Is Digital ID a threat to freedom?

[Queenmandy85]

36 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Spoken like a government bureaucrat.  Did you find anything wrong with Trudeau’s government reaching into banks and turning off people’s access to their own money?

Because that’s where this is going.

Are you unfamiliar with the term, "proceeds of crime?"

There might be times when freezing bank withdrawls is necessary. If there is a run on the banks, the government may declare a bank holiday. If there is an illegal occupation, the government has on one occasion, invoked the emergencies act as a lever to help resolve the crisis. In that case, the verdict is pending.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you unfamiliar with the term, "proceeds of crime?"

There might be times when freezing bank withdrawls is necessary. If there is a run on the banks, the government may declare a bank holiday. If there is an illegal occupation, the government has on one occasion, invoked the emergencies act as a lever to help resolve the crisis. In that case, the verdict is pending.

Exactly.  CRA, Security and likely other government agencies have the right to look at your money.

This is how they get drug dealers on "tax evasion" roughly...

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, sharkman said:

1. Spoken like a government bureaucrat.  Did you find anything wrong with Trudeau’s government reaching into banks and turning off people’s access to their own money?

2. Because that’s where this is going.

1. I don't think that the right to do that should be taken away from government, and that's the difference.  Your problem is that you didn't see Trudeau's interpretation of events as a security risk - which is fair on your part.  But you would change all of how government operates because you dislike one man and how he operates.
2. They can already do all of that.  

To repeat: there's plenty to be concerned about.  You people who make it all about Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau will turn off about 1/3 of the people who might listen to you.

Talk about:

- Inscrutable rules as to how this works
- Slow and out of touch government response to information flow and culture changes in Canada
- Friends of government being favoured

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This is all a tempest in a teapot. I'm not worried because Canadian and American culture does not lend itsself to tyranny. Since the arrival of the French and British a little over 400 years ago, we have never had tyranny. 

Currently, on the one hand, we demand law and order and press the government to "do something," yet we make it increasingly difficult for law enforcement to do that. The enemy of justice is Perry Mason. Earl Stanley Gardner indoctrinated us with the ideology that every accused person was innocent. While they have the presumption of innocence, it is becoming harder and harder to obtain search warrants, to have survailance of crimminal activity, and to ensure the public is protected from dangerous individuals. A colleague of mine was sanctioned because, while searching a vehicle for open alcohol, he found illegal drugs. The drugs were concealed in a place that would not contain alcohol. He went beyond the perametres of the designated search and the case was thrown out.

The key to having law and order in a free society begins in the recruiting and training process. When a police officer is solidly grounded in Peel's nine principles and professionalism, we don't need all the hoops and hurdles imposed on law enforcement.

It is important to remember, it is not the potential jail time that deters a criminal. It is the certainty of getting caught. Intelligence gathering and survailance makes living in a safe and free society possible, providing we invest in creating and maintaining a professional police service.

This is a good take, but I still think that there's lots of room to criticize this.

Is it right to support status quo media and not support emerging Canadian media which has/will evolve to make us stronger ?

Isn't cronyism part of this ?

How does keeping things the same, ie. rebuilding the CRTC for the web, help with our stodgy refusal to change ?

There's more here, and probably more serious things to consider but those are off the top of my head.

I agree that a lot of people are making this another Trudeau Tempest, I suspect because they can't fathom problems at a deeper level.... 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I also have trouble understanding what the difference is between digital ID and a SIN #.

The sharing of data between large organizations, including private ones, is something that I can see issues with.  But not the fact that the data exists in silos to begin with.

The first seemingly minor issue is that you have to be "connected" in order to do anything involving government. It's not that way quite yet but we saw some issues like that under Covid. Putting everything online seems so convenient. It's the elderly and the poorest among us who don't have a cell phone, internet, or email address.

Quote

And the government is the biggest silo.

It's unfair if they have more info about you than you have. I want complete access to my own digital data.

Quote

They know the most least, but and they always have.

