2 ms·

Here is a list of trivially obvious ways that they solve problems: 1. They can be read significantly faster, or even automatically, which cuts down on long bor

by SR2Z 1y ago

Here is a list of trivially obvious ways that they solve problems: 1. They can be read significantly faster, or even automatically, which cuts down on long border control lines even when the biometrics are not used. 2. They are significantly harder to forge without the consent of the issuer, even for other nation-states. 3. They can store biometrics that allow the bearer's identity to be verified automatically and with a very high degree of confidence. I am all for being skeptical of the government's actions, but passports are a ridiculous place to have such a strong kneejerk reaction. You're already on a list and your movements are being tracked. ePassport features are only more convenient when compared to older passports.

wartywhoa23 1y ago
> strong kneejerk reaction Living in a country whose government started a genocidal war in a neighbour one and conscripted hundreds of thousands to become food for vultures in the fields, I have all reasons for strong and quite conscious, as opposed to "kneejerk", reactions against its initiatives. Thinking that anyone in the world is safe from such atrocities where they live is bit shortsighted, to put it mildly, and the writing is already on the wall if you watch the state of the world affairs. Just imagine trying to avoid being dragged into a meatgrinder started by psychopaths when one's every move requires your ID. Yes, every, because being significantly faster makes for pervasively frequent instead of convenient. I also envision that this checkpoint frequency will eventually reach the level when people are required to emit constant _streams_ of authentication tokens, which will of course imply it must be done remotely and without any manual consent. That's a perfect use case for the proverbial implanted RFID chips or continuous and ubiquitous biometric scanning, and rejecting that is the absolute hill to die on for people who have any remaining human dignity and love for freedom.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  > Yes, every, because being significantly faster makes for pervasively frequent instead of convenient. You are already subjected to a paperwork cavity search to get a passport, let alone use it. > I also envision that this checkpoint frequency will eventually reach the level when people are required to emit constant _streams_ of authentication tokens, which will of course imply it must be done remotely and without any manual consent. An ePassport does not increase the frequency at which it's scanned. It's still only used in the classic situations: ports, hotels, other expensive tourist stuff where they want an ID on file. > That's a perfect use case for the proverbial implanted RFID chips or continuous and ubiquitous biometric scanning, and rejecting that is the absolute hill to die on for people who have any remaining human dignity and love for freedom. Using an RFID chip in an identity document is not a slippery slope to implanted tracking chips and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.

by SR2Z 1y ago

wartywhoa23 1y ago

> strong kneejerk reaction Living in a country whose government started a genocidal war in a neighbour one and conscripted hundreds of thousands to become food for vultures in the fields, I have all reasons for strong and quite conscious, as opposed to "kneejerk", reactions against its initiatives. Thinking that anyone in the world is safe from such atrocities where they live is bit shortsighted, to put it mildly, and the writing is already on the wall if you watch the state of the world affairs. Just imagine trying to avoid being dragged into a meatgrinder started by psychopaths when one's every move requires your ID. Yes, every, because being significantly faster makes for pervasively frequent instead of convenient. I also envision that this checkpoint frequency will eventually reach the level when people are required to emit constant _streams_ of authentication tokens, which will of course imply it must be done remotely and without any manual consent. That's a perfect use case for the proverbial implanted RFID chips or continuous and ubiquitous biometric scanning, and rejecting that is the absolute hill to die on for people who have any remaining human dignity and love for freedom.

SR2Z 1y ago
> Yes, every, because being significantly faster makes for pervasively frequent instead of convenient. You are already subjected to a paperwork cavity search to get a passport, let alone use it. > I also envision that this checkpoint frequency will eventually reach the level when people are required to emit constant _streams_ of authentication tokens, which will of course imply it must be done remotely and without any manual consent. An ePassport does not increase the frequency at which it's scanned. It's still only used in the classic situations: ports, hotels, other expensive tourist stuff where they want an ID on file. > That's a perfect use case for the proverbial implanted RFID chips or continuous and ubiquitous biometric scanning, and rejecting that is the absolute hill to die on for people who have any remaining human dignity and love for freedom. Using an RFID chip in an identity document is not a slippery slope to implanted tracking chips and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.