ID Card On Its Way

http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html

http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/nationalidsystem.html

http://www.discourse.net/archives/id_cards/index.html



I WILL NOT carry a national, or mandated, ID Card.
FL is trying to institute their own. It is scheduled for May 1st.

While I agree with your stance against ID cards, I can't help but wonder how one is to avoid it if the practice is indeed implimented.

I'm wondering...how would they enforce it? :eek:

If you don't have an ID card they'd limit the benefits you can get from the state. A bit like if you don't have a social security number I would guess.

rkzenrage;315845 wrote:

I WILL NOT carry a national, or mandated, ID Card.
FL is trying to institute their own. It is scheduled for May 1st.

Depending on when you last got your DL renewed in this state and how up to date your county is, chances are that you've already got one in your wallet. I've had one of the new Hillsboro ones for some time.

I don't like this at all...

I hate how they say it isn't a national ID card because it is voluntary. Yet, if your state decides not to partake in it, you are a nonperson in the eyes of the government.

As far as I can tell, the driver's licence already acts as an ID card. You need it to prove your age, write checks, join organizations, get an FBI background check.... This is one of the things that makes me laugh when people call it "the free-est country". Depends on your definition of freedom.....

As to whether I care.... No, I don't. There is already enough data out there for them to collect what they want to know about me. Sure, an ID card will make it easier. Easier means it should cost less, so more tax dollars available for the really important stuff, no?

rkzenrage;315845 wrote:

I WILL NOT carry a national, or mandated, ID Card.
FL is trying to institute their own. It is scheduled for May 1st.

I think you said you don't drive any longer? That makes it a lot easier to do.

Most IDs have a magnetic strip in them. Mine "accidentally" got demagnetized. I'm sure any RFID in my ID would "accidentally" get the same (or worse) treatment. Still a shameful erosion of liberties.

When I didn't drive, I needed a "Non-Drivers ID" for a bunch of stuff, especially employment-related.

I don't drive. If I did... there would be a way.
If forced to get one, it would be destroyed immediately, publicly.

Jebediah;315937 wrote:

I'm sure any RFID in my ID would "accidentally" get the same (or worse) treatment.

Have you seen how tiny they can make RFIDs these days?

That's not pepper on your food...!

Why don't they just take our DNA samples, chip and barcode us all, and get it over with?

Kitsune;316122 wrote:

Have you seen how tiny they can make RFIDs these days?

That's not pepper on your food...!

One word: microwave :cool:

:tinfoil:

monster;315882 wrote:

As far as I can tell, the driver's licence already acts as an ID card.

Driver's license was never sufficient as proof of ID - was never intended for that purpose. Driver's license was only valid as part of an ID system that includes a state government database. But in America with no ID system, the driver's licenses were being used for purposes not intended. That is a system all but setup for corruption.

Monster - before continuing to post, you want to read a previous discussion in November 2001 entitled A National ID Card . Defined are two fundamental objectives that a National ID must achieve AND that a National ID card must not serve government - must instead serve citizens. Obviously that would be completely contrary to the dictator President Cheney which is why a National ID card cannot be created by the mental midget administration.

Meanwhile, learn what a National ID card must do from that previous discussion.

tw;316234 wrote:

Obviously that would be completely contrary to the dictator President Cheney which is why a National ID card cannot be created by the mental midget administration.

A mental midget administration will always be available to adjust any "good" national id for abuse.

rkzenrage;315845 wrote:

I WILL NOT carry a national, or mandated, ID Card.
FL is trying to institute their own. It is scheduled for May 1st.

What's the big deal? Don't you already have a driver's license, social security card and passport? Seems like a national ID could conveniently replace all three.

I don't carry my driver's lic any longer, I don't give anyone my social security number any longer and I do not have a passport.
There is nothing convenient about being forced to have "papers"... it is not their place nor their business to know who I am or what I am doing if I am breaking no laws.

rkzenrage;316667 wrote:

I don't carry my driver's lic any longer, I don't give anyone my social security number any longer and I do not have a passport.
There is nothing convenient about being forced to have "papers"... it is not their place nor their business to know who I am or what I am doing if I am breaking no laws.