Fixed some typos for you! 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

1. The first seemingly minor issue is that you have to be "connected" in order to do anything involving government.

2. It's the elderly and the poorest among us who don't have a cell phone, internet, or email address.

3. It's unfair if they have more info about you than you have. I want complete access to my own digital data.

4. Fixed some typos for you! 

1. If it wasn't clear from my post I agree with that.
2. Yes, also a valid concern here.  
3. Well, I don't know that they have MORE about you than you have about yourself but I agree you should be able to see all the data about yourself.  And that would be a lot.
4. I don't get this.

Still wondering if people realize that with SIN # the government has had all of this information since the 1960s for sure, and have used it too.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Still wondering if people realize that with SIN # the government has had all of this information since the 1960s for sure, and have used it too.

Here are the differences I see with this. Any records from the "old world" are hard-copies, printouts kept in a file cabinet. If you want to clean out the data warehouse, you have to break into the office and grab the whole cabinet. Then start sorting through. And this info may not be very useful in terms of criminal exploitation in the "good old days".

Now look at what's possible with digital data. Government databases have already been breached, and there is a market for it.

Data no longer same/same.

[sharkman]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think that the right to do that should be taken away from government, and that's the difference.  Your problem is that you didn't see Trudeau's interpretation of events as a security risk - which is fair on your part.  But you would change all of how government operates because you dislike one man and how he operates.
2. They can already do all of that.  

To repeat: there's plenty to be concerned about.  You people who make it all about Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau will turn off about 1/3 of the people who might listen to you.

Talk about:

- Inscrutable rules as to how this works
- Slow and out of touch government response to information flow and culture changes in Canada
- Friends of government being favoured

So you supported that bank account freeze.  No warrant.  No justice system involvement.  No innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  A state of emergency declared because of some unarmed nonviolent protesters.  

You are what you accuse me of.  You approve of the man, Trudeau, and have a blind spot because of it.  And you must be a bureaucrat.  You certainly think like one.

[sharkman]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly.  CRA, Security and likely other government agencies have the right to look at your money.

This is how they get drug dealers on "tax evasion" roughly...

And is that done with no judicial involvement?

[Zeitgeist]

The reason digital ID is so dangerous is because of how it can become the single point of identification for every transaction: medical, travel, payment, age of majority, voting, everything.  Who has access to that information and how can it be used to direct behaviour?  There’s a reason we have different passwords for different organizations and functions.  The border guard and Canada Revenue Agency have no business knowing my medical history.  My political views aren’t my bank’s business and so on.  It’s very easy to start limiting access or imposing punitive measures on many levels through digital ID.

We saw how government went after the bank accounts of people who made donations to a protest that the government didn’t like.  We saw how a government leader literally said that protests that try to change policies are concerning.  If a corrupt or tyrannical government decides to target or misuse power, it will have immediate all-encompassing consequences for individuals whose lives are on a digital ID.  Why in God’s name would anyone trust government to manage this well after everything we’ve learned about the identification systems used during the Holocaust?  I mean, are we trying to create an impossible situation where no one can buy or sell anything without the mark?  Yeah that’s going to go over well with the “conspiracy theorists.”

I don’t know how any sane person, left or right, could want to give government more access to our information and control over our lives.  Government should only exist for the practical use of the citizens and its power must be very limited.  Many people don’t agree with the values of many of our representatives and our constitution is there to protect our individual rights.

Sunak in Britain is pushing digital ID for the G7. We should be worried.

I like cash over digital currency too.  It’s a relief to know that if the shit hits the fan people can sell their possessions without a storefront.  I don’t want to lose the lemonade stand economy.  If I want to do digital payment there are already lots of options from etransfer to Apple Pay to PayPal.  I certainly don’t want government having access to people’s money.  They will abuse power at some point.  They always do.  

Edited February 12, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Here are the differences I see with this. Any records from the "old world" are hard-copies, printouts kept in a file cabinet. If you want to clean out the data warehouse, you have to break into the office and grab the whole cabinet. Then start sorting through. And this info may not be very useful in terms of criminal exploitation in the "good old days".

2. Now look at what's possible with digital data. Government databases have already been breached, and there is a market for it.

Data no longer same/same.

1. Absolutely not accurate.  Mainframes were computers.

2. Also true... BUT... what I perceive from some posts about the digital ID is that it will give government new power.

 

Again, I agree with everything else you posted here I think.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[OftenWrong]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Absolutely not accurate.  Mainframes were computers.

