🚀 go-pugleaf

#   could be attached to a garment until the owner threw it out.
#   
#   Heretofor, this application has been considered only for security purposes.
#   
#   The definition of "security", according to the textile industry magazine
#   'Bobbin', has been expanded to include "anti-counterfeit" tracking after
#   purchase. [What???]
#   
#   Could a machine-readable tag on a person's clothing serve many of the same
#   tracking purposes an one embedded in the body?

----


Sure, government can give debate reasons for requiring fingerprinting
for driver's licenses...

But it is still a violation of the minimization requirement of the Privacy
Act of 1974.

Biometric data on citizens is FAR BEYOND any reason government can give.

Notice how no citizens in any state ever got to vote on such an important
escalation of personal data collection by the government.

Indeed, it seems to be accomplished in the quietest way possible, giving
citizens the least amount of opportunity to choose their fate.

Odd, since tax-payer paid-for government services is what gives them the power.

But elected representatives will do, you say?

Did you hear any of them mention it during campaigning?

Did Alabama elected officials even mention it with their press
release of a new driver's license, despite that being the plan?

No.

What does that tell you?

We need a cabinet-level Privacy Commission,
with the power to intervene nationwide.

Power to protect us little people from fanatical personal data collection.

We are losing it piece by piece.

Who would have thought the United States would
collect fingerprints from all citizens?

Collect biometric information from everyone...