>Every oppressive regime or bureaucracy works by gathering biographical/demographical information about people. Ask senator McCarthy or J.E. Hoover. McCarthy's

>Every oppressive regime or bureaucracy works by gathering biographical/demographical information about people. Ask senator McCarthy or J.E. Hoover. McCarthy's information was patently false, and J.E. Hoover went far, far beyond biographical data. There is a difference between your address and the conversations that take place inside it. >imagine drug laws being able to be enforced 100% and with perfect tracking of individuals. This has nothing to do with ID. I can only assume you're talking about mandatory drug testing, which is driven primarily by the social-conservative leadership of businesses rather than government (except when the GOP wins mandatory drug testing in order to receive welfare). The contents of one's bloodstream are and should continue to be private. Whether this information is in distributed or centralized storage isn't relevant; it should never be collected in the first place. >It's about people that are agents of change, from MLK to union leaders, to gay rights activists, and what have you. Heck, even John Lennon, a mere singer, had a huge FBI file. Those are used to track their moves and in many cases entrap them. The FBI would have surveilled prominent civil rights activists whether or not they carried ID cards. Dr. King's demographic information was on the front pages of newspapers. COINETELPRO et al violated civil liberties by listening to private conversations and making death threats. Reading the paper and knowing King's name and face wasn't a violation of privacy; bugging his hotel rooms was. Also, take a look at his FBI file sometime, if you haven't already. Included are dozens of letters from citizens to the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, thanking and congratulating the Bureau for pursuing what they considered a dangerous and evil man. Good old red-blooded "law and order" American conservatism was responsible for surveillance of activists; their drivers licenses had little to do with it. >--rather, we're discussing about them keeping track of what YOU HAVE done with that money, which is something else altogether. My bank has no reason to know I bought a XXL-Vibrator 3000 or that I like to read Firefly fan finction. This particular "tracking" was brought on entirely by the free market. Credit cards are held by willing consumers and accepted by willing merchants. Bitcoin presents a fascinating opportunity to escape this disadvantage of credit cards. That doesn't change the fact that I want the power to securely prove my identity. Nobody is talking about requiring biometric identification at the bookstore, and I'd be just as opposed to that as you. India is giving its citizens the ability to prove their identities to the government should they choose to seek government assistance. Unless the Indian government should hand out money to whoever asks for it, as many times as they ask for it?