54230

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.politics.guns:54230 talk.politics.drugs:13614 alt.rush-limbaugh:23530
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!andy
From: [e-mail] (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:17:56 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>	Like I said, I'm not sure of the details.  But it seems to me that you
>could access medical information without giving out a name, or any other
>information.

Medical info without a name/body attached is completely useless for
treatment.

>The article I mentioned the the earlier post described a debit
>card type transaction in which neither the store nor the BANK, knew who was
>withdrawing the money.

Thus making it as secure as cash, for some purposes, but far less
secure for others.

>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>stored in the card.

Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.

Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
that it disclose public info.

>things.  I think anything that you choose to keep unknown should be.

Thus making it useless for negative information.

>could have it so that only doctors can access medical information, police
>criminal records etc etc.

Yeah right.  How are you going to keep doctors from spilling the
beans?  (We already know that you can't keep cops from disclosing
info, but at least that info is typically supposed to be public
anyway.)

>	Like I said, it's best if you read the article for yourself.

The article discusses technology, not appropriate policy.  It also
fails to deal with "what happens if the folks with the secrets blab".

-andy
--