U.S. Passport

The U.S. government is working on yet another way to intrude the lives of its citizens.

All new passports issued after October 2006 will be equipped with a chip.

Next thing you know, the government will own all of our first borns.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

Shrug - Dark times ahead for living free.

But then again, didn't we all see this coming?

---

I came for the great service - but I stay for the extra leg space. ZombieLoffe.

I have noticed that the people whom cry the loudest about their rights being abused are often the ones whom need their rights abused.

Have you never noticed how criminals always cry about "fair"?

I am not accusing anyone here, (although I bet there are a few who need scrutinized, its just statistically impossible to have 2,000 law abiding members) but I have always believed that only those with something to hide need worry. The other day when I mentioned the DNA sample being taken in the future for Drivers licenses, I am 100% in support of such an action. Its no more intrusive than putting up cameras at traffic lights to solve who hit whom in an accident.

I may be an over optimistic fool, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Did he say...

:shocked: "CHIP"?!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: OMG!

We are surely now doomed for all eternity to the most foul and hideous existence mankind can conceive.

How is the infomation on your card any different than the same
infomation on a chip? I just see this as a faster way to get
though airports. Only quarrel I have is if it's not encripted.

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

I have noticed that the people whom cry the loudest about their rights
being abused are often the ones whom need their rights abused.

Yeah, but the one's who don't are boring...

I love that great american mindset at the minute. If you aren't pro
government you're a terrorist, yada yada... I'd be afraid to live in a
country where questioning authority automatically makes you a bogeyman.
Hope it works out for you though Underdog...

I may be an over optimistic fool, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

I guess it becomes critical when the government not only use cameras
and stuff for solving who hit whom but to spy on people and stuff.
Giving the feeling of being controlled by a greater power (which is not
driven by ethnic feelings) and more and more getting supressed.

/me shrugs

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

But, you don't mind corporations requiring you to have an RFID id card, which is not lined with material to stop radio waves anywhere?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Well, only showing the information in the passport in that chip
wouldn't infringe on anything on your personal rights. But I see it as
kind of a gateway for much heavier control to be instated - "hey, since
there's already a chip in my passport, it wont matter if they add a
tracking device, right".

I might be a conspiracy nut, or whatnot, but I'd rather be overly
critical and paranoid against the ruling elite than risk having every
one of my steps monitored.

---

I came for the great service - but I stay for the extra leg space. ZombieLoffe.

The idea that humans have a divine, unalienable right to complete freedom is pure hogwash. A society's responsibility to provide freedom is for one purpose: maximizing human happiness.

Having chips in and of itself is a violation of nothing. The real question should be: what do these chips do? How are they used?

According to the article, the chips hold your "name, nationality, gender, date of birth, and place of birth of the passport holder, as well as a digitized photograph of that person."

So, this seems like a passive, digitized version of what is already on the passport, but with more security. Sounds good to me.

How exactly could they track you they could track the passport. Even that is 'iffy', since GPS isn't terribly accurate. (The best results you can get, with the best transmitters, in the best location on Earth is within about 2 meters or so)

Let me ask you though ... why have a cell phone? That's easily track-able and is more likely to be with you than your passport. Of course, like anything else, they have to have justification.

If you're not alive later to do something about your rights then ... well ... you did something that most people don't do :wink:

Everyone also forgets that if EVERYONE had this, they wouldn't be able to filter all the information, if you weren't doing something incredibly illegal they wouldn't give two s**ts about you.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Serious abuse of any invention is easily identifiable. After all, citizens do it every day,one only needs to look as far as their own cell phone to see one. But again I say, only someone guilty of something complains when their "rights" have been infringed in most cases.

If you fear someone scrutinizing you to closely, don't scratch your ass in public. :rolleyes:

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Whatever information on paper is easily identifiable, but with the eletronic format, it's easier to hide additional information about a person.

For example, they can code party membership into the passport. They can code ethnicity, or HIV status, or sexual orientation. The possibility is endless.

And don't say that the government won't, because if you read what the Secret Service did to inkjet papers, you would believe that coding other info into the passport wouldn't be too far fetched.

