A National ID Card

I see where the airlines want voluntary citizen and mandatory identification cards for use to fly. This scares me for a number of reasons, the first being that the government will mandate mandatory ID cards for every one.Recent polls show that 70% of the people favor some kind of national ID. I do not see how a program like this would have stopped the Sept 11th. catastrophe. I heard Allen Dersawitz (the spelling may be wrong) say that he is in favor of a limited form of national Id. His suggestion would involve a photo a finger print a retinal print social security number. All this would do, is cause us to give up our privacy and in all probability they (the government) would have the ability to know exactly where you are at any time through a global positing system. It would at that point I think separate us from the government, we would no longer be the government, "they would be the government" and the they would be the invisible bureaucratic empire at that time in complete control of the people. You just have to look at some of these agency's and how the answer to know one once legislation is enacted. The IRS The EPA to name a few. This is something we should proceed with the utmost caution:mad:

The thing about implimenting GPS into mobiles was bad enough
(before anyone says it i'm well aware of traigulation which is my my modded siemens S35 only connects to two towers at a time(which narrows it down to 2 locations but heck - i do want to have a frigging signal you know)) Retina scan wouldn't be too bad, fingerprint ok but DNA? Piss off!

Its the locaiton tracking that really, really rubs me up the wrong way.

The question (not being publically discussed and having been previously discussed in The Cellar Mark IV - is this Mark IV?) is how do YOU prove who you are. The National ID (and GPS in phones) should be about providing YOU with services - not to provide the Ashcrofts with more power. Hell, he can almost claim any civilian felony as a terroist act and suspend your civil rights now - because he thinks we are in a war which was never declared. Ashcroft does not need any more power.

With more electronics, with better home publishing on ink jet printer, etc, personal identity protection is and will become even moreso - essential. A national ID system must be established so that you can prove who you are - and so that others cannot prove they are you.

Take for example, the Madri Gras riot on South Street. Most criminals cannot be prosecuted because most claimed they were someone else using counterfeit ID. Imagine a bench warrant for your name - because someone else had counterfeited an ID using your identity. Quite easy and occuring more often every year - again because you have no way to prove you are you. It would destroy your credit ratings, force you to hire a lawyer (big bucks), and maybe even some jail time while they sort your out.

Must you carry a license to leave home? Of course. It is illegal to drive without a license. You don't have to carry a National ID card. If you don't want to prove who you are, then carry nothing. You should have that choice. However if the right wing, 'everyone is evil except us' have their way, then the National ID will be required by the "Office of Homeland Security" (is that expression from the book 1984?).

National ID is not something that all are required to 'wear'. It should be something that you can have for your own protection. BTW, same with GPS in cell phones. You want to turn it off? Fine. That would be your priviledge since it is only provided to serve you. If you dial 911, then it automatically turns GPS on - because 911 and GPS is there to serve you. You don't want the GPS on - then don't dial 911.

"office of homeland security" sounds exactly the same as "Ministary of Love"
Equally acurate too.

A National ID card will be the proverbial 'straw that breaks the camel's back' concerning our retention of the little freedom we have left. I am not to mistaking Privacy for Freedom; it is just one of the pillars of freedom.

As it is, we're been pretty close (via state's ID) to having a de-facto NID Card for a while. Disparate bits of personal information from government departments (DMV etc) and some private companies that process that information (and own it by that fact) are being concatinated and controlled by entities such as governments and big businesses.

You've all probably witnessed a small part of this by noticing the amount of highly targeted junk phone calls and mail you get. You haven't seen the info that someone else has on you due to credit reports, medical exams, employment drug screenings etc.

Frankly, I'm frightened of this (and too tired to be perfectly coherent... if you haven't already noticed- please forgive me).

Will type later must sleep now.


Cheerzzzzzzzz

SA



I could go on but I'm too sleepy to rant.

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius
...I am not to mistaking Privacy for Freedom; it is just one of the pillars of freedom.

As it is, we're been pretty close (via state's ID) to having a de-facto NID Card for a while. Disparate bits of personal information from government departments (DMV etc) and some private companies that process that information (and own it by that fact) are being concatinated and controlled by entities such as governments and big businesses.

... You haven't seen the info that someone else has on you due to credit reports, medical exams, employment drug screenings etc.

Point 1: Those big institutions don't need a National ID to collect all that information. A National ID system would not help them collect information. They already have everything necessary. It's called a Social Security Number. However since we don't have a National ID system, then anyone can claim to be you and access your private information. IOW without a National ID system, then all that institutional information is available to anyone else.

Point 2: Our individual freedoms and liberties are being violated without protection daily. Those violations will only increase if we do nothing - because you and I have no way to protect our identities. A greatest and growing threat to all individual liberties is the ease of stealing an identity. Even a Bush daughter stole the identity of a MD girl just to buy liquor. The greatest protection from that threat is a system where the individual can prove, when he choses to do so, his identity.

Tell me. Are you wanted for any crimes in any American states? A bench warrant for your arrest in Alaska could exist even though you did nothing. Take a vacation to Alaska and, instead, spend those two week in an Alaska jail. Whose freedoms and liberties were violated simply because no National ID existed?

That identify theft is a direct violation of your liberties, by another in collusion with a goverment that does not let you protect your liberties. Any government that does not provide tools to protect your identity is guilty, by association, of violating your Constitutional and human rights.

You don't want a National ID? Then don't apply for one. But why would you violate my freedoms and liberties by denying me access to identity protection? Why do you use your fears and emotions to violate my freedoms? Do I have no rights simply because of your fears?

Currently there is no system - a National ID system - to protect my rights - my identity. A National ID system does not make it easy for others to collect information on me. Social Security numbers already provides that ability. A National ID is something completely different - if implemented to a proper purpose.

Notice I say "implemented"? Because I have defined a specific purpose and hear no one - critic or advocate - defining the strategic objective of a National ID system. Shame on all of us for having such strong opinions on a system that no one is willing to define.

IOW another's criticism of a National ID system is criticism of a system that only exists in that author's fantasies.

How can one criticize a National ID when one does not even define what that system is? At least I define its strategic objective. At least I also define a serious and growing problem. Others instead would violate my right to protect my privacy because they fear something that they cannot even define?

Phooey. Those same opinions are what we criticized OJ Simpson jurors of using. The only way to fear something not even defined is to be emotional - like an OJ Simpson juror.

Originally posted by tw


Point 1: Those big institutions don't need a National ID to collect all that information. A National ID system would not help them collect information. They already have everything necessary. It's called a Social Security Number. However since we don't have a National ID system, then anyone can claim to be you and access your private information. IOW without a National ID system, then all that institutional information is available to anyone else.

Point 2: Our individual freedoms and liberties are being violated without protection daily. Those violations will only increase if we do nothing - because you and I have no way to protect our identities. A greatest and growing threat to all individual liberties is the ease of stealing an identity. Even a Bush daughter stole the identity of a MD girl just to buy liquor. The greatest protection from that threat is a system where the individual can prove, when he choses to do so, his identity.

Tell me. Are you wanted for any crimes in any American states? A bench warrant for your arrest in Alaska could exist even though you did nothing. Take a vacation to Alaska and, instead, spend those two week in an Alaska jail. Whose freedoms and liberties were violated simply because no National ID existed?

That identify theft is a direct violation of your liberties, by another in collusion with a goverment that does not let you protect your liberties. Any government that does not provide tools to protect your identity is guilty, by association, of violating your Constitutional and human rights.

You don't want a National ID? Then don't apply for one. But why would you violate my freedoms and liberties by denying me access to identity protection? Why do you use your fears and emotions to violate my freedoms? Do I have no rights simply because of your fears?

Currently there is no system - a National ID system - to protect my rights - my identity. A National ID system does not make it easy for others to collect information on me. Social Security numbers already provides that ability. A National ID is something completely different - if implemented to a proper purpose.

Notice I say "implemented"? Because I have defined a specific purpose and hear no one - critic or advocate - defining the strategic objective of a National ID system. Shame on all of us for having such strong opinions on a system that no one is willing to define.

IOW another's criticism of a National ID system is criticism of a system that only exists in that author's fantasies.

How can one criticize a National ID when one does not even define what that system is? At least I define its strategic objective. At least I also define a serious and growing problem. Others instead would violate my right to protect my privacy because they fear something that they cannot even define?

Phooey. Those same opinions are what we criticized OJ Simpson jurors of using. The only way to fear something not even defined is to be emotional - like an OJ Simpson juror.

Long rant..where do I start...

Point1... Yes there already is a unique identifier (sort of) - usually a SSN. Sometimes they use a UID of their own making. A SSN is unique to every living 'registered' American Citizen; it is supposedly recycled to the living from the dead. It is 'voluntary'. It should not be used to concatinate information, but was a convenient choice for many of these companies (and government organizations) that collect the information. And Yes, people have been defrauded because of the commity of the SSN's use. The act of defrauding occured by criminal individuals or groups. There are laws that attempt to prevent large companies from abusing that information. Sometime organizations choose to violate these laws anyway and they do get hammered for it.

Point 2... I do see your point on that. ID theft by petty criminals is becoming a problems. A definative way of saying I am ME would stop this if it were implimented perfectly and instantly and ONLY under those conditions. Time lags in verification allow these injustices to occur.


<< Tell me. Are you wanted for any crimes in any American states? A bench warrant for your arrest in Alaska could exist even though you did nothing. Take a vacation to Alaska and, instead, spend those two week in an Alaska jail. Whose freedoms and liberties were violated simply because no National ID existed?
>>
No. I doubt that would happen. Possible but not probable.

<< That identify theft is a direct violation of your liberties, by another in collusion with a goverment that does not let you protect your liberties. Any government that does not provide tools to protect your identity is guilty, by association, of violating your Constitutional and human rights.
>>
There is no collusion with the government. The lack of action or a system may be dispicable but it is not an evil thing in itself unless the system is abused in a wholesale fashion. We have laws already in place (albeit somewhat weak) to take care of the individuals who try to steal our identities.


<< You don't want a National ID? Then don't apply for one. But why would you violate my freedoms and liberties by denying me access to identity protection? Why do you use your fears and emotions to violate my freedoms? Do I have no rights simply because of your fears?>>
Are you currently being targeted by ID theives? You simply have no rights to be protected from an individual crime targeting you. Try to find that the police have to gaurd you from evil 24/7 in the constitution and I'll change my mind.
Two other points... 1. 'Voluntary' applies equally to a NID as well as a SSN. Have you ever known anybody who didn't have a SSN and tried to get employment. Because a SSN is pervasivly used, it is not really 'voluntary'. 2. A NID would have to be manditory by law to be effective...think about it. (and don't take things I type so personally)

Some other quick points....
...I never gave a damn about OJ or the verdict as it had no bearing on my life other than filling news casts with redundant garbage.

And YES, I agree with you that WE have no COMMON agreement of what exactly a NID system would be. We could be comparing apples to oranges for all we (both) know.

Have a good evening TW...

Cheers SA

The one thing people are missing with regards to a national id system is the fact that the government would have complete power over every man, woman and child in this country. Lets take for example affirmative action. With a NID system in place the government will have the power to tell a business that a business is in violation of the law simply because that business did not hire the correct number of people because of their sex or their national origin. With a NID we allow the government to enter our lives, mandate what we may or may not do at any time. We give up our ability to be free, instead we must answer to a central authority and this authority will have the power to determine what we may or may not be allowed to do. If one will do a in depth study with our war with England, many reasons come to the front why we did not want to be ruled by a distant and indifferent government, and that is what is forming today with a very central Federal government, and the engine that will allow this machine to run is a NID system. To use the argument that a NID system would protect me from id thief is I believe short sighted, for who will protect us from the Feds? A NID will never be voluntary rather it will be mandatory. We must not allow this government have control over us, rather we must control the government, for we are the government. People forget that we are the government and it is not us against them because we are them. If we are not careful, we will in the end give up our control and allow the government along with big business .

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius
<< Tell me. Are you wanted for any crimes in any American states? A bench warrant for your arrest in Alaska could exist even though you did nothing. Take a vacation to Alaska and, instead, spend those two week in an Alaska jail. Whose freedoms and liberties were violated simply because no National ID existed?
>>
No. I doubt that would happen. Possible but not probable.

But this has occurred on mutliple occassions. I no longer have actual details, but this was one of the first events that started me questioning our serious lack of identity protection.

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius
We have laws already in place (albeit somewhat weak) to take care of the individuals who try to steal our identities.

Actually we don't. PA only recently enacted some laws to protect from identity theft. I don't know the details.

Even 1 year ago in PA, someone could use your identity, trash your credit ratings, and you could not even sue in civil court. Why? You could prove no loss from a trashed credit rating. That is correct. Nationally, neither goverment (criminal action) nor yourself (civil action) could prosecute someone or recover compensation for your trashed credit ratings.

We have not addressed the crime called identity theft AND we have not created any protection from that crime. This is what a lady who ran the Passport system was saying - what - ten plus years ago. It is just another reason why Passports are so easily sold on the black market. For all you know, a US Passport could be issued in your name to a terrorist. His actions would place you on a most wanted list. You would never know until SWAT busted down your door expecting to confront a fully armed terrorist nest.

