The UIN - Unique Identification Number

Having seen how a simple social security system tool quickly turned into a very bad quality universal identifier in the US (the SSN), it is impossible to recommend any system that won’t be prey to becoming an instrument of tyranny. From the very early days of India’s independence, identification lists have been traduced and misused to sort out and massacre individuals from different communities.

However, your concerns about transaction tracking are only relevant to a politico-economic scenario where personal taxation is used to control people rather than provide revenue to run a shrinking government. In fact, pure transaction tracking, technically, does not need publication of details of the individual entities conducting the transaction.

A small slice of each transaction is certain to add up, across millions and billions of transactions a day, into sufficient funding for even the most badly run government. There is absolutely no reason to store - indeed, no reason to even record - the identities of the transactors.

The trouble with such transactions is the need for a simple identification system, to ensure that the tools being used to conduct the deal are being used by authorised operators. It may seem that such verification must necessarily be certified by an independent authority, but the beauty of interconnected networks is that there no technical reasons for such an authority to be centralised.

Therefore, as long as verification processes are not compromised or tainted by involuntary and unwanted intrusions of privacy, pure electronic transfer of an equitable exchange mechanism between two responsible humans is not a bad thing.

As far as your line of business is concerned, how does it really matter whether you exchange guns for apples, butter or virtual money, as long as there is no persistent link to either you or your customers? After all, even paper currency can be invisibly and indelibly marked, if you’re feeling (understandably) paranoid.

It may seem that such verification must necessarily be certified by an independent authority, but the beauty of interconnected networks is that there no technical reasons for such an authority to be centralised.

Perhaps not. But interconnected networks are an invitation to hackers and computer fraud.

In fact, pure transaction tracking, technically, does not need publication of details of the individual entities conducting the transaction.

System in question is used to verify identities for the purpose of preventing theft and providing government social welfare benefits. Therefore identity of the individual is necessarily part of the systems processes.

If tracking of the individual is to be eliminated from the tracking of the transaction it would have to be done after the fact. Scrubbing the personal identification details after the fact has been a troublesome task so far in many cases that I think of. For example records of personal background checks for firearms purchases are by law to be deleted. Numerous instances have been litigated where these records have been archived by Law enforcement agencies.

You make the remark that my paranoia is understandable. Well the distrust of government is a healthy thing. History shows that government grows and liberty diminishes.

Rage against the machine my friend.

[Perhaps not. But interconnected networks are an invitation to hackers and computer fraud.]

Yes. One major set is called the Internet. Forged notes are also a reality, and so is armed theft. That does not make cash untrustworthy in itself, just as interconnected networks are not untrustworthy in themselves.

The identity verification must be done at the user end (the very edge of the cloud). There is no reason to push that identity to the recipient. Let us take a case where the giver is under duress: obviously, in a one-on-one transaction the recipient is also aware of this, and is therefore party to the crime. I posit that a stolen ‘card’ is in itself useless, and it needs the presence of the giver in order to work. Much better than cash.

[System in question is used to verify identities for the purpose of preventing theft and providing government social welfare benefits.]

We have eliminated theft, leaving only duress and social welfare. Again, there is no reason for the transaction itself to bear witness to either the giver (government) or recipient (indigent), which can (and should, for better security) be done in an independent process.

[Well the distrust of government is a healthy thing]

And yet here we are discussing government delivered social benefits. What loads of crock government handouts end up being. They do not eliminate poverty, and often do not even positively discourage it. The loss of privacy is too high a price to pay for government handouts, and government should be restrained from any means of tracking or intruding on personal privacy. Especially during financial transactions. Assuming of course we agree on participatory democracy.

The loss of privacy is too high a price to pay for government handouts, and government should be restrained from any means of tracking or intruding on personal privacy.

I do agree that the loss of privacy is too high a price to pay for government handouts.

I do think that accepting government hand outs should be extremely painful. Given that generations of government welfare recipients have lost the sense of shame that used to come with being on the “dole” some form of pain must be found to discourage people from seeking government largess unless there is no alternative.

If one wants to live off of the sweat of my brow I do not think that having Big Brother watch where the money is spent is too much ask. If it is find another way to support your self.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.