And pretty soon, homosexuals won't be able to get hired and HIV positive individuals will lose the right to bear children. It's a slippery slope.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

satchmo said:
And pretty soon, homosexuals won't be able to get hired and HIV positive individuals will lose the right to bear children. It's a slippery slope.

Its not wise to mention topics of this nature unless you personally are prepared for the outcome.

Sometimes I get the impression that you like doing this.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Eminem is my idol. Does that tell you something?

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

it's a situation that would be tolerable if there were people in power that could be trusted. sadly, this isn't the case.

---

i eat paint

Dark_Kilauea said:
How is the infomation on your card any different than the same infomation on a chip? I just see this as a faster way to get though airports. Only quarrel I have is if it's not encripted.

It's not only a way to scan information into computers. It's a way of tracking where the heck you are.

I'm beginning to think that I'd be much happier living in the middle ages.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

satchmo said:
Eminem is my idol. Does that tell you something?

Not in the slightest, but you have a habit of making semi-controversial comments then bailing on the thread once the hornets are swarming.

I do not think you are truly ready for the can of worms a comment like that would incite.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

cough Orph cough

That wasn't all that contraversial anyways underdog, you're the only
person that picked up on it, so it says more about your reaction to it
than satchmos supposed baiting. To your corners, gentlemen.... :biggrin:

Mephs said:
cough Orph cough (first time this week, nice one Mephs)

That wasn't all that contraversial anyways underdog, you're the only person that picked up on it, so it says more about your reaction to it than satchmos supposed baiting. To your corners, gentlemen.... :biggrin:

Hmm, perhaps but somehow I think that I am not so alone as you claim. I have noticed that many people around here are plenty smart enough to pick up on things yet, remain silent.

Thats not a bad thing really, but it does leave a lot of unvoiced comments around that can only be imagined.

If you like, I can keep track of any infringements from this point onward. I am willing to forget the past situations. Most notably, the booby thread.

I would also like to point out that if you read my comment, you will note that I have not hinted as to my position on his comment, only that it can lead to places undesirable by some. I am perfectly willing to discuss them without concerning myself with whom gets offended or not.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Satchmo! You like to stir crap up and then run away when there are waspers gonna sting u!! I call you Scratchmo-balls!!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I enjoy controversies. I bath in it, I wash my armpits with it, and I lick my skin because I am oozing with it.

Running away, nah. Where's the fun in that?

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

You know that is SO TRUE....

I like your controversies, scratchmo.

BTW i never really saw what kind of boobies YOU liked. Share again?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Why would whichever organisation controls what goes on these chips put extra data like that on there? What could they have to gain?

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

I have noticed that the people whom cry the loudest about their rights being abused are often the ones whom need their rights abused.
Have you never noticed how criminals always cry about "fair"?
I am not accusing anyone here, (although I bet there are a few who need scrutinized, its just statistically impossible to have 2,000 law abiding members) but I have always believed that only those with something to hide need worry. The other day when I mentioned the DNA sample being taken in the future for Drivers licenses, I am 100% in support of such an action. Its no more intrusive than putting up cameras at traffic lights to solve who hit whom in an accident.
I may be an over optimistic fool, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

That post is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I'm not a criminal, but I sure as hell don't want the government to have my DNA. I don't run red lights, but I loathe the idea of cameras on every corner.

(1)
What gives you the idea that the government is so altruistic that it will be responsible with your data? It is just run by people, who are fallible. And even if you trust them now, who knows who will be running the country 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the road?

(2)
Your argument shifts the burden of proof from the people proposing the changes to the people opposing them. If the government wants to curtail civil liberties, it had better have a damn good reason for doing so - its not enough to not have any particularly bad reasons.

(3)
All the time you hear about the government limiting civil liberties. Do you ever hear about them broadening civil liberties? With the exception of massive radical and often violent movements (such as civil war, the civil rights movement, etc) basically the answer is no. Consider the long-term implications of this: the gov't is like a black hole without hawking radiation - slowly but surely eating up civil liberties but never giving any back. Doh.

---

http://maze5.net

mazemaster said:
That post is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. .

Your problem is, you don't even know how to propose an opposite viewpoint without blatantly insulting the other side. What makes you think for a moment that you are knowledgeable enough to say the words "That post is so wrong"

Its perfectly acceptable in most societies to have an opposing viewpoint, but to claim higher standards enough to boast emphatically that another individual just has to be wrong is arrogant as hell.

