Will mandatory, verifiable Internet ID's soon become the law of the land in   
   the United States? According to information revealed last week at the   
   Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research by White House Cybersecurity   
   Coordinator, Howard Schmidt, and U.S. Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, that   
   certainly seems to be the case, although both men deny that this is   
   eventually what is going to happen with Obama's "trusted identity" project.   
      
   I was just reading an article on the CNET website entitled "Obama Eyeing   
   Internet ID for Americans" in which this plan, called the "National Strategy   
   for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace", is discussed by CNET's political   
   correspondent Declan McCullagh.   
      
   In the article, Mr. Locke is quoted as saying "We are not talking about a   
   national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system.   
   What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and   
   reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen   
   passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."   
      
   In Mr. Locke's opinion, the fact that Internet users will have to memorize   
   fewer passwords -- as if we all really do that -- is supposedly a good   
   thing. Personally, I couldn't disagree more. It is the very fact that I can   
   choose dozens of different online aliases, each with their own unique   
   password, which protects my privacy and security, and not the other way   
   around. By having only one Internet ID and password, we are in fact making   
   ourselves considerably more vulnerable to hackers and other unscrupulous   
   individuals. Furthermore, how in the world is one's privacy being enhanced,   
   when his name will be attached to only one identity if this system is   
   implemented? Such a system will make it that much easier for the government   
   and online businesses to track our activities all across the Internet. Quite   
   frankly, I already get enough spam in my in box.   
      
   For his part, Mr. Schmidt claims that one will still be able to retain his   
   or her anonymity and pseudonymity on the Internet. Schmidt states "I don't   
   have to get a credential, if I don't want to," and adds that it is unlikely   
   that "a centralized database will emerge."   
      
   It is the view of this writer that when government officials say one thing,   
   they usually have plans to do the exact opposite sooner or later; but in   
   order to sell an idea to the general public, they have to paint it in a   
   positive light. When the Social Security system was first put into effect,   
   similar pledges were made. Now, as we all know, one cannot engage in any   
   kind of meaningful business activity unless he or she can provide a Social   
   Security number, and they are now provided shortly after birth. So much for   
   being a voluntary system.   
      
   While Mr. Schmidt claims that one doesn't have to join the "trusted   
   identity" project if he or she doesn't want to, what he doesn't reveal are   
   the personal inconveniences that one will begin to experience online if he   
   or she does not join the new system. The very same thing happened when   
   credit cards, followed by smart cards and debit cards, became popular.   
   Nowadays, it is virtually impossible to conduct one's online personal   
   business without them. It isn't difficult to foresee the same thing   
   eventually happening with the "trusted identity" system. One will simply be   
   out of the loop if he or she refuses to join the new system.   
      
   Concerning Schmidt's claim that no centralized database will emerge, all we   
   have to do is look at previous government projects and pledges in order to   
   quickly determine that like Locke, Schmidt is blowing a lot of hot air for   
   public consumption, and nothing more. The US Government loves databases; and   
   I suspect that it has a lot more of them than you or I are privy to.   
      
   The Internet has already been sufficiently ruined by greedy and annoying   
   entrepreneurs. We don't need to make things worse by having the US   
   Government become more involved than it already is. If George Orwell were   
   alive today, what would he think?   
      
   We cannot allow a few loose cannons to be used as an excuse to further erode   
   our online freedoms, and in this writer's view, that is exactly what the US   
   Government is trying to do with the "National Strategy for Trusted   
   Identities in Cyberspace". Isn't this exactly what has happened with the   
   so-called "war against terrorism" and the "Patriot Act"? In the so-called   
   name of "protecting us", our freedoms have been sliced and diced ever since   
   9/11.   
      
   We, the people, are innocent until proven guilty, but the government is   
   slowly but surely taking the opposite view, and no longer trusts its own   
   constituents. It is beginning to treat us all like criminals, when no crime   
   has been committed. Enough is enough.   
      
   You may still be able to find the original CNET article at the following   
   URL:   
      
   /news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody   
      
      
      
   Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II   
      
      
   --- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1   
    * Origin: Armageddon BBS -- Guam, Mariana Islands (1:345/3777.0)