Please. You're just being argumentative.

Not connected to a world wide web, not a world with millions of computers, with hackers and politically funded web based attacks. Data security issues are real, and orders of magnitude larger than before.

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, sharkman said:

1. So you supported that bank account freeze.  No warrant.  No justice system involvement.  No innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  A state of emergency declared because of some unarmed nonviolent protesters.  

2. You are what you accuse me of.  You approve of the man, Trudeau, and have a blind spot because of it.  And you must be a bureaucrat.  You certainly think like one.

1. Pretty sure that they can do that anyway.  I think that the banks can be freeze your accounts on suspicion of illegal activity.  So nothing new was done here?  Did I support it?  I reserved judgment.  Mostly because I heard 'protestors' had assets seized from one side, and 'some donors had accounts frozen '.  I didn't get a conclusive answer.

2. So wrong.  I didn't say I approved of this, much the opposite.  I don't approve of Trudeau.  I'm not a bureaucrat.  

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

3. And is that done with no judicial involvement?

3. The banks do it on their own.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

1. Please. You're just being argumentative.

2. Not connected to a world wide web, not a world with millions of computers, with hackers and politically funded web based attacks. Data security issues are real, and orders of magnitude larger than before.

1. I'm not trying to be. I'm just focusing on the claim that the government will have new power, not just an easier way to exploit power they already have. As I said, I agree with the other concerns anyway.  I'm just trying to get a full list of what's wrong with this, or these, policies.

2. I already told you I agree with that.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know how any sane person, left or right, could want to give government more access to our information and control over our lives.  Government should only exist for the practical use of the citizens and its power must be very limited.  Many people don’t agree with the values of many of our representatives and our constitution is there to protect our individual rights.

Yeah but then there's that, what I call the stupidest argument ever that suggests, "We have firemen so it's going to be fine to see the secret police." A little control is the the same thing as having too much or nothing but control they seem to want to suggest. They're either on board with too much control or it's the destination they'd have us sleepwalk into.

They tell us there is no line you'll ever need to say no to because if there was our wonderful government would never take us past it. Except they already have. More and more recently. Examples are flooding into my brain but I won't mention them or I'll be going off topic with them to have that wrestling match some great thinker's have described as being with a metaphorical pig. "You just get dirty and the pig likes it."

Edited February 12, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I already told you I agree with that.

Odd, somehow I read you didn't. 

lol

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

The reason digital ID is so dangerous is because of how it can become the single point of identification for every transaction: medical, travel, payment, age of majority, voting, everything.   

I'm trying to understand what the difference is between the digital ID and SIN#.  Can you explain what additional power the digital ID would give the government?

 

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

[Infidel Dog]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm trying to understand what the difference is between the digital ID and SIN#.  Can you explain what additional power the digital ID would give the government?

It requires a central, gradually becoming, all encompassing database and can be shared between entities.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

It requires a central, gradually becoming, all encompassing database and can be shared between entities.

Maybe so, but are you sure that the database doesn't exist already?

I would bet money it's existed since the government had two separate tables.

And to repeat, I still think there are concerns here, and even my point about the powers already existing doesn't preclude a digital ID making it easier to watch people.

[Michael Hardner]

The question to me is whether it's a significant change to their data practices.

[Infidel Dog]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe so, but are you sure that the database doesn't exist already?

Oh well, I guess everything's OK then. Nothing to worry bout here, folks. Move on now. 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

And yes I heard you, Mister Wishy Washy. 'Maybe there's a problem but no, not really. Follow me to the land of ignore.'

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh well, I guess everything's OK then. Nothing to worry bout here, folks. Move on now. 

 

Yeah, I didn't say this either. Try to test yourself and see if you can have a discussion without getting in these little squabbles

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

And yes I heard you, Mister Wishy Washy. 'Maybe there's a problem but no, not really. Follow me to the land of ignore.'

?. You hate me more when I agree with you, clearly...

[Michael Hardner]

Manulife added a new ID # to all my other ID numbers I have with them. and I saw that as similar to what's happening here.

I saw it as an admission that they are unable to manage their data properly.