How to solve identity theft

The largest problem with identity theft is CREDIT.  The credit bureaus started using our social security numbers, as did banks, hospitals, school system, etc. etc.  It was all based on the premise that only we would know our own SSNs and the associated name.  Obviously in the information age that is no longer true.  So our method of determining the credit worthiness of a person we don't know hinges entirely on an invalid premise, that the SSN + Name is a way to establish positive identification and authentication.

The solution is relatively simple.  Publish everybodies SSN and Name simultaneously.  Doing so will force banks, credit bureaus, hospitals, and even the government to find another means for authenticating the identity of the person.  No longer will it be assumed that just because you have the SSN that the information is reliable.  It will make it worthless to have an SSN and a name.  So what would be the new way to positively identify someone?

Maybe that method will be through some biometrics.  DNA markers,  fingerprints,  retinal scans.  Maybe it'll be through signatures.  I had a program on my Palm PDA (Sony Clie actually) that required me to sign my signature.  I'm not sure how they did it, but even when somebody else tried to copy my signature from something I had written down, they still could not get in.  I suspect it used timing in that it only authenticated if I signed my signature at the same rate.  It was also amazingly forgiving.  Sometimes my signature wasn't very good and it still let me get in.  But I challenged lots of people to try to break in and nobody was able to.  So maybe something as simple as that.  There are issues to consider, as somebody could have a stroke, or lose an eye, lose their hand, etc.  That's why DNA becomes so appealing, since you will always have it and you will generally know if somebody tries to steal it.  As a side bonus, it'll stop people from spitting on you since that would risk identity theft.  LOL!

The security my bank USED to have (so sad they got rid of it) was a device with a number that changed every 30 seconds.  You had to know your PIN and enter the number from that device.  Thus the security was two-fold -- something you know, and something you have.  But the device can easily be stolen.  If you did a DNA spit test, you could do something you HAVE and combine that with a PIN # (something you KNOW) and voila, you've just eliminated almost all identity theft.

The holdback right now is that DNA testing takes time.  But if the marketplace is demanding something right here right now that has to give DNA results accurately (at least to the 1 in 100,000 level) then you can be sure the current test providers will find a way to reduce that positive identification timeframe.

You wouldn't need to do a spit test for everything.  You'd need it for major identifications.  For instance, you apply for credit, you'll need a spit test / PIN # to identify which credit information is used.  But once you've got the credit card, everyday purchases using the card would not require the spit test. 



This also requires giving up some level of privacy, as a national database would need to be tapped into for validating this information.  A one way hash to prevent the PIN # from being reverse engineered.


Alternatives would include having a chip ID placed into our bodies for positive ID.  Between the two, I'd choose the spit test.

I'm sure eventually the thieves would be able to come up with some way of obtaining what you know and a piece of you...but if it is too hard and too costly, it would have to have a huge payoff to make it worthwhile.  Certainly it would be more than the cost of an SSN, which is worth less than $1 on the black market.

This does amount to a certain level of privacy being given up.  But privacy is another topic for another day.

Gay Marriage

This is quite a controversial topic.

For the record, I'm not gay.  Despite once having a boss that was gay, a boss I enjoyed working with and felt a friendship toward, I still harbor negative feelings for gay people.  I'm not going to try to justify them or deny them.  It's the way I feel, and I have that right to feel that way.  But I'm being truthful so that my bias is known up front.

From that background comes this thought, "Gay and straight people have the same rights and are denied the same rights.  I can marry whomever I please from the opposite sex and so can they.  They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.  They complain that they don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex.  Well, I don't have that right either.  It just happens to be something I don't want to do anyway.."

But then I got thinking about it.  What if the government only recognized marriage between classes of people. The rich could only marry the rich, the poor could only marry the poor.  Or the Asians could only marry the Asians and the blacks could only marry the blacks.  That would be pretty regressive, but that is our history.  We used to have laws that restricted our freedoms on whom we could marry due to their race.

But let's get to the real heart of the matter.  The simple reason why gay marriage is opposed is because us straight men don't want to see other men kissing or holding each other in public.  It's disgusting.  And if gay marriage is allowed, then those public displays of affection may become more frequent. 

Back in the times of the thirteen colonies, it was disgusting to see interracial public displays of affection.  In fact, that's still the case today with some people.  Being truthful to myself, I can acknowledge that I've had those same feelings.  I don't like seeing dark skinned and light skinned people kissing each others.  It grates against me internally.  But I would not deny them that right.  Just as it grates against me to see two unattractive people kissing in public too.  

I remember a movie a friend and I watched "What's eating Gilbert Grape."  At the time, we both liked the actor Johnny Depp and figured that movie would be another good one.  One of the actresses was cast to be very unattractive, repulsive even.  I remember when it got to the "make out" scene where it showed all the couples french kissing we both knew what was coming up and it was like "oh no, Oh No!" and sure enough, they showed that very unattractive couple french kissing and knew it would take a long time to forget that scene.  It still gives me shivers.

