Big Brother IS Watching you, Literally

[Sticks]

As reported on the BBC Website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4741527.stm)

No mention here of civil liberties and privicy.

What safeguards are there that the system would not be hijacked, after all we have seen the film Enemy of the State (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/) have we not? 8-[

[Argos]

Prepare for worse in the future. You´ll miss 2005.

[Taks]

sad. government invasion is too often disguised "in the name of security" when in fact it eventually allows greater and greater abuses. granted, it's a slippery slope argument in the context of cameras actually being abused, however, government traditionally abuses any power it has. there will always be some politician willing to use this power to his own ends. not long before we get scared into something similar here. fortunately, the US is so large (compared to england) that total coverage is a long way off.

taks

[sts60]

What safeguards are there that the system would not be hijacked, after all we have seen the film Enemy of the State have we not?

You mean the one where satellites can always instantly track an individual in super-high-resolution color high-frame-rate video, at the press of a button? *Snerk*

[tbm]

Greetings.

Yes, it IS disturbing that they seem to make no note of the privacy and civil liberty issues. Britain has already make inroads on the rights of their citizens to defend themselves with ill-thought out gun restrictions. Now people are being watched by literally hundreds of cameras a day. I don't know how others feel, but I don't like being treated like a criminal by a government that tells me it's for my own well-being. It's too easy to change that for the government's interpretation of what that well-being encompasses.

Regards (looking about fearfully), tbm

[genebujold]

It's indeed a two-edged sword.

While automated surveillance may very well help catch someone leaving a roadside bomb before it goes off, it may also be abused to profile certain people, then screen them for government service.

I can imagine the results of such a future interview.

"We've had our eyes on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson. It seems you're guilty of virtually every computer crime for which our society has a law."

[Argos]

What safeguards are there that the system would not be hijacked, after all we have seen the film Enemy of the State have we not?

You mean the one where satellites can always instantly track an individual in super-high-resolution color high-frame-rate video, at the press of a button? *Snerk*

How about real-time satellite imagery? (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050806-175051) :)

[Taks]

while hi-res space surveillance may seem intrusive, it is not nearly as intrusive as local camera monitoring. each satellite can only be zoomed to look at one small area at a time. it's resolution is not good enough to pan back and still capture minute details. it would take many tera (peta?) pixels to get that kind of resolution range. however, local camers can be place everywhere, cheaply...

and before anybody asks, no, the hubble can't image the earth... nor the moon. :) at least not very well.

taks

[Sticks]

Here is a piece of satire about a contentious piece of legislation going on in the UK

Linky (http://eclectech.co.uk/clarkeidcards.php)

It is about the introduction of compulsory ID cards.

If I object to them on civil libities could i flee to the US and claim political assylum?

(Would I want to)

[aurora]

It is about the introduction of compulsory ID cards.

If I object to them on civil libities could i flee to the US and claim political assylum?

(Would I want to)

I'd pick a different country. The US already has a law, since June, that mandates it.

Real ID (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/236891_statepower17.html)

[Lord Jubjub]

A law that might not withstand Constitutional scrutiny and one that many states don't desire to enforce. =D>

I shall bite my tongue and not make a snarky politicial comment except to say that I am, for now, still a registered Republican. . . :wink:

[Sam5]

Actually, it's a side effect of modern technology. Police are being photographed more than ever too.

Recently there was a case in New Mexico where a dashboard cam caught the sound of a policeman shooting a handcuffed guy. It was the cop's own camera.

[Argos]

I can´t see where´s the problem with ID numbers, cards. I think they´re a convenience. Where I live they´re not obligatory, but you wouldn´t want not having one.

[Sticks]

With a compulsory ID card, by definition it will be a criminal offence not to produce one on the spot when the police officer demands to see your papers.

OK

Say I am a mugger, and I mug you I also take your ID card as well.

You report the mugging

Now I am the police officer, and so I arrest you for not producing your ID card. You protest that it was stollen by the mugger. I am deaf to your excuses for not showing to me there and then and you are convicted and I get another easy succesful collar to add to my quota, . Yipee! As for the mugger, who cares, that's far to mutch like hard work

Lets get back to the me, the mugger. I know the police will do this, so I will mug with impunity because if you go to the police, it will be you who are arrested and end up with the criminal record.