If I am requested to show ID, I show it. What is your concern? You can't fly without ID. Never travel by plane?

Also, the few times I have left the country, I have needed a passport and driver's license to get back in. Do you ever travel out of the country?

I travel very little, too sick too, when I do I have to take my drivers lic. I know in advance and everyone is showing it... not the same as having to have it on the street just to be a citizen, that is wrong.
Cops have forgotten who they work for.

rkzenrage;316676 wrote:

I travel very little, too sick too, when I do I have to take my drivers lic. I know in advance and everyone is showing it... not the same as having to have it on the street just to be a citizen, that is wrong.
Cops have forgotten who they work for.

Sorry to hear of your illness. I truly hope things improve.

And also sorry to hear of your concerns with law enforcement. My experience has been that when I show my ID as requested, they do immediately recognize who they work for.

Also, I feel compelled to carry ID. If something were to happen to me where I was incapacitated, I could be identified in order to have my family prompty notified.

I have MedicAlert for that. The national ID card is just another, but major, step toward the police state.

rkzenrage;316676 wrote:

... not the same as having to have it on the street just to be a citizen, that is wrong.

rkzenrage;316683 wrote:

I have MedicAlert for that. The national ID card is just another, but major, step toward the police state.

After lengthy consideration, I must admit I'm having a difficult time imagining how a change of identification method is going to lead to some sort of "police state."

I already have a driver's license, social security card and passport. What difference does it make if this information is consolidated? Just because someone is walking on the streets doesn't mean they are a citizen and should automatically be recognized as one. How do you determine who is a citizen and who is not without ID?

Toymented;316774 wrote:

After lengthy consideration, I must admit I'm having a difficult time imagining how a change of identification method is going to lead to some sort of "police state."

I already have a driver's license, social security card and passport. What difference does it make if this information is consolidated?

Who controls when and how your ID is accessed and used? Who determines what is and is not in that database? And who has the power to confirm your ID security is not compromised? In this president's proposals for a National ID program, none of that is addressed. His program is not for your ID security. His program is for government security. A massive difference exists between what WE need and what HE wants. But again, read that entire and previous discussion in A National ID Card.

Where does a driver's license, social security card, or passport serve your needs as proof of identity AND so that you can protect your own identity? None do AND none were intended as personal ID. They were only intended for police type purposes - except SS which was never intended for most anything we use it today. Using SS for identity is probably a biggest reason for ID theft. Obviously. What was the strategic objective of a SS number? If you are not thinking this way, then you are all but inviting government to institute a police state. Much reading to do in A National ID Card before posting again. Always keep asking yourself what those ID serve – you or a government security function?

Even a driver’s license is not acceptable ID proof. But if we have no other method, then we use driver’s licenses. Why is a driver’s license not acceptable as ID proof? Should be obvious after reading that previous discussion.

tw;316793 wrote:

Always keep asking yourself what those ID serve – you or a government security function?

If it serves government security, it serves me. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about tw. Why do you assume evil intent?

Toymented;316794 wrote:

If it serves government security, it serves me. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about tw. Why do you assume evil intent?

The more power you have the more corrupt you become.

Toymented;316794 wrote:

If it serves government security, it serves me. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about tw. Why do you assume evil intent?

Because that is the only use for which it can be used. Taking away freedom is not needed, doing so is wrong and tyrannical, easy.

Toymented;316794 wrote:

If it serves government security, it serves me. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about tw. Why do you assume evil intent?

It serves government ‘exclusive or’ serves you. It does not and cannot serve both because you and government are completely different entities obviously with completely different objectives and needs. You did not even read that previous discussion - did you? Your question was predicted; the answer provided – and you did not read it. The hyperlink was provided three times so that you could not ignore it.

Why do you naively believe anyone is magically and only working for you - the predicate of your question?

A massive difference exists between what WE need and what HE wants. But again, read that entire and previous discussion in A National ID Card .

Let’s see. Those sentences said what your question would be AND where an answer resides. Instead, you want me to rehash what has already been answered? Well that is the fourth time I gave you the hyperlink to read before ever posting anything again in your life. Not difficult. Just put your lips together and just … sorry … wrong quote.

