Paper-Thin Security

Foolish paper-based security solutions have been seriously annoying me over the past couple of days. Two recent examples come to mind: my recent trip to the DMV and my ongoing application for Irish citizenship.

The DMV lived up to its reputation this weekend – a purgatory whose screaming children and close quarters seem to be specifically designed to concentrate psychological distress. Welcome to the DMV, we’re here to serve you. After a mere three hours, we arrived at the counter only to have the DMV employee point out that my middle name did not appear on my newly-issued US Social Security Number card. This was unacceptable, given that my middle name appeared on my other identity document, my passport. “Ever since 9/11…” the DMV employee offered in half-hearted explanation.

Only when the employee’s supervisor came over and signed off on the condition that the information be matched against the computer did my application get the go-ahead. Funny, and here I thought the Orwellian concentration of personal data in government computers was going to be a bad thing. Apparently I shouldn’t have worried, as it doesn’t appear the government is actually using any of the data it’s collecting in any significant way during the normal course of business. Had I not even provided my passport (it wasn’t required, I brought it just in case), the integrity of the DMV process would have hinged entirely on a 3″ by 2.5″ piece of cardboard.

Has anyone considered how ludicrous it is to still be relying on paper for our security? With high-resolution printers and sophisticated imaging technology in the hands of every web designer on the planet, one would hope for something more sophisticated than heavy paper and pretty patterns. But what’s worse than pointless paper-based security? How about badly-designed security solution that are supposed to address the deficiencies of pointless paper-based security systems. Like those of the Irish government.

To be clear, the Irish government and Irish institutions have a weird love-hate relationship when it comes to paper. For Irish institutions, a utility bill is often enough to provide proof of identity. But for Irish immigration, this apparently isn’t enough – no, no, no, they want notarized documents. Sounds appropriate, right? But they also want the original documents to be sent to them as part of the application – if they need the original documents, what’s the point of sending notarized copies of these documents as well?

The devil is in the details – it’s not enough that the documents be notarized by a notary public. No, the notary public has to be personally known to you – meaning that you must have known the notary for a minimum of six months prior. Oh, and you can’t identify yourself to the notary using either a driver’s license or passport – no, they just have to know you, by telepathy or some other unspecified means. According to the Irish government, if you were to introduce yourself to a notary, wait six months, and then present documents for notarization, this would provide a much better proof of identity than just asking a notary (or the consulate) to do their job and verify the authenticity of the documents using one of the many computer systems available.

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter – I doubt they even bother to check the identity of the notary public! After all, they probably just rely on another paper-based security mechanism: the notary’s seal. No one could possibly duplicate embossed paper technology!

All Over A Word

Oh no, here we go again: gay marriage has come to the forefront of American politics, spurred by San Francisco mayor Gary Newsom’s recent decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Cue the delirious claims of the imminent downward spiral of family values and the collapse of society.

I really don’t get the opposition to same-sex marriages, much less the call for a constitutional amendment, for a number of reasons. The biggest annoyance is the lack of structured, logical arguments against same-sex marriage – if it’s so wrong/destructive/inappropriate, shouldn’t it be simple to demonstrate why?

Time for a quick tour of the arguments…

Let’s start with the claim that the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. These arguments are grounded in religious beliefs that God/Allah/your-deity’s-name-here says it’s wrong, according to an interpretation of the Bible/Quran/your-scroll-here. This viewpoint tends to ignore that said religious documents have been revised, tweaked, or changed wholesale at the whim of numerous rulers over time. I don’t mean to be sacriligious, but if I was The Almighty, I think I’d seek a better representation of my will on Earth than a document that’s seen more patches than a version of Microsoft Windows.

Another version of this argument attempts to dress up religious rhetoric in scholarly garb: gay marriage serves no purpose, as the purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for rearing children. I’ll be honest, there might be something to this – after all, if a gay couple can’t reproduce, aren’t they just taking up space, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint? But on the other hand, the same argument could be applied to couples who are incapable of producing offspring, either by choice or physiological incapability. I’m a stickler for consistency, so if we’re going to make propagation of the species a prerequisite to recognizing marriage, we’d better be prepared to apply the same rule across the board, right?

The final argument has less to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be recognized, but the legal and legislative process by which it should or should not be recognized. Some groups claim that the Mayor has no place changing the law – I’ll agree with that. However, I won’t agree with the same groups’ claims that the courts are “out of control” and “rewriting the laws” without legislative oversight. Here’s a clue: that’s their job, to enforce consistency in the law. If one law says “we don’t recognize same sex marriages” and a higher law says “by the way, the federal government can’t discriminate”, then the courts have to apply the higher law. This isn’t something new; it’s the way it’s always worked. It’s the way it worked when equal rights for minorities were enforced, and when women won their right to vote, so why should we expect it to work any different now?

The most unsettling part of this debate is watching people trying to justify their own prejudices on screen, while trying to not come off like jerks. If you believe the soundbites, then nobody’s against same-sex marriage, they just don’t want to call it marriage, due to the traditional connotations of the word “marriage” as being a union between a man and a woman. It sounds to me like all the laws need to be re-written to replace “marriage” with “civil union” and make the separation of church and state definite. Of course, I’m not about to believe that this would actually solve the problem, but it’s nice to think it would. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure we have bigger problems that affect all of us that we should be solving instead of quibbling over a word.