Compulsory ID cards are a muggers and a burglar's charter and licence to mug and burgle without fear of procecution.

Now you are in this thread May I see your papers NOW!!!!

[Gillianren]

I find that scenario more than a little unlikely.

[Sam5]

I find that scenario more than a little unlikely.

I agree. All people would have to do is protest such a system by everyone leaving their IDs at home. The cops can't arrest the whole country.

I think our standard for worry about this kind of stuff would be based on how many whole families are arrested in the middle of the night in our apartment building or neighborhood, like what happened during the Nazi era in Germany and the Communist era under Stalin. It doesn't happen here.

Most people I know in the US are more afraid of criminals than of cops.

[Peptron]

I find that scenario more than a little unlikely.

Unlikely? I have two French friends to whom a "similar" story happened. Ok, it was in France, but hey, incompetence is universal! :)

The first one went in prison for a week for trying to save the life of an old woman that got attacked by muggers. Basically the police saw him trying to keep the old woman consious (that was bleeding quite a lot), so the police thought that he was the culprit. He explained to them that a mugger wouldn't try to save the life of the woman they just attacked, and that a mugger wouldn't seek to get police attention either. They didn't believe him and he got in prison while the old woman was in coma. One week later, the woman got out of coma, and the policeman said that he got the one that attacked her. When she saw the guy, the told the police that he was probably the most incompetent cop on earth, and that this guy was her life saver (like he was trying to say for a week). Now the guy told me.... what if the woman didnt come out of her coma? or what if she had an amnesia?

The second is a little less crazy, but still... a friend found a wallet and there was still money in it. So he decided to go to the police station to report the lost wallet, and mentionned that there was money in it (about 50$). The police told him that he didnt have any proof that he didnt steal it, so they threathened him that they would arrest him for theft. The police then finally decided to let him go, but warned him of never bringing lost items to a police station again, because that could be considered thieft.

[Ilya]

The police then finally decided to let him go, but warned him of never bringing lost items to a police station again, because that could be considered thieft.
I would say that was very considerate of them! ;) [Edited] Don't know about Quebec, but if I did this in US and ended up arrested for theft, a pack of lawyers would be salivating to sue the police department on my behalf.

Seriously, Sticks' "mugger scenario" becomes a non-issue if the cards are biometric and can be tracked by radio, or better yet, are RFID tags embedded under the skin. Actually, if something like what Sticks described ever happened, all the mugged-then-arrested individual had to do was call the local newspaper and make a stink. The police department would have a fat police abuse lawsuit on its hands.

[Sticks]

All the police have to do is say that they arrested a person for the crime of not producing the id card on ther spot.

No case to answer, as they were well with in the law, case thrown out

As for the press, well I know someone who always says that you can not belive the press, and there is more to it, and the complainent got what they deserved. The papers print lies and always gets it wrong.

Most likely the press will be suitably cowed by further legislation banning the criticism of public officials as this undermines the morale of the country especially during the war on terrorism. Only terrorsits and insurgents would oppose such a patriotic measure. [-X

Mugger chotles and beats a granny up, nicks her pension and her id card so she won't complain.

[PatKelley]

Sorry, Sticks. We still have presumed innocence. All it takes is one or two of these contested and the judges will start coming down on prosecutors and police alike.

Example: the letter of the law is fine for 1-5 mph over the speed limit. A friend of a friend got fined for going 31 in a 30 zone. Went in, contested the ticket. All the judge had to do was see the citing officer's name, and he flew into a rage about wasting time in his court and threw the citation out.

One is allowed to contest any charge, really. It is up to the police to prove you did something, that you were the one who did it, and that it was on purpose. Even in sins of omission, there is usually a grace-period in which you can show up, show that you either have an id-card or were supposed to have one, or get one, and the fine is waived (this being drivers licenses).

[tracer]

... compulsory ID cards.
The US already has a law, since June, that mandates it.

Real ID (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/236891_statepower17.html)
What that article says the new law is:

"The Real ID Act passed in June in an $82 billion military spending bill. It requires states, by 2008, to verify whether license applicants are U.S. citizens or legal residents of the United States."

What the reaction to this law is:

"OMFG they're requiring everyone to carry national ID cards!! Anyone without one will be sent to Camp X-Ray!!!! They've probably got a '666' on them somewhere, too!!!!!!!"

