Watch this…I learned about this project from a great lecture I saw by Larry Lessig. It is an extremely interesting presentation. Seriously, watch his presentation style it is really cool and similar to that of Prof. Lessig.
Archive for the 'Privacy' Category
After Saturday, anyone seeking to obtain or renew a Maine license or identification card will have to prove their legal presence in the United States — even if they’ve lived here all their lives and are well-known by the people processing their request.
The change, which is related to the state’s reluctant compliance with the federal Real ID law
The Ellsworth American – Maine’s Compliance with Real ID Effective Saturday.
Last spring, I blogged a lot about Real ID. It has kind of flown under the radar recently, but here is some news that makes me a little sad. While many states have passed legislation against Real ID, it appears that Maine will start implementing the law this week.
I’ll be on the look out for more news of this nature, but let us hope it doesn’t come!
Americans expect a high level of privacy when it comes to their electronic gadgets. The devices have become a repository for their lives. People store sensitive bank information, medical details, work documents, personal photos and emails on their laptops and smart phones. They’re outraged when spammed, protect information with passwords they regularly change, and encrypt important files.
When the Police Go Through Your Email: Quirk of Search Law Sets Off Alarm Bells – WSJ.com.
Now that the election is over, perhaps I can start blogging about tech and privacy again. Here is a primer for issues to come. Certainly, something that is alarming considering the number of devices I bring through an airport.
Okay, I don’t really know. It is probably impossible using actual human beings (using mathematical models, you could probably figure it out). If you clicked a link to this post hoping for a great answer…I apologize, but I’ll try to grab your interest none the less.
In an interesting piece of work, economist Henning Bohn has forecast the future voting propensities of an aging electorate based on two things: how much in taxes a median voter would expect to pay until retirement, and the present value of his or her expected Social Security and Medicare benefits.
His conclusion: It will make financial sense for the median voter to vote for higher taxes on his remaining working years and on younger people in order to secure his benefits.
If you are familiar with entitlement programs in the U.S. like Social Security and Medicare then you already understand some of the problems our generation will face. If you don’t look at this graph:
We are going to have to pay a lot of money to finance these programs in the future. A lot of people wonder why we pay Social Security taxes for someone else’s retirement? Why not just pay for our own? Those taxes go to financing the current generation of retirees. In other words, a ‘pay as you go’ system.
This creates an incentive for older citizens to vote for tax increases that will last our lifetime and less than half of theirs. They will experience a greater return in government benefits upon retirement than they will pay in increased taxes.
The tool that economics has to deal with balancing the value of future dollar values is discounting.
Present Value = Future Value/(1 + i)^t, where i is the discount rate
It is fairly contentious what level i should be at. Some people contend that it should be the current interest rate, a conservative estimate of the opportunity cost of holding money (in other words the cost of holding money in the present). Others, believe i should be some average of market returns. For instance, the return on the S&P 500 over the last 40 years. On a more extreme level, some people believe the future should be valued at a 1:1 rate.
Let’s do an example with these three examples. Future Value = $100. Time = 5 periods.
1) i = Interest Rate, i = 1.5%
PV = 100/(1 + .015)^5 = 92.8259
2) i = S&P 500 over last 40 years, i = 7%
PV = 100/(1 + .07)^5 = 71.2986
3) 1:1 Valuation i = 0%
PV = 100/(1 + 0)^5 = 100
You can see that depending on how much money individuals expect to earn today on a dollar affects how they value the future. If you expect a low return (1) over the next five years, you would value a future benefit of $100 at $92. If you expect a higher return (2), you value the future benefit less at $71. Case 3 is a philosophical case that says I should value the future the same as I value the present. This case is grounded in an ideal of human rights and moral standing. This case is difficult to justify implementing in practice because opportunity cost of holding money is not 0.
Now the problems come in…If you change that 5 to a 10, 20, or 100, the present value gets smaller and smaller and smaller. With a higher i, that happens even faster.
Let’s take an example using the Fed Funds rate, since the market is so volatile right now 1.5% is a safe and conservative estimate. Also an estimate that values the future highly.
Social Security: $100 benefits
Retirement: 65
Generation 1: 40
Generation 2: 20
Generation 1 value:
100/(1 + .015)^25 = 68.9206
Generation 2 value:
100/(1 + .015)^45 = 51.1715
Generation 1 values 100 for retirement about 25% higher, even with an i that values the future highly. Let’s add another element, Generation 2 values the future less because it is farther away and thus expects to earn about 7% in the marketplace. Now, we can figure out how a younger generation values a $100 of benefits of the older generations retirement.
