Biometrics – Mark of the Beast?

Ok, so I’m not seriously saying that Biometrics are the Mark of the Beast (although some are), but I am very concerned about them. Today we learn that ICBC, British Columbia’s government agency that has a monopoly on auto insurance and responsibility for licensing, is in discussions with the US Department of Homeland Security about implementing a biometric drivers license. It sounds like the main reason for this is to ease movement across the border and removing the need to get passports. Frankly, I’m appalled.

You might have guessed I lean conservative in my thinking but I believe this issue is too big for left-right fighting. Biometrics, the use of distinguishing features of our body for identification, is a very dangerous thing. For a conservative this should hit at the heart of privacy and personal security, and a more liberal/progressive should be concerned about the dampening effect on protest and agitation this will have.

Imagine the prospect of being tracked wherever you go, having that information stored in a gigantic database, and the government having control of that. On a basic level, I don’t believe it is the government’s (or anyone’s) business where I eat, where I drive, where I recreate or do any of the lawful activities I am entitled to. It may be argued that if I am doing nothing wrong, why should I care, but that is a terrible argument that leads very quickly to a police state. Imagine a camera in your bedroom, if you’re doing nothing wrong . . .

More problematic is the effect biometrics will have on dissent. I am virulently opposed to the radical left’s agenda but I am not at all willing to use oppressive tactics to prevent people from exercising their basic rights (I do wish some on the left felt the same way – see “Hate Speech”). The use of biometric tracking, especially facial recognition, will be major impediment to social progress. Would the gay rights movement have been successful if the government could easily identify and out the closet dwellers?

What I find most disturbing is the ease with which people give up their right to privacy for trinkets or convenience.

"[It's] so much easier than a passport," he said. "No worry of identity theft.
"Actually, we use it now to get into work," added Poore, who uses his thumbprint to get access to his laptop. "I think it's easier than having to reset a computer every 90 days or whatever it is. I like no muss, no fuss."

The price of this convenience is going to be very high. Papers please.

The Great RRSP Scam

I have argued at length with many friends and co-workers that saving in an RRSP is often counter-productive. This article should go a long way towards convincing them. Basically, if you save less than $100,000 in RRSPs, when you retire the only people you're helping are in government. For every dollar anyone takes out of their RRSP the government will claw back 50cents, and then tax you on what you took out. You may only get 25cents on the dollar of savings and the article shows that other income-based benefits may be denied you, effectively moving you into a net loss situation. The only way to get ahead is to have a large RRSP such that you don't need the government benefits you have already paid for!

As a conservative kinda guy I do believe it is your responsibility to plan for your future, and that it is the family's job, first, to care for each other, but if the government is going to tax us at a high rate and promise us secure retirement in return, then I have already paid. Why should I help the government while denying myself vacations, or faster mortgage repayment? Why should I pay now and then pay again later?