Now lets say bin Laden was using you passport to visit the US for medical treatment. He traveled to the US under your name. He chalked up $250,000 in medical bills in Boston and $50,000 in credit card bills. Those bills go to collection agencies who go after you. Your credit rating is trashed. You can never work on another classified government job nor any company who also does that work. You are forced to spend weeks unraveling all those leins on your house and other property. And you cannot even sue bin Laden because you cannot prove financial loss.

Now credit card companies and hospital could sue for their losses. But you have no rights and no protections because you suffered no financial losses and you have no National ID system to even detect that bin Laden was using your identity.

We can look at a situation where a person will have their identity stolen from them for whatever reason, and have great sympthy for them. But when you compare the number of people who are legitimist citizens of this country and the number of these same citizens who have had their identity stolen from them do we really need to give up our liberty via a national id program. Once this is put in place you will at all times be under the control of a central authority. When you think about it this was one of the reasons why we broke with England. We as a nation are now and have been for over 200 years a free people. If we continue in the direction we will no longer be a free people, not as we know it today. If this national id idea becomes a congressional bill, hearings will be held, concessions will be made to special interest groups, and in the end what is being portrayed today as a national id system to insure protection from id thief and to render terrorist impotent will in the end give the government very broad powers and restrictions will be placed upon us that we will come regret this law. I believe I have history on my side with regards that 535 members of congress must have their say and in the end we the American people are the losers.Never trust big government or big business, in the end you will loose.

Originally posted by tw

But this has occurred on mutliple occassions. I no longer have actual details, but this was one of the first events that started me questioning our serious lack of identity protection.



Actually we don't. PA only recently enacted some laws to protect from identity theft. I don't know the details.

Even 1 year ago in PA, someone could use your identity, trash your credit ratings, and you could not even sue in civil court. Why? You could prove no loss from a trashed credit rating. That is correct. Nationally, neither goverment (criminal action) nor yourself (civil action) could prosecute someone or recover compensation for your trashed credit ratings.

We have not addressed the crime called identity theft AND we have not created any protection from that crime. This is what a lady who ran the Passport system was saying - what - ten plus years ago. It is just another reason why Passports are so easily sold on the black market. For all you know, a US Passport could be issued in your name to a terrorist. His actions would place you on a most wanted list. You would never know until SWAT busted down your door expecting to confront a fully armed terrorist nest.

Now lets say bin Laden was using you passport to visit the US for medical treatment. He traveled to the US under your name. He chalked up $250,000 in medical bills in Boston and $50,000 in credit card bills. Those bills go to collection agencies who go after you. Your credit rating is trashed. You can never work on another classified government job nor any company who also does that work. You are forced to spend weeks unraveling all those leins on your house and other property. And you cannot even sue bin Laden because you cannot prove financial loss.

Now credit card companies and hospital could sue for their losses. But you have no rights and no protections because you suffered no financial losses and you have no National ID system to even detect that bin Laden was using your identity.

We're talking about two different things....

1. You are wishing for instant verification of who you are. I can sympathise with that need. I would support that if it weren't for the abuses that would creep in with that system. (...''would the real tw please stand up --- {obscure game show reference} )

2. I am talking about preventing the ultimate way for government to control its citizens. (If an organization can, it will...) First ID, then track, then monitor; this erodes privacy, which is fundamental to freedom. (remember, we vote behind curtains to insure the privacy of the vote.. <<we see that you did not vote the pary line, Comrade?>>...and there are other examples)

In the middle is the NID system. We'll have to agree to disagree.... "You say 'to-may-to', I say 'to-mah-to' "

Anyway, have an excellent week and a great holiday. I'm looking forward to preparing ol' Tom Turkey for his date with the oven.

(But is Tom Turkey who he is claimed to be?)

Cheers,


sa

*sighs*
Donno its whether its coz i've had such a fantastic day or waht but seriously i really am very scared about what kind of society we're gonna live in 50-80 years.....really, really scared.
ARgh the luddite in me comes out but christ, the tech thats supposed to move society forward seems to be used mostly to merely undermine what its founded on..
yes this is an offtopic rambelling rant of no importance, feel free to ignore it.

Originally posted by jaguar
*sighs*
i really am very scared about what kind of society we're gonna live in 50-80 years.....really, really scared.
yes this is an offtopic rambelling rant of no importance, feel free to ignore it.

I don't think it's off-topic at all. Ever since 9/11, I have been terrified -- not of the terrorists, but of all the things being done to erode our freedoms/privacy in the name of "security".

This has been happening more slowly, but this has triggered a speed-up process. 10 years ago, you could get on a plane without showing ID. The only identifying factor on the ticket was your title (Mr., Ms., Mrs., or Dr.). I know because, at least once, I used someone else's ticket. And, as long as security would have been sufficent to ensure that no one has weapons on board, I don't care if anyone knew who REALLY was on the plane -- the small additional risk is worth the privacy.

Now, some would say that what they have done is good. I dunno. I *liked* the fact that I could travel without someone else knowing and, believe it or not, there ARE reasons why someone would not want things known even if they are not criminals -- that's the reason for the 4th ammendment.

It the fourth ammendment's purpose was JUST to protect criminals, it wouldn't be in there. Criminals are allowed to go free sometimes, not becuase THEIR rights have been violated specifically, but because an INDIVIDUAL's rights have been violated by the government. The court system (by virtue of the consitution) has always ruled that that is a GREATER crime that whatever the defendent did -- even murder.

So, you want to take away my right to privacy to reduce the much lesser crime of "identity theft"??? I strongly oppose that.

In much the same way that I am willing to risk being shot rather than ignore the second ammendment (even though I do NOT own a gun), I would rather risk my identity stolen than remove citizens' right to privacy.

I'll end MY rant with one of my favorite quotes:

"People who are willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security will receive neither" - B. Franklin

Lisa -

What he actually said is some debate, but I believe that it's closer to "Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." A couple points on this:

1. Benjamin Franklin was human. Therefore, he is capable of being wrong. He said it, but that doesn't make it right. Just like right now, I can say "Benjamin Franklin was a loony idiot." Does that negate everything he said, because I wrote those words? Who is right? Are either of us? Franklin's statement is also just a matter of opinion. Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and Gypsies. His opinion was that they were evil. Did that make him right, because he mustered an opinion?

2. The words "temporary" and "essential" are important. What is an essential liberty? This differs from person to person, because one cannot define what is important for others. I think this is partially what tw was arguing - if you don't want a National ID card, don't get one. Just like you can't possibly say that National ID cards are evil - maybe they are to you, but that doesn't mean they're not good for others. The "temporary security" is important as well - obviously, long term measures need to be enacted. Are you furious about not being able to take a razor on an airplane? Or are you understanding that, while the notion is ridiculous, your Lady Schick could possibly be used to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, so you put up with the grief. If you're not rebelling against these new "restrictions" and standing up for your rights in the face of this tyranny, then you're just blowing hot air.

The fact of the matter is, I love freedom too. I would die to protect it. But then I think of the people I love, and how I don't want them to ride an airplane through a building. Or to have nails implanted in their face and chest because a suicide bomber walked into the Sbarro where they were eating. The idea of freedoms eroding are scary, but are you really willing to trade everyone you love so you can sit smugly in the absence of a National ID card?

So, you want to take away my right to privacy to reduce the much lesser crime of "identity theft"??? I strongly oppose that.

Lesser crime? I wonder if you'd sing the same tune if it happened to you. I know we all like to pretend we would. But can you honestly say that, after having your identity stolen, your credit rating ruined and your ability to get a job almost totally destroyed because of a ruined professional reputation, that you would say "man, sure am glad I stood up to that one, 'cause even though I'm living with my parents and have no money whatsoever, at least I don't have a National ID card"? I don't think you can, because I don't think you know what it's like to go through that. Even so, that's not even really the big deal. Self sacrifice is easy. Could you manage to watch someone you love go through it? A child, perhaps. A spouse. Watching them suffer that torment. Knowing that they're contemplating suicide because life is just getting too difficult. Are you seriously willing to trade some false sense of freedom for that?

I don't mean to sound hard on you, and please don't consider it inflammatory - I just question your reasons. Having seen someone go through minor identity theft (credit cards, which ruined my mother's credit rating), I have an appreciation for some stronger protection on these areas. Not to say that I would support a proposed National ID card - it all depends on the implementation and the proposed setup. But I wouldn't rule it out before even knowing what's going on. Things like this are too important to form an opinion on before you've had time and opportunity to review the proposal.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Benjamin Franklin was human. Therefore, he is capable of [B]being wrong. He said it, but that doesn't make it right. Just like right now, I can say "Benjamin Franklin was a loony idiot." Does that negate everything he said, because I wrote those words? Who is right? Are either of us? Franklin's statement is also just a matter of opinion. [/B]

Just to answer that quickly (and maybe the rest later), I never intended to imply, by quoting him, that it MUST be right because Franklin said it...

I quote people when they are someone that most people have SOME respect for and they made a statement that *I*, as an individual, happen to agree with.

Anything more, you read into it yourself...

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I think this is partially what tw was arguing - if you don't want a National ID card, don't get one. Just like you can't possibly say that National ID cards are evil - maybe they are to you, but that doesn't mean they're not good for others.

Hey, as you said above, the whole thing is a matter of opinion. In my opinion if national ID cards are enacted they will NOT be voluntary even if they do start out that way. And, for that reason, along with the erosion of privacy that I think it will create, I choose to oppose them.

I don't claim that I am right and others are wrong. I have my opinion and I choose to make it known. I doubt that anyone can ever produce objective "proof" that right (A) is worth giving up for security (B).

I am just amazed how little people value some rights and freedoms compared to "security". I do not claim that they are wrong or are not entitled to their own value systems.

[QUOTE}The "temporary security" is important as well - obviously, long term measures need to be enacted. Are you furious about not being able to take a razor on an airplane? Or are you understanding that, while the notion is ridiculous, your Lady Schick could possibly be used to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, so you put up with the grief. If you're not rebelling against these new "restrictions" and standing up for your rights in the face of this tyranny, then you're just blowing hot air.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I just don't feel that my "right" to carry a razor in the passenger compartment, as opposed to my luggage, is worth the loss of safety. It all a question of relative values -- on this one, I choose to go the other way. These things are NOT black and white, you know.

...but are you really willing to trade everyone you love so you can sit smugly in the absence of a National ID card?

No. I am willing to RISK them... the same way that I am willing to risk them being killed by an properly licensed firearm. IOW, I support the second ammendment even though I know it is possible that my daughter may be killed with a gun someday. I feel it is worth the right. Just as I know she may be killed by a car, but I don't oppose the operation of motor vehicles because I feel the benefit is worth the risk.

Lesser crime? I wonder if you'd sing the same tune if it happened to you. I know we all like to pretend we would. But can you honestly say that, after having your identity stolen, your credit rating ruined and your ability to get a job almost totally destroyed because of a ruined professional reputation, that you would say "man, sure am glad I stood up to that one, 'cause even though I'm living with my parents and have no money whatsoever, at least I don't have a National ID card"?

Nope. I don't think I would. Just as I am sure that I might oppose the second ammendment if and when a family member of mine was killed by a firearm. Very seldom does ANYONE who was a vicitim of a law (or a lack of one) not have an opinion in the direction that would have protected them after they have been a victim.

That's why I always consider this a poor argument. I'll bet that I might very well favor the outlawing of swimming pools if my brother drowned in one!

Having seen someone go through minor identity theft (credit cards, which ruined my mother's credit rating), I have an appreciation for some stronger protection on these areas.

Ah, and, as I stated above, that explains somewhat your intensity. I am sincerely sorry for what happened to your mother and, if I were in your position, I would probably feel similarly. But I am not and I therefore feel the way I feel and have my opinions.

That's the beauty of freedom. We can have differing opinions, and state them. Let's just hope that they never take THAT right away in the interest of safety and security!

Originally posted by lisa


Hey, as you said above, the whole thing is a matter of opinion. In my [b]opinion if national ID cards are enacted they will NOT be voluntary even if they do start out that way. And, for that reason, along with the erosion of privacy that I think it will create, I choose to oppose them.

[/B]

I agree with you. Have a couple more examples...

A person's legal obligation to participate in Social Security is strictly voluntary ; However, it is a defacto requirement in order to live any sort of 'normal' life in America.

Another example of a voluntary governmental scheme is the Income Tax.

Cheers,

sa

dhamsaic

I would like to bring up some additional reasons why a national id would be wrong for this country and it's citizens. I have said in a previous post that once congress becomes involved with a national id you will never know the finished product. We have today through technologies, the ability to set up a national data base where, if we are mandated, to have a government id card where we would loose many of our hard fought freedoms. With the technology that is available today we would have digital fingerprinting, electronic retinal scans and whatever state of the art that would be available thought biometric technologies that today is unknown to us.We are about to enter a frontier that we know nothing about and yet we or some of us will give up our future freedoms based on future technologies that we know nothing about. Before Sept 11th many people where up in arms about TV surveillance, cameras at traffic lights. People raised so much hell that a revolution of sorts was coming to the surface and cities were backing down because we the people said stop it. Then came Sept 11th and this issue took a back seat. Suppose there is another Sept 11th and we have a national id law in place. Do I show my id when I cross the Walt Whitman bridge, or better yet will the government track me through my ez pass. I go from one town to another? Are we then truly free? The answer is a very big no. It is at that time that we the people are no longer in charge. I have one passport to travel from one country to another, I do not need a domestic passport to travel either intra or inter state. This is very important, do not succumb to the easy answers, for once we do not want to give up our liberties and freedom We are still the government and lets keep it that way.

