# Social media and our info out there on public display



## Bullgrit (Aug 28, 2013)

**This thread is not about ENWorld specifically. I'm just giving the full context of what got me thinking on this.**

I was just searching for my ENWorld private message page, (something I rarely deal with), and in my looking around I saw my profile page, (something I haven't thought about in years). On my profile page is a Google map showing where I live. Now, it only shows an icon over the [wrong] city, but still, it gives [nearly correct] info I've not given to this site, and actually don't want shown publicly. I'm a very private person, (despite having a blog about my life), and I work very hard at keeping my real-world information off the Internet. There is no personal info in my blog -- no real names, no city of residence mentioned, etc. Even very few pictures of me or my family.

I only have a Facebook account so I can have my t-shirt business on FB. (You must have a personal FB account to have a business account.) My personal FB is pretty empty -- 90% of the posts there are from friends wishing me happy birthday through the years. I might have half a dozen comments made by myself. I would not be on FB at all if not for my business, and I have to constantly remind myself I need to post something on my business page. (I don't even have a FB app on my smart phone.)

Everywhere I go around the Internet, everything is connected to some social networking. Connected to Facebook, Twitter, etc. Often I have to actively turn off connections. When I recently signed up for Netflix, I had to make sure to turn off the FB connections. I don't want anyone automatically knowing I just watched Magnum P.I. or Firefly. All this social media interconnection really, not only annoys me, it kind of weirds me out. I don't want the public, (friends or strangers), to automatically know what I'm doing, where I am, who I'm with, or anything.

At one time, society was worried about Big Brother constantly watching over us. But now it seems that society has willingly opened up their lives to the world without a government's intrusion. We complain about the NSA and Google invading our privacy, but damn, most people's privacy doesn't need invasion. Just friend or follow them online. They'll tell you everything.

What do you think of all this social media interconnection? Do you like it?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2013)

Nope.  I don't blog, IM, tweet, Facebook or anything like that. I don't even have a business website.

I occasionally post a comment on a news site, and I post in the chat rooms of @5 different websites.  Used to be more, but I let them lapse.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 28, 2013)

I'm not keen on it.  These corporate mega-giants (Facebook, Google, Twitter) erode small internet communities the way hypermarkets erode small businesses, and it's almost impossible to compete with resources of that sort of scale.

However, I embrace the technologies because I have little choice.  One day, we won't be using messageboards any more, and if small communities like this don't join the club now in preparation, they won't survive the transition into whatever is next.  They'll be forced into irrelevance.

The exception, I think, would be *very* niche stuff.  Maybe professional science boards, or the like.  I don't think tabletop gaming is niche enough to qualify (though it's pretty niche).

I do think privacy issues will improve, though.   They're a high profile item right now, and the legal system is lagging years behind the technology -- but eventually it'll catch up.  

I find myself wondering what's next.  From the hardware front, I think smartphones will give way to wearable tech (whether that's glasses, watches, patches, wristbands, etc.)  The software is, I think, going to get more and more sharey before it gets less so.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 28, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What do you think of all this social media interconnection? Do you like it?



To the contrary, I despise it. Facebook in particular is THE DEVIL. I don't mind having a presence in a social network of my choice, but I definitely don't want any kind of automation associated with it. I've recently started to get get annoyed by Google Services because they continue to integrate everything. It's bad enough if someone makes the connection between my online persona and my real-life person by accident; I definitely don't want anything of the kind to happen automatically. Fortunately, routinely disabling active web page content shuts down pretty much everything of that kind.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 28, 2013)

The problem is that Social Media is getting the blame but this has been going on for a very long time.  Business have always sold our names and information to other companies, with the move to internet has made the information available and Social Media has just brought it all together.  Add to that, that we never read the fine print, the Patriot Act, or other laws, we are just adding more and more out there.

A long time ago, the father of a friend that worked for the FBI told me, never put your name on anything, for once it is recorded, it can be tracked.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 28, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> A long time ago, the father of a friend that worked for the FBI told me, never put your name on anything, for once it is recorded, it can be tracked.




Someone should've told JK Rowling that!


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> A long time ago, the father of a friend that worked for the FBI told me, never put your name on anything, for once it is recorded, it can be tracked.




And a long time ago, they couldn't really track it all that easily.  Oddly enough the paranoia of back then was unwarranted.

Nowadays, anything electronic can be tracked down.