Slight exaggeration, c^u ne?

[Van Rijn]

For those who don't know, illegal immigration is a major issue for states that share a border with Mexico. The last estimate I saw was that there were 7 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in the U.S. That's probably conservative. In California, there has been a lot of back and forth about allowing the "undocumented" to get a driver's license. Hispanic groups are for it. Groups that don't like illegal immigration are against it. The security argument is that a Driver's license is used as a primary form of ID, so making it easier for undocumented immigrants to get them would make it easier for them to operate openly and get other ID. The pro argument is that people without driver's licenses also usually don't have insurance.

The long and short of it is that if you want to get into the U.S. illegally, you almost certainly can do it. And, if you are reasonably careful, you can stay here for some time without being noticed. If you are caught, unless you raise some major red flags, you will just be deported, and you can return the next week.

[Taks]

keep in mind, all of the ID initiatives currently showing up in the US regard driver's licenses. driver's licenses are only required to be in your possession while you are driving. granted, you need them for all sorts of services you may want to access, but you don't need one for walking down the street.

taks

PS: btw, you can also get state issued ID cards in lieu of a driver's license should you lose the latter! it's still not required.

[Sam5]

I find that scenario more than a little unlikely.

Unlikely? I have two French friends to whom a "similar" story happened. Ok, it was in France, but hey, incompetence is universal! :)

The first one went in prison for a week for trying to save the life of an old woman that got attacked by muggers. Basically the police saw him trying to keep the old woman consious (that was bleeding quite a lot), so the police thought that he was the culprit. He explained to them that a mugger wouldn't try to save the life of the woman they just attacked, and that a mugger wouldn't seek to get police attention either. They didn't believe him and he got in prison while the old woman was in coma. One week later, the woman got out of coma, and the policeman said that he got the one that attacked her. When she saw the guy, the told the police that he was probably the most incompetent cop on earth, and that this guy was her life saver (like he was trying to say for a week). Now the guy told me.... what if the woman didnt come out of her coma? or what if she had an amnesia?

The second is a little less crazy, but still... a friend found a wallet and there was still money in it. So he decided to go to the police station to report the lost wallet, and mentionned that there was money in it (about 50$). The police told him that he didnt have any proof that he didnt steal it, so they threathened him that they would arrest him for theft. The police then finally decided to let him go, but warned him of never bringing lost items to a police station again, because that could be considered thieft.

Yeah, but that's France! I don't live in France!

[genebujold]

To put it bluntly, as a solution to our national security, Real ID sucks.

First, it wouldn't have solved 9/11, as the terrorists were legal immigrants at the time. If Real ID had been implemented before 9/11, he only difference would have been the loss of four Real ID cards in the crashes, which is perhaps a good thing.

Second, Real ID gutted the work of a broad-based committee at the Dept. of Transportation that was well on its way to developing and implementing regulations to establish national standards for the states. The bipartisan committee, created by the intelligence reform act passed by Congress last December, included the necessary stakeholders—governors, state legislatures, law enforcement, civil liberties and immigration groups, AAA, and motor vehicle departments. [Time, May 9; NY Times, May 3]

Third, Real ID will become a de facto domestic passport without which citizens and immigrants will be unable to function. It will actually encourage, rather than discourage, under the table payments for goods and services off the radarscopes of those who'd like to know.

Finally, Real ID is has hackable as DVD copy protection. If you lose it and don't report it lost or stolen immediately, good luck! You'll need it. Even if you don't lose it, if someone has access to it for any length of time, you're lost, too.

REAL ID gutted the work of a broad-based committee at the Dept. of Transportation that was well on its way to developing and implementing regulations to establish national standards for the states. The bipartisan committee, created by the intelligence reform act passed by Congress last December, included the necessary stakeholders—governors, state legislatures, law enforcement, civil liberties and immigration groups, AAA, and motor vehicle departments. [Time, May 9; NY Times, May 3]

There's a far, far better solution. And that solution is!... (da-da-CRASH)

National ID card with nothing on it except the individual's picture and a unique number.

Here's how it works:

1. Associate the unique number on the card with the person's actual number (Social Security Number) at the time of issue. This association resides in a very secure database (we do know how to build them!)

2. Take their picture, put it on the card in a reduced-resolution, digitized format, associate it with the unique number, and store the picture in a SECOND very secure database (we do know how to build them!)