There is something people have forgotten, the government has no rights, only citizens.
"Protect and serve" means the citizens, not the establishment.
They have no right to ask what you are doing or who you are unless you are actively committing a crime, that is all.

tw;316234 wrote:

Monster - before continuing to post....

Sorreeee! didn't realize this was your playground. :rolleyes: I'll take my ball and go rather than spend recess doing your homework.

Or alternatively, how about you get down off your little soapbox there and experience some real life? In 2001, when you were expounding away on that thread, I didn't have a driving licence. I was 31 years old and could not buy alcohol, open a bank account, join a gym, prove my residence.... all things you should not need a driving licence for -a passport and valid visa should more than suffice- but regardless of what the card is intended for it is what it's used for that counts and it is used as an ID card. Like I said, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL it acts as an ID card. That means it's my opinion from my experience. I'm not forcing you to feel the same -why get all emotional and demand I read your past sermons on the topic before continuing to post?

rkzenrage;316821 wrote:

There is something people have forgotten, the government has no rights, only citizens.
"Protect and serve" means the citizens, not the establishment.
They have no right to ask what you are doing or who you are unless you are actively committing a crime, that is all.

So if an illegal alien isn't committing a crime, a law enforcement officer who suspects that person of being illegal, therefor has no right to ask for identification?

Well technically being there illegally is an ongoing commission of a crime, so...

Yes, but if there's no visible crime being committed then what excuse would they have for stopping the possible citizen and asking for id (according to the logic of rkz's argument)? See my point?

Of course I see it, I was just pointing that out.

monster;316846 wrote:

snip~ Like I said, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL it acts as an ID card. That means it's my opinion from my experience. I'm not forcing you to feel the same -why get all emotional and demand I read your past sermons on the topic before continuing to post?

Yeah, kick him in the nuts, too.:haha:
Jeez Monster, how are you going to pass this course if you piss off the Prof? The fact that you're absolutely right doesn't matter.

For commerce and most low/medium level government functions the drivers license, or equivalent state photo ID if you don't have a license, have been the defacto acceptable ID. Come to think of it, why would the state bother issuing the photo IDs for non-drivers, if it wasn't the acceptable (read necessary) ID.

A short time ago I went to cash a check at the bank and as usual they asked for my drivers license. I looked where it usually is in my wallet and didn't see it so rather than make the teller wait while I looked, I handed her my carry permit. It looks like a license, photo, laminated, all the same info except drivers license number, plus all the official bells and whistles. They wouldn't accept it....to cash my check, on my account, at my bank...they would only take a drivers license or state substitute photo ID. That experience tells me the Drivers license IS the default ID.

Toymented wrote:

I already have a driver's license, social security card and passport. What difference does it make if this information is consolidated? Just because someone is walking on the streets doesn't mean they are a citizen and should automatically be recognized as one. How do you determine who is a citizen and who is not without ID?

The difference is you are not required to carry any of those things. You don't have to be able to prove who you are and where you belong...yet.

No, I don't know if that guy walking down the road is a citizen or not and I'm not happy about that. It's not my fault it's theirs, for not taking care of business and keeping people that don't belong here, out.
That means anyone that came in through the bathroom window instead of the front door and the ones that asked to use the toilet before they left and hid in the closet.
I should have to carry and produce on demand, an ID, because they aren't doing their job. Fuck that, I already have to press 1 for English. Let them do what they get paid to do and primary is protecting the borders.

Toymented wrote:

After lengthy consideration, I must admit I'm having a difficult time imagining how a change of identification method is going to lead to some sort of "police state."

Because you're looking in the wrong place. You can't picture the Prez and the heads of the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, DOD, the Military, and Congress sitting down in a secure bunker, planning to subjugate the population? Neither can I, possible but pretty far fetched at this point.

But, if they institute a National ID that you must have, then every Tom, Dick and Crossing Guard can hassle you for any reason.....including sport.
Oh, were going to limit that power to Homeland Security......and the FBI........and The DEA......and the BATF......well just feds....and the people they designate...like tom, dick and guess who. Plus in a year or two, crossing guards will be under Homeland Security, everyone else is.
The people that come up with these high minded solutions aren't evilly plotting 1984, but the systems they have the power to implement, can be abused by too many dickheads. I can see businesses getting in on the act to. Cigarettes, liquor, ammo, gasoline..... no National ID, no ration.


