National ID Cards - Coming Soon to Your Wallet

[WyrreJ]

National ID Card FAQ (http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=nefd.lede)

Unless this emergency spending bill is voted down in the Senate on MONDAY, we are all going to get internal passports in a couple of years.

You can very easily send letters to your senators about the issue via this web page:

Downsize DC (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=18)

If you are like many who haven't really thought too much about national ID cards one way or another, here' are just few reasons they are bad:

1) They make us less secure because now all id forgers have just one target instead of the ~50 or so we have today, economies of scale will kick in and criminals will be able to buy cheap incredibly high quality forgeries if they wish.

2) They make us less secure because the national id-card database will be a perfect target for identity thieves. Knowning the way our government works, the thieves won't even have to break in and steal the database, they will be able to buy access to it.

3) The USA is suppossed to be the home of the brave and the land of the free. Internal passports sure are not about freedom and the only way this stuff gets sold to the public is on the fear of "terrorism."

On Oct 21, 2001 Osama bin Laden said (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/) - "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

[crager34]

Does "Show me your papers?" ring a bell to anyone?

[Tone]

I'm ok with it - I'm a proud owner of a US Passport and understand the difficulty in verifying 50 states differing driver's licenses and varying requirements to obtain one. What they do with any data is another thing but every stop by police now generates an entry into a database. Every credit card transaction is online somewhere so I don't see it as any big deal unless you are hiding something. Of course there are other countries accepting citizens....

[WyrreJ]

I don't see it as any big deal unless you are hiding something. Tone, you are the last person I would have thought would buy into the "only the guilty have something to hide" fallacy. In other areas you seem to relish pushing the boundries, for example reselling uncertified HID kits which itself is a black and white violation of NHTSA rules. Particularly when such a violation of our constitutional rights won't even serve the purpose that it is being sold as - namely increasing our safety. National ID cards can only make us less safe, not more.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the reference - internal passports are what countries like China and the former USSR require their citizens to maintain in order to simply travel within the boarders of the country. Those are not the kind of countries we should be taking our cues from.


Of course there are other countries accepting citizens....I'm with Senator Carl Schurz on this one, he said:
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right!"

[thebear54]

Does "Show me your papers?" ring a bell to anyone?

It does ring a bell here at my house...MY parents went throught the hell of WW II in Holland.
But...on the other hand with the INS chasing illegals around 24/7 and spending untold millions of our tax dollars trying to figure out "who is who in America", I am all for it as long as the Data Base is secured to the max.
It took my family eight months to secure a legal permit to move here back in 1961 when there were no threats of terrorism.
REMEMBER 9/11.
John

[redline]

I'm another Proud owner of an American passport .Finally everyone will have to get one. Both of my parents immigrated from Hungary. Some people don't realize How good they have it here.

[kpaske]

I normally have strong opinions on current issues, but this one I'm a bit torn on. On the one hand, I'm all about security, and I'm willing to give up a little bit of personal freedom to benefit our nation (hey, I joined the Army for 4 years shortly after 9/11, so what does that tell you?). On the other hand, I'm all about freedom and don't really appreciate someone watching over me all the time.

I'm not sure I buy the argument about having one single ID card as being less secure than 50 state ID cards. When it comes to counterfieting, there are some states with ID cards simple enough to replicate using Photo Shop. But have you checked out a much more secure card, like an alien registration card, for instance? That bad boy would be VERY difficult to duplicate. Combine that card with a few choice biometrics, some cryptography, and maybe even a personal passphrase or pincode and you'd have one hell of a secure card that would be extremely difficult and expensive to replicate.

According to that article, the card will store your ID number, name, birthdate, address, sex, and a digital photograph. I personally don't see a major problem with this, as most of these items are already stored in thousands (if not tens of thousands) of national databases.

I do see some possible benefits from this type of system. For instance, if public key cryptography were used, the card would be a much stronger identifier for anything from online transactions to airport security. The possessor of the card, in combination with a pin code, passphrase, or even a biometric, could authenticate themselves in a way much more securely than any regular photo ID.