3. Take their thumbprint, associate it with the unique number, and store it in a THIRD very secure database (we do know how to build them!)

4. Take their retinal scan, associate it with their unique number, and store it in a FOURTH very secure database (we do know how to build them!)

5. Ask the users to initiate a passphrase like "My red dog bit my brown cat on it's ear," and associate it with the unique number, storing it in a FIFTH very secure database (we do know how to build them!).

Rules:

1. No administrator of any of the databases will have access to the contents of the others.

2. All personal identity authentication will be accomplished by referring to the first database (unique number and picture) and at least one, two, or three of the other databases (thumbprint, retinal scan, and passphrase).

3. All buying and selling would require checking with one of the other databases. All establishments of financial accounts would require checking with two databases. All identity issues (obtaining a passport or state driver's license) would require checking with all three.

3. All authentication communications will be hashed, then encrypted using PKI from the initiation point (the cash register at the DMV, Circuit City, airline ticket office, etc.) to the destination (the databases). At no time would any of the information contained in the databases be sent out. Only a confirmation if the encrypted hashes match, or not, would be sent, thereby authenticating the identity, or flagging a mismatch. Thus, argmed with the unique number and and any other information will get you absolutely nowhere.

4. Any claims of a lost ID card would be processed through the use of thumbprint, retinal scan and passphrase. If the passphrase is lost, then a known ID card holder would have to vouch for the individual. If no one is there to vouch for the individual, then a secondary photo ID (drivers license or password) would be acceptable. The Unique Number would be updated with a new unique number at the time of reissue, and a new passphrase different than the old one would be required.

Anyone attempting to use the old unique number would be instantly photographed and possibly detained by authorities. However, this would also flag the new unique number, and that individual would be apprehended, as well. The authorities would then use other records (driver's licence, etc.) to determine who's really who.

5. At no time would any personal information be stored on this system. This includes the individual's name! Only the information mentioned above would be stored and paired as summarized, below:

DB1: SSN + Unique Number

DB2: Photo + Unique Number

DB3: Thumbprint + Unique Number

DB4: Retinal Scan + Unique Number

DB5: Passphrase + Unique Number

6. Each of these databases could be administered by a different agency. DB1, for example, could be adminstered by the SS Administration. DB2 by the agnecy in charge of issueing the ID cards. DB3 by the FBI. DB4 by the DoD, and DB5 by a civilian contractor.

[SeanF]

All buying and selling would require checking with one of the other databases.
You must be joking.

Just out of curiosity, what's the perceived benefit to a national ID card in the first place? Not asking what makes any particular model better than any other model, but what makes having a national ID card better than not having one?

What's in it for me? :)

[Moose]

What's in it for me? :)

You won't be subtly punished for not having one when they start requiring the ID to access essential services (as a cynical way to leverage buy-in.)

In other words, no benefit to you whatsoever, just less artificially imposed inconvenience.

Now doesn't that just make it all worthwhile? :roll:

[Ilya]

What's in it for me? :)
If done right (which no one here seems to believe is possible), it will eliminate identity theft.

[Taks]

national ID that is required for other than driving is just another slippery slope descent into less liberty for the people and more control for the government. they need to tell us what is best for us, remember. and yes, there is plenty of evidence that the government will use such power in a corrupted manner. governments, like coroporations, are sociopathic. individuals mostly don't want to impinge on our liberties, but as a collective whole, they end up following and making rules that make it impossible to not do so. "i'm sorry, if it were up to me i'd let you off the hook, but it's not. i could lose my job!"

...sigh...

taks

[Eroica]

Big Brother IS Watching you, Literally
Figuratively. 8)

[Ilya]

national ID that is required for other than driving is just another slippery slope descent into less liberty for the people and more control for the government. they need to tell us what is best for us, remember. and yes, there is plenty of evidence that the government will use such power in a corrupted manner. governments, like coroporations, are sociopathic. individuals mostly don't want to impinge on our liberties, but as a collective whole, they end up following and making rules that make it impossible to not do so. "i'm sorry, if it were up to me i'd let you off the hook, but it's not. i could lose my job!"

