That’s a good point about me seeking sales of my book. I don’t make money based on book sales, though my employer does, so there is a similarity between our interests with respect to our organizations’.

However, I don’t have to say anything about biometrics and I will still get paid. You have to try to sell biometrics or you won’t get paid. The intensity of your self-interest in this issue is far greater than mine. It’s literally your job to sell biometrics to the government. That’s not wrong, just relevant.

That’s a good point about me seeking sales of my book. I don’t make money based on book sales, though my employer does, so there is a similarity between our interests with respect to our organizations’.

However, I don’t have to say anything about biometrics and I will still get paid. You have to try to sell biometrics or you won’t get paid. The intensity of your self-interest in this issue is far greater than mine. It’s literally your job to sell biometrics to the government. That’s not wrong, just relevant.

Talk about the hangup on selling! You were the one who provided a link to Amazon when talking about his book!! I wont even go into the rest of the comments about getting paid the same to talk about one thing or the other… We both know the truth of that… Have CATO try to get an engagement talking about, oh say, the migratory patterns of the blue spotted worm and see how much non profit funding you continue to get… Yes, I said it – CATO is non profit. Remember, non profit doesn’t mean it isn’t a waste of funds. CATO provides public policy research about things they can get funding to provide public policy research!!!

The lone defender??? It appears no one else is participating in this discussion other than you and me. By your logic, your a lone defender too!

If you want to met or talk, call the IBIA. If not, best of luck. There is no headway to be made in this type of a forum.

I think your suggestion that I avoid rhetoric is not well placed, given that the point of the post was to challenge the misdescription of this event as being about “border security.” That’s rhetoric, and misleading rhetoric at that.

Let’s talk about self-interest, because your prevarication on the word “sell” shouldn’t go unmentioned. You and people in your industry have a direct financial interest in selling biometrics equipment and services to the government. That’s not wrong, of course, but people should know it when they consider your arguments and activities.

I get paid for advocating in favor of limited government, free markets, and peace. I get paid no more or less for discussing biometrics or any other technology or program.

You are trying to get my tax dollars, so the burden is on you to make the case that this stuff serves a legitmate end, and that it is not going to needlessly undermine privacy. So what have you and “industry” brought to the table? “Trust us because we care”? Where are you designing privacy into the systems you’re trying to sell? I am not impressed by SafLink’s four-page 2003 “white paper” on privacy, written by your V.P. of business development.

It is not “analysis paralysis” to recognize the undesirability of biometrics and human tracking for national security purposes. It is the product of well-reasoned analysis, some of which I have done in my book, which I previously mentioned. In it, I make the point that avoiding uniform identification systems is a failsafe against tyranny. You just admitted that it could happen, but rather than considering the policies we should set in light of that possibility, you say “we will have much larger problems than this.” That’s an unserious response. You may love the Constitution, but that’s beside the point if you haven’t thought through what identification policies will protect liberty.

I think your suggestion that I avoid rhetoric is not well placed, given that the point of the post was to challenge the misdescription of this event as being about “border security.” That’s rhetoric, and misleading rhetoric at that.

Let’s talk about self-interest, because your prevarication on the word “sell” shouldn’t go unmentioned. You and people in your industry have a direct financial interest in selling biometrics equipment and services to the government. That’s not wrong, of course, but people should know it when they consider your arguments and activities.

I get paid for advocating in favor of limited government, free markets, and peace. I get paid no more or less for discussing biometrics or any other technology or program.

You are trying to get my tax dollars, so the burden is on you to make the case that this stuff serves a legitmate end, and that it is not going to needlessly undermine privacy. So what have you and “industry” brought to the table? “Trust us because we care”? Where are you designing privacy into the systems you’re trying to sell? I am not impressed by SafLink’s four-page 2003 “white paper” on privacy, written by your V.P. of business development.

It is not “analysis paralysis” to recognize the undesirability of biometrics and human tracking for national security purposes. It is the product of well-reasoned analysis, some of which I have done in my book, which I previously mentioned. In it, I make the point that avoiding uniform identification systems is a failsafe against tyranny. You just admitted that it could happen, but rather than considering the policies we should set in light of that possibility, you say “we will have much larger problems than this.” That’s an unserious response. You may love the Constitution, but that’s beside the point if you haven’t thought through what identification policies will protect liberty.

Hope all is well with you personally. I still strongly disagree with your positions. Understanding that we are in the same industry, and serve many of the same people, you should understand the extent that the government is taking to address your issues and the issues of like minded people.