I don't really see the correlation between a national ID card and communist states. I don't think anyone is suggesting that our movements within our own country would be monitored. If the feds want to do that, they've already got that ability with credit card records, cell phone records, etc. Having a national ID card would only facilitate that if a record was stored, using our national ID number, every time we displayed the card. I think THAT is the type of thing we need to be leary of. In fact, if we want to protect our freedom, it should be required by law that nobody can store the information retrieved off the card, outside of the national registration database, which would be used only for authentication purposes.

What worries me the most is that if the laws pass without the public sufficiently aware of the exact implications and without understanding exactly how the technology works, there certainly is a lot of room for abuse. And I certainly wouldn't put it past our government, especially the Bush administration, to try to slide one past us.

[WyrreJ]

Read what Bruce Schneier has to say about the issue. (http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html) Schneier is one of the foremost security researchers in the USA - his crypto algorithm, Blowfish, was one of the finalists for the recent DoD encryption standard (AES) which replaced the decades old IBM developed DES.

I'm not sure I buy the argument about having one single ID card as being less secure than 50 state ID cards. When it comes to counterfieting, there are some states with ID cards simple enough to replicate using Photo Shop.
And thus they are not highly trusted, which is a good thing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea from all kinds of perspectives.
And if these national id cards can't be highly trusted either, what then is the point in the first place?


But have you checked out a much more secure card, like an alien registration card, for instance? That bad boy would be VERY difficult to duplicate. Combine that card with a few choice biometrics, some cryptography, and maybe even a personal passphrase or pincode and you'd have one hell of a secure card that would be extremely difficult and expensive to replicate.1) How much do you want to pay for your card to make it secure? $50? $100? $200? What exactly will that $50 tax buy you in additional security?

2) Sooner or later it will get forged, with at least 16 million illegal aliens in the USA already the market demand for such a forgery is enormous. If this document becomes the centrally important document, then people will easily pay over $100 per forgery. That's a "research budget" of at least $160 million. No way will it remain secure in the face of that kind of money.


According to that article, the card will store your ID number, name, birthdate, address, sex, and a digital photograph. I personally don't see a major problem with this, as most of these items are already stored in thousands (if not tens of thousands) of national databases.There are a couple of problems:

1) Those databases are not centralized. Centralization creates all kinds of new problems that people haven't even thought of before. Its like county land ownership records. Public knowledge, but only available on paper down at the county court-house they were not seen as a risk. As soon as someone digitized them and put them in a computer, you could now look up anyone's address by name and the amount and total value of all property they owned at a whim. Centralization and digitization, no matter how carefully guarded almost always invokes the law of unintended consquences.

2) Those databases are supposed to be voluntary. Just because some people have given away some of their privacy does not mean that all law abiding citizens should be forced to do the same. Even if some of them are de facto involuntary - for example I had to give up my prints to get my DoJ and DoD clearances which I needed if I wanted to work - that does not mean all law-abiding citizens should be forced to do the same.


I do see some possible benefits from this type of system. For instance, if public key cryptography were used, the card would be a much stronger identifier for anything from online transactions to airport security. Is this rather trivial benefit really worth the price of our freedom? Not to mention the actual dollar cost of implementing the system?

Do we actually need stronger id for online transactions? I use single-use credit card numbers for all my online purchases. The two major banks implementing these single-use numbers - MBNA and Citi - have reported that over the 5+ years that they have been using them there has not been a single case of fraud involving single-use numbers. Even if that were not the case, why should our tax dollars go to make life easier for businesses? Shouldn't they have have to fund their own systems? Isn't that the free market?

As for airport safety, anyone who has flown recently knows that airport security is a sham, meant to waste our time to convince those among us who have not mastered critical thinking that "the government is protecting us." Considering that the 9/11 hijackers all had valid, authentic IDs, having a cryplographically signed id does not seem like it will make any more difference than the song and dance we all do for the TSA at the airport today.