(a little OT, please forgive me)

I was once the victim of a little "identity theft". My wife lost the checkbook at a local supermarket (in the parking lot); she realized that she had lost it no more than 1/2 hour after it fell out of her pocket in the parking lot.

By the time we had notified our bank, they had already gotten two of our checks -- from two separate branches -- from people who tried to write one out for cash, and cash it at our own bank!

The checks in that book (there were 24 of them) were all distributed about as far as they could go. We eventually received each of the checks back; no two checks have the same writing, or were received from the same people as far as we can tell. One person even tried to pay her telephone bill with one of our checks!

What really pissed me off though is that two of the checks were written out to Pizza Hut, and one to Domino's (the two pizza joints here which will deliver). B/C they had been accepted, and turned away from the bank since they were bad, both Pizza Hut and Domino's refused to deliver pizzas to our home -- for over a year afterwards. Pizza Hut still refuses to accept checks from us to this day -- for a crime that we didn't commit -- in 1993.

Now, if a NID will enable me to get pizza delivered, bring it on.

:rolleyes:

Now forgive me if I sound a little annoyed to you, but let's review your post. You say your wife lost her checkbook on the parking lot of a supermarket. Number one you are the only person responsible for your mistakes and actions, not the government or society in general ,or more important the tax payer. What you are saying whether you realize it or not, is you want the government to rescue you from your problem. . Let us review , and believe me do not take this as personal, but it seems,today many people do not want to take responsible for their mistakes. You lost your checkbook, therefore it is incumbent upon you to correct your mistake, not society at large, i.e.: the government intervening on your behalf for your mistakes.With regards to Pizza Hut and Domino's accepting your stolen checks, you should have gone to the bank, you did not do that that was your first mistake, and I do not see where the general public is responsible for your stupid actions. You should have stopped payment on those stolen checks immediately.With regards to the two pizza stores not accepting your checks or deliver to your home you have a very powerful option and that is you do not spend your money there. That is called participating in a free market system Remember you are in control because you have the money. Now for the more important thing that goes over your head, is the fact that you would have the government intervene on your behalf. and at the same time you are willing to give up our liberties to correct your very minor problems. In other words it is your problem and not the people of America. We as a nation are so much into ourselves that when you examine the ramifications of Sept. 11 I think it in the helped this country. We are no longer into ourselves but rather we seem to have become one and it is a shame we had to arrive here in this way but we are , I think as a country we are stronger people.What I am saying is wake up and smell the coffee.

What if, instead of her checkbook, she lost her National ID Card in the year 2008?

Now she'll have more problems than pizza delivery.

What this woman needs is more then pizza. I wonder if she would be interested in a bridge? I would throw in a toll both, but I would not accept a check, cash only

That kinda got me.....Sure so you centralise stuff to one card/smartcard/stick/piece of bubblegum you stick on your forehead when you walk out the house - doesnt that mean you're jsut TOTALLY fucked if you lsoe that hting instead of only one thing....its a bit like the arguements agasn't M$ hailstorm.

Ouch! I do think that's a little harsh, wwarner11. :) It feels like you're calling her stupid for losing her checkbook but I'd say that's something that we all might do at one time or another. I, myself, left a purse in a restaurant at lunch last week. Fortunately it was still there when I went back.

But, I do agree that it was a mistake and actions should be in place to lessen the impact on the individual when sometheing like this happens... I would say that there are a couple of problems in this check scenario, none of which, IMHO, would be solved by a national ID card.

Dafydd, I'll accept your story as given... That you realized the loss less than 30 minutes after it occured and (implied) immediately notified the bank.

If the bank holds you accountable, in any way, for checks that were cashed there, I'd lodge a formal complaint against them and switch banks. That should be easy enough -- there's usually plenty of banks around.

As for the pizza places, If what you are saying is true I think their company policies stink! First off, they accepted checks with NO ID? I doubt that a NID card would solve the problem since I doubt they even ever asked for a state one. I'd again seriously consider writing a letter to their corporate HQ explaining the situation and contact the local press and BBB. I would bet that you could put some pressure on them if it bothers you that much to not be able to get a Domino's pizza.

Yes, these things are nusisances and we "shouldn't" have to go through this trouble. But, considering how few (relatively) people have to deal with these problems, I still hold my opinion that an NID would, in the long run, remove freedoms and that is NOT worth the small additional security that we would gain.

BTW, did everyone know that MasterCard and Visa's agreements with stores state that they cannot require ID before accepting the cards? Many consider that stupid... I consider it a convienence. Especially given that, by law, the maximum that I can be held liable for, without proof that *I* made the charges, is $50.00.

the way to have them require id (if you're paranoid) is to write, on your signature spot

SEE ID

now, i know they don't always look. but if they see that, they're supposed to ask you for an id with a signature on it.

the $50 liability is nice. people should understand that it does not apply to check cards or debit cards. that varies from bank to bank. here's what i do:

i pay for EVERYTHING on my credit card, which i have through my bank. i keep $20 in my checking account in case i need it. i keep my check card in my wallet in case i need money out, but i never use it. i keep all my real money in my savings account, and when i need money (either to pay off my credit card, which i do every month) or to put money in my checking account (so i can get money out of the atm), i transfer it in through my bank's online banking system. that means that, at any given time, the vast majority of my money is safe, should my check card number (or the card itself) get stolen. wahoo!

If my post was seen as harsh, that was not my intent. The point I was trying to put across was the fact that many people are so willing to relay on the government for almost everything. And I believe this is a case in point. Just because she had a problem years ago with a bank or pizza parlor does not preclude the fact that the author of that particular post is willing to give up the liberties of everyone because they could not resolve their problems. More people today feel with indenity thief that a national id will solve the problem and it will not. What scares me the most, is if polling data remains at it's current level with regards to a national id card, it will at some point move forward and congress will become involved, and this is the beginning of the end with respect to many of our liberties. I brought this out in a prior post and history will prove me right. There will be so much deal making and compromising that when all is said and done a national id program will look nothing like what so many people envision it to be. I am sorry if I came across harsh, that was not my intent.

Originally posted by wwarner11
If my post was seen as harsh, that was not my intent. The point I was trying to put across was the fact that many people are so willing to relay on the government for almost everything. And I believe this is a case in point. Just because she had a problem years ago with a bank or pizza parlor does not preclude the fact that the author of that particular post is willing to give up the liberties of everyone because they could not resolve their problems.

wwarner11's post should not be considered harsh. It should be considered fundamental to why he fears a National ID system. It displays a rather naive view of where the world is going. Once, one only worried about a credit rating. There were a few national credit databases (ie. TRW). Now, even your pizza shop will maintain a your credit rating and distribute it to their other stores across the country without your knowledge. Eventually everyone will have access to databases based upon your ID. How do you protect your good name? Today, you don't.

IOW wwarner11 feels that a National ID would diminish liberties - without any logical reason why or any example. But wwarner11 ignores this fact - no National ID means less liberties as demonstrated by the pizza shop example. He dismisses what will happen almost everywhere.

wwarner11 demonstrates a "don't worry, be happy" attitude. We already have an example of threats to one's liberty. One already has been blackballed from a pizza chain. It's the 'Canary in the Coalmine' - because we have no National ID system (that one can use or avoid). What happened in the pizza shop will eventually be everywhere.

Anyone can get your birth certificate, to use your good name, to steal. Do you know that Kroger's database has blackballed you because someone has stolen your name? You don't. Kroger does business where you don't shop. Again, like the pizza shop example, you have NO protection as your good name is trashed throughout the country.

1) Anyone can steal your ID. 2) You have no way to know your good name has been stolen. #2 is most appaulling. You have NO way of keeping another from making you a criminal in another state or country. That too has already happened. Even the president's daughter may have done it to a MD woman. There is no National ID system to protect you. That means we all have less liberties every day - if the fearful deny us a National ID system.

Tomorrow, it will be even easier to steal your ID. Next year, it will be easier than that. Every week, it becomes easier to destroy your life because no one is currently permitted to have protection - no National ID system. That is threat, directly, to my liberty.

Furthermore, every week, a reputation becomes more important as new databases appear everywhere. Yes, even the dry cleaners will access a database based upon your ID. That is inevitable. How do you protect your ID in all those databases?

There can be no disagreement here. A need for a National ID system is obvious. Not one post proves otherwise. I only read "fear of government - or all organizations as if it was the KKK". Any logical reason for no National ID system must first prove that ID theft is not and will never be a problem. Who will prove that? (Gaunlet thrown to the floor).

No logical reason is presented here to fear a (properly implemented) National ID system. There is plenty of logic (and reams of examples) to fear 'no' National ID system. However emotion rules minds of some posters who would deny others a right to protect their ID. Others would threaten the liberty of all lurkers because of an emotional fear of anything new.

"It involves government, therefore it must be evil." Silly. Government is more evil than the Mafia? Government is more evil than terrorists? Government is more evil than a citizen with a grudge against you?

Logic. First prove that ID threats don't exist and will not become more common. Only then does a poster have a LOGICAL reason to deny a need for National ID.

We clearly require something we did not need even 20 years ago. Strategic Objective: 1) We require a system to provide who we are. 2) We require a tool so that we can protect our ID.

If one fears a National ID, then one must also define a system that meets the Strategic Objective. IOW I demand that naysayers instead provide a solution. These are the Objectives. Define a solution. Add something productive (positive) to this thread such as ideas and solutions.

The need for a National ID is a given: a system available to anyone who requires such protection - such as 90+% of those who read this post. Those other 10% who fear the government have no reason to sign up nor deny the implementation of such a system. There is absolutely no logical reason to make a National ID system mandatory - except in minds that fear.

Strategic objectives of such a system are defined. The next question is, "who should run it?" Is it to be operated by Visa and Master Charge, or better by a government agency?

BTW, a National ID system does not record that you masterbate every third day or that you have a genetic disease. Again, that is the emotional fearing wildly. A National ID is based on commonly available and unique information that even Kodak products have already recorded. (Is Kodak also to be feared?)

Who is to run such a system? There are good reasons to ask this question. It is not a threat to a person's privacy. But there is a threat to those whose ID has special protection requirements, such as witness protection. Can Visa be trusted with such information?

Originally posted by tw
There can be no disagreement here. A need for a National ID system is obvious...Any logical reason for no National ID system must first prove that ID theft is not and will never be a problem. Who will prove that? (Gaunlet thrown to the floor).

Hmmm... Obviously there can be a disagreement since there are a number of us here who disagree.

Also, showing that ID theft is not an issue is obviously not the only argument against a NID program. Hypothetically, if I could prove that the government was planning on using such a device to track people who oppose whatever party is in power, I think most would agree that that would be a valid argument against such a system.

Again, like anything else, it's a question of the weighing of the benefits vs. the liabilities. And know one knows for sure how effective the benefits will be and how bad the abuses may be. We are all only guessing.

Like tw, I can say one thing. I have seen nothing here to change my opinion, either.

tw: If you put all your eggs in one basket doesn't mean than when it does get stolen, and lets be seirous here it will be, the same as passports are you will be TOTALLY stuff instead of partly stuffed with one ID thingy such as your credit card?

TW, there are a few things in your last post that I feel I must respond to. First of all I would say that I think what you are advocating with a NID is very commendable but alas what you desire will not fly. Let me explain, you say a NID system does not have to be mandatory. It has been my experience that once something is put into the hands of congress the product that entered the congress exits the very same congress in such a way that you will not recognize it. You just have to review some well intentioned legislation to see what I mean. I am not saying the system is evil or corrupt, but deals will be made for what ever reason, compromises will occur, and special interest will have their say in this process. This is our system of government , it may not be perfect but no one has come up with a better system then what we now enjoy.Your concern and I know you have good intentions with this matter , is identity thief. My first question is how many people lost their identity ? We have I think 280 million people in this country (I think) and let us assume 1 million had their id stolen last year, I fell I am high on that number , but if 1 million people did loose their identity last year we are talking about 1/2% of the people of this country. I do not feel that would justify a NID system. Furthermore laws are there to protect us with regards to identity thief, and where there are deficiencies in the law that area will be corrected. You wrote "There can be no disagreement here. A need for a National ID system is obvious. Not one post proves otherwise. I only read "fear of government" The fear of government is very real. Example the IRS is used as a political weapon, in fact any agency of government is used that way. Cameras at traffic lights. This was a story in Drudge today

LIGHTING UP AT HOME: MARYLAND COUNTY PASSES MEASURE ORDERING FINES IF SMOKE OFFENDS NEIGHBORS...These are just a few reasons to fear government.you have not demonstrated to me why we need a NID other then identity thief. Remember once that is in place the Feds are in total control, they can restrict our travel, and know your location at all times. You say to the naysayer that you demand a solution. My solution is very simple no NID , remember once in place you are then in possession of a domestic passport. Sometimes when I see how this government is growing and becoming insensitive to the needs of its people I then say to myself maybe George 111 was not such a bad person after all.

