Legal executions

Firstly let me say that  I am opposed to capital punishment, on the grounds that it is  basically inhumane and because our justice system is imperfecr enough to allow an occasional innocent person to be executed. 

However, that being said, I don't understand the conflicts about using various combinations of drugs to kill a prisoner.  Why such a complicated and tedious system?  I have heard that an overdose of heroin kills almost instantly.  People who overdose are found dead with the needle still in their arm, which argues a certain instantaneous quality to the effect.  Why do we not use that method?   I'm sure there must be a reason that this is not done, but I (not being a drug user) do not understand.  Any readers out there have an answer to that question?

Social Security Numbers and Identity Theft

When the original Social Security law was passed in 1933, it was solely and entirely for the purpose of providing a system by means of which individuals could be taxed and the money used solely for retirement benefits.   When Medicare became law much later, the same number was used as the funds for Medicare were also fixed and earmarked for the benefit of individual taxpayers.  There was much opposition to the use of this number as some sort of national identification number, and as a result, up until 1975 each Social Security card carried the words "Not for identification".  The card had no biometric information or photograph since it was not to be used for identification.

The following quote spells out what the government did with their own regulation:
"In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent agency of the United States government. Although its primary purpose is to track individuals for Social Security purposes,^[1] the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number for taxation and other purposes.^[2] "  (The above quote is from Wikipedia).

With the increasing use of electronic storage and communication, the SSN has become more and more vulnerable to identity theft.  We have to begin assuming that if data is online, it is ultimately available to anyone willing to expend the time and effort.  Note that whatever encryption is used, it is breakable.  Therefore, by its misuse of the SSN for identification purposes, the federal government  has exposed us to the ever-increasing risks of identity theft.

It seems absolutely clear that a different system of identification must be used, and developed for use NOW.  If it's encoded, it's breakable.  The only unbreakable code system (at least for the present) would be a biometric system.  We need to replace SSNs with fingerprints and/or retinal scans and/or facial recognition.  Fingerprint scanners are cheap and can be placed on every computerc, ATM, and terminal in the world.  Every bank (who of course now use SSNs for identification) should require such biometric data.

Organizations, whether private or governmental, should be held liable for any damage caused by their use of encoding/breakable systems.  There is no reason to continue a system basically flawed and vulnerable, when it can easily be replaced.  Perhaps we should be thinking about what remedies could be taken to improve the system immediately, especially if the government is reluctant to act.

Privacy

I find myself puzzled (more than usually) over the issue of telephone privacy, specifically the monitoring by NSA of telephone calls and emails.  Why would anybody care if NSA has monitored such communications?  The real issue is: who has access to this information?  I don't really care if the NSA knows my phone and email messages.  There's nothing there of any real importance to the government.

I guess the NSA cares about the violation of their own privacy by Edward Snowden.  In my opinion he did the right thing.  I'm in favor of more transparency in government, generally.  In this case letting terrorist groups know we were listening for them might prompt them  to take more precautions, and that's not a good thing tactically.  But  the issue that has been raised is our so-called right to privacy. Few have objected to the exposure of our intelligence-gathering techniques and how that might in the long run endanger us. 

To me the privacy issue is absurd.  I might object if non-governmental groups or individuals had access to bank information or business conferences.  If I had a girlfriend I would probably not want my wife to know.  Actually, I would certainly not want her to know.  But why would the government give a damn?  Who cares what they know about me?  The IRS already knows a lot more about me than I want them to, so closing that door is more than a little late. What could the NSA possibly find out from my emails and phone calls that would be remotely harmful to me?  I'm missing something here.

Clearly if I were doing something illegal like money-laundering or drug sales I would object to anybody knowing anything.  But I certainly don't care if NSA stops criminal activity. More power to them.  If I were President (see  6/9 blog) I would encourage them to listen more.  There's nothing in the Constitution about privacy, other than a rather distant interpretation of the section on search-and-seizure.  Clearly we don't want governmental authorities going through our closets.  And certainly we object to the authorities using information they have gained to harass and intimidate US citizens without due cause.

But limited search, such as the NSA looking specifically for evidence about terrorist activities, seems unobjectionable.  They're not looking for "everything/anything"\, they are looking for something specific. How are innocent individuals being harmed by this activity?

I don't object. I have nothing to hide (evidence of a relatively uninteresting life).  What am I missing here?