We're not quite there to live tracking yet.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2013)

I use seperate email accounts to sign up for profressional things vs. personal things.

My personal stuff is under a fake name.  So if you google my real name, you'll find my Linked in, articles I've written, patent, etc.  Stuff I'd want you to find because you're probably searching for me to validate hiring me.

If you google my fake name, you'll find enworld and other forums like it.

That seems to work OK for me at keeping some privacy and separation.

It might be possible to track and search to figure out who I really am and where I live, but that takes extra steps of determination.  A simple search won't cut it.  And that usually keeps random bad guys away, just as having a dog in your house makes the bad guys decide to hit next door that doesn't have a dog.  It's less work.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 28, 2013)

It's a love/hate relationship for me. As it can be tracked through your accounts and ISP anyway I use my real name on Facebook (where my family and one of my gaming groups keep in touch) and Twitter (though I rarely post anything on either). As Hand of Evil pointed out, companies have been selling our info for decades, technology just makes it more efficient and it's here to stay.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 28, 2013)

Heck, even your email provider is selling your data these days!


----------



## Dioltach (Aug 28, 2013)

I have a LinkedIn account for business, which is pretty much a minimum necessity if you're self-employed. No Facebook or other social media. My name is generic enough that whenever I've googled myself I've browsed through pages and pages without finding any hits that were actually me. I have a generic Hotmail account that I use for anything that requires an E-mail address and that I don't trust: the Hotmail address doesn't include any part of my name, and is set to display only my initials.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 28, 2013)

Janx said:


> We're not quite there to live tracking yet.



Yea, yea we are.  At work we have just installed an application on all our bank mobile devices, we can tell you where employees are and where they have been for the last 14 days, devices are pinged every hour between 7AM and 6PM.    I was used as a test subject while at Gen Con!


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> Yea, yea we are.  At work we have just installed an application on all our bank mobile devices, we can tell you where employees are and where they have been for the last 14 days, devices are pinged every hour between 7AM and 6PM.    I was used as a test subject while at Gen Con!




I spoke too simply.  Obviously I can track any device that I put software on to track and thus as I am IT and the bank employees are using my devices, then I can track them.

That is not the same as YOU being able to track ME with no prior prep or targeting.  You don't have any hooks in me, let alone know who I am to bother.

Our tech is not quite there yet to monitor every video camera in America to identify you and locate you on a map.

Though obviously, our cellphones are telling at least the phone company where we are.  There's a layer of too much data and no direct need (the FBI isn't trying to find YOU right this instant).

Additionally, I was more speaking to the "put your name on something" kind of records tracking, rather than physically tracking you.

Until records were automated, it would take manpower (and will) to go track down whatever John Doe's secret was.  You'd have to KNOW to go to Idaho and find a name change court document to get his real name to find his birth certificate.

So an FBI agent telling somebody a LOOONG time ago that they could track him by virtue of putting his name down, was utter BS in the realm of CSI-TV techno-fiction.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 28, 2013)

Curious to think about the use of multiple online identities for different domains of use.

Have to be careful about whether one is accurately identified to the provider and using a pseudonym in public, or whether one's identity to the provider is false.

Most providers ask for (and technically speaking, require) accurate identification during registration.  I don't know how enforceable that is, nor what sort of penalty could be assessed for a false registration.  I suspect false registrations are very common.

Providing only a pseudonym means that external user's can't tell who you are, and that they will have a tough time of linking all of your information.  But, if your identity was accurately provided during registration, the service provider will have no difficulty at all.

Assuming two different identities during registration, figuring how that changes what information is associated with the identities is a curious question.  Certainly, each identity will have incomplete information.  But, that information may be more accurate in the domain of use for that particular identity.  I'm having to think a bit on what exactly that means, so I don't have a deeper analysis yet to present.

Depending on the usage, using pseudonym's may not be distinguishing.  The pseudonym's might be correlated, say, by IP address.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 28, 2013)

Is this an "over 30" paranoia? With growing up in the FB/Twitter/etc. society, are the younger folks more accepting?

Bullgrit


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 28, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Is this an "over 30" paranoia? With growing up in the FB/Twitter/etc. society, are the younger folks more accepting?
> 
> Bullgrit



I think so, don't know if you are old enough to remember the Mask Of Tampa, where camera were being put in place and tested like the British system.  This was prior to 9/11 and people would put on mask as a public protest to the cameras.  There was such a uproar that the program was to be discontinued...then 9/11 and now Tampa has quite a few.