So you do not like the idea. Who the hell are you? Just one individual, same as I.

Get off your high horse and perhaps next time we can have an adult conversation. :rolleyes:

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

If he'd added "I think" to the start of the post It'd be a-ok. Just answer to all of his valid points instead. imo.

---

I came for the great service - but I stay for the extra leg space. ZombieLoffe.

Sadly, people often forget basic courtesy when replying to a topic that they personally find distasteful. I can understand not liking something, I cannot grasp anyone forgetting that their own viewpoint may also not be popular either.

Many here also seem to forget that its not a majority rules community either. Many seem to think that if enough think you are wrong, by God you're wrong. This simply is not the case. Never has been, and hopefully never will.

I would suspect, and I feel this strongly, that if more people would reply in a way that can convey their thought without the need to use specifics that single your opponent out as an adversary that more people would reply to semi, or even fully controversial topics.

Anyway, until the comment is rephrased to a benign comment I have no further incentive to continue its discussion. I am not wrong, simply because someone says so.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Underdog, I see your point, but you often speak in absolutes as well.

Addicted to Morphine said:
Underdog, I see your point, but you often speak in absolutes as well.

Look, I am not willing to discuss things that begin with "Wrong". It leaves little or no room what so ever to advance. In fact it literally guarantee's it.

I may or may not "speak in absolutes" but I doubt you will, or can point out anyplace in my posts where the discussion was halted by myself. It may not have continued, but the discussion was definitely open still.

Now, I say this again. If the sentence were to be rephrased in such a way as to signify that my point of view was at least probable I would concede the discussion open again. Until then it has effectively removed me because my point of view was essentially deemed worthless. I am almost surprised no one said my profile was empty again.

I also mentioned once, or twice that I cannot be enticed to fight and/or argue. It wastes an enormous amount of time and effort. Neither of which do I have in an endless supply. If a conversation is meant to remain debatable, you cannot close the door in someones face while doing so.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

I don't know, I think you might be overreacting just a little. I
think mazemaster made some valid points, and I think its possible to
overlook the passionate wording of his response and instead address
actual content.

However, I agree with you when you say that there should be room for
discussions online since "right" and "wrong" answers are nearly
impossible to find in gray areas like this one, but my point is that
there is still room for discussion as long as you're not too sensitive
to words like "right" or "wrong."

/me looks around the forum with a grin of satisfaction for stirring up the hornet's nest again.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

satchmo said:
/me looks around the forum with a grin of satisfaction for stirring up the hornet's nest again.

But you can sleep well tonight knowing that you are still a participant and not an onlooker.

[color=white]Yes Morphine. You are correct. I am just a bit touchy. Passionately so when someone cries about their rights being abused yet they have no trouble at all stepping on mine. As long as they meant well of course. :rolleyes: [/color]

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Underdog said:
[color=#add8e6][color=white]when someone cries about their rights being abused

I'm sure you dont mean cry as an insult, but people can and will pick up on that word in a negative way.

I dont see how anyone is crying over this anyways, it is our
responsibility as patriotic Americans to question and review any change
(or possibe change) to our civil liberties.

The people in power serve us, not the other way around.

[/color][/color]

DrGlass said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Underdog</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>[color=#add8e6][color=white]when someone cries about their rights being abused

I'm sure you dont mean cry as an insult, but people can and will pick up on that word in a negative way.

I dont see how anyone is crying over this anyways, it is our responsibility as patriotic Americans to question and review any change (or possibe change) to our civil liberties.

The people in power serve us, not the other way around.
[/color][/color]</div></div>

Yeah, but when we question them, we're "unpatriotic"

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Hmmm... it seems things could be getting warmer presently...

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

mazemaster said:
That post is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. .

Your problem is, you don't even know how to propose an opposite viewpoint without blatantly insulting the other side. What makes you think for a moment that you are knowledgeable enough to say the words "That post is so wrong"
Its perfectly acceptable in most societies to have an opposing viewpoint, but to claim higher standards enough to boast emphatically that another individual just has to be wrong is arrogant as hell.
So you do not like the idea. Who the hell are you? Just one individual, same as I.
Get off your high horse and perhaps next time we can have an adult conversation. :rolleyes:

I guess that comes off as pretty harsh. Meh. I mean no disrespect, I just really disagree with your opinion.