Lets see your papers...hmmm can't get into the database, must be a computer problem... I'll have to detain you until they fix it. Uh, since your ice cream is going to melt any way......

monster;316846 wrote:

Sorreeee! didn't realize this was your playground. I'll take my ball and go rather than spend recess doing your homework.

31 years old and still carded? 31 years old and don't have a license? From perspective of the alcohol vendor (and notice use of the word perspective before taking insult), apparently behavior implied you were 10+ years younger. Same applies to your reply. An adult would have gone for facts - the deleted hyperlink. An adult child, instead, takes insult of a post that only says, "First read the facts." Amazing that at 31+ years old, you still entertain your emotions rather than logic. Now maybe we can pretend you did not post that; instead go back to what that sentence really said.

Meanwhile, that alcohol distributor demanded a driver's license because he must protect himself from the powers that be - the government. He demanded a driver's license to protect himself from government prosecution. But again, the ID serves government – not you. Why do you instead twist his actions in terms only of YOU? Take god's perspective to appreciate what happened. You were not important or relevant when he demanded a driver’s license. He demanded the driver's license to protect himself and to meet government requirements. YOU were irrelevant. The ID was demanded to serve government - the law.

Some distributors here have been burned so many times as to even refuse any NJ license. Yes, a driver's license is an inferior ID because its only function is to serve government - so that government can ID you. Your driver's license does not prove to anyone who you are. It says little without access to that government database. Some demand driver's licenses because *no* ID proof exists AND because no ID protection system exists.

Rather then take insult at a post that bluntly and therefore honestly stated facts, monster; instead read those facts. You deleted an important and relevant part of the sentence. Apparently you so ignored the purpose of that sentence as to even delete the hyperlink. Therefore an entire sentence that insults no one is now reposted:

Monster - before continuing to post, you want to read a previous discussion in November 2001 entitled A National ID Card

What is in that sentence? Exactly what one adult says to another adult. However monster would try to insult me by replying emotionally as a child; rather than factually as an adult. Shame on you replying without first learning facts from a previous discussion. Shame on you for doing what children do - post an emotional tirade.

Monster, if I wanted to insult you, then I would repeatedly discuss why a 31 year old was so childish as to be carded. But that is not what I posted. Again, read with care before assuming anything emotional. A fundamental difference exists between describing what an alcohol vendor did verses a post intended to insult you. If you don't see the difference, then we are back to discussing adult children. I would prefer it if you stuck to facts as an adult would. Facts to learn before replying are in A National ID Card.

You want to read that previous discussion before replying in an unemotional manner and with a logical grasp. Your driver's license is only for government to ID you. You have no sufficient method to prove you are who you claim. And around here, even some driver's licenses are rejected - not acceptable as ID because driver's licenses are not sufficient ID proof.

But again, facts were posted previously in the ignored discussion A National ID Card.

An alcohol vendor asking for ID does not do so because of some vague demand from the government to produce a piece of paper, he does it because he cannot sell his wares to minors. The guy behind the checkout probably asked for ID because the store policy is to always check age no matter what, keeps someone from guessing wrong. A law forbidding the sale of alcohol to minors serves society because productive members of society are forced to bear the cost of the damage underage drinking does. The law serves my best interests, and therefore I would hope that every vendor asks for ID.
With the pathetic state of immigration control in this country we need to develop ID that is either prohibitively difficult or expensive to forge, a drivers license is neither. Yes, I think that every citizen should be prepared to prove who they are at all times, and with a proper ID system this would be so simple as to be trivial.

9th Engineer;317268 wrote:

An alcohol vendor asking for ID does not do so because of some vague demand from the government to produce a piece of paper, he does it because he cannot sell his wares to minors. The guy behind the checkout probably asked for ID because the store policy is to always check age no matter what, keeps someone from guessing wrong. A law forbidding the sale of alcohol to minors serves society because productive members of society are forced to bear the cost of the damage underage drinking does. The law serves my best interests,

9th Engineer knows the only reason that clerk demands a driver's license from 31 year old monster is because the clerk is worried about 9th Engineer? When law was not enforced (before days of MADD), a clerk did not ask a 31 year old for ID. When did a clerk start asking for ID? Only when the law and government demanded that clerk do so.