> July 16, 2001
> 
> Surveillance Cameras Incite Protest
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> ...


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I think so, don't know if you are old enough to remember the Mask Of Tampa, where camera were being put in place and tested like the British system.  This was prior to 9/11 and people would put on mask as a public protest to the cameras.  There was such a uproar that the program was to be discontinued...then 9/11 and now Tampa has quite a few.




Never heard of Mask of Tampa and I suspect I am old enough.  though I can imagine people putting on masks to thwart cameras.

I think there's a demographic of people who are OVERLY concerned about privacy, at the extreme ends, these are conspiracy theory people who think the government is out to get them.  I would bet these would be older people.

I think there's a demographic of people who are UNDERLY concerned about privacy, and will publicize their every personal detail to their later chagrin.

There's more likely to be a decent middle-ground.  Don't over share and isolate your personal life data from your professional or hobby life data.  Make laws to protect your direct data is not freely available to criminals or others for their unauthorized use.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 28, 2013)

In this space, there seems to be a vast underappreciation of how much information is gathered, and how well it is linked.

At the same time, there is an incredible lack of interest in the issue.  Most folks seem to shrug and move on.

My own sense is that critical thinking is being negatively reinforced.  Waaaah, thinking is hard!  (Somebody call a Wahmbulance.)  But that might just be me being a tin-foil wearing crusty old fart complaining about the young 'uns.  Hard to say.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2013)

I try to keep my online footprint as small as possible.

If you were to do a search on my real name- as I have- you'd find noooooot a lot of stuff on me, and a certain portion of it is dead wrong.  I've tried to get some of it corrected- like, scarily, how many websites have my *home* address listed as my office address- but, y'know...the Internet.  Much of that stuff is still wrong.  Fortunately, most of the people who share my name are quite obviously not me: if I am in your interview room as a black male in his 40s, I am clearly NOT the 22yo guy who was arrested this year for vehicular homicide.

Amusingly, while my screen-name here is unusual, it is NOT unique.  So, if you search for "dannyalcatraz", most results will come back to me.  I am NOT, however, the guy on the Singaporean singles dating site...or the other (?) Singaporean guy sharing explicit photos of himself on another website.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 28, 2013)

My name is so common that even when I add my exact address to a Google search I get 1 hit. And that's a real estate website. Gotta like that.


----------



## Dioltach (Aug 28, 2013)

A while ago every time I logged into my Hotmail account a page would open asking me for a phone number and alternative E-mail address "in case there were problems with my account". Right.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 28, 2013)

I get me on the first page.  Bu then I make my living publicly on the web, frequently using my real name.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> In this space, there seems to be a vast underappreciation of how much information is gathered, and how well it is linked.
> 
> At the same time, there is an incredible lack of interest in the issue.  Most folks seem to shrug and move on.
> 
> ...




I'd have to go check to see if what you mean by critical thinking is the same as what I think it is.

But I do suspect that some people may be leaning towards the relaxed attitude, in order to counter-balance the paranoia extremism.

Once you've got the nutjobs out there ranting, you don't really want to be associiated with that.

While it's probable that in the U.S.S.R that our modern technology and social media would be invaluable to the KGB and other oppression departments, that's because governments like that were corrupt and oppressive.

Here in the US, most of our government is run by us, the people.  So there's only so much bullcrap we can really pull over on ourselves.

It is more probable that mega-corporations are going to screw us over with this kind of data than the Government.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 28, 2013)

Janx said:


> But I do suspect that some people may be leaning towards the relaxed attitude, in order to counter-balance the paranoia extremism.
> 
> Once you've got the nutjobs out there ranting, you don't really want to be associiated with that.
> 
> It is more probable that mega-corporations are going to screw us over with this kind of data than the Government.




(Some text omitted.)

There is the crux of the question.  How much concern is appropriate, and how much is tin foil hattery?  How much is putting ones head in the sand ostrich-like.

Not a directed criticism: I find interesting that showing less concern tends to a "relaxed attitude" while being concerned tends to "paranoia extermism".  Why not "brain dead lack of concern" and "simple prudence"?

I really don't think most folks are aware the degree to which information is collected or used.  Absent the iris scanning technology, and the ability to display an image to just one specific person, the scene in Minority Report where the protagonist is shown ads in real time is more-or-less within current capabilities.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 28, 2013)

To give an example:

Store items very often have RFID of one sort another.  (A limiting factor is the cost of the RFID tags.)