Originally posted by lisa
Hypothetically, if I could prove that the government was planning on using such a device to track people who oppose whatever party is in power, I think most would agree that that would be a valid argument against such a system.

Again, like anything else, it's a question of the weighing of the benefits vs. the liabilities.

The government has everything it needs to track your movements. Your phone bills. You credit cards. You tax deductions and your checks to your preferred poltical party official. The same government can only track you when you use your ID to prove who you are at a given location.

I see no liabilities here. Access to information in all those other databases (including IRS) requires a court order. This is a limitation that rightly should be applied to an NID database. But if you fear government will violate that database without a search warrant, then we better burn down the Treasury, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the Veteran's Administration (as was attempted in St Louis) to protect everyone's liberties. They all would be a greater threat to liberties.

The fear of infrigment of liberty is reasonable IFF one can demonstrate how an NID would infrige on liberty. If you fear that the government will track your movements, then keep that license plate off your car, etc. IOW this fear is really a strawman. For if a NID threatened such a liberty, welll then, that liberty was long gone many decades ago. IOW that fear is not justified.

Hypothetically I can prove that I will attempt to destroy your life. All I need is some basic information such as on your phone bills. A little dumpster diving or basic knowledge of where you were born is all I need. That is a legitatite threat to your liberty. If government is using credit cards, etc to track you, then you are probably a risk to my liberties anyway. Why are you not concerned about this threat to your liberty that is, by far, a greater threat than any western government?

The hypothetical threat that is clear - ID theft will increase tremendously if we have no NID or equivalent. Threats to liberties will increase if we do nothing. That is a given as even proven by the pizza shop example. If not an NID, then what? Today's security measures will not be acceptable within a decade as everyone builds databases on individuals. Will you instead ban databases? What is the alternative? The only alternative to no National ID system is less liberties for all.

<i>If you fear that the government will track your movements, then keep that license plate off your car, etc. IOW this fear is really a strawman. For if a NID threatened such a liberty, welll then, that liberty was long gone many decades ago. IOW that fear is not justified.
</i>

Even though it's theoretically illegal for me to poke you in the arm really hard, I could probably do so without being arrested or charged with any crime.

Therefore, I should be permitted to poke you in the eye really hard.

Even though it's theoretically illegal for a government to "track" you via your license plate -- because that constitutes prior restraint, restriction on travel, and cuts into about a hundred other natural rights -- the constitutionality of many laws has never been tried in court.

So using the fact that a govt could theoretically "track" you via your license plate is irrelevant to the NID discussion, except that what's illegal, immoral and unconstitutional to do with a license number would also be illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional to do with a NID system.

I'm sure most of us know of a case where someone "knew somebody" and used their license information to gather further details on them. I consider such acts immoral, unconstitutional, and very probably illegal. I would expect that such information would be inadmissible in court. However, that doesn't stop it from happening.

Luckily most such occurences are about as harmful as a poke in the arm. Let's keep it at that level, shall we?

Originally posted by jaguar
tw: If you put all your eggs in one basket doesn't mean than when it does get stolen, and lets be seirous here it will be, the same as passports are you will be TOTALLY stuff instead of partly stuffed with one ID thingy such as your credit card?

The question of one basket is indeed serious. First, a National ID system does not work without a master database. Transactions with a master database is not a theat to individuals. But control of the database is key to point two of the Strategic Objective. Control of the database IS a threat to some in our society if it is diversified.

As for passport fraud, that exists because no NID exists. You loose a passport: problem because the passport can be manipulated to make another appear to be you. However most are not concerned about stealing your passport. They can counterfeit your passport easier with their picture on it. The US Passport is considered about the best ID system we have. And it is routinely counterfeited like those old $100 bills.

Key to an NID is a secure transaction system where your physical ID is verified to a secure database. Currently, your passport - an obsolete technology - is valid only because it contains your picture, insecurely attached, inside that passport.

Passports long ago were not secure ID. It gets worse with the decades. Look, even paper money and corporate payroll checks are no long secure means of transactions. We still operate a society based upon the assumption that those old verification methods work. Welcome to the 21st Century. We no longer have a valid ID confirmation system - point 1. We have never had a personal ID security system - point 2. Those are the two Strategic Objectives now required in the 21st Century that were not necesary in the 20th Century.


You loose your NID card. No problem. A secure database makes such a card useless to anyone but you. You loose your passport. One only need replace your picture with theirs - and steal you good name. Then there is the birth certificate. Once someone gets a copy of that, then they have access to your entire reputation - because there is no NID.

Currently, we have all our eggs in one basket - that is full of holes. We have NO identity protection system. We have NO identity proving system. We have a basket chock full of holes and not attempt even to patch those holes. Would you keep putting your eggs in that basket? We have no other basket and never will until we have an NID or something equivalent.

The threat to an NID is not in the individual's card. It is in the master database. Not because it threatens the general public's liberties. Because there are some special individuals in our society whose identities must remain secure.

So the NID as it stands (basing on what you said) would valiadte with a database every time you used it.....Giving your location and what you are doing to whoever controls it (the govt)

Ok now i'm really scared.

Originally posted by tw

The government has everything it needs to track your movements. Your phone bills. You credit cards. You tax deductions and your checks to your preferred poltical party official. The same government can only track you when you use your ID to prove who you are at a given location.

My credit cards show what I want them to show -- I can pay cash for that which I don't want to show.

If I refrain from deducting an expense I don't want the govt to know about (which probably isn't deductable anyway), that's not an issue.

I don't write checks to politicians; I pay them with sacks labeled with a "$", like any sensible person.

And even if I use my ID to prove who I am, they can't track it, because there currently isn't a system in place to do so. The bouncer at Delilah's Den doesn't have to -- and therefore doesn't -- enter my name into the system.

I see no liabilities here. Access to information in all those other databases (including IRS) requires a court order. This is a limitation that rightly should be applied to an NID database. But if you fear government will violate that database without a search warrant, then we better burn down the Treasury, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the Veteran's Administration (as was attempted in St Louis) to protect everyone's liberties. They all would be a greater threat to liberties.

The government can and will examine those databases at its leisure, legally (under some anti-drug or anti-terrorism excuse) or clandestinely.

The fear of infrigment of liberty is reasonable IFF one can demonstrate how an NID would infrige on liberty. If you fear that the government will track your movements, then keep that license plate off your car, etc.

That's a good idea, except that not having the license plate makes me more conspicuous than having one. Which is the problem with National ID -- you can't just not have one or not use one, that'll set off flags from here to Washington, D.C.

IOW this fear is really a strawman. For if a NID threatened such a liberty, welll then, that liberty was long gone many decades ago. IOW that fear is not justified.

Or that liberty has already been infringed upon, though not yet totally destroyed.

Originally posted by jaguar
So the NID as it stands (basing on what you said) would valiadte with a database every time you used it.....Giving your location and what you are doing to whoever controls it (the govt)

Ok now i'm really scared.

Using the logic as I understand it, you would have EasyPass banned because government could (and openly does) track you? Doesn't matter that you can choose not to be in the EasyPass system. Just the fact that others can use EasyPass is a threat to your liberties. (Parallel example is: does not matter that you have no NID. A National ID system for others use is still a threat to your liberties).

At least with a National ID, you can choose when and where to use it. Furthermore if you have a NID and don't use it, then the the 'powers you fear' have zero useful information. With EasyPass, anyone can track your movements at any time. All those secret monitors don't even require a court order or search warrant. They can track you without your knowledge.

If you have a fear of NID, then you must be turning blue over others that have EasyPass.

However if EasyPass does not threaten your liberties, then the NID is a zero threat. Why do I not hear any fear of EasyPass and the other equivalent system that will arrive?

Why do I hear no screaming fear of all those cameras on the highways monitoring for who?

Then there are Bank Cards. Heaven fear the end of the universe! Not only can they track you (and they do so) but they take your picture! They also take pictures of your companions. They will get you through your friends! Now there is something really to fear. ATMs are one step short of big brother monitors. They can track your card use, take your picture, and they can be everywhere monitoring your movements without knowledge - taking pictures as you move about even if you don't use that BankCard any more.

Again, if the BankCard is no threat to your liberties, the NID empowers your liberties even greater. We know that no NID means you WILL have less liberties as your good name sits like a target just waiting for anyone to steal. No NID or the equivalent means you will definitely have more threats to your liberties.

Again, I don't read a single logic reason for this fear of NID. I only read fear of everyone else. I read a fear of any system that exists even though you choose not to participate. It sounds psychotic; not logical.

Its the centralisation and agregation of htat data that makes it one step more dangerous.

Assuming the scope of use of these things and thier virtually mandatory nature (like social security numbers) they detailed record of your actions and movements that woiuld be put together and accessable instantly is a scary thought. Realtime tracking of your location that previously would have required totaly access to a nubmer of private databases.

However if EasyPass does not threaten your liberties

Actually - yes ti does its a tradeoff people make for ease of living. I'm quite sure, as a similar system was implimented ehre on a smaller scale (less tollroads) and many choose again'st it for the exact reason you are saying is non-existant. To argue that it will be volantary is an absolutle crock of shit. THe fact it that for govermental urposes the system msut require nealry everyone with any degree of mobility around society to have it if it is to serve a useful purpose to law enforcement. It will be similar to a social security number.

Then there are Bank Cards. Heaven fear the end of the universe! Not only can they track you (and they do so) but they take your picture! They also take pictures of your companions. They will get you through your friends! Now there is something really to fear. ATMs are one step short of big brother monitors. They can track your card use, take your picture, and they can be everywhere monitoring your movements without knowledge - taking pictures as you move about even if you don't use that BankCard any more.

Oh please. For a start the angle of hte cameras is such that you'd ahve fantastic picutres of peoples bodies but no head for random shots and that is a PRIVATE COMMERCIAL DATABASE. Which isdifferent form a GOVERMENT CONTROLLED DATABASE.

We know that no NID means you WILL have less liberties as your good name sits like a target just waiting for anyone to steal

Carefuly chosen words there for someone who distains emotion in rational arguements. TO full steal an identity you ned an array of documents that is not all that eeasy to eachieve and christ, you think and NID is going ot be totally secure?? What are the going to sue? Magstrip? Smartcard? all are pretty hack-up able.

Your arguement seems to be that we have no civil liberties and rights to privicy as it is so lets roll over and cop a little more. Have very saddening.

I read a fear of any system that exists even though you choose not to participate. It sounds psychotic; not logical.

Sounds like someone useing a commonly used debating tactic of taking an arguement beyond its logical limit to me.

Originally posted by jaguar
Actually - yes [EasyPass] does its a tradeoff people make for ease of living. I'm quite sure, as a similar system was implimented ehre on a smaller scale (less tollroads) and many choose again'st it for the exact reason you are saying is non-existant. To argue that it will be volantary is an absolutle crock of shit. THe fact it that for govermental urposes the system msut require nealry everyone with any degree of mobility around society to have it if it is to serve a useful purpose to law enforcement. It will be similar to a social security number. ...

TO full steal an identity you ned an array of documents that is not all that eeasy to eachieve and christ, you think and NID is going ot be totally secure?? What are the going to sue? Magstrip? Smartcard? all are pretty hack-up able.

It must be a government trap to collect information on us. IOW a fear of NID is, in part, because one doesn't know how such a system would work and therefore only assumes the worst. My god. Should we also fear the arrival of a Godzilla movie?

If government wanted to make a system mandatory (as fears insist), then EasyPass would be a required of all drivers. However EasyPass exists. Therefore the fearful do not emotionally fear that system. It already exists. EasyPass is now only "a tradeoff people make for ease of living."

Another silly assumption - that a National ID verification system must have everyone's participation in order to work. It does not matter how many other people are in the system. A verification system is only a secure, encrypted verification of one person and his confirmation data. Is that system threatened or non-functional because the guy who lives on the corner does not participate? Of course not. It is that obvious!

Embarrassingly obvious is that a verification system is not compromised by the non-participant. Why then would one claim an NID system could not work without mandatory participation? The erroneous claim must be made to justify the original fear. It is fear, only, of a National ID verification system that is the only reason to deny others those benefits.

Identity theft is easily conducted as the Passport office lady repeatedly proved. Just get a birth certificate. Today its even easier. Computers that routinely counterfeit driver's licenses and older $100 bills can easily counterfeit 1950/60 birth certificates. Furthermore, the counterfeited document cannot be verified. But birth cerifiicates are considered sufficient and acceptable as ID - in a country that has no ID confirmation system and that most needs such abilities. Having a birth certificate is sufficient to get other ID documents such as a Social Security number. Currently, Russian mafia routinely operate with handfuls of social security numbers and other IDs so as to constantly change their identity. Why do they fear a National ID system? Same reasons?

Now we have sufficient counterfeit documents for a driver's license. Driver's license - which is the most secure form of ID verification. Identity stolen quite easily. A largest growth market for the Russian Mafia or any other enterprising thief - stealing identifies.

Stealing another's ID is easier than counterfeiting money! Most of the violent offenders in the Madi Gras, South St riot had counterfeit ID - leaving many innocent people with bench warrants for their arrest. To say ID theft is difficult or non-existent is to be an ostrich.