Does clerk demand a driver's license because 9th is so important? Of course not. As one becomes adult, one learns the world does not revolve around 9th. Obviously the clerk cares little for 9th - today or when government did not demand it. Clerk demands a driver's license for only one reason. For the same reason that driver's license exists. License serves government purposes. License is does not serve a citizen’s ID purposes - nor was it ever intended for that purpose.

Clerk only does because government demands. Nothing vague. Only vague part is why 9th thinks he any standing in a transaction between that clerk and monster. Does the world revolve around 9th?

Meanwhile, a driver’s license is so that government can ID a person. Serving government is its purpose. A license, without that government controlled database, is woefully insufficient as ID – which is also why ID theft is so easy. We need an ID because ...? Answer was detailed in the previous discussion.

Clerk asks for a driver’s license for only one reason – government demands it. Nothing vague here. Government demands it. License's only purpose: to serve government. And that is the point. We have no ID system to serve us. None.

:lol: long response to some one so clearly beneath your contempt! (oh wait, that's an emotion isn't it? Scratch that.) Thank you for your compliments regarding my maturity -it is something I've been working on. :D

oh, and you're still missing the point -my post was my opinion based on my experience. Whether you agree or not is entirely irrelevant. Important though I'm sure you are. Well at least you're sure you are.

/hook, line and sinker
//still carded and I'm now 36 -perhaps you're jealous? ;)

I'd love to read who you think I am based on the few posts of mine you have read. Clearly you already have me pegged as horribly immature -pray, do continue.... Background, education level, skin color, occupation etc. But wait 'til I get some Depends.

Have you ever bothered to take that thought any further and ask WHY the government demands it tw?

I worked at a grocery store where the served alcohol and they ask for ID because they don't want an employee to misjudge someone and get fined by the government for selling alcohol to people underage.

If the law wasn't enforced then they would allow underaged peoples to buy it because it will give them more money. It makes no sense for a company to deny a customer of a purchase unless it will hurt them in the long run.

(If the DL wasn't treated as an official ID card, they'd accept a passport as proof of age ;))

((....DLs aren't issued nationally, but are accepted nationally as proof of age/ID therefore they ACT AS NATIONAL ID CARDS.... no?))

In most cases, clerks ask for id because the law is such that they're personally liable if they sell products like alcohol to minors. If they weren't, why would they care?

Be nice to get I'D still....

Wouldn't it just. :(

Dye your hair daft colors. Works a treat. :D

trust me, my hair gets dyed lots of different weird colours. sometimes it even gets shaved off. still doesn''t work. :(

Oh and living somewhere with silly laws which encourage/force people to behave like automatons rather than sentient beings. ;) Don't recall ever being carded in the UK, even when I was 16. One extreme to the other.

Drives me nuts that they're so militant over this and then never ever check signatures on credit slips etc. Still I guess the credit card company pays if the card is stolen, not the store so it's not their problem. Although when shopping in the mall the other day (something I rarely do), both stores I visited asked to see my driver's licence for me to pay by credit card. Didn't check the signature, but they saw my drivers licence so all was well. :rolleyes:

(And it's not just me and/or my hair -it's standard policy to require a DL in the mall stores to pay by credit card and in the grocery stores to buy beer. It happens to all the other not-obviously-over-60 people too. Why? Because it confirms name or age. That isn't acting as an ID card? )

They are suppose to check signatures but once you check over a thousand with nothing wrong (you wouldn't notice anyways), you stop doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCLu83rppmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79fMup0a7xE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzSqbHFM1T4
I bet their mothers are proud of them.

piercehawkeye45;317724 wrote:

They are suppose to check signatures but once you check over a thousand with nothing wrong (you wouldn't notice anyways), you stop doing it.

