they are under the ultimate Lawgiver and are not the ultimate authority in society. But note as well the reference to the rule of law.   unquote

What Legal Rights Do Canadian Governments Have to Restrict Assemblies? - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

Edited February 14, 2023 by blackbird

[Moonlight Graham]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The government does care about security.  And that's one example where individual rights don't matter.  It's everybody or nobody, and so everybody is surveilled.

That's not even remotely how the legal system works, or the Charter.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal democracy in this regard.  You're literally describing 1984.  Due process rights are among the most basic legal rights we have.  Section 8 of the Charter (the 4th amendment in the US Bill of Rights) means the government does not have permission to snoop into your private life or property or your accounts/transactions with private businesses or seize your private property unless they have evidence to suspect you have committed a crime, and even then they have to go to a judge to get a warrant.  This is to prevent abuse of power and arbitrary search or seizure because this is exactly what they did when these rights didn't exist.

No reasonable person wants an RCMP officer to come into their house and go through their drawers because they just don't like the way you look, or because you gave them a suspicious stare on the street.  They aren't even allowed to step on your property if you tell them they aren't allowed, nor any private individual. They aren't even allowed to search your car without consent, a warrant, or a crime happened.  We don't have any reason to be afraid of them, Going into people's email accounts and tracking their movements is no different.  Police harass & intimidate people enough as it is, many have fragile egos and go on power trips, as you know by following the news or watching Youtube.  We should be surveilling police and government 24/7, not the other way around.  They're public servants, police have no expectation of privacy on the job, they're accountable to us, not the other way around.  Police and politicians commit more crimes than the average person.  There's thousands of examples on Youtube of this abuse & harassment caught on camera. 

Due process laws exist because this is what government authorities did unchecked in the age of kings and queens where we had no rights, and what they do in countries like China & Russia.  Government authorities harass people they didn't like, ie: journalists, annoying neighbours, political opponents etc, and confiscate property without reason.  This is literally what they do today in China.  We have shed blood to get these rights for ourselves after living like China does.  I know all of this because I studied the history of legal rights at the post-secondary level.

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's too much talk about rights today and not enough about responsibility.  We're citizens not customers in a store.

In our personal lives yes.  But our only responsibility as citizens is to obey the law.  The government also has the responsibility to obey the law.

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

People who spend ten minutes watching a YouTube video feel it's their right to spew garbage and get offended pretty quickly if you tell them to stop.  The marketplace if ideas requires bad ideas to die.

That's their right.  Who is the arbiter of what is a "good" vs "bad" idea?  The government?  Silicon Valley?  You?  The marketplace of ideas means ideas exist on their own merit and people will judge them as "good" or "bad" themselves, with arguments and counterarguments free to be exchanged, they don't need smug self-righteous folks to think for them.  We're grown adults.  Most people do a pretty good job.  Trump was not re-elected, most people got their COVID vaccines.

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The digital ID should be discussed in terms of real risks and benefits by grown ups and the conspiracy folks should know their place.

Their ideas exist on their own merits.  If they have no evidence for their arguments they can be rejected.  You sound like an authoritarian dictator.  Dictatorships don't work because one person is not smarter than the collective consensus of the majority of tens of millions to determine their own destiny.  We're already better off without a forum moderator interfering in our affairs constantly.  "Thread drift" has not harmed the other forum whatsoever, or this one.  People don't need to be constantly controlled and micromanaged.  Conspiracy theorists have their place, they are constantly questioning authority and are always investigating, they don't trust government or big pharma etc, they're our devil's advocates. I don't want to live in a society only made up of sheep who are always in compliance.

[West]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

That might be true, but do you think they are limited to what they can do with the data?  Do you not think they are restricted to only using it in a way which serves a specific purpose for the data being there?  Or do you think they can move the data between various departments that have nothing to do with the health care of the citizen for example?  

I am not sure what business a bureaucrat would have with someone's personal medical records.  I would think it is only stored for the business of a person's treatment.  While bureaucrats may have access to it, they like a doctor's secretary would not be free to use the data for any other purpose than what is expected for the person's medical care.   

You seem to think otherwise.  There is no free-for-all.

They'll just do the same thing these lunatics did with vaccine passports. They'll claim they aren't forcing you while at the same time strip away your ability to live a normal life for deciding not to get it.