---

http://maze5.net

mazemaster said:
I guess that comes off as pretty harsh. Meh. I mean no disrespect, I just really disagree with your opinion.

Will wonders never cease. I just knew, but I was wrong.

Anyway, I also apologize. Now I feel badly for all the bad thoughts I had prepared to post.

( I think I will go contemplate my place in the grand scheme now. )

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

mazemaster said:
That post is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I'm not a criminal, but I sure as hell don't want the government to have my DNA. I don't run red lights, but I loathe the idea of cameras on every corner.

Sadly "People" are usually the ones whom cause the need for things to be. In the case of the traffic light cameras for instance. How many Erin Brockovich's do you suppose there are out there who now fully support and appreciate the idea that now there will be a chance of winning their lawsuit? How sad is it that the lights need installed? How sad is it that now some altruistic assholes what them removed because the solution can be abused? Face it, anything can be abused all one can do is hope that the times are minimized by observant individuals caring enough to want it so.

(1)
What gives you the idea that the government is so altruistic that it will be responsible with your data? It is just run by people, who are fallible. And even if you trust them now, who knows who will be running the country 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the road?

Here again, face it. The government will have your DNA eventually anyway. What they do with it may or may not be abused but the benefit to even one crime solution makes it worth all. Ask yourself, what price would you pay to have your son's killer found? Your wifes rapist located and identified? Of course the system could abuse it, but why center your attention on the negative. People like you sound like people of old who were scared of inoculations. Yes people died sometimes but the benefit of saving one life? How can you place a price on that. Perhaps its merely a case of me being on the opposite extreme than yourself but I chose to be optimistic where you chose to be not. In the end they will have your DNA and which one of us will be miserable about it and which not? You are choosing to be miserable.

(2)
Your argument shifts the burden of proof from the people proposing the changes to the people opposing them. If the government wants to curtail civil liberties, it had better have a damn good reason for doing so - its not enough to not have any particularly bad reasons.

Placing blame? I? The actions are bound to happen, why not reduce the impact a trifle by acknowledging this fact and moving forward? As they used to say, "The proof is in the pudding". Why not allow the changes to happen then cry? Why cry in advance? Is it because the government has proven in the past that it is untrustworthy? DOH!, Name some organization that hasn't been. Any at all. Even the Churches and Medical fields have done this and few complain.

(3)
All the time you hear about the government limiting civil liberties. Do you ever hear about them broadening civil liberties? With the exception of massive radical and often violent movements (such as civil war, the civil rights movement, etc) basically the answer is no. Consider the long-term implications of this: the gov't is like a black hole without hawking radiation - slowly but surely eating up civil liberties but never giving any back. Doh.

Sadly, I feel perhaps we have to many already and thats why most complain. They have forgotten what its like to not have it bad. Also, many perceive rights that they do not have. Rights are not fluid, they do not overlap like water in a pond. You right to do something cannot supersede someone else's right for you to not do it. Perhaps this is an over simplistic viewpoint but it is also a very real one as well. I see things daily that should never even be a consideration as to "liberties"

I have some pretty narrow views on certain liberties already being considered so don't preach to me that we have no new ones being considered.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Oh come on, lets not over react here.. My god.

MoneyShot said:
Oh come on, lets not over react here.. My god.

I get the feeling that many around here just don't talk slow enough for you. You have all day, why don't you re-read the thread then get back to us when you are up to speed.

Since your reply had no relevancy on the discussion, I can only determine that you are indeed lost.

Thanks for your time.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quote:</div><div class="quotetext"><div class="quote"> People like you sound
like people of old who were scared of inoculations. Yes people died
sometimes but the benefit of saving one life? How can you place a price
on that.

</div></div></div>

So as long as at least one person is helped, it doesn't matter how many are harmed?

Addicted to Morphine said:
So as long as at least one person is helped, it doesn't matter how many are harmed?

You know, I was in fear of being over-simplistic but since you seem to be setting the standard I no longer have that feeling.