I don't really see the correlation between a national ID card and communist states. I don't think anyone is suggesting that our movements within our own country would be monitored.We are already at the point were ID is all but necessary to travel. Airplanes require ID, trains require ID, busses require ID and of course driving yourself requires ID. You can walk, bicycle and hire a taxi - not very practical for most people. A national id will soon lead to swipe terminals at all these points of travel, to make it "easy" and once it is computerized, it will be linked. We should be rolling back the requirements for travel, not tightening them up.


If the feds want to do that, they've already got that ability with credit card records, cell phone records, etc.So, if the feds can already do all this, what benefit is there in such a system to you and me?


I'm willing to give up a little bit of personal freedom to benefit our nationI don't know if you chose that wording on purpose or not, but it so closely mimics Benjamin Franklin that I think it is worth posting his famous quote on the subject:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety"


(hey, I joined the Army for 4 years shortly after 9/11, so what does that tell you?)When someone joins the military, to me and my family it has always meant that they wanted to preserve the American way of life. Freedom being the founding principle of that way of life.


redline said
Both of my parents immigrated from Hungary. Some people don't realize How good they have it here.On the contrary redline. I do realize how good we have it here, and that is precisely why I wish to keep it that way. What good will it have done for your parents to immigrate here if we allow our country to eventually devolve into the kind of repressive system that they left behind?

[WyrreJ]

Here's the deal guys. Even if you think national id cards are a good thing, do you think that a proposal that has had minimal public debate ought to be slipped through as a rider on the tail of an emergency spending bill?

Shouldn't something like this get a full and complete airing in congress so that at the very least it is implemented properly with appropriate safeguards?

If you have any doubts at all about the way this is being implemented "in the dead of the night" so to speak, you should call on your senators to give it a proper evaluation. It takes less than two minutes to tell your senators that they need to do their jobs and give this issue a thorough analysis so that if they are going to do it, they can at least do it right -- just use this website:

Downsize DC (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=18)

[WormGod]

Wow. I never heard one word about this until I read this. Goes to show ya, that teh Capital Boys love to grind their rich and powerful gears behind the backs of those who pay their salaries. Nothing new, but since this does involves ALL US citizens having to actually CARRY "another" form of ID on them, I would think that it is in our best interest to know beforehand.

On another note, if they can prove how this will benefit us and not create some new "eye in the sky" over us, I guess I am indifferent to the proposal. Sure, I hate to have more crap rusting away in my wallet, but if the reason is good enough, I am fine with it. Guess I will have to keep my eyes open on this one.

[MachineVX]

I don't have anything to hide, but what worries me is the presumption that I'm guilty of something, that I have to prove I'm not.

[mbeach]

I think that it's a great idea!

We can all have the same ID, so that door men at the bar wouldn't have to learn 50+ different ones.

We will all get one more piece of photo ID, just in case we loose one of the 2 or 3 that we already carry.

We can embed smartchips (those little gold things) into each card, and link it to a health database that has ALL citizens. That way, if I get into an accident, my card can be scanned. This will allow medical personnel to treat my injuries with respect to my health history.

We can also link our insurance information to the health history, that way the hospital will know right away who to bill (or who not to bill).

While were encoding the chip, we can link it to the account in our forthcoming terrorist-safe bank. We can then use our ID card as a debit card -maybe even a credit card if my credit rating (also linked in) is good enough.

How nice would it be if I got pulled over for a traffic violation? I could just hand the officer my new 'smart' ID, and he could scan it, immediately having access to my personal history, doublechecking my scanned fingerprints to ensure that I am who is on the card. He can also verify insurance coverage and maybe even take the fine right out of my bank account. That'll get rid of those pesky orange envelopes, and all of that wasted court time -in fact, courts will be unnecessary for all but the most heinous crimes, since money and insurance generally handle most crime today.

This new smart ID will also serve as an internal passport, this will allow government agencies like the Dept. of Commerce to keep an eye on illegal activities that hurt all citizens, like buying cigarettes in another state where they are cheaper.

Soon, this new ID will become so useful, that no one will accept any other form of identification/payment. After all it's foolproof. No more fake IDs, no more bogus credit card scams, bounced checks, etc. This will help the economy by eliminating the cost of these crimes, AND it will ensure that only 'real' US citizens will have the right to purchase any goods and services in OUR country.