One would claim that ID theft is not a problem because only 1/2% of the nation currently suffers? How convenient to forget the pizza shop example - the canary in a coalmine. It did not affect me so I should deny everyone else a system to protect themselves? This type of reasoning is so common among those so worried about their rights and so negligent of their responsibilities to others.

A friend notes that his credit rating, one of the highest ratings seen, is necessary to conduct business quickly. It took him generations to build that rating so necessary for his business. But one theft of his ID can destroy that entire rating in a week. Why? We have no identity protection. And yet here we are, those who fear government will decree that he does not not need ID verification and protection?

Its a funny thing about people. We have been under regular attack since 1990. But it took a WTC collapse before people realize that those attacks existed. Well, the world has changed in other ways. Identity theft is a major problem and will only become worse. Once any kind of check could be cashed anywhere. Even with a driver's license, grocery stores will no longer cash even a corporate payroll check - because identity theft is now that common. Liberties restricted because we have no National ID verification system. Hardworking, honest people threatened because we have no National ID protection system.

How much have our liberties been restricted? You cannot even cash a corporate payroll check at many banks unless you have sufficient funds to cover that check. More liberties lost because identity theft is so common.

Why deny others the protection? Two reasons provided. One, the government could track a person's movement - conventiently forgetting that it only is possible if one uses the NID. Two, government would, no doubt, absoutely, because it is so evil, require everyone to carry and to use an NID - even though that same government does not require everyone to use EasyPass and Smart Cards.

Where is the logic behind this reasoning? Fear. Supporting reasons are only based upon an emotional fear of all government. Again I must expand the arguement to address the reasons for those fears. It is not about an evil National ID vefication system. It is really about the emotional fears of its opponents.

No one can track a person's ID if that ID is not used. There are ZERO logical reasons provided for government to require everyone to have a National ID. In short, these are emotional and not logical based fears. They are based only on the assumption that government is 'out to get me'. An obvious reason to so excessviely fear - that person may be criminal. Honest people do not fear systems that protect them.

A government that is 'out to get me' would not waste time subverting woefully insufficient information in a National ID verification system. Such an evil government will instead 'get me' through Smart Cards, EasyPass, security cameras, and Swat teams. And yet one does not FEAR those existing measures? Why? Reasons for fearing a National ID are, in part, because a National ID does not exist. It is the classic mentallity of the anti-innovative. Anti-innovative people fear change.

Understand why one would fear a National ID. It is not about liberties - which will be threatened without a National ID verification system. Fear of a National ID is directly traceable to an anti-innovative, and therefore anti-American attitude : to fear of change. If not fear of change, then outright denial of reality.

We know this much. We know that American liberties - especially everyone's good name - is threatended without a National ID verification system. We know that this may become the fasting growing crime in the next 50 years as electronics commerce and communication only increases. Oppurtunities for such crimes are as specatular and as fast growing as the Internet. Without access to a National ID verification system, a person will have less protection, more violation of privacy, and therefore less liberties. Those who fear change are welcome to not take advantage of such a system. But those who fear change are admonished that their fears are not justification to deny others who require a National ID verification and protection system.

This need to force fears upon all others sounds so much like the religious right extremists who would force their beliefs, fears, religion, and morality on all others. You don't like a National ID system - then don't participate. But don't force your fears - like religious zealots - on everyone else. If there is a problem with a National ID verification and protection system, then first provide a logical reason for the problem. So far, only emotional fears of a big, evil, snarling government are provided. Government might find out what my face looks like. Oh nooooo, my rights have been violated.....

Ok look, this is a waste of item unless you define its purpose.
What EXACTLY would a national ID be used for. Where would it have to be shown?

If it is as broad as SSNs then it clearly is effectively mandatory, so don't try and say I’m impinging on your right to a false sense of security. You didn't address the issue of counterfeiting NationalIDs, which means you are no better of in a hopeless attempt to concrete your 'good name' than before except you've given the government another, strong tool with which to analyze your every move.

How much have our liberties been restricted? You cannot even cash a corporate payroll check at many banks unless you have sufficient funds to cover that check. More liberties lost because identity theft is so common.

My 'liberty' to cash a cheque I’d say came well, well after my liberty to move and operate in society without having every action recorded on one big database.

that person may be criminal. Honest people do not fear systems that protect them.

Oh now that's a classic line reminds me of "when encryption is illegal, only criminals will have encryption" or to quote Brave New World "what would you ever want to do in private??" To argue that you only want privacy if you have something to hide is straight out of Brave New World - you're scaring me here seriously it’s just so surreal to hear someone using those arguments in real life! Do you not with to have any privacy at all? Would you mind if the government put cameras in every room of your house - after all only criminals have anything to hide...

You seem to have forgotten the idea of privacy, you seem to be desperate to sacrifice every right you have in order to feel that little bit more secure - who cares if I live in a glass box nude as long as I feel secure....eh?

Embarrassingly obvious is that a verification system is not compromised by the non-participant. Why then would one claim an NID system could not work without mandatory participation? The erroneous claim must be made to justify the original fear. It is fear, only, of a National ID verification system that is the only reason to deny others those benefits.

Doesn't that depend on the PURPOSE of the system, what would you say that is? To purely protect your good name? You truly believe that is THE only use for it? That tracking evilevil terrorist type people (reminds me of Goldstein really) hasn’t crossed the innocent minds of whose brainchild this system is?

Reality please.

So - since the only 'liberty' that matters to you is the one of your good name, i think we can safely wipe off most of the constitution becasue hey - the government is a totally trustworth organisation that wil endevour, if it was jsut given the legal muscle to put all its effort into protecting your good name.

Originally posted by tw


Using the logic as I understand it, you would have EasyPass banned because government could (and openly does) track you? Doesn't matter that you can choose not to be in the EasyPass system.

Unless, of course, you want to use EZPass-only exits or roads. Which there may be more and more of in the future. Not really much of a danger of it becoming universal with EZPass, because people hate toll roads so much (can you see Philadelphians sitting still for tolls on the Schuylkill Expressway?). But with the national ID, there is every danger that the necessity of having one would become near-universal; that is the very point of the national ID card.

any a point tw keeps hiding behind, sure is not mandatory. The same way an SSN is, but anyone who argues so is merely blowing smoke.

No one has come up with a valid reason to have a NID . What is being advocated is that we give up freedoms that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. I said it before and I will say it again if a NID is allowed to be put in place we the people are no longer WE THE PEOPLE. This is a very important point to remember. And as far as making one valid argument for not having a NID, our freedom.

*sigh*

As I said before, it seems like we just keep rehashing the same points. Maybe it's just time that we all agree to disagree.

Unless someone has something new to say?

Lisa, you are correct. This is becoming a rehash of the same arguments.

Originally posted by wwarner11
No one has come up with a valid reason to have a NID .

The problem with being a NY Times reader is that Daily News readers cannot read beyond the first paragraph. Provided were a handful of examples why an NID is required.

Next Madi Gras, I will put your name on my IDs, smash storefronts, get arrested, use your name, and disappear. Last time, they were released because they could provide the best ID we currently have - a picture driver's license. What will you say when the cops appear at your door with a bench warrant for your arrest? That we don't need no stinking NID system? That alone is one reason. But as Lisa said, we are rehashing what has already been posted. I recommend you first read like a NY Times reader. There are three columns of posts containing numerous reasons for an National ID verfication and protection system.

Sometimes I just think I was talking to myself. However Liza - thank you for originally bringing this topic up in a previous post. Since then I did a lot of reading and asking questions from people who most need the NID. What I discovered was a current system at greater threat than I originally would have thought. There is one curious pattern. Those who most need an NID are those who earn substancially more money, are more often the pillars of economic America, and who have substancial economic activity. How many people do you know whose Visa bill is larger than their mortgage (their mortgage includes a $20K per year property tax) and who pay off that bill every month? These people don't fear EasyPass nor the NID, but really require the NID as defined by those two Strategic Objective points.

tw, get real, the NY Times is not the only publication from which to get your information. It is a very liberal newspaper which will favor the left. Nothing wrong with that,however you should expand your horizons and read other views, more to the point, papers that have a different view then yours. But your liberal and you feel ok with All The News Fit To Print. Good luck.

waiting for an answer...

This Is an interesting practical example of arguements agains't a naional ID system (stolen off lsashdot)

heh.

this comment is seriously asked in a good nature, so don't take offense :)

jag, how do you manage to make so many typos? :) you make some of the weirdest damn typos too... maybe you've covered this before... "Professional Typoist"... but yeah... man, you've created probably 70 new words just from when i started reading :)

Originally posted by jaguar
This Is an interesting practical example of arguements agains't a naional ID system (stolen off lsashdot)

The example only demonstrates what would happen when ID verification is distributed to so many, insecure, ID verification agencies. Currently, the driver's license is not a secure database and never was intended. We don't have a identification database anywhere that is secure or reliable - especially when a driver's license is considered the best form of ID. This example only demonstrates how porous the current ID verification system is - in part because it was not designed nor intended to be be an ID verification system nor an ID protection system.

Currently, in a nation where ID theft is most profitable, we have no National ID verification system nor any ID protection system. Currently, the nation that most requires such a system is the United States. Currently that system is often compromised (even by college kids) simply by counterfeiting a birth certificate in order to attack that person. Currently, that victim has no defense unless he accidentally stumbles upon the crime or is prosecuted for something he did not do. Currently the only system we count on to verify a person's identity has also been sold to private mailing lists. Currently, we have no ID verification and protection system as demonstrated by a cited article entitled "Alleged ID Theft Could Affect Thousands In Oregon".

tw - i'm still waiting for an answer to the other post..

But surely teh smae weaknesses that plague something liek a licence system would no dissipear in a naitonal ID system - its jsut another database after all, overall its MORE profitable to sell.

No offense taken - i get asked alot *laughz. Don't ask me! I've never had any real typing lessons, jsut learnt as i go along (stil look at the keyboard if i want to be slightly readable. I guess things like "ot""teh""liek" etc are simply because my fingers reach that key first. Or hit the key next to it. SOme are jsut plain *wierd* One day ill learn to type....and save myself hours debugging stuff i write coz i missspelt something.

Originally posted by jaguar
But surely teh smae weaknesses that plague something liek a licence system would no dissipear in a naitonal ID system - its jsut another database after all, overall its MORE profitable to sell.

The license system is not a secure system. It is an open system accessed by any cop any time no matter the circumstances. Only recently have some jurisdictions put more restrictions on access to that database. But still all data is available for any authorized person anywhere in the nation - even now in most every cop car.

A National ID system however must be a secure database, relatively, because of its function. Not any jurisdiction, or anyone else for that matter, would have access to an NID database - since such access would compromise the purpose of such a system. Unlike driver's licenses, access by authorities should require your cooperation.

Currently any cop anywhere in the nation can access all information on your driver's license because, unlike a National ID, the database is for access by everyone in law enforcement. However a National ID verification and protection system is intended to let you prove who you is to anyone (not just a cop) AND to verify that others have not 'counterfeited' or stolen your identity.

A driver's license database and a National ID database have different security because they have different purposes. Poor security on driver's license databases is what makes this 'so called' reliable identity system so unreliable.

Currently the many who require a National ID have no viable alternative because a driver's license security is not intended to make a secure Identity system. Currently the crime of identity theft is serious and will grow like the Internet because we have no secure identity protection and verification system.

As for that other question, I don't know what it was.

Currently any cop anywhere in the nation can access all information on your driver's license because, unlike a National ID, the database is for access by everyone in law enforcement. However a National ID verification and protection system is intended to let you prove who you is to anyone (not just a cop) AND to verify that others have not 'counterfeited' or stolen your identity.

..........Explain how this stops me stealing you national ID card and fucking you as badly at a national level as i could at a state level with a DriverID?

OR conterfit it? Mabyeits harder tosteal your detaisl but hte card is equally vunerable.

"are" not "is"

Originally posted by jaguar
..........Explain how this stops me stealing you national ID card and fucking you as badly at a national level as i could at a state level with a DriverID?

OR conterfit it? Mabyeits harder tosteal your detaisl but hte card is equally vunerable.

I guess what is massively obvious really isn't. But then friends who have so much to lose surprise me as to what they might do to protect their name and the excess costs incurred to execute that protection. IOW maybe I see now what so many here have not yet understood.

First examine a driver's license.

1) It is considered the most reliable identification verification method available even though it was never designed for that purpose. It can be counterfeited even by a college kid with some cash - as a President's daugther even proved. (BTW, what she did was a violation of a MD girl's liberties, security, and privacy. But according to Federal law, that MD has no protection from the identity theft. The MD girl cannot even sue the Bush daughter if an arrest warrant was falsely issued in TX - because like all of us, identity theft is not a crime.)

2) What proves that a license is authentic? A separate database. That separate database is only helpful to law enforcement while also being woefully and pathetically not reliable. In short, that database cannot immediately prove, even to a cop, that you really are who you say you are.

3) Identification data is easily obtained by anyone with access to just one shady cop. It is that much easier for another to counterfeit your ID or to sell your identification.

4) When you must prove who you are most - in situations that don't involve law enforcement - the license is basically useless without a confirmation database. There is no confirmation database, none planned, and according to the many here will never exist.


A National ID card:
1) It is unique only to you in that, unlike the purpose of a license, it should only identify you - no one else - using an identification system unique to you and maybe even unique to personal knowledge.