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty?? Sticks' national-ID-is-a-free-pass-for-muggers scenario is nothing but an example of police corruption, which would never stand long to media scrutiny. What's more, such police corruption would defeat the very purpose of national ID's from the viewpoint of the government (i.e., tracking individuals), so the more intrusive is the government, the less it would tolerate police failing to track stolen ID's. So Sticks' scenario is implausible -- and impossible, if the "cards" are RFID tags embedded under the skin.

So, to repeat the question: what's so scary about being always able to prove you are who you say you are?

[SeanF]

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty??
So, these ID cards are to be voluntary, then? I can get one if I want - and then be able to always "prove without a doubt that I am who I say I am" - but I will not be required to have one in order to conduct business or anything?

[Ilya]

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty??
So, these ID cards are to be voluntary, then? I can get one if I want - and then be able to always "prove without a doubt that I am who I say I am" - but I will not be required to have one in order to conduct business or anything?
All paranoia notwithstanding, it is not politically possible for Bush (or any subsequent) Administration to make such cards anything but voluntary. If you think about it, you do not HAVE to carry your driver license either -- but without it, the number of things you can do is rather limited. To conduct many types of business you DO have to present your driver license (and sometimes other ID's as well) -- but that's the decision of whoever you do business with, not the government. Same thing would be with the national ID card -- if it ever comes to be at all.

[Ilya]

In other words, it is not possible (or even desirable) for federal goverment to make walking on a street without an ID a crime, but it is entirely possible to make it so inconvenient, hardly anyone would want to leave the house without ID. It is inverse of strong encryption -- through 1990's online libertarians chortled about how strong encryption would put an end to government snooping, and what happened? Strong encryption is here... and nobody is using it. Not because government banned it (it did not), but because for an average citizen it is a hassle with no apparent benefit. Ironically, if you do use strong encryption today, you automatically attract attention of FBI and there is absolutely no public outrage -- because terrorists and mobsters are the only people who actually use it! If everyone used strong encryption, such targeting would be impossible... but vast majority don't. Likewise, convenience of carrying a national ID card would outweigh the benefits of not carrying one for all but very few people. I would certainly carry one, and if embedded version existed, would opt for it.

[Argos]

We have a national ID number (and card) down here. It´s never caused me any trouble. On the contrary, it´s aconvenience. Nobody in good mental condition will refuse an ID. You´re not required to bear the card. Everybody has the number memorized, so all you have to do is giving your number when necessary (credit/finance operations, requesting a passport, contracts, etc). Case authorities have doubts about your identity the burden of proving it is on their shoulders. Besides the national ID number there´s the number of our "IRS", a very important number (the government today is capable of tracking your economic life in real-time - countries can be pretty advanced when it comes to sucking the poor citizen´s resources). And, last but not least, for those who care about privacy, there´s the IP number, the most intrusive of all, imo.

[Taks]

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty??
why don't you start with the phrase "being forced to prove who you are on a whim"... big difference. it impinges on your liberty because it is a requirement, not an option.

Sticks' national-ID-is-a-free-pass-for-muggers scenario is nothing but an example of police corruption, which would never stand long to media scrutiny.
bull, it does all the time. absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we're stepping towards giving the gov't absolute power.

So, to repeat the question: what's so scary about being always able to prove you are who you say you are?
being told i must prove that without committing a crime. remember, able is the word you're using. in truth, must is actually what's going on. liberty is exactly that, liberty. giving up liberty in the name of security will ultimately shift the fear from criminals to the government.

taks

[Ilya]

being told i must prove that without committing a crime. remember, able is the word you're using. in truth, must is actually what's going on. liberty is exactly that, liberty. giving up liberty in the name of security will ultimately shift the fear from criminals to the government.
I had a similar conversation a number of times -- and we'll jus have to agree to disagree. In my experience, native-born Americans are MUCH more fearful of their own government than people who grew up in a real dictatorship (such as myself). Having experienced a real thought police gives one a perspective of just how far it is from anything existing or even conceivably possible in the US. So I will bow out of this discussion.