When you pick up an item in a store, say, a book in a book store, the store can track that item together with your movement (by tracking the movement of the tag).

If you have any item which was recently purchased and that still has an active tag, an association can be made with your identity.

Regardless of whether this association is made, the store can track the item and display directed ads at a kiosk as you approach and walk by based on the item.

Edit: This is a point-in-time description of a capability described to me about 5 years ago at a trade show.  Here the significant details are the time frame (5 years ago) and that it was under active development.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 28, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> Not a directed criticism: I find interesting that showing less concern tends to a "relaxed attitude" while being concerned tends to "paranoia extermism".  Why not "brain dead lack of concern" and "simple prudence"?




I find it to be more: "Paranoid Extremism" <--> "Staunch Prudence" <--> "Simple Prudence" <--> "Relaxed Attitude" <--> "Gullible Con-Bait"


"Relaxed Attitude" gets less flak than "Paranoid Extremism", I think, because the paranoid extremist sounds nuts, while the relaxed attitude person is usually relaxed because they have nothing at risk. And while it's off-center, it not as far out as gullible people.

There ARE people out there that send money to the Nigerian Prince hoping he rewards them well.


----------



## Janx (Aug 29, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I find it to be more: "Paranoid Extremism" <--> "Staunch Prudence" <--> "Simple Prudence" <--> "Relaxed Attitude" <--> "Gullible Con-Bait"
> 
> 
> "Relaxed Attitude" gets less flak than "Paranoid Extremism", I think, because the paranoid extremist sounds nuts, while the relaxed attitude person is usually relaxed because they have nothing at risk. And while it's off-center, it not as far out as gullible people.
> ...




that sounds about right.  Mrs. Relaxed attitude doesn't spend two hours telling my wife how the economy is going to tank and how we should sell all our stocks and stuff and invest in gold (true story).  Once people start going down the PE path, I swear, the nuts and bolts start getting loose and they get further and further off the reservation.

Because the relaxed attitude person isn't ranting about anything, their lackadaisical approach to security doesn't come up in polite conversation.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Aug 29, 2013)

I created sub-accounts from my primary email, and use those for logging into different boards. All my handles and my one attempt to see what the point of Facebook was (I concluded there wasn't any) are under the names of my cats.

The paranoia level is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is awfully easy for someone interested in doing so to hack your information. On the other hand, they have to want to. There is the thing: someone has to actually want to nail YOU. Sorry, but 99.9999% of the people just aren't that important for the government (or anyone else) to specifically target.

As for the generation thing--there might be something to that. People post and email the stupidest things. One of my mother's coworkers had a daughter, and her friends were taking pictures of eachother's backsides (for some reason???) and sending them to each other on their phones (for some reason???). So for christmas, the mothers got together, and presents were addressed to the presents to and from the phone pictures of the girls making asses of themselves. Sadly, the girls seemed to think that was a great idea. As with all tools, there are people who will use them properly, there are people who will abuse them, and there are people who are just plain stupid, and will abuse the tools stupidly. The lack of foresight and judgment combined with that kind of power is sad, and the results are just going to stockpile.

As for boards, I always remove any subscription information or direct links to me. Most of my personal info is kept out of them, except for my personal portfolio page. I have a hard time understanding why people need to post every time they break wind, with duration, note(s), and pungency. Who cares? Facebook, Twitter, whatever else... I don't care.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 29, 2013)

Janx said:


> Here in the US, most of our government is run by us, the people.



This had me giggling - you wish!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2013)

*No politics, folks.  Please.*


----------



## MarkB (Aug 29, 2013)

I only ever signed up to Facebook once, to keep up with a couple of close friends who were on vacation in Florida, and sending updates via Facebook. Afterwards, I closed my account and went through the additional hoops that would tell them to actually delete my data within 30 days.

I've always felt that social media in general, and Facebook in particular, is one of those things that has way too much potential to go wrong on either an individual or global level - that it's something we'll look back on in ten years' time and say "can you believe how careless we all were with our personal information back then?"


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 29, 2013)

My FaceBook is just to keep up with my interest, games or TV shows.  

What concerns me is future tech, bar code tattoos or chips that hold information.  Tin foil hat time, they start with kids and fear, tag them to find them or easy way to keep your records...next thing you know, someone is misusing the data.