Who wouldn't notice? I used to earn a fortune in bonuses from capturing stolen cards at my Saturday job. They paid 50 quid a time in the UK if you are the cashier who spots a stolen card being used and calls the company. I used to earn 32 quid for a whole Saturday -50 per card was big money. Perhaps that's why I get so annoyed when they don't check -it's so easy. I don't think the card companies must offer rewards over here, though. I wonder if they still do in the UK? I guess it's made a bit obsolete now you can use credit cards to shop online.

Oops, this is going a bit OT

I was never told about an award...

We either didn't have it or our company probably took the money anyways. I am going to be honest with you and say that I had no idea how to spot a stolen one either.

monster;317748 wrote:

Who wouldn't notice? I used to earn a fortune in bonuses from capturing stolen cards at my Saturday job. They paid 50 quid a time in the UK if you are the cashier who spots a stolen card being used and calls the company. I used to earn 32 quid for a whole Saturday -50 per card was big money. Perhaps that's why I get so annoyed when they don't check -it's so easy. I don't think the card companies must offer rewards over here, though. I wonder if they still do in the UK? I guess it's made a bit obsolete now you can use credit cards to shop online.

Oops, this is going a bit OT

It may be OT, but it's interesting.

So would you call the credit card company with the customer standing right there? Would they bolt out the door when you started to make the call? Would the cops show up and make an arrest? Or would you just say "the card's been declined. I have to confiscate it." and let them go without their purchases?

monster;317720 wrote:

... it's standard policy to require a DL in the mall stores to pay by credit card and in the grocery stores to buy beer. It happens to all the other not-obviously-over-60 people too. Why? Because it confirms name or age. That isn't acting as an ID card? )

So how many counterfeit DLs do you have? Counterfeit DLs are common as noted in the previous discussion. DL is insufficient as ID except when serving government purposes - as noted previously. Normal for a college kid to have had at least one counterfeit ID. DLs are so woefully insufficient as proof of ID - do not confirm name or age - that even 11 September attackers used counterfeit DLs. So how good is a DL as proof of age or name? Woefully insufficient. DL is only sufficient as ID for government purposes - as posted in that previous discussion.

Meanwhile you know all this because you read that previous discussion. So why am I repeating what you should have read rather than have an emotional melt down? Even a Bush daughter had ID for someone in MD. But you already knew that because ...

Monster, your post demonstrates that you did not even read that previous discussion. DLs are routinely counterfeited. Therefore DLs are sufficient as ID? Only when used to serve government purposes.

Why are credit cards so easily used illegally? Where is the ID system that serves you AND that permits you to protect your ID? That system does not exist. Why? Maybe this time you might read that previous discussion - the logical and unemotional response to a previous post.

Do you have a system in the US where you can get your picture on your credit card? For face to face purchases this is a great protection for the owner of the card, if the vendor remembers to look at the picture.

Still doesn't protect you against fraud online though.

Speaking of credit card fraud protection... my local gas station has recently started a policy where after swiping your card at the pump, you have to enter your billing zip code before it will authorize. Anyone else seen this in your area?

glatt;317773 wrote:

It may be OT, but it's interesting.

So would you call the credit card company with the customer standing right there? Would they bolt out the door when you started to make the call? Would the cops show up and make an arrest? Or would you just say "the card's been declined. I have to confiscate it." and let them go without their purchases?

OK, the way it worked was, each store has a "floor limit" for a card -that is, the maximum sale you can make without getting authorization. Over that, you had to call for authorization. (It's changed now since automatic authorization, but pretty much the same principle). So if you got a dodgy card/customer, you'd call up same way but you'd tell them "code 10" and then it went to a special procedure for checking the customer ID. The real pros knew what a "code 10" was and ran like hell at this point, but you have the card in your hand, so you still got the reward. If the punter stays, the CC Co. asks to speak to them and asks them security questions (mother's maiden name, current balance, what did you spend $512.68 on last week...).

In the UK, the card always remains the property of the card company, so if they authorize me to retain it, even if it is the right customer in front or me, I can legally keep it. We used to keep a big pair of scissors at the desk solely for the purposes of cutting up cards we retained.