2) The card's authenticity can be immediately verified to a master database meaning that a counterfeit card is not possible. BTW, this part of the technology is so old that it was even used to protect commerical satellites.

3) Attempts to counterfeit the card or to use a duplicate, as even in that satellite security system, causes immediate denial of verification AND notifies authorities immediately of those attempts. This security is absolutely necessary for ID protection and cannot exist in a system of many independent databases.

4) Being in a master database, those features that make you unique cannot be used by anyone else without creating more security flags.

5) Unlike other identication methods, those features that make you unique - the information - must be secure - cannot be obtained from the database by others. That not only includes unique information but may also include which security features you chose to use - simply adding additional layers of security. Remember a National ID verification and protection system is something unique and never before existed in the world - because its purpose is to serve you.

Tell me of any identification that does these things. This is the framework of security that an individual requires to protect his ID. As we continue changing from an industrial based society to an information society - IOW as we continue down the innovation highway - a driver's license will never suffice. Driver's licenses are already a compromised identification system - in part because they were never intended for such functions.

In an information society, without ID verification and protection, we are all sitting ducks just waiting for a criminal to harvest our good names. As society becomes more information dominated, a need for ID verification and protection increases.

Now where in this system is there a threat to citizen's liberties, security, or privacy. The system works for the individual - not for any big corporation, big government, big crime family, etc. We don't have any identification system that works for the citizen - only systems that work for government, big business, and everyone else. What do you have to verify who you are and to protect your ID? Currently nothing. Zero. Zilch. Knot. Nada. Currently threats to your privacy, security, liberties, and rights increase every year, probably exponentially, and without any solution in sight.

So why are those threats not obvious? And why does anyone think a reliable ID verification system currently exists?

Now where in this system is there a threat to citizen's liberties, security, or privacy. The system works for the individual - not for any big corporation, big government, big crime family, etc. We don't have any identification system that works for the citizen - only systems that work for government, big business, and everyone else. What do you have to verify who you are and to protect your ID? Currently nothing. Zero. Zilch. Knot. Nada. Currently threats to your privacy, security, liberties, and rights increase every year, probably exponentially, and without any solution in sight.

I lvoe it. Talk about doublethink. So who WIL lhave access to this database becuase you seem to be vaguely pointing that law enforcement won't. INtersting, not what I heard. If it is the case, then who does? A bunch of sysadmins and noone else? If that is not the case re the arguements i've previously stated, itsmerely selling out all vague notions of the slighest with of privicy for a system that has questionable purpose.

2) The card's authenticity can be immediately verified to a master database meaning that a counterfeit card is not possible. BTW, this part of the technology is so old that it was even used to protect commerical satellites.

So you establish some massive infrastructure to authenticatre cards - again'st what? The bovious is some unique id point on the card, good luck finding a tech that can't be cracked. What stops someone doing what they do with creditcards now, hack up the reader a bit and copy the data off the card - then onto a new card, how can the database tell the differnece unless both are verified at the same time or a very different lcoations. So while it would be possible to catch someone, it would probably take a little time and data analysis with the person involved. Makes it all a bit harder but not impossible. SO in exchange for a little more security your comprimising your every action to someone - brilliant.

Imagine this:

A National ID card has a thumbprint and your signature. To use it, you sign, and your thumbprint is taken on a digital scanner. This information is compared with what's on the card. If the thumbprint is the same and the signature matches, a hash of the information on the card is sent back to the big NID database, which either says back "yep, this card is valid" or "nope, it's not." Then, access is granted. Of course, if either of the checkpoints failed at first, access would be denied, as it would if the NID database returned a "nay".

They'd also have pictures on them, I'm sure.

Not that I'm arguing for/against a National ID card. But I can see how they could be, properly implemented, a very strong safeguard against identity theft.

Not that I'm arguing for/against a National ID card. But I can see how they could be, properly implemented, a very strong safeguard against identity theft.

And the reason that this sort of thing could NOT be done with driver's licences or something similar on a local level is what?

IOW, I think all the things being asked for could be accomplished without FEDERALIZING it.

Originally posted by lisa


And the reason that this sort of thing could NOT be done with driver's licences or something similar on a local level is what?

IOW, I think all the things being asked for could be accomplished without FEDERALIZING it.

I think that Barney the purple dinosaur could do it.

Doesn't mean he could.

IOW, please back up your assertion with some suggestion of *how* we might accomplish that.

Ok - mabye it could, not that a smart enough hacker coun't crack it one way or the other, particuarly bioid is still in its infancy. Either way the arguements again'st it are as stong as ever - see abouta apge back for the long post that tw oddly chose to ignore..

I read it. I read everything in this thread.

Fact of the matter is, without it being defined, people can't attack it. It's like me having "a thing" and you saying "your thing sucks". Your argument is baseless simply because you lack the facts to back it up. You lack something to attack. It's a non-argument right now. "Properly implemented, it can work." "No, it can't."

It hasn't been defined. It's been given a name, and that's it.

Let's wait and see what the hell they come up with. And then we can support it or shoot it down.

You can guess the structure and nature with which it will operate to a certain point. Objectives aren't that hard to ascertain. The fact that they haven't is worrying in itself.

Not really. The fact that they haven't could be an indicator that they're taking due time in designing a system to make sure there aren't many kinks to work out.

Anything that's worth doing is worth doing slowly.

and transparantly?

I'm assuming that you're referring to the fact that we're not hearing much about it.

Yes, obviously they're going to draw up a plan and work on their argument for a little bit before it's presented to the public. Isn't that what you would do if you had something to pitch? Would you tip your hand right away, or come up with a plan?

Tony -

I think you should make a forum where Jag and I disagree over various things and just debate each other. He and I seem to do that everywhere - why not pull it all together? :)

Okay. I have real work I need to get done now. Will post after playing Amped when I get home. Whoo.

*laughz
It'd make life slightly easier - no more rooting though every thred trying to find the last debate.

Dham i know - i'm nitpicking. I was just expecting them te take more advantage fo the terrorist paranoia and move fast.

Originally posted by lisa
And the reason that this sort of thing could NOT be done with driver's licences or something similar on a local level is what?

Lets say your ID is registered in the CA database. I steal enough of your identity to register as you in the PA database. I procede to use your credit rating, your good name in every national pizza chain, and obtain credit cards on your identification. All because you had no Identification protection. To have protection, you would have to register in every state. If the ID verfication system is localized, then you have ID verification but no ID protection whatso ever.

As for a driver's license system - it is not designed for personal identification AND it is designed for universal, insecure access by law enforcement - nobody else. A driver's license system is not to serve you - it is to serve law enforcement. A National ID system is designed to serve and protect you - which, BTW, is another reason why it will never be a threat to your privacy and why it is optional.


Another does not understand why counterfeit IDs could not be used. The technology dates back to the earliest days of encryption. When ID A interfaces with the master system, both share an encrypted common number. When counterfeit ID B is used, then the common number does not match - rejection. If the criminal is resourceful, then ID A no longer matches the database number - the Identification protection system has kicked in.

Part of my problem - I assumed this was obvious. But then I also assume the rudimetary concepts of PGP are fully understood by all here. That assumption apparently also may not be correct.


There is the silly idea that any system can be cracked, therefore no such security system should be constructed. This is twisted logic. But we don't even have the rudimentary system, or any plans for one We should be addressing the problem that already exists today so that a basic National ID verification system exists in 10 years - and so that a National ID verfication and more functional protection system exists in 20 years. But criminal types and those who fear all law enforcement will call that unfair? Yes, they would deny others access to a system that honest people require - obviously.

But alas, it takes a WTC collapse and anthrax deaths to suddenly discover that no protection exists. Governments (except those like NYC) had no response systems to terrorist attacks nor biological attack information. Sound like the FAA's graveyard mentality? Notice so many that still claim ID theft just does not exist and never will?


A silly fear that law enforcement might not get a court order or your permission to access National ID information. So what. Nothing exists in that database that threatens anyone's privacy. But if you are so criminal as to fear law enforcement - then don't use the system. You have that option. No problem.

The fear of law enforcement illegally accessing data in a National ID system is the same as a fear of law enforcement accessing the data in any local system - identification, credit card, driver's license, IRS, court records, telephone, Social Security, SMTP and POP3, etc. Those other databases contain massively more information that is a threat to your privacy and are not designed to be as secure. A National ID system contains no threat to your privacy or security - especially if you don't use it. But alas, fear of new or innovative persist. Just another example of how too many fear innovation (the anti-innovtive also still use the long obsoleted Windows 9x/ME and FATxx disk filesystems).

If you fear a National ID system, then do not use; absolutely stay away from the Internet.

If you are an extremist, then fear a National ID system because extremists must deny others access to anything that extremists fear. Extremists fear to let anyone else use a system that they would fear to use. Straw man: fear of anything that you don't have to use.

Just one question:

If the majority doesn't want it, how can detractors be called "extremists"?

Originally posted by Undertoad
If the majority doesn't want it, how can detractors be called "extremists"?

Do they not want it or have they been subverted by a lack of knowledge combined with hype and fear of extremist sound bytes.

Undertoad's question is well stated. However I find it irrelevant. Emotional fear associated with no knowledge of what a National ID really is demonstrates how quickly people fear before they first have knowledge.

It reminds me of Leno interviews where they ask something like, "Do you support the elimination of the Sacrospicas in Endenouw". People were strongly opposed. One problem. There was no Sacrospicas nor a place called Endenouw. For all they knew, Sacrospicas was a disease worse than the black plague. But emotional is how most make decisions - and opposed the elimination.

There is no effort to address the National ID system. It will take the equivalent of a WTC collapse to address the problem because, as we demonstrated, the intolerant and fearful entertain their fears before they engage logical thought.

Notice the so many who had no idea how an ID system would work, what its objective were, and yet were convinced it would threaten their rights and privacy. Notice the many who could provide zero reasons why such a system would be made mandatory but instead entertained their fears, as proof, that a National ID system would be mandatory.

Notice who opposed the concept without having the slightest idea what the system was. OK, if they first understood the system, and had fears, then yes - that could be a logical thought. But please review this thread to identify who is so driven by their fears (instead of logic) as to fear a system without even knowing what the system did, or how it worked. "Its government, therefore it must be evil" is illogical and emotional thinking.

If you choose not to use the system, then it clearly was no threat to your privacy. And yet look at who still feared it anyway. It again begs the question - do you think using a head on your shoulders or the one located between your legs? Do you think logically or do your emotions determine your actions?

No, a National ID system is not a possiblity because too many still think like a hormone crazed teen-ager or have strong opinions to a fictional Leno street poll. Too many people simply fear change. Too many court their fears rather than try to push out the envelope, boldly go where no man has gone before, and use logical thinking. A National ID system is not even being planned as best I can tell making the Undertoad question, in this case, irrelevant.

What *was* irrelavent was your analergy. Whatever its final form the National ID card is nowhere near as ambigious as a couple of random names. WHile its true purpose is quesitonable and every detail still hidden then of course peopel will fear and question it. Its a bit liek haivng a big black shape flying overhead and you don't know whether its an airliner or a B52 with a tacticial nuke on board.

And you still havne't rebutted the post i made about 3 pagse ago which i'm now going to lay to rest out of frustration.

jaggy poo -

I think that the whole "opt-in" thing would go a long way to helping people accept it. Personally, from tw's assertions, I can see an opt-in National ID card as being a good thing. Now, how it is implemented will have a lot to do with whether or not it's widely accepted.

As far as people fearing it - there are those that fear free speech. Regardless, the latest polls I've seen still show people having pretty strong support for a strengthened national ID system. So, we'll see.

SSNs are opt-in too, how optional itis depends on the width and bredth of the system, if its needed everyhwere like an SSn its not very optional is it.

Of course there is support right now, it'll make those evil terrorists go away won't it?

Well, that's a problem. Of course it won't. But tw hasn't really argued for a NID card based on terrorism and its deterrence/prevention - just for identity protection.

SSN really isn't optional. As far as I can remember, I never opted in for one. If you live in the country, you have either that or a tax payer ID, pretty much.

In a sense its irrispective whats its used for - what it does is still the same. Optional - if it truely wsas - fine. but i doubt it would be for long if at all (in reality, not in legalese), i can't beleivel its being pushed so soon after the terrorist attacks etc for the government to be purely thinking - we need a new way to protect the "good name" of our citizens!

I've met people who believe that SSN is optional (probably), that driver's licenses are unconstitutional (probably not)... even people who believe that the federal income tax is entirely voluntary (definitely not). Some of these people have completely opted out of the system. Once in a while the system coughs one of 'em up and prosecutes the hell out of them to try to make a point.

From what I've seen, they work the system in their various ways, and mostly stay afloat by playing the bureaucracy against itself.

Since (in the response to lisa's comment tw continues to use agruements while refusing to respond to my rebuttles ill ignore those on the basis they are already null and void but...

Another does not understand why counterfeit IDs could not be used. The technology dates back to the earliest days of encryption. When ID A interfaces with the master system, both share an encrypted common number. When counterfeit ID B is used, then the common number does not match - rejection. If the criminal is resourceful, then ID A no longer matches the database number - the Identification protection system has kicked in.