[SeanF]

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty??
So, these ID cards are to be voluntary, then? I can get one if I want - and then be able to always "prove without a doubt that I am who I say I am" - but I will not be required to have one in order to conduct business or anything?
All paranoia notwithstanding, it is not politically possible for Bush (or any subsequent) Administration to make such cards anything but voluntary. If you think about it, you do not HAVE to carry your driver license either -- but without it, the number of things you can do is rather limited. To conduct many types of business you DO have to present your driver license (and sometimes other ID's as well) -- but that's the decision of whoever you do business with, not the government. Same thing would be with the national ID card -- if it ever comes to be at all.
That's what they said about the SSN, too. Did you know that you are not legally required to sign up for Social Security? But - here's the deal - your employer is required to withhold income taxes from your paycheck, and you must have a SSN for that. So, while Social Security is still technically "voluntary," you can't get a job without joining.

You say that it's not "politically possible" to establish mandatory ID cards, but then go on to admit that it will become de facto mandatory anyway. Just like SS. That is an impingement on my freedom.

And, still, nobody's yet told me what's in it for me. I still see no benefit to it. Identity theft doesn't seem to me to be a big enough problem to justify the billions of dollars something like this would cost.

[Taks]

In my experience, native-born Americans are MUCH more fearful of their own government than people who grew up in a real dictatorship (such as myself).
1) part of the reason the US exists in the form it does.
2) there is nothing more fearful than a government that gets away with such things we're discussing while pretending to be free and open.

what we fear is becoming like those countries that grow up as real tyrranies. we know how bad it is, and we don't want to be there. at least in the dictatorial countries, you know what you're getting, and things can hardly get worse.

measures that subvert our liberties are always disguised as "for your protection" or "for your own good." last time i checked, the government isn't very good at determining what's actually good for me, let alone 300 million mes. we can't even get the federal government to agree that illegal immigration should be put in check because of politics...

taks

taks

[genebujold]

All buying and selling would require checking with one of the other databases.
You must be joking.

Just out of curiosity, what's the perceived benefit to a national ID card in the first place? Not asking what makes any particular model better than any other model, but what makes having a national ID card better than not having one?

What's in it for me? :)

Personally, I'm dead-set against it, for many reasons. I'm more of an "every man out for himself and everyone look out for one another too" person. Unfortunately, we're few and far between - most of the masses rely on the authorities to do everything for them, and that leaves gaping wide holes for terrorists.

But if you're going to do it anyway, do it right!

Although I'm against it, the national ID card has some distinct advantages:

1. If it's done right, it would all but eliminate identity theft.

2. If it's done right, it would all be eliminate people obtaining driver's licences when they really weren't entitled to them.

3. If it's done right, it would enable the authorities to track every crossing the US border (except those sneaking across, of course).

4. If it's done right, it would NOT track people's whereabouts or activities.

The problem is, the way they're going about it isn't right, which is why I outlined an alternative approach.

[Ilya]

You say that it's not "politically possible" to establish mandatory ID cards, but then go on to admit that it will become de facto mandatory anyway. Just like SS. That is an impingement on my freedom.
OK, so you can not get a job without SSN hence without paying IRS their share. As Argos said, governments are very good at squeezing money out of citizens. I do not like it -- I am against income tax in principe. But how does SSN card (as opposed to income tax) impinge on your freedom? It does not seem to impinge on mine.

[Edit]Better yet, how exactly does it impinge on the freedom of someone who earnes too little to pay income taxes?

[Taks]

But how does SSN card (as opposed to income tax) impinge on your freedom? It does not seem to impinge on mine.

[Edit]Better yet, how exactly does it impinge on the freedom of someone who earnes too little to pay income taxes?
everybody pays income taxes, even those that earn too little. the latter simply get it all back PLUS some more for good measure. if you don't have an SSN, you can't legally even earn too little, let alone try to file taxes to get what little was paid back...

it is an encroachment on your freedom simply because the government is telling you that you can't work unless you have it. it is involuntary, which by definition, is not freedom.

taks

[Melusine]