These feelings are all rooted together, stemming from the same source. I'd say that less public displays of sexual attraction would be one way to solve this, but I know that would never happen.  Guys like showing everybody they can who they are trying to mate with.  It's a primal urge to establish your territory and put other guys on notice to stay away from your woman.  I'm not saying guys "own women" but that is how guys feel about it.

The main complaint by gay people is that there are privileges afforded to married people that gay couples cannot have.  For instance, the ability to visit an unconscious partner in the hospital, medical insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and so on. 

So I think, what would it be like if the world were opposite of what it is today?  What if same sex marriage was the only acceptable form.  My attraction is to females.  It repulses me to think of being in the arms of another man.  How could I deal with that?  I could maybe pretend, even try it out, but deep down I know it just isn't the way I want to be.  So I could cohabitate with my opposite sex sweetie, but I wouldn't be able to put her on my insurance policy.  I wouldn't be able to hold her hand in public without getting glares from same sex couples.  I'd have to file my taxes separately from her as single.  And not being able to see her at the hospital after an accident because I had no way to prove the relationship would be hard.  And just the stigma of not being in the "traditional family unit" would be dispiriting.  

Well, that's how gays feel.  I'm sure I haven't covered the full depth of the feelings, but it's enough to somewhat understand their view.

What about the government's interest in marriage?  Marriage, though often associated with religious groups, is technically a civil contract tying the finances and privacy together of two people.  The benefit to society is that when there are two adults in a family, it offers more protection and a better environment to the children. It's just common sense, two people thinking of the families future is better than one.

So taking all of this into account, here's what I've come up with.

And I know this will raise the ire of many, but it is the most logical thing I could think of.  And it makes sense to do this as well.  Do away with the civil marriage.  

By not having the government recognize marriage, many things will have to change.  First, people in families will need the laws altered to give them the same rights that they had when they were married.  An interesting article I read talked about a similar issue.  Single people do not have the rights that married people do, regardless of sexual orientation.  By eliminating marriage, these privileges will have to be reassigned.

Now just for clarity, I said to do away with civil marriages.  However, religious marriages would still be allowed, with the religions allowed to specify who can be married and who can't.  They are private organizations, they have that privilege for their private ceremonies.  There are already religions which fully accept all sexual orientations freely, so it is likely that they would have their own marriage ceremonies (assuming they don't already have ones).  All other religions will be able to marry as they currently do.  It allows all of us to practice our religious beliefs without interfering or imposing them on others.  

I know there is also some fear from religious groups that if we start condoning gay marriage then our cities may end up like Sodom and Gomorrah.  That's one of the beauties of this approach.  It allows the religions to condemn other religions that permit gay marriage, thus showing that they oppose gay marriage and therefore they themselves should be spared the fire and brimstone and how much superior their religion is to the other one and so on.  Remember, Lot was spared because he did not approve.

The government is neither taking a stand for or against gay marriage.  So the government and its elected leaders cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the churches that permit gay marriage.  In this neutral stance, it leaves the MORAL decision of gay marriage up to the churches, as it should be.

One issue that remains is how to promote the much healthier family unit (already shown in studies to be a better way to raise children and apparently one of the justifications as to why there is marriage today).  I believe there should be "family contracts".  In these family contracts, anybody can be added.  All benefits that we currently see in marriage would likely be given to the entire family in the family contract.  So the family contract would tie together the finances of those in the family -- debt for one is debt for all.  Inheritance automatically goes to those in the family contract as outlined.  HIPAA restrictions on privacy could be lifted for those in the family contract.  Kids born into the family could be automatically added to the contract.  And people in the biological family can be specifically excluded (like disinheritance).  Responsibilities would be spelled out, which family members are responsible for the well being of the others.  And that's all optional -- the family contract can be customized to fit each family.  That's gotta make the lawyers smile, thinking of all of the additional contracts people will be making.  It'll be like having a mandatory prenuptial agreement.  It spells out the exact benefits, duration, and conditions of the family contract.  Insurance for family coverage would apply to all of those in the family contract.  Taxes would be paid based on the family instead of on individuals.  And you could only be in one family contract at a time. In this way, government would recognize families instead of married couples, thus there is no recognition of gay marriage, only of groups of people willing to assume the financial risks of being a family in order to improve their overall status.

So what would be the purpose of the religious marriage?  To spell out the commitments one person makes with another.  Specifically, sexual commitments.  That's part of what marriage is all about -- saying that you will forgo any sexual contact with someone to whom you are not married.  That you will love, honor, and cherish the other person, and you state this in the presence of your deity that you profess to believe in.  So the marriage is not dimmed at all.  Quite the opposite.  A religious marriage would be considered a higher commitment, a testament of the intent of the person to remain faithful.  It has no meaning outside of the ones involved in the marriage, so the only purpose would be to truly demonstrate the level of love you have.  Isn't that better, since the marriages "to get away from parents" or marriages "for a greencard" or marriages for financial status only will no longer need to be done since the family contracts will cover that.