Thanks.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Underdog said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

So as long as at least one person is helped, it doesn't matter how many are harmed?

You know, I was in fear of being over-simplistic but since you seem to be setting the standard I no longer have that feeling.

Thanks.</div></div>
Dang Underdog, Whats with the mestruation??? Ppl happen to disagree with you. Perhaps you need to take a time out?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It's alright Nickel, I can deal with salty dogs :smile:

@ UD: Seriously though, that's what you said. I didn't oversimplify anything, I just restated your argument.

Also -- as far as your "the proof is in the pudding" argument, how
often are governmental actions repealed? I don't have any figures
but wouldn't it be worth considering that once something is through the
door its through for good? I mean, how likely is the government
going to trash a multi-million dollar operation like putting cameras on
every corner or pulling the DNA from every citizen once they've spent
the money and taken the time?

Also -- I don't know how you can argue that all these things are
inevitable and there's no use fighting it. It's inevitable if
everyone is unquestioning of the actions of the government.

Like Doc said, its our role as true patriots to question everything the
government does. This doesn't mean we have to disagree with
everything, but we should analyze objectively.

I think mazemaster's point that people are fallable is an important
one, because
honestly what is a government if not a collection of people? You
said this way of thinking was just him choosing to be miserable,
whereas you were choosing to be optimistic. I think its worth
considering that perhaps you're being optimistic and he's being
realistic.

Addicted to Morphine said:
It's alright Nickel, I can deal with salty dogs :smile:

I wanna know who's going around licking dogs to see which ones are salty...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

http://www.saltydog.com/legend/

I'm sorry but if thats all either of you got out of my posts then it really creates no incentive to continue discussing it now does there?

I mean really, one of you thinks I'm mad, when all I did was state a reference point and the other wants badly to agree with Mazemaster despite the fact that I mentioned that there is no perfect organizations.

Obviously, you both are attempting to prove your point about infallible humans by being one, or at least you think you are.

Sorry, but I see no point in continuing if that how you determine right from wrong, or truth from falsehood.

I am not pissed,upset or on the rag.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

The fact that all organizations are fallible doesn't justify their actions.

You threaten your withdrawal from discussions and insult my
intelligence ("I'm sorry but if thats all either of you got out of my
posts then it
really creates no incentive to continue discussing it now does
there?"). Why not just point out where I'm misguided or
incorrect, instead of calling me fallible and cutting off the dialogue?

Obviously, I have yet to see the wisdom of your perspective, but it isn't because I'm not trying.

You say: "Obviously, you both are attempting to prove your point about
infallible humans by being one, or at least you think you are.
Sorry, but I see no point in continuing if that how you determine right
from wrong, or truth from falsehood."

I was a little confused, how do we determine right from wrong, or truth
from falsehood? Is it by being a fallible human being?
Because that didn't make any sense to me...

I realize at this particular moment, there are no verbal members on my side of this discussion but how would you feel if I continuously said "Well I think so and so has the right of it and.."

Is it not within you to have a discussion without making it personal? Now I realize also that for at least one post Mazemaster made it so, but in the end we both felt badly and I assume we both intended to begin again from scratch. At least I thought so.

Now here we are with you back tracking to what happened before Maze and I amended our mistake by making it personal again. Why?

Sure, Nickel seems to think that I am upset for some reason because I posted oddly. Thats his misconception not mine. I was speaking from the heart. I honestly felt that "I" was being overly simplistic in my view, and then you better me by being even more so. Now I don't feel quite so badly.

To answer your question:

<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

So as long as at least one person is helped, it doesn't matter how many are harmed?

</DIV>

Well it would depend largely upon what level of help you were referring to. If someone was helped by getting a tax break, or their lost puppy was found, then no. But if a killer was found, even only one, then yes I'd have to say it counted as a good thing.

I am not willing to brandish numbers with you. I am not willing to say something stupid like "Do you realize how far medicine advanced when the Germans killed all those Jews" just because its true. Not all ends justify the means. Yes medicine advanced, but I feel we could have eventually gotten the same results without attempting genocide.

So, stop splitting hairs by attempting to simplify my comment into meaningless jabber.

You may not agree with me, but its not meaningless.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.