Generation 2’s revaluation of Generation 1’s benefits:
100/(1 + .07)^25 = 18.4249
Generation 2’s revaluation of their benefits:
100/(1 + .07)^45 = 4.7613
Let’s expand on this new data. First, let us take a step back. i = 7% means that individuals expect a high rate of return in the present and therefore value the future less because they could invest or save the money. This seems like a fair assumption for a younger generation who empirically often take riskier returns. At this rate, Generation 2 values Generation 1’s benefits that accrue in 25 years at less than $20, $50 less than what they value it at, almost 75% less. Furthermore, Generation 2 values their own benefits accruing in 45 years at less than $5.
Currently, from what I can find, employers and employees each pay 6.2% in income tax toward Social Security. I’m sitting in history lecture and can’t think about how to calculate this right now, but let’s consider:
Σ 100/(1 + .07)^t, from t = 45 to t = 25
Σ 100/(1 + .015)^t, from t = 25 to t = 0
Σ 120*(.062)*t, from t = 20 to t = 65
The first summation shows how Generation 2 values their Social Security benefits for 20 years when they are willing to take risks on higher returns and the second shows the last 25 years where they are less willing to take risk. The third summation shows income payed into Social Security until retirement. I put income at 120, assuming salaries are 20% higher than social security benefits.
I created this spreadsheet. Please critique it, I put it together quickly, but I try and show the difference in expected benefits and taxes.
I’m going to end this post now. But I think this gets at the heart of what Hayek says about diffuse decision-makers producing better results than a centralized decision-makers. In other words, with my money I can apportion it out correctly if I have sufficient information because I know how I value the future. Central decision-makers have to attempt to aggregate all of this data and ethically are expected to do it fairly. The result is everyone paying into an entitlement system that we can’t afford and giving out money that we may never see again.
This is from the end of June, but something everyone should be aware of.
Well, I have fallen behind on update the spencerb.net-o-sphere on Real ID, but I will give you a quick catch up that divulges to you most of my knowledge.
First of all, March 31, 2008 was the deadline for states to file for an extension. Several states including South Carolina, Maine, New Hampshire and Montana held out to the end. Keep in mind that filing for an extension is by no means a commitment to enforcing this law. A larger number of states including New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington and Montana have expressed their hesitancy toward enacting Real ID.
I found this paragraph of the above linked the cnet news article particularly interesting:
In political terms, that’s a long time–and a new presidential administration–away. Some opponents of Real ID are already predicting that no state will actually comply with the deadline, or, alternatively, the next administration will find a way to quietly dispose of Real ID without much fanfare.
The justification for this argument is that in order for the Department of Homeland Security to not look completely silly they took the promises of Governors as enough to grant an extension until December 31, 2009. The May 11, 2008 deadline for enactment will be enforced for 0 of the 50 states. When Maine was threatening non-compliance for the May 11, 2008 DHS countered that Maine citizens would no longer fly. What sort of world would the U.S. have descended into if we restricted the citizens of Maine from flying on commercial airliners. I am sure that would have been great for the airline industry bottom line, not to mention basic rights of U.S. citizens.
I was reading over an article titled Colorado Opposes Real ID Plan
and I got excited at the prospect of another state outright rejecting the plan. Then I read on:
On a February 1 deadline, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) granted Colorado’s request for an extension regarding the Real ID plan. The extension gives Colorado until January 1, 2010 to comply with the law. However, in a somewhat confusing situation, the DHS says it will not enforce Real ID until that date for all states because so many are opposed to it, while still requiring states to request extensions if they claim difficulty reaching compliance. The original start date for Real ID was May 11, 2008. 39 states have opposed Real ID either by receiving extensions, or by approving or proposing resolutions in their legislatures.
There seems to be some confusion that filing for an extension is an opposition. I guess in the sense that one could apply for an extension with the belief that the plan would be derailed in the future, but I think the likely reason is that it is not feasible. Hopefully, this discrepancy is clarified as reporting continues.
Is this a “Real ID” Compliant Card?
The federal government has not yet issued any federal regulations for the Real ID Act. While this card contains features that we expect will be included in these future regulations, this card is not related to the Real ID Act.When the regulations are issued, Illinois will determine if any additional changes are needed when those regulations take effect. Until then, Illinois will continue to make improvements to meet the immediate needs for technology upgrades and the challenges of ensuring card security.
