I know y'all are probably getting tired of hearing the name "Claire Wolfe": here's an authors interview : http://www.loompanics.com/authormonth/ClaireWolfe.htm emphasis mine [SIZE=+1][/SIZE][SIZE=+2]PRESENTS[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Our Featured Author[/SIZE] [SIZE=+3]Claire Wolfe[/SIZE] Claire Wolfe lists her occupations as a writer and "professional troublemaker." It's no wonder, then, that she's made it her business to scream loudly against a suffocating political thicket of national ID and related mechanisms that threaten personal privacy and freedoms. Wolfe is the author of the newly released I am Not a Number (currently out of print 3-14-2000), and 101 Things To Do 'Till The Revolution (Loompanics Unlimited, 1997), as well as numerous articles for Loompanics Unlimited catalogs and other national media. Wolfe is the first to write a major book about America's transition to a number-based society. And she's just in time. She says: "Not many people are aware yet that their state drivers licenses are being turned into de facto national ID cards, nor of all the other citizen-tracking schemes that have been buried in recent legislation, often without any debate or public knowledge. When people do become aware, millions are going to be mad as hell. When they’re at the point of refusing to let themselves be treated as "resources" of government, or letting their privacy be violated every time they go tot the doctor, apply for a fishing license, or enter a public building, I am Not a Number (currently out of print 3-14-2000) will help them understand both the nature of the problem and what to do to turn their lives toward freedom." [SIZE=+1]AN INTERVIEW WITH CLAIRE WOLFE [/SIZE] Loompanics Unlimited: Let’s talk a little bit about your background. Is there a particular reason why personal freedom and privacy is so important to you? Claire Wolfe: I was raised to have a lot of political consciousness, but it was basically left wing. My mother was a staunch, absolute Democrat and I was dragged around to political events from my earliest memory. I don’t agree with her philosophy at all, however. Somewhere around the time I was 10 or 11, I became very concerned with matters of individuality and individual freedom. I remember I was 10 years old when I first learned about Social Security systems and proposed national ID cards. (Yes, they were talking about them even then.) My first reaction was disgust, anger. And I don’t know where it came from. I've always just demanded to be free to run my own life, and believe others should have that freedom, as well. I guess I was just born libertarian. L.U.: Have you ever personally felt that your privacy was completely taken over or invaded? C.W.: I have not yet had my privacy taken over by the government, but that's certainly what the government is trying to do now - in the form of requiring social security number-based licenses for a stunning range of ordinary activities, and setting up databases to track everything we do - right down to the visits we make to our doctors for the most private matters. I've certainly had my privacy violated in a lot of casual ways. I think everyone’s privacy is violated in ways that we don’t know about. L.U.: Can you give me an example? C.W.: There are private organizations that exist for no other purpose than to keep data about us, our purchases, our habits, our health, and then to sell that data. But far more important than that, because you can get out of the private databases, are the government databases. For instance, the new one designed to track every American worker. Now I’m self-employed. I don’t have to be in that database. But I’m just infuriated that people have to dodge, duck and weave if they want to stay out of that database. There's no legal way to get out if you work for a company. Similarly, there's a new federal medical data system being constructed that's so invasive most people refuse to believe it when they're first told about it. If you go to your doctor you WILL be in that database, no matter what your personal wishes. And that data will be available to a variety of government and private agencies, no matter what your wishes. L.U.: What’s the worst that can happen if they are in those databases? C.W.: Not too long from now, every aspect of your life will be tracked by government at some level. Your employment of course, where you live, all of your medical data, your political affiliations, purchases, basically everything about your habits. That could eventually, in the very worst case scenario, be used to "cull the misfits" from society. I don’t see that on the immediate horizon, but I do see this sort of data, which is being collected now, and will be collected on a scale that we can’t even imagine in just a few years, being used selectively. If you have a political enemy, for instance, it can be used against you. It can be used to expose matters about your private life or deny you a job. And just imagine the mistakes that will be made, the errors in the databases that could cost you jobs, health insurance, security clearances, or whatever. You don't even want to imagine the intentional or accidental misuses of the data, or the way in which information (and misinformation) about you will spread from agency to agency without your knowledge or control. L.U.: What about Joe Average who says, "I don’t have any extreme political views, I don’t really care if I’m on this database. I pay my taxes. So what?" What about that kind of person? C.W.: It’s true that most people in the country are going to have that attitude. And that’s fine, but the very idea that these databases are being kept implies ownership. I’ve used the analogy before of a farmer tracking his cattle. Modern farmers use computers; they know which cattle have been vaccinated against what, which have been castrated, which are in which pasture, which have been on which mixtures of feed, which have received antibiotics and so on, which breed well, which don’t breed well, which have caused trouble, which haven’t caused trouble. And the farmers use that to cull their herds, to decide which cattle they want to foster and which they want to get rid of. Aside from any specific actions that may be taken, the mere fact that the government feels it has the right to have this kind of information about individuals is offensive. They don't own us – but forcing us to supply data about our lives certainly indicates they believe they do. When we're free individuals, on the other hand, our