An unhackable system? Intersting, i've never heard anyone claiming anyhting is truely unhackable, merely harder. If this is such a good point why not mention it some time instead of such a roundabout way of rebutitng it. It seems your more interested in preaching than debating on a logical and through level. If data, any data is stored on the card and the card is checked ona machine modified to copy the data off the card (as is often does with CCs) i fail to see how the card is still secure.

Part of my problem - I assumed this was obvious. But then I also assume the rudimetary concepts of PGP are fully understood by all here. That assumption apparently also may not be correct.

Patronising again, aiaiai.

A silly fear that law enforcement might not get a court order or your permission to access National ID information. So what. Nothing exists in that database that threatens anyone's privacy. But if you are so criminal as to fear law enforcement - then don't use the system. You have that option. No problem.

This one iv'e covered before but this variant of its goes further so ill cover again. Considering what will be on the card or in the database behind it a "silly fear" this is not, i'd consider all my personal details, movement records, DNA? Fingerprint? Retina scan? and who knwos what else personal data, particulary records about my movements, purchases, etc extremely personal. If i was to stalk you it would be an invasion of privicy surely? This is the smae thing, the only difference is its remote. And the records permanant.

As for the scary "waht woudl you ever want to do in private" and "only criminals who have somehting to hide want privicy" i find truely scary, tw seems to have inadvertintly decided to live in a Brave New World indeed. For anyone who has not read the book it really is up there with 1984. Optional? How optional? Either you are relying on legalese or are making large assumptions with no factual base.

The fear of law enforcement illegally accessing data in a National ID system is the same as a fear of law enforcement accessing the data in any local system - identification, credit card, driver's license, IRS, court records, telephone, Social Security, SMTP and POP3, etc. Those other databases contain massively more information that is a threat to your privacy and are not designed to be as secure.

Most of which require warrants which the national ID you've decided will not. Together they contain more infomation, but they are distrubuted all voer the place to differnet authorities some of which will allow that data to be removed anyway.

If you are an extremist, then fear a National ID system because extremists must deny others access to anything that extremists fear. Extremists fear to let anyone else use a system that they would fear to use. Straw man: fear of anything that you don't have to use.

Or on the flipside - If you don't agree with us completely and entirely, you are an extremist, if you want your privicy you are some kind of extremeist, if you arne't liek us you are a terrorist and must be destoryed.

If you fear a National ID system, then do not use; absolutely stay away from the Internet.

I spose you have a point. If you disregarded proxies, firewalls, ip spoofers, temporoay webmail accounts, e-mail encryption and public access points.

Just another example of how too many fear innovation (the anti-innovtive also still use the long obsoleted Windows 9x/ME and FATxx disk filesystems).

Irrelavent as it is many sitl luse 98 beacuse well...I'ts better for games. And i keep my 2k partitiona fat because NTFS is harder to recover if something goes wrong. Seems to run slower too.

The question raises its ugly heard - will i actualy get a response or will i get the same silence of someone sitting up on high.

Barak - all interesting, legal action? Its that legally possible anyway? As for seeming to bait people myself i'm merely trying to raise a reply to rebuttles i put up, instead i jsut hear the smae agruements again. Least maggieL responds =)

Originally posted by Undertoad
I've met people who believe that SSN is optional (probably), that driver's licenses are unconstitutional (probably not)... even people who believe that the federal income tax is entirely voluntary (definitely not). Some of these people have completely opted out of the system. Once in a while the system coughs one of 'em up and prosecutes the hell out of them to try to make a point.

From what I've seen, they work the system in their various ways, and mostly stay afloat by playing the bureaucracy against itself.

Mostly they're also too dirt poor for the system to bother with. After all, the system doesn't really care if you drive around without a driver's license (ask the Phila city council), but they do care if you don't pay your taxes... but not if your total income is near zero and the sum total of your property is one broken-down 1973 pickup truck.

Mostly. But I've known a few libs who took things to an extreme, and heard about many more. Including one gent who worked for Unisys and actually sued them to force them to stop using the SSN he renounced, and then to stop withholding his pay. I believe he was successful all around; I haven't heard of him being carted off to jail, and I'm on the periphery of some of the same circles he is, so I think I would have heard about it.

Five years ago at least, the thinking was that while US citizens are required to pay taxes, the official definition of "US citizen" includes only the federally-controlled zones such as US Virgin Islands. People in the states were actually state citizens not US citizens, and therefore under the letter of the law they are not required to file. Some have also played with the legal definitions of "income", "wages" etc.

Their thinking also included the concept that the people at the top have known this all along, and that to correct this "situation" would require the closing of some rather large constitutional loopholes. The IRS itself refers to the system as one of "voluntary compliance" which they have taken to believe has serious legal implications in their favor.

The biggest flaw in all this is that judges don't act within the letter of the law. It's not enough to whip out your Black's and explain that the official legal definition of "citizen" is something different than what 99.9999% of the population believes, and that the entire system depends upon. The judge can rule however s/he likes. It's not like a logical/rational system where if you find the flaw you topple the entire hypothesis. There are arguments for and arguments against, and most judges will act politically, follow precedence, etc.

Check out this dude who believes that the mere fact they haven't gotten him for 10 years means that he must be onto something.

I like having nice interstate highways to drive on (or let Jenni drive me on). I like having the armed forces to protect the citizens of this country. I like having police to respond to domestic disturbances, and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that Medicare will be paying for my mother's medical expenses relatively soon. I think I'll keep paying taxes.

As for those that don't... get the fuck out. Thank you very much.

One reason I lean libertarian is that I do pay all my taxes and follow all the stupid laws. Unlike Gov. George Pataki, whose mother is reportedly now a ward of the state,I believe, if at all possible, we should pay our own medical bills and not use our fellow tax-payers to protect an inheiritance that some folks feel entitled to. I have a "friend" whose grandmother was stripped of her assetts and put on the dole so he could buy a lakehouse and blow a wad in the stock market while his sister lives off her inheiritance in the islands. I' like them and the rest of the entitlement addicted upper-class to get the f*ck out.

Well, I don't know where the line gets drawn between living civilly under rule of law and obeying even the laws that don't seem right, and fighting the system by not obeying those laws.

That is a very tough call. I guess when the individual reaches his/her breaking point depends on circumstance. A guy whose wife I knew in school is major Democrat locally and really enjoys a political scrap. He found out I was a member of the LPPA so he was ready to get on me for ducking taxes etc... and was speechless when he found out how anal I am about being law abiding. I figure many Democrats are like ex-Pres Clinton. They support new laws with good intentions but reserve the right to ignore any that have negative impact on them particularly. I'd probably break somewhere on the erosion of property rights, although I did spend a pile on a questionable state mandated septic system when better cheaper systems exist. I do live in a township with few ordinances relating to building and farming so I'm not confronted by this stuff daily.

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius


Point1... Yes there already is a unique identifier (sort of) - usually a SSN. Sometimes they use a UID of their own making. A SSN is unique to every living 'registered' American Citizen; it is supposedly recycled to the living from the dead. It is 'voluntary'. It should not be used to concatinate information, but was a convenient choice for many of these companies (and government organizations) that collect the information. And Yes, people have been defrauded because of the commity of the SSN's use. The act of defrauding occured by criminal individuals or groups. There are laws that attempt to prevent large companies from abusing that information. Sometime organizations choose to violate these laws anyway and they do get hammered for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "UID of their own making", but you are right in that it is supposedly voluntary. Most people, however, do not get that choice: their parents register them for a SSN without their consent (not that you can consent when you're a minor).

One nit: SSNs are not recycled from the dead to the living: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_lva=&p_refno=000411-000062

Originally posted by lisa

I'll end MY rant with one of my favorite quotes:

"People who are willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security will receive neither" - B. Franklin

Arrrgggggggh. That's one of my favorite quotes too, at least when BF isn't misquoted:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

The problem with the misquoting is that it covers too much. For example, I give up freedom every time I get in my car and drive the speed limit. The security that I get in exchange is that nobody else (for the most part) is driving whatever speed they want. However, that is not an essential liberty, nor is the safety temporary.

When do the liberties become essential and the security temporary? That gets a little fuzzy.

-bb

This is the first time I have posted to this topic...probably because I don't really have a strong opinion on this. But, for what it's worth:

--I see nothing wrong with a national ID, depending on what it consists of. I don't think it compromises my freedom.

--The government probably already knows what I'm doing right now.

--"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."--unknown

--My (soon to be former) employer is getting ready to implement palm scans in order to gain access to work areas. Why this is needed for an insurance call center...no clue.

--I do worry about the whole DNA thing. I fear it would be abused as it was in the movie "Gattaga."

I think I'm going to request a copy of my FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act. I'm curious to see what it says.

Heh. Like they wouldn't take out the things they didn't want you to know that they knew. :) Or at least, they would, if you had anything in there...

It's "Gattaca", btw, in case anyone wants to look it up on IMDb or whatever. And yeah, that would be pretty scary.

bluebomber - good points. I tried to get the quote as accurate as I could find it when I reposted. At least, I remember me doing that. :) But you're right, and it's a question I ask myself (and others) a lot - where do you draw that line? How can you call one thing "essential" and not another? Doesn't this differ from person to person?

Originally posted by dhamsaic
It's "Gattaca", btw, in case anyone wants to look it up on IMDb or whatever. And yeah, that would be pretty scary.

Yeah, I always thought the name of that movie was cute. I dunno if most people figured it out or not, but it took me about 45 minutes into the film to realize why they named it that.

At the risk of seeming condecending, for those who don't know, the name consits of ONLY the four letters that repesent constituents of the genetic code (forgive misspellings):

G - Guanine
A - Adinine
C - Cytocine
T - Thyamine

I apoologize if this is OT. I just found it clever enough that I had to mention it. :)

Neat. I hadn't realized that.

Here's an IMDb link - http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119177

Sure enough, the first thing on the "Trivia" page is that bit... :)

Great movie, even if I didn't figure out the title. DULP!

Heh. Being a movie buff, I wouldn't say it was great - but I'd give it something like "pretty good. Definitely enjoyable. Will probably buy the DVD if it hits $15 or less." :)

I'd honestly probably give it 3 outta 4. But now we're getting way off topic - this is the NID card thread, after all. We need to start a "Movies" forum or thread somewhere and discuss 'em. That'd be cool. :)

How bout "Entertainment"?

Yeah yeah, I know. But what to call it? "Movies"? Then what do we write in there? Notable movies we've seen? I already tried this with "favorite movies" and it got a couple responses but that was it. Can we trust it to be updated enough? I dunno :)

When's IotD gonna be up? :)

...and if we talk about GATTACA on the entertainment section/thread, we're likely to get into a discussion about how this reminds us of the National ID idea and how we feel about that! :)

Just reminds me of the proverbial "I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out" joke. Not that I'd tell one that bad, or anything. :)

Never heard it. Please enlighten.

As for a Movies thread, I'd more enjoy just reading a person's views on a single movie. Maybe make a post, each one being about a single movie. Your thoughts on it, etc. I think it'd be neat. Firstly, because I enjoy movies. Secondly, because I enjoy seeing what people think and feel. I think we definitely need to get a "movies" thread started - I'm just not sure exactly -how- it should be started.

It's more up to us to stay on topic, and start a new thread if we want to discuss something off-topic. And that's something we oughta just get in the habit of doing, if just for the sake of the newbies.

I'll get right on top of that, G-man. :)

Back on topic - uh. Like. National ID card. Uh. Or something.

Know what else? We need a "Joke of the Day" area. Where someone posts something funny every day. That'd be cool. :)

*slaps dham* very offtopic
should be under
cellar comments and suggestions | joke of the day?

Well, I'd say that the concept of a national ID system that won't be abused becuase it's unhackable qualifies as a pretty good joke of the day. :)

(Ooooo... I can just forsee the flames that this will provoke)

You're one of those people who pour kero on smouldering fires aren't you ;)
Just don't post a full rebuttal of anyhting - you'll never get a response ;)

Originally posted by jaguar
Just don't post a full rebuttal of anyhting - you'll never get a response ;)

Boy, can I appreciate that:

Originally posted by tw on 1 Dec 2001 at 8:02PM
As for that other question, I don't know what it was.

I'm still waiting, for two weeks, for jaguar to post the question he says was never answered.

9 posts down
page 3

Originally posted by Undertoad
It's more up to us to stay on topic, and start a new thread if we want to discuss something off-topic. And that's something we oughta just get in the habit of doing, if just for the sake of the newbies.

The whole area of quoting, thread-spawning and cross-reference on th ecurrent incarnation of the Cellar is ripe for further development. It's a PITA to do an ordinary interlinear quote-and-reposte such as was common in the heyday of the Cellar a-la-Waffle. And with all the Cellar content server based, a cross-reference to another post or thread should be an easy thing to do...at *least* as easy as a reference to a page at external site. Poor Jag is reduced to "nine posts down on page three". That sux.

So now I'm going to spawn this thread to the "Cellar comments" forum....let's see how hard that is....

Well, I I spawned a new thread, and was able to link it from here. But I couldn't backlink to this specific post, even though I know the postid. So we have enough granularity to point to another thread, but not to a specific post.

Ut could you mod the sitecode enoug hto add a flag type thing to the postid of each post?
as in you link ot the post http://www.cellar.org/XXX#13243

Well, now we're say into the esoteric and way off topic. But one might try putting

showthread.php?postid=XXX#postXXX

...on the end of cellar.org to see whether that gets one directly to a specific post.