I can't stress enough how excited I am about this whole thing. Maybe one day I can get rid of my wallet altogether. I'll just keep this new ID dangling from a ball-chain around my neck. After all, I won't need any other ID, nor will I need to carry cash. If I want to look at a family photo, I can swipe my card in a touchscreen kiosk, and take a look at the latest satellite surveilance photos of my family -just in case.

In all seriousness, I have spent more than 13 of my 32 years on Earth in service to the government in one way or another(military/security/contractor/consultant) - this is just another dumb idea that's been waiting for the technology to catch up.
I don't see it happening within the next 10 years, I mean, look how slow our government moves on the good ideas.

[MachineVX]

Maybe we can add a GPS to it, so that the gov't will be able to know where we are at all times. If you have nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a worry. Could also have a biometric monitor, so the gov't could know when we have just expired so our organs can be harvested for use by others, if we can't be saved. This could also eliminate speeding and traffic violations . . . Why bother with a card, when they can just implant RFID chips into us at birth?

[Moncha]

Wow. I never heard one word about this until I read this.....

Actually, the idea has been around since I was a kid which was WHILE ago! The idea isn't new but, gets rehashed when events bring it to the forefront.

[transio]

Why bother with a card, when they can just implant RFID chips into us at birth?
All drama aside, personal RFID is something that is also in R&D.

It's easy for dramatic conspiracy theorists to present situations where technology infringes on our freedom. Try instead to imagine how these things will improve our lives. Being able to walk in and out of a store without standing in line to pay, automatically billing your purchases to your account of choice, never having to clock in and out of your job again, being able to track your kids in case they're kidnapped by a sex offender - the possibilities are limitless.

If you are afraid of technology taking away your freedoms, why the hell are you using the Internet? Go live in the woods with the other antisocial conspiracy theorists.

[mbeach]

- the possibilities are limitless.


Exactly.

[transio]

Exactly.
So we should eliminate any technology that could potentially be used to infringe on our freedoms or harm us? Ok, then add to your list the Internet, computers, telephones, airplanes, automobiles, gasoline, nuclear power, medical research, SSNs, driver's licenses, cameras, and weapons. Scrap 'em all. Weapons are the one thing on that list that don't have a single beneficial use in society. Ironically, it's people who cry about freedom infringement who fight the fiercest for the maintenance of weapons in society "to protect themselves". The bottom line is that if a technology is more beneficial than detrimental to society then it's worth considering implementation of it.

[Mr. I-MAN]

WyrreJ

Go to Canada I'm sure they don't have those kind of cards there, and you can hang out with the rest of the ex-pats, draft dodgers and criminals who found the American system just too hard to deal with. Hell they love your kind up there.

[Moncha]

:bomb:

[Tone]

Dang, I finally agree completely with I-Man! Lots of complaining in the USA but try going ANY PLACE ELSE and report back how you like it.

[TYGVR]

Why didn't they put a gps chip (or give them a choice to) in everyone who is working in the war regions overseas. That way if they are kidnapped they can find them sooner. With the last years episodes of kidnaping I think everyone would like to be tracked. Kinda like "Snake Pliskin".

[mbeach]

Go to Canada I'm sure they don't have those kind of cards there, and you can hang out with the rest of the ex-pats, draft dodgers and criminals who found the American system just too hard to deal with. Hell they love your kind up there.


It was kinda funny until we got here.

I was a Paratrooper in the Army for 11 years.
I have served as a consultant for a defense contractor, and I've worked for the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I have also guarded some of our nations most secret technology at a Government research facility.

I have sweat blood and watched some of the finest men I'll ever know, die in service to this land (and you, who have never served anything greater than a dinner, armchair Generals). So if I want to criticize our (my) government's use/misuse of technology, then by God I will. I have earned it.

This bill, if approved and implemented, rubs even my strict conservative fur the wrong way. If it doesn't set off some mental alarm, than you're just not paying attention.

[transio]

Why didn't they put a gps chip (or give them a choice to) in everyone who is working in the war regions overseas. That way if they are kidnapped they can find them sooner.
Brilliant idea!