This answer worries me as far as Illinois’s propensity to implement the Real ID Act.
To extend the deadline by which State identification documents shall comply with certain minimum standards and for other purposes. (Introduced in Senate)
S 563 IS
February 13, 2007
Ms. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS.
- Section 202(a)(1) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by striking `3 years after the date of the enactment of this division’ and inserting `2 years after the promulgation of final regulations to implement this section’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE DEADLINES.
- Section 205(b) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended–
-
- (1) by striking `The Secretary’ and inserting the following:
-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary’; and
-
- (2) by adding at the end the following:
-
- `(2) LACK OF VALIDATION SYSTEMS- If the Secretary determines that the Federal or State electronic systems required to verify the validity and completeness of documents under section 202(c)(3) are not available to any State on the date described in section 202(a)(1), the requirements under section 202(c)(1) shall not apply to any State until adequate electronic validation systems are available to all States.’.
SEC. 3. NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING.
- (a) Negotiated Rulemaking Committee- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reconvene the committee originally established pursuant to section 7212(b)(4) of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note), with the addition of any new interested parties, including experts in privacy protection, experts in civil liberties and protection of constitutional rights, and experts in immigration law, to–
-
- (1) review the regulations proposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note);
-
- (2) review the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005;
-
- (3) submit recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding appropriate modifications to such regulations; and
-
- (4) submit recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress regarding appropriate modifications to the REAL ID Act of 2005.
- (b) Criteria- In conducting the review under subsection (a)(1), the committee shall consider, in addition to other factors at the discretion of the committee, modifications to the regulations to–
-
- (1) minimize conflicts between State laws regarding driver’s license eligibility;
-
- (2) include procedures and requirements to protect the Federal and State constitutional rights, civil liberties, and privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver’s licenses and personal identification cards;
-
- (3) protect the security of all personal information maintained in electronic form;
-
- (4) provide individuals with procedural and substantive due process, including rules and right of appeal, to challenge errors in data records contained within the databases created to implement section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005;
-
- (5) ensure that private entities are not permitted to scan the information contained on the face of a license, or in the machine readable component of the license, and resell, share, or trade such information with third parties;
-
- (6) provide a fair system of funding to limit the costs of meeting the requirements of section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005;
-
- (7) facilitate the management of vital identity-proving records; and
-
- (8) improve the effectiveness and security of Federal documents used to validate identification.
- (c) Rulemaking- To the extent that the final regulations to implement section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 do not reflect the modifications recommended by the committee pursuant to subsection (a)(3), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include, with such regulations in the Federal Register, the reasons for rejecting such modifications.
- (d) Reports- Upon submitting recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security under subsection (a), the committee shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that includes–
-
- (1) the list of recommended modifications to the regulations that were submitted to the Secretary of Homeland Security under subsection (a)(3); and
-
- (2) a list of recommended amendments to the Real ID Act of 2005 that would address any concerns that could not be resolved by regulation.
I was cruising through my Google News Privacy Alert when I happened upon this article:
This is a point emphasized by a new report. In the most recent survey of “Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World,” the United States gives new meaning to the hackneyed chant, “We’re Number 1!” According to London-based Privacy International (PI), a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance and privacy invasions by governments and corporations, the U.S. now has an “endemic surveillance society.”
At minimum the 2007 PI report confirms, in spades, previous reports suggesting that the U.S. was moving toward implementing a thorough surveillance state. Nevertheless, even with my background in researching and writing on the subject of privacy and surveillance, I was still taken aback to see the relative comparisons between the U.S., the UK, and everyone else. Even as I stated in my TNA surveillance cover story, that “the UK is now the world’s most watched country, having upwards of five million closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras keeping a watchful eye on the public, with the average citizen being caught on camera around 300 times per day,” I was unprepared to see the stark comparisons. (Yes, I’m a slow learner!)
I decided to take a look into Privacy International to see what this report was all about.
Honestly, I did not feel that the United States would meet the standard of recording its citizens 300/times per day, but it looks like Privacy International gives the U.S. some issues of its own:
No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007 State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector Spreading use of CCTV Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for ‘rings of steel’ around cities to monitor movements of individuals Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law
Interesting article on public trust of data security:
Privacy International’s Director, Simon Davies, warned that the statistics revealed a deep-seated public anxiety over the way data was being handled. “Commerce has nothing if it loses trust. People will simply not risk putting their personal information onto commercial systems. It follows that they will also go out of their way to minimise their interaction with government systems.”
Recent Comments