[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

all-in-one versus segregation



Excerpts from this BBC article,

   The card aiming to end Nigeria's fraud problem
   www.bbc.com/news/technology-31438226

   Last year, the National Electronic Identity (e-ID) Card was
   launched in collaboration with MasterCard, with President Goodluck
   Jonathan the first recipient...  The smart card's Match-On-Card
   technology matches a holder's fingerprint against a profile
   stored in the embedded chip...  The card is also a travel document,
   conforming to the same standards as international passports. It
   contains electronic identification information, as well as Public
   Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology that allows for document
   signing, non-repudiation and encryption.  The eID card contains
   users' biometric data, including fingerprints...  Fully 70% of
   adult Nigerians do not have a formal bank account...

again bring up the tradeoffs between all-in-one functionality versus
segregation of duties.  I personally don't want one technology to
rule them all, but I have many choices and I know how to make them.
Others, not so much.

Has anyone here been involved in design, rollout, or analysis of
the Nigerian solution and want to comment on how risk management
tradeoffs were evaluated?  To me (the guy living in a world of
choice), I don't want to be 0wned at all but, more than that, I
don't want to be 0wned by one central entity even if its mission
statement is to do so for my own good (cf., "I can't defend the
country until I'm into all the networks." -- K. Alexander and/or
cradle to grave tracking of everything in the food pipeline
and/or Elon Musk's comment that it will soon be illegal to drive
your own car yourself).

But let's start with Nigeria, unless some one of you is better
able to discuss Pakistan's new program that requires a fingerprint
to get a SIM card.
theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/pakistan-fingerprint-mobile-phone-users

--dan

"The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt.
It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you
are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace;
but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible
because men moved too late. it is often essential to resist a tyranny
before it exists."
    G.K. Chesterton, _Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against
    the Scientifically Organized State_