Yes, we just kept the card and they walked/ran away without their purchases. Or their card. Occasionally, the card co. would call the police while they were on the line to us (our merchant number told them exactly where we were), occasionally they might actually get there before the punter ran. We did not call the police unless they attacked anyone or stole any stock.

Automatic authorization made it a little harder to call on the sly, but some stores had a button on the card reader you could press to make it say "call for authorization", so you could show them that the machine told you to.

How to spot a stolen card (in the UK)

1) Signature (obvious, huh). Watch them sign. Don't let them see the sig strip while they are signing. If they take a long time to do a scribbly sig.... stolen. If just one of the letters looks out of place or they slow or speed up ...stolen

2) Signature strip. Rub your thumb over it. It usually feels pretty smoothe. Ballpoint pen can be removed without removing the security printing by dipping the card in certain chemicals. But it alters the feel of the strip -it gets rougher. It also fades the three security digits printed on the strips of some cards. If a card has been "re-signed" even though the signatures look similar, call -genuine punters rarely re-sign their cards, even though it may seem logical.

3) Punters. For clothing (the store I worked in) theives are always in twos. girl/boy in menswear, two women for the girly stuff. I hear it's two men for electronics. They immediately tell you the card's good if you hesitate -genuine punters don't even notice the hesitation. They want the card back in their possession asap. If they're pros, their purchase will be only pennies under your floor limit, bumped up with accessories if the main items are significantly below. If they ask you what the floor limit is, the card is stolen. Thieves either don't have other bags, or if they do, they don't put them down while they "pay". The non-paying person either watches the cashier too closely or is looking towards the door.

There's lots of stuff. This is many years ago. The technology has changed, but I doubt the behaviours have much. I see shoplifters and stolen credit card behaviour here all the time. I've alerted the cashiers/assistants a few times, but they either don't care or are too scared to do anything, so I don't bother any more. But I wish they did care. Just in case my card gets stolen if nothing else.

tw;317795 wrote:

So how many counterfeit DLs do you have? Counterfeit DLs are common as noted in the previous discussion. DL is insufficient as ID except when serving government purposes - as noted previously. Normal for a college kid to have had at least one counterfeit ID. DLs are so woefully insufficient as proof of ID - do not confirm name or age - that even 11 September attackers used counterfeit DLs. So how good is a DL as proof of age or name? Woefully insufficient. DL is only sufficient as ID for government purposes - as posted in that previous discussion.

Meanwhile you know all this because you read that previous discussion. So why am I repeating what you should have read rather than have an emotional melt down? Even a Bush daughter had ID for someone in MD. But you already knew that because ...

Monster, your post demonstrates that you did not even read that previous discussion. DLs are routinely counterfeited. Therefore DLs are sufficient as ID? Only when used to serve government purposes.

Why are credit cards so easily used illegally? Where is the ID system that serves you AND that permits you to protect your ID? That system does not exist. Why? Maybe this time you might read that previous discussion - the logical and unemotional response to a previous post.

As it happens, I did read the discussion. You seem rather hot under the collar about that, so I hope that gem of infomation cools you down somewhat. Sure DLs areeasily forged. So what? no-one checks them that closely. all they're doing is covering their asses. You really think it's going to be different for any other card? But that still doesn't change my original post which you (so irrationally) objected to -that is, that in my opinion and experience, the DL is used as an ID card.

Is tw short for twat?

They can not make a National ID card that's not forgeable. They can make it difficult but that will just foil kids. Terrorists and real professional criminals will have them before some of the population. It will work to their advantage too, because the cards will be trusted as absolute proof. :(

Actually, it will just foil adults... kids will be the ones to make workable ones first.

I think rkzenrage has it there. As long as there is any need for ID, there will be children who can fake them.

Baloney. Kids can't effectively counterfeit money, and there's a pretty good incentive to try and do so...

Got my replacement FL DL in the mail, yesterday, and since this one isn't so scratched up you can see all the little details in it.

Besides the 1D and 2D barcodes on the back, the mag stripe, and holograms, my photograph appears three times on the front: one full size and two smaller ones, with one of the smaller ones only visible under a blacklight. Also visible under UV light is my last name on top of the large photograph with a four digit number under it that doesn't seem to mean much of anything. No idea if there is an RFID inside or not. I'll dig the remains of my previous ID and throw it in the microwave to see what happens.