----------



## Janx (Aug 29, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> My FaceBook is just to keep up with my interest, games or TV shows.
> 
> What concerns me is future tech, bar code tattoos or chips that hold information.  Tin foil hat time, they start with kids and fear, tag them to find them or easy way to keep your records...next thing you know, someone is misusing the data.




Well, allegedly in Texas, they're handing out student badges with RFID in them and tracking them within the school.

And apparently via Freedom of Information Act, you can request a student list (apparently including the RFID).

Then you can buy a scanner and cruise around your neighborhood to identify kids.

Some parents are super freaked about this.  I can only say that it is feasible and probably reasonable to track kids in the school via an RFID in their student badge.  Odds are good the RFID only carries a GUID (globally unique ID) and thus doesn't itself convey information.

And somebody COULD scan your kid when they get near to get that GUID.

But there ain't much they can do with that.

Remember, RFID is very short range.  Near enough to scan you at the door as you exit, not near enough to zap your house to count how many delicious children you have to eat.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 29, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> My FaceBook is just to keep up with my interest, games or TV shows.
> What concerns me is future tech, bar code tattoos or chips that hold information.  Tin foil hat time, they start with kids and fear, tag them to find them or easy way to keep your records...next thing you know, someone is misusing the data.




Welcome to the future -- the future is now.

Read an article a couple of years back that described factory workers in Mexico being tagged.

Here is a link of an example.  This is from the vendor, so I'd be mindful of spin / bias:

http://www.xterprise.com/resources/Case-Studies/JandJ-Cordis-de-Mexico.aspx

Here is another take:

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/qa-amal-graafstra/

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2013)

Janx said:


> Well, allegedly in Texas, they're handing out student badges with RFID in them and tracking them within the school.
> 
> And apparently via Freedom of Information Act, you can request a student list (apparently including the RFID).
> 
> Then you can buy a scanner and cruise around your neighborhood to identify kids.




YAY! 



> Remember, RFID is very short range.  Near enough to scan you at the door as you exit, not near enough to zap your house to count how many delicious children you have to eat.




Awwww...


----------



## Janx (Aug 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> YAY!
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww...





Yup.  There's a lot of PIECES of scary things out there, but most of it is not connected or has limitations that the foil hats ignore.

There's apparently been paranoia about cameras recording location data in the image files, as if your pictures were easily available to predators AND you remained in one spot so you'd be there 3 weeks later when the creep came to the park looking for you.

As it turns out, apparently Facebook and other photo places strip that information from the file.  It's not in there on the places bad guys MIGHT get your pictures from.

It turns out, pedos will keep getting their fix from the school across the street or by running their own children's charity.

I think as a society, we're scared about the wrong things.  we go nuts over these convoluted possibilities and neglect the very simple path of least resistance that the bad guys are going to actually take.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 30, 2013)

> I think as a society, we're scared about the wrong things. we go nuts over these convoluted possibilities and neglect the very simple path of least resistance that the bad guys are going to actually take.




Actually, humans as a whole have been shown to consistently screw up the actual calculus of risk.  Look up "psychology of risk perception" and prepare to be disappointed in _Homo sapiens._


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, humans as a whole have been shown to consistently screw up the actual calculus of risk.  Look up "psychology of risk perception" and prepare to be disappointed in _Homo sapiens._




Yeah, people tend to be quite terrible at handling statistics and probability.

On the other hand, they are able to make judgements on limited and dirty information and to do so quickly.

Seems that our quick decision making capability is a poor fit for certain categories of problems.  In hindsight, I'm not sure that should be a surprise.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Starfox (Aug 30, 2013)

Morrus asked us not to discuss politics when this thread turned a particular way. Well, for me, ALL of this is politics - and it is the political hot potato of the future. We had a Pirate Party here for about a decade and it actually has delegates in the EU, tough the scare that got them there has abated and they'll probably lose their seats in the next election. I hear they've had more success in Germany.

But just as this is the hot political of the future, it is also something people will grow up into, like people have grown up into lots of other state controls. Need to carry a passport to travel? Does the state record births? In a historical context, all of these changes are pretty recent (a few hundred years) (and Sweden was at the forefront of most of those changes). People will get used to these things, but also make demands on how they are used. It's not something we can get around, it is the future.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2013)

Janx said:


> And apparently via Freedom of Information Act, you can request a student list (apparently including the RFID).