Can somebody please explain to me how being able to prove without a doubt that you are who you say you are impinges on your liberty??
So, these ID cards are to be voluntary, then? I can get one if I want - and then be able to always "prove without a doubt that I am who I say I am" - but I will not be required to have one in order to conduct business or anything?
All paranoia notwithstanding, it is not politically possible for Bush (or any subsequent) Administration to make such cards anything but voluntary. If you think about it, you do not HAVE to carry your driver license either -- but without it, the number of things you can do is rather limited. To conduct many types of business you DO have to present your driver license (and sometimes other ID's as well) -- but that's the decision of whoever you do business with, not the government. Same thing would be with the national ID card -- if it ever comes to be at all.
That's not correct. Banks now have to get specific and more thorough information than ever before on customers who want to do business with a bank in the US (i.e. open an account, get a loan) due to The Bank Secrecy Act, The Customer Information Progam as implemented through the USA Patriot Act, and Anti-Money Laundering statutes. Banks will get fined if they do not show due diligence in getting information on people, and government IDs are the best way to show due diligence--licenses, passports, resident alien IDs; basically the government is having the banks do the work for them. Banks now have to get professional codes on all customers' employment, as they are categorized like the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes used for loans. What the government may do with all the codes is do what they've already done--classify high risk businesses--high risk for money laundering, etc. Not all this new legislation is due to terrorism or security, in fact, it's more for anti-money laundering purposes. People may feel it's not a bank's business (or anyone's) where you work. It's very easy for the government to collect information about you, nor do you have to be notified that they have done so if the Dept of Justice goes before a judge and gives sufficient reason for not notifying you (it's too lengthy to go into all the details here).

The point is, various state and federal laws make it necessary for businesses to collect information about you. And it's getting worse and worse, and causing more paperwork, more laws, etc, and more ways for businesses to get fined. It's not as if the govt hasn't been shown to be incompetent before, so now you have incompetency with a whole lot more information out there. Privacy is gone. Maybe what you do in your house (hopefully, if nobody has stuck a camera in there) is private, but your information is not. Another thing is, the person who collects your information, e.g. the bank employee, can use that for illegal means, as has happened.

[Sam5]

Just out of curiosity, what's the perceived benefit to a national ID card in the first place? Not asking what makes any particular model better than any other model, but what makes having a national ID card better than not having one?



A state driver's license has always been a "national ID card", but seems that it is easy to get multiple driver's licenses in some states, under various names.

I think a Federal national ID card will be more difficult to fake and more difficult for someone to get several under different names.

[Argos]

My final word on ID cards:

They are totally harmless if you live in a place where constitutional checks and balances are implemented, tribunals and institutions work. There are even some marginal advantages. For instance, a bar tender might request your ID prior to serving you liquor, if he finds that you may be a minor [this would be a type of enforcement of the law without the interference of the state]; Upon signing a contract you may request the ID of your counterpart, to be sure of its identity; A policeman is very much in the mood for arresting you because you look like a dangerous criminal. You show him your ID and the misunderstanding is solved.

ID cards can be used as a control tool, case you live under a dictatorship. But if you live in a dictatorship, a compulsory ID card would be the least of your problems.

[Ilya]

ID cards can be used as a control tool, case you live under a dictatorship. But if you live in a dictatorship, a compulsory ID card would be the least of your problems.
Very good summary, IMO. In fact, arguments against national ID card remind me of the arguments against human cloning. Every rational argument against human cloning (that is, other than "yuck!" and "it's against God/nature") I ever heard was based on various evil scenarios that could be done with (or to) the clones. Invariably such scenarios required the existence of a dictatotial, free from scrutiny, human-rights-ignoring government. Well, duh! Of course such government would find a way to turn cloning -- or ID cards, or gas ovens, -- to an evil end. That does not mean these things are bad in themselves.

Now I REALLY promise not to post on this thread any more! :D

[SeanF]

My final word on ID cards:

They are totally harmless if you live in a place where constitutional checks and balances are implemented, tribunals and institutions work....ID cards can be used as a control tool, case you live under a dictatorship. But if you live in a dictatorship, a compulsory ID card would be the least of your problems.
No. Any unnecessary government intrusion into its citizens' private lives should be resisted, regardless of what type of government it is.

Governments are not always born dictatorial, nor do they become so overnight. It's a process. And giving the government a database IDing every single citizen is a good way to push that process along.

There are even some marginal advantages. For instance, a bar tender might request your ID prior to serving you liquor, if he finds that you may be a minor [this would be a type of enforcement of the law without the interference of the state];
That's plenty well taken care of under the existing system.

Upon signing a contract you may request the ID of your counterpart, to be sure of its identity; A policeman is very much in the mood for arresting you because you look like a dangerous criminal. You show him your ID and the misunderstanding is solved.
Oh, yeah, that stuff happens all the time. ;)

I still think the National ID Card is a solution in search of a problem.