To reduce this to ‘having something to sell’ is to try to minimize the input of industry. You know better than most the best minds in this field are in industry. We are all selling something. You are trying to ‘sell’ me your view. I am trying to ‘sell’ you mine.

I don’t take umbrage with your post. I welcome open, serious, intelligent dialogue – not rhetoric. I wish you would bring something more meaningful to the discussion than the fear of what might happen in the future. If we let this guide our every decision no forward progress would be made on any front. It’s called analysis paralysis. Your argument that a potential change in control in government power is ridiculous. I don’t mean from a possibility standpoint. It could happen. However, if this does we will have much larger problems than this… You greatly overestimate this industries capabilities if you are placing them on par. This may be an example of the “irrational fear amplified by lack of specific knowledge” I spoke of earlier.

All parties involved in this have thought well “over the horizon”. You do not hold an intellectual monopoly here. It is insulting for you to think others have not given this a great deal of consideration. We just disagree about where this all ends.

It appears that you would like to reduce this to being about those that want sales, revenues, and profits versus the guardians of the Constitution. Do you really think so little of me? Of my love for the United States? For the Constitution? I have news for you. I really believe in these Government Programs as being the appropriate course of action.

This is an “old saw”. If you would like to get together again, please contact the International Biometrics Industry Association. I would enjoy seeing you again.

Best of luck.

I know many of the people that work on these technologies and programs. Because I serve on the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, I know many DHS officials. I know the P/CEO of one of the corporations I highlighted in my blog post (don’t know if he attended), I know staff of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, and many other relevant people.

What I didn’t say in my post (your comment may suggest I did) is that any of them favors this technology being used for surveillance of law abiding citizens. They probably think and hope it won’t be. (The P/CEO I referred to above very much does not want it to be.) That’s all nice, of course – but beside the point. Students of government understand that programs and systems put in place for one purpose inexorably seek out expanded purposes and powers.

So there’s a little sketch of my authority to speak on these issues. Now, are you the Matt Shannon who works for SafLink, the biometrics company? The Matt Shannon quoted in the Seattle Times article Getting Piece of $30 Billion Security Pie Not So Easy for Local Businesses? I have to tell you I laughed out loud when I saw that. Maybe you have something to sell . . . ?

If you and colleagues of yours take umbrage at this post, that’s OK with me. I’d like for it to make you think over the horizon. If you do, you’ll recognize that there’s no stopping the systems you’re selling from being used for tracking law-abiding citizens, and ultimately they probably will. Because you don’t know who will run the government in the future, systems like this may come under the control of people who don’t like the way you want to live your life.

I know many of the people that work on these technologies and programs. Because I serve on the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, I know many DHS officials. I know the P/CEO of one of the corporations I highlighted in my blog post (don’t know if he attended), I know staff of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, and many other relevant people.

What I didn’t say in my post (your comment may suggest I did) is that any of them favors this technology being used for surveillance of law abiding citizens. They probably think and hope it won’t be. (The P/CEO I referred to above very much does not want it to be.) That’s all nice, of course – but beside the point. Students of government understand that programs and systems put in place for one purpose inexorably seek out expanded purposes and powers.

So there’s a little sketch of my authority to speak on these issues. Now, are you the Matt Shannon who works for SafLink, the biometrics company? The Matt Shannon quoted in the Seattle Times article Getting Piece of $30 Billion Security Pie Not So Easy for Local Businesses? I have to tell you I laughed out loud when I saw that. Maybe you have something to sell . . . ?

If you and colleagues of yours take umbrage at this post, that’s OK with me. I’d like for it to make you think over the horizon. If you do, you’ll recognize that there’s no stopping the systems you’re selling from being used for tracking law-abiding citizens, and ultimately they probably will. Because you don’t know who will run the government in the future, systems like this may come under the control of people who don’t like the way you want to live your life.

Or are you speaking from an irrational fear amplified by lack of specific knowledge?

Are you willing to take the time and learn – I will be more than happy to help… Somehow I doubt that you do.

Matt Shannon

I don’t have anything against biometrics or biometric technologies in general. I do think that digital identification systems, including most modern biometric technologies, change the meaning and consequences of identification quite dramatically and in ways few people yet understand.

These are things we should adopt slowly and with great care. Neither these vendors nor the Congress have our interests at heart, though they may force these biometrics on us.

I don’t have anything against biometrics or biometric technologies in general. I do think that digital identification systems, including most modern biometric technologies, change the meaning and consequences of identification quite dramatically and in ways few people yet understand.

These are things we should adopt slowly and with great care. Neither these vendors nor the Congress have our interests at heart, though they may force these biometrics on us.