lives are no one's business but our own, and information about our lives belongs to no one except the people we choose to share it with. Whether Joe Average believes mandatory citizen tracking is offensive or not, it’s offensive. L.U.: What is the single most important thing people can do to protect themselves? C.W.: Become an outlaw. I hate to say that. But it’s totally useless to attempt to work within the system when there are so many laws being passed, so many regulations being promulgated, so many databases being created, so many surveillance methods being set up, so many agencies snooping into our lives – and all of it being engineered so quickly and covertly that even dedicated activists often don't learn about it until months after it's been accomplished. I think the only tactics that will work are guerilla tactics. Refuse to cooperate. Lie, stonewall, do whatever you have to do to keep yourself out of the databases, or to screw up the databases. Break the surveillance equipment. Don't get a regular job; work only for cash. Make the lives of the invaders miserable. Of course, I can’t recommend – this is important – I can’t recommend that people do illegal things. I simply don’t think anything else is going to be effective. In I am Not a Number (currently out of print 3-14-2000) I make the assumption that so many people are eventually going to rebel against this kind of tracking and control that we're going to have a vast network of underground communities, providing their own jobs, medical care, security, food and services. It's too late to try to fight this within the system. If we oppose these intrusions, we must begin to prepare NOW for the day when we won't be able to conduct our daily lives without our social security-based "internal passport" - our national ID drivers license. L.U.: Is there anything else important that people should know about you? C.W.: I’m a middle-aged lady who has always been scrupulous about obeying the law and trying to do the right thing. And I think that’s part of the reason that all of this particularly offends me. Because I’m not a criminal. I’m not a terrorist. I am the classic law-abiding citizen. L.U.: Do you feel that you’re being assumed guilty? C.W.: Yeah. I’m being treated as if I’m guilty. I’m being treated as if I’m a criminal, a terrorist, a dead-beat dad, or I’m going to do something bad. I think that's the federal government's attitude to all the millions of American citizens. We are either "resources" to be "managed" or we are potential troublemakers they must spy on and guard against. Well, I want to tell them they're creating potential troublemakers by using such intrusive tactics. And I'm one of them. All I really want is to be left alone to live a peaceful life. But if the government won't stay out of my face, then it had better realize it's making me – and a few million other people – damn mad. There are going to be consequences of treating good, free people this way. L.U.: What about when people say, "Well, this might not be for you and me, this is for the people who are out there and who are the terrorists and who may be up to no good"? What about when people say these are preventative measures? C.W.: Totally invalid, it’s a lie. There are plenty of valid investigative methods for tracking down real criminals and people who are a real threat to society. All that is just a bald-faced justification for laws being passed to control citizens as if they were cattle. Let me give you one example - the so-called "deadbeat dads database." We were told it was to track parents who didn't pay child support. If that's true, then why is it that the database doesn't just contain the names of people who have child-support judgements against them? Why does it contain every employed American? This is from the welfare reform law, Public Law 104-193, where it's called the new hires database. If the true intention was to track parents who owed child support, they would simply enter those names and their Social Security numbers in the database and the data would only remain in the database until their obligations were discharged. The fact that they put in every employed person says collecting child support isn't the purpose at all. If you look closely, you'll find the same thing is true in every case; the "cure" so grotesquely exceeds the proclaimed "problem" it's absurd. Let me give you one example – the so-called "deadbeat dads database." We were told it was to track deadbeat dads. If that’s true, then why is it that the database doesn’t just contain the names of people who have child-support judgements against them? Why does it contain every worker? This is the welfare reform bill. It’s called the new hires database. If the true intention was to track deadbeat parents, they would simply enter those names and their Social Security numbers in the database and they would only remain in the database until their obligations were discharged. The fact that they put in every employed person says that that’s not the purpose at all. Anyone who’s self-employed can slip right through the database. But if you work for a company you’re in it. So how does that help track self-employed deadbeats? L.U.: Is there anything you’re working on that we should look forward to? C.W.: I’m working on three other books that are all in the early stages. One is a manual for people who might want to retreat in groups from Big Brother or the effects of the Year 2000 Bug, or whatever. Another one is a book on monkeywrenching. Both of those I’m writing with partners, and I’m also working on a follow up to 101 Things. L.U.: Excellent. Well thank you so much Claire. That’s it. C.W.: Well, that was painles
I know my dad was around when SS was created and SS numbers along with it and remembers the outrage at the time and that the only way it was pased and allowed to be implemented was with strong assurances that SS#s would NEVE be in any way used for identification that it was basicly just like a bank account number so you could access the right account when the time came and would NEVER be your ID....interesting that about 50-60 years later thats whats used for your formal ID in nearly ALL ways from prison ID numbers toat least for some time soldiers dog tag numbers to in most states drivers lisence numbers and is how you identify yourself on tax forms and most everything else. I SURE the new national ID with RFID and biographic and biometric info is TOTALY different though and will NEVER be used to track our activities or spy on us.