Clodfobble;317917 wrote:

Baloney. Kids can't effectively counterfeit money, and there's a pretty good incentive to try and do so...

Cherry Hill NJ - the (I think it was 12 year old) was told he must learn how to make money. So he did so. Cafeteria worker only got suspicious when she saw the size of his wad of twenty dollar bills.

Meanwhile, the fact remains. We need an ID so that we can identify who we are (we control it) and so that we can protect our ID. No such system exists AND government intends only a national ID for their purposes.

So now we must carry a state ID (driver's license) and Federal ID? "Show me your papers" is an expression found in totalitarian nations - and to become part of a nation that has Fatherland Security. With all that security, we still will have no way to protect and control our own ID.

It's all academic for me anyway, seeing as I'm "required" to carry my greencard at all times. Of course no-one accepts that as proof of ID either, despite it having my full life story, fingerprint, photo and deepest, darkest secrets emblazoned on the front. And lots of pretty holograms on the back. Of course, though, seeing as you lot don't have to carry one, I can get away without it too 'cause they got no proof I ain't one of ya! :lol:

monster;317748 wrote:

I used to earn 32 quid for a whole Saturday -50 per card was big money.

Could you *please* explain to me what a quid is? And a bob? And all that other stuff about the British Pound Sterling that I don't understand? Please use small words, I'm not very smart. :D

A quid is a pound and a bob is your uncle.

I thought it was the favored food of sperm whale.

Elspode;317973 wrote:

Could you *please* explain to me what a quid is? And a bob? And all that other stuff about the British Pound Sterling that I don't understand? Please use small words, I'm not very smart. :D

a quid is to a limey as a buck is to a yank.

Bob's your uncle.

Clodfobble;317824 wrote:

Speaking of credit card fraud protection... my local gas station has recently started a policy where after swiping your card at the pump, you have to enter your billing zip code before it will authorize. Anyone else seen this in your area?

We use Chip & Pin in the UK now. The card is inserted into the reader and the customer enters their 4 digit pin in order to authorise the transaction. It helps to prevent stolen cards being used, and from dishonest shop/ restaurant staff cloning cards - as the card should never be out of the customer's sight. It isn't foolproof of course, but it's better than it was.

For internet transactions (certainly in the shop I work in) the terminal allows the card number to be entered manually, but the house number, postcode digits and security number (last 3 numbers on the signature strip) need to be entered. This protects the store from fraudulant card use, but still leaves the customer open to theft by employees.

Elspode;317973 wrote:

Could you *please* explain to me what a quid is? And a bob?

Pounds: Quid, Nicker (tends only to be used for higher amounts, no-one would say, "That cost me four nicker")

Fives and tens are fivers and tenners, but a twenty is just a twenty.

A pony is 25, a ton is 100, a monkey is 500 and a grand is 1000 - I don't know if you use those in the States.

You won't hear bob for money these days, it's a pre-decimal term. It was the name for a shilling (20 shillings in a pound in old money). Therefore a ten bob note is not the same as a ten pound note.

Coppers are the brown coins - 1 and 2 pence. The silver coins - 5, 20 and 50 pence - are often reffered to as shrapnel.

The 20p and 50p pieces are heptagonal rather than round. Which is why Ron was fascinated by the "weird shape" in the first Harry Potter book. In case any one had been wondering.

Sundae Girl;318879 wrote:

Pounds: Quid, Nicker (tends only to be used for higher amounts, no-one would say, "That cost me four nicker")

Fives and tens are fivers and tenners, but a twenty is just a twenty.

A pony is 25, a ton is 100, a monkey is 500 and a grand is 1000 - I don't know if you use those in the States.

You won't hear bob for money these days, it's a pre-decimal term. It was the name for a shilling (20 shillings in a pound in old money). Therefore a ten bob note is not the same as a ten pound note.

Coppers are the brown coins - 1 and 2 pence. The silver coins - 5, 20 and 50 pence - are often reffered to as shrapnel.

Thank you. :notworthy