I'm going to guess this one is not true.  The 1976 Sunshine Act specifically exempts information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy from the FoIA.  As in, your fellow citizen's right to privacy outrules your freedom to know things.

Most times you have Personally Identifying Information, government organizations are specifically *not* allowed to just give it out.  Freedom of Information is there to let you know what the government is doing, but not anything about your fellow citizens.

Oh, and an added thought just to show that this isn't something to really fear.  Imagine that a FoIA request *could* get you the ID numbers for kids.  If it could do that, it could get you *any other records*.  Like, say, the photo on the ID, which is probably digitally stored.  The RFID tag is then not an issue, as bad guys would be able to visually identify the student, and would be unlikely to ever need the RFID at all.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, humans as a whole have been shown to consistently screw up the actual calculus of risk.  Look up "psychology of risk perception" and prepare to be disappointed in _Homo sapiens._




No, don't be.  At least, don't be disappointed, unless you also thought it'd be disappointing that elephants can't run at 60 mph.  It is not "disappointing" that a creature cannot do that which it isn't designed to do!

We have only been civilized for a relatively short time.  Before civilization, the short-term risks to humans were far more limiting than the long-term risks.  So, our perceptions are heavily weighted to the short-term, rather than the long term.  To really understand long-term risks, we need numbers, not our feelings.

So, basically, be disappointed in people not learning statistics, because that's where the real calculus of risk lies.


----------



## Janx (Aug 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'm going to guess this one is not true.  The 1976 Sunshine Act specifically exempts information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy from the FoIA.  As in, your fellow citizen's right to privacy outrules your freedom to know things.
> 
> Most times you have Personally Identifying Information, government organizations are specifically *not* allowed to just give it out.  Freedom of Information is there to let you know what the government is doing, but not anything about your fellow citizens.
> 
> Oh, and an added thought just to show that this isn't something to really fear.  Imagine that a FoIA request *could* get you the ID numbers for kids.  If it could do that, it could get you *any other records*.  Like, say, the photo on the ID, which is probably digitally stored.  The RFID tag is then not an issue, as bad guys would be able to visually identify the student, and would be unlikely to ever need the RFID at all.




It sounded unlikely to me as well (which is why I used qualifying terms around the story), but I didn't have the details to prove/disprove it.  Sounds like there's a law to protect for that 

Storing data on cards/RFIDs is another one of those "huh?" technologies.  Sure the chip may be able to store data, but as an expert in database/networked applications, why the heck would I store data that SHOULD be on my server (aka the cloud).

Generally, the only thing I want you or your card to carry is a GUID (ex 522F275E-8293-472A-96FE-84141E706970), something machine generated, non-sensical that I can match up to your records to identify you.

In a world where everything important (credit card machines) is hooked up to the network (phone lines or direct via internet), we take your GUID, match it up to your account, and perform the monetary transaction on the data at the bank.  Note, I reference GUID instead of credit card number, but it's all the same concept.

There is no need for your card to store your picture, or how much money you have when it's a quick trip to the candy shop to get the actual data when it is needed.


By doing so, a person getting your GUID or credit card number) but not knowing what system it connects to or lacking access to said system will not give them any information about you.

Note: there may be clever security schemes to embed checksum data in the storage space on the card to further validate you or something.

But storing your picture or your name or other demographics on the chip is a BAD design.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> No, don't be.  At least, don't be disappointed, unless you also thought it'd be disappointing that elephants can't run at 60 mph.




ELEPHANTS CAN TOTALLY RUN AT 60MPH!*


*In my nightmares.**

**Dreams


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2013)

Janx said:


> But storing your picture or your name or other demographics on the chip is a BAD design.




Generally agreed.  The only reason I can think of to do it would be if the chip is designed to be useful in cases when network connectivity is spotty or nonexistent.



Morrus said:


> ELEPHANTS CAN TOTALLY RUN AT 60MPH!*




I now have this image of a highway full of elephant-riding commuters on their way to work.  You'd have your compact models, your family-sized howdahs, stretch limousine elephants.  Instead of a parkling lot, you have green spaces for the elephants to roam around in while they wait for you to be done with your stuff, and you come and get them and ride home...

I need an artist to do views of a world in which we use elephants instead of cars.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You'd have your compact models, your family-sized howdahs, stretch limousine elephants.




And station wagon elephants, with a really big trunk.


----------