I don't know for sure that this is the right format though.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Well, now we're say into the esoteric and way off topic.

Hey, I *started* a new thread for this topic. You can lead a force to order but you can't make it think. That's one problem with thread spawning; posters are afraid of losing their audience when spawning a new thread.

Originally posted by Undertoad

I don't know for sure that this is the right format though.

It is. It works. So the semantics of that would be display the thread containing postXXX and position the browser to that post.

Hadn't realized there were post-level anchor tags....very cool.

that's the word i was looking for
anchors
already there, schweet =)

WASHINGTON - The government is working with the states to develop a new generation of drivers' licenses that could be checked anywhere and would contain electronically stored information such as fingerprints for the country's 184 million licensed drivers.

From Here.

Interesting, no?

he he

http://www.whitehouse.org/homeland/tattoo.asp

It all comes down to one thing... I have rights... the government does not.
End of story.
It is not my responsibility to keep a record of who I am for them.
If they think I may have done something, as always, they have a job to do.
As always....
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Undertoad wrote:

I've met people who believe that SSN is optional (probably), that driver's licenses are unconstitutional (probably not)... even people who believe that the federal income tax is entirely voluntary (definitely not). Some of these people have completely opted out of the system. Once in a while the system coughs one of 'em up and prosecutes the hell out of them to try to make a point.

From what I've seen, they work the system in their various ways, and mostly stay afloat by playing the bureaucracy against itself.

If you live in one of the Provinces, Commonwealths or other "States" that are not states, legally, you do not have to pay federal tax.
If you do not drive, you do not have to carry ID.
If you do not work, you do not have to have an SS#.
All perfectly legal.
They don't like it because bureaucrats and cops are control freaks and anything they can't control scares them, but legal.
People should not fear their government, the government should fear the people. If you don't like that in the job... don't do it.

rkzenrage wrote:

If you live in one of the Provinces, Commonwealths or other "States" that are not states, legally, you do not have to pay federal tax.

Hello from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Whomever told you that was repeating a rumor. People have gone to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for using that logic.

If you do not work, you do not have to have an SS#.

If you have taxable income. Or if you want to do business with any of the organizations, mostly financial, that require it nowadays.

Correct, legal "taxable income".
As for your first statement... the feds break Constitutional law all the time.

RFID Blocking Wallet :tinfoil:

I work for the government. Most that do, except for the Executive Branch, actually do care about privacy and liberty.

I just can't bring myself to think that National ID would not be abused, somehow, someway. Otherwise, I would think it would make sense; but not now.

It was promised at one time that social security #'s would never be used for identification. Of course we all know how that worked out.

Once you have something like SS#'s or national ID cards it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of it.

Jebediah wrote:

It was promised at one time that social security #'s would never be used for identification. Of course we all know how that worked out.

Once you have something like SS#'s or national ID cards it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of it.

First, it was only verbally stated that SS# would not be used for ID. One prerequisite of a national ID program is that it is only to serve the person - not serve government. Having not created such a program, then government is slowly forcing ID programs on us - that are only to serve government. Latest legislation now requires picture ID and now defines what government wants on your 'papers'. These restrictions are becoming so universal that one without a driver's license (or its government equivalent) is denied access to more services every decade.

Second problem with SS# - it cannot be changed. Even your credit cards numbers (so that you can prove to them that they will get paid) are routinely and easily changed because it is a function to serve you. But even worse, once they have your SS#, then it is only time before they can strip your wealth or trash your record - irreversibly.

We desperately need an National ID that is intended only to serve us - 1) so that we can prove we are who we say and 2) so that we can confirm no one is stealing our identity. That means a system intended to serve us - not government (and stated so bluntly), and designed so that we can protect our identity (including a new ID number when necessary).

Pangloss62 wrote:

I work for the government. Most that do, except for the Executive Branch, actually do care about privacy and liberty.

I just can't bring myself to think that National ID would not be abused, somehow, someway. Otherwise, I would think it would make sense; but not now.

I went round and round with the boss of the census office in Philly, this summer. He kept telling me his employees are sworn not to blab any information.
I kept telling him those people didn't worry me at all. What bothered me was information, once gathered, has a way of seeping through large government databases.
As an example of possibilities, I cited some ass at Boeing Corporate, losing a laptop containing unencrypted personal info, including SS numbers, bank account numbers (direct deposit), addresses, employment, etc.....on 191,000 employees. :smack:

I gotta disagree with you tw. I see your point of course but any national ID system, even if designed with the citizen in mind, is rife for a abuse. It does not matter how it's designed if a president or congress gets into office and changes the laws / intent of the system. In your example you use credit cards. One of that factors with those is if you feel they are not protecting your privacy enough you can go elsewhere. Not so with the government, unless you wish to leave the country.

Jebediah wrote:

I gotta disagree with you tw. I see your point of course but any national ID system, even if designed with the citizen in mind, is rife for a abuse.

Return to earlier posts. There is nothing that says you must use the system. But the system must be provided since - and again earlier posts - since there is no other alternative to a centralized system. Without a centralized system, then you cannot confirm others are not using your ID.

As system designed to serve the citizens means a system that is not mandatory. Currently, because we have no such system, then the government is slowly imposing a system that serves the government.

An ID system is inevitable. Simply put: do you want one designed to serve you or will you be forced into one designed to serve the government? Current ID legislation put forth by the George Jr administration puts new demands on you only for government benefit. That is the system we will get IF we don't have a system designed to serve citizens.

Remember they are Democrats and Republicans. Just another form of communist party where loyalty to a party is more important than to America. Do independents get what they need or do politicians get what they want? Your choice - but only if you decide up front before the Rush Limbaughs spin more lies for political agendas.

You cannot make me believe that any national ID would stay voluntary (in the true sense of the word) for very long. How long until they just want to see your "voluntary" ID for buying a new home or applying for a new job or new credit card or any other number of things? It's no longer voluntary at that point since you'd be at a disadvantage not to have one. And no matter what the intent (like say, oh, social security) it can be warped by any new administration that sees it fit to do so.

It is no one's damn business who the fuck I am, unless they have a reason, a real fucking reason, to ask.
If I am just walking down the damn street and Joe Cop decides he does not like my swagger... fuck-em'... it is not his place.
You know this is true TW.
I don't need papers in a free nation. There is no reason to prove who I am unless I am, TRULY, suspected of a crime... to the point of being charged.
If I want to drive a car, I need a license. That is all.
"A people need not be afraid of their government, the government should fear the people". It is very sad that seems odd now, it has been a truism that was accepted as a given for so long... we need it back as something unspoken again. It will come back soon.

Something sinister has happened when we are required to carry identification for no reason whatsoever.

Jebediah wrote:

You cannot make me believe that any national ID would stay voluntary (in the true sense of the word) for very long.

Well it depends on your attitude. We in society absolutely need the convenience and protection afforded by a National ID program. 10% of us are already victims &#8211; some permentently scarred &#8211; because no such protection exists. And yes, that program can be subverted. Why? Where is your post disparaging the mental midget president for suspending Writ of Habeas Corpus so that he can torture, kidnap, operate secret prisons, and violate the Geneva Conventions? I did not read your strong condemnations. Why not? Why do I so often feel so alone on George Jr&#8217;s enemies list?

We need protections from a National ID program and we need to stop George Jr, et al from subverting that need into a government program only to serve government. What scares me is not the program. What scares me is your so silent response even to torture, suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus, and even wiretapping without judicial review.

rkzenrage wrote:

I don't need papers in a free nation. There is no reason to prove who I am unless I am, TRULY, suspected of a crime... to the point of being charged.

No. You have the right to not identify yourself. But everyone has the right to then deny you services because they cannot trust you. No one has said you must have ID. That ID and a service to protect your ID are for your benefit. You don't want that benefit, then fine - don't use it. Don't get a privilege to drive a car. Don't use credit cards. Carry massive wads of cash to pay for everything. These conveniences are made available to you only because you can identify who you are.

Worse still, those same conveniences are denied you if you cannot protect your identity &#8211; and someone else steals it.

tw wrote:

Why do I so often feel so alone on George Jr’s enemies list?

I cut a deal with Homeland Security to drop a dime on you and cover my butt. :angel:

tw wrote:

Well it depends on your attitude. We in society absolutely need the convenience and protection afforded by a National ID program. 10% of us are already victims – some permentently scarred – because no such protection exists. And yes, that program can be subverted. Why? Where is your post disparaging the mental midget president for suspending Writ of Habeas Corpus so that he can torture, kidnap, operate secret prisons, and violate the Geneva Conventions? I did not read your strong condemnations. Why not? Why do I so often feel so alone on George Jr’s enemies list?

We need protections from a National ID program and we need to stop George Jr, et al from subverting that need into a government program only to serve government. What scares me is not the program. What scares me is your so silent response even to torture, suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus, and even wiretapping without judicial review.

No. You have the right to not identify yourself. But everyone has the right to then deny you services because they cannot trust you. No one has said you must have ID. That ID and a service to protect your ID are for your benefit. You don't want that benefit, then fine - don't use it. Don't get a privilege to drive a car. Don't use credit cards. Carry massive wads of cash to pay for everything. These conveniences are made available to you only because you can identify who you are.

Worse still, those same conveniences are denied you if you cannot protect your identity – and someone else steals it.

If it keeps me off the Gestapo's books... I have no issue with it.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I cut a deal with Homeland Security to drop a dime on you and cover my butt.

I never made Nixon's enemies list. How does one get on George Jr's enemies list? Do I first have to be illegally wiretapped? And can I get an autographed copy with my name on that list?

Sundae Girl - you don't live in country where presidents maintain an enemies list. You live in a country where that president can kidnap and will torture you only because you might be on his enemies list. Appreciate why president Cheney said the presidency does not have enough power.

We Americans each have a chance to be famous. Maybe we could not be on Nixon's enemies list. But 30 years later, history repeats itself. How to get famous. Figure out how to get on George Jr's enemies list - and hopefully do so without getting tortured.

All you have to do to get on that list is tell the truth to enough people.

Having seen what happens to your students if they forget their college pass, I'd be seriously worried at having to carry ID.

Precisely.

DanaC wrote:

Having seen what happens to your students if they forget their college pass, I'd be seriously worried at having to carry ID.

But he didn't forget it. He had it in his possession at the time of the incident. He refused to present it when asked.

tw wrote:

10% of us are already victims – some permentently scarred – because no such protection exists.

Can you elaborate on who these victims are? Also if you really didn't trust GWB you'd see the national ID would be just one more reason to lock people up. Akin to driving without a license, now we could have exisiting without ID.

But he didn't forget it. He had it in his possession at the time of the incident. He refused to present it when asked.

Well....if a student refused to show his college ID then he deserved to get tasered huh?

There is never as much to a situation as one can see in a 5 minute You Tube video.

There is no excuse for tazering someone unless they pose a physical threat. Did he pose a physical threat, or was he merely a student who wouldn't show his pass?

Jebediah wrote:

Can you elaborate on who these victims are?

I think he means victims of identity theft, which I suspect he has had some experience with.

DanaC wrote:

There is no excuse for tazering someone unless they pose a physical threat. Did he pose a physical threat, or was he merely a student who wouldn't show his pass?

He screams "Get your hands off me!" at the top of his lungs. From this, we can assume the cops were having to physically escort him out since he would not comply with their verbal requests to do so, and we can infer with almost as much certainty that he was physically wresting himself away from them (because really, who screams "get your hands off me" while calmly continuing to allow the cops to keep their hands where they are?) You fling your body around a cop, you are by definition a physical threat. I don't expect cops to have to take a beating in an effort to avoid tasering an asshole who deserves it anyway.

Flint wrote:

I think he means victims of identity theft, which I suspect he has had some experience with.

That makes sense. However theft is always going to happen. Especially now in the online world. A national ID will not stop theft where your national ID is not required.

I don't expect cops to have to take a beating in an effort to avoid tasering an asshole who deserves it anyway.

I would question how he deserves it. I think, if the cops had to resort to physical violance, then they have lost control of the situation. If the university needs police to enforce their rules then that is a sad indictment on the university. He was a registered student who didn't see why he should show his pass to police whilst engaged in studies. I'm with the student on this one.

DanaC wrote:

If the university needs police to enforce their rules then that is a sad indictment on the university. He was a registered student who didn't see why he should show his pass to police whilst engaged in studies.

Yes, and if the state needs police to enforce their rules, what a sad indictment of society. We should be able to live with no police at all!

He was a registered student? How were they supposed to know? All students are aware of the rule that students must show their ID in the library, this wasn't some random event, students are asked to show their ID on a regular basis.

Why not just have barriers that read the barcode on the student ID at the entrance to the library? There are other ways to ensure that only registered students use the facilities, than using a police presence.

You, yourself, spoke of being allowed through the barrier without ID, simply because it was too inconvenient for you to remember to bring it along.

Physical security is only as good as the people who operate it.

I am allowed three times per semester to enter without my pass, by talking to the receptionist and giving her my student ID number (hy06dsec) and she then buzzes me through. When she buzzes someone through it's entered onto the system, three times and then they say 'No sorry, you have to go get your pass'.