[mbeach]

...except that a GPS antenna would also have to be implanted, as well as a power source.

I do love the "Escape from ________" movies though :cool:

[kpaske]

I generally consider myself to be a privacy advocate. I believe the right to privacy is one of our hard earned rights as American citizens, and I don't like the idea of giving up any of my freedom. On the other hand, I do agree with Tone and the others who've said that those who have nothing to hide have little to lose by these types of technologies.

The new bill, as I understand it, is not exactly a national ID card --- it standardizes some of the features of state ID cards so that they can be universally recognized. The only thing that is really being added for sure is a national ID number (the equivalent of a SSN), a universal electronic scanning method (mag strip or possibly RFID) and possibly a biometric like a fingerprint.

The electronic scanning is what I think bothers so many people because it makes it easy to collect data on individuals easily and electronically. I do object to the idea of RFID scanning because that gives people the ability to collect your information without you knowing. This is a BIG deal. The idea of a mag strip or bar code or other electronic scanability does have some potential privacy consequences because it allows others to easily collect and store your information. Of course, laws could be written to prevent certain people from collecting or storing certain information, which would probably be a good idea, but this is unlikely to happen because that's how the government would track the criminals.

I think a lot of people are making jumps that don't need to be made right now, but maybe some of these things are inevitable. Once the technology is there and accepted by the public, it makes it so much easier to move into all these other technologies that would violate our precious privacy.

[WyrreJ]

On the other hand, I do agree with Tone and the others who've said that those who have nothing to hide have little to lose by these types of technologies.The problem with this attitude is that we really have little to gain and lots to lose. So far, every single benefit that has been posited as coming from a national ID system is either out and out false - they can only decrease security from terrorists and make things easier for illegal immigrants - or are something that should be left to the private sector.

Meanwhile, these kinds of systems open up plenty of potential for abuse and if you think they won't be abused you just don't understand the nature of man. Criminals, both inside and outside the government will abuse the system, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when and in what new and clever ways they will do it.

Way too many people in this thread are confusing patriotism with authoritarianism. At the root, this system is about bigger government for the autocrats in washington and less freedom for lawful citizens. It won't make you any safer, but it will cost you in taxes and it will make you less of a free man.


Go to Canada I'm sure they don't have those kind of cards there, and you can hang out with the rest of the ex-pats, draft dodgers and criminals who found the American system just too hard to deal with. Hell they love your kind up there.I-Man - I can do the reactionary knee-jerk response 10x better than you: How about instead YOU go to North Korea where they ALREADY have these kinds of cards along with no freedom to travel, freedom of speech or really much of any freedom at all. Hell, sounds like you and tone would love it there. Leave America to those who know what it means to be an American.

[Panther_Black_VX]

Way too many people in this thread are confusing patriotism with authoritarianism. At the root, this system is about bigger government for the autocrats in washington and less freedom for lawful citizens. It won't make you any safer, but it will cost you in taxes and it will make you less of a free man.

The key words here are, "It won't make you any safer". It sincerely won't. I am interestingly indifferent about the cards. The problems we face will not be affected in any substaintial way, let alone be solved, by this national card. The problems, and solutions therein, are much more complicated and start with external and not internal, policies. But that's another thread. However, if the government want to give it the good ole college try, they can be my guest. Tell me where to sign.

My question is what historical examples indicate that this solution works? I'm not sure there are any, that do not entail some significant reduction or curtailing of human rights. What ever you may consider those to be. So is this the way to go?

However we must look at it from the perspective that the govermnet is trying to protect its citizens and NOT trying to affect some deeply rooted change in our way of life for neferious reasons. No matter how misguided we think the direction is.

Ah yes, thus is the delima of an empire. It expands, engulfs, embraces and assilimates so much of the people and cultures in the world during its reign, that is begins to struggle not to lose the very indentity it 'thinks' it had and not what is really and always was.. But I digress......

The logistical headache is enough not to embark on this plan. And that implanting of the chip in our skin, just creeps me out..

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” (Revelation 13:16–18)

And I'm not even a Christian!! :)

[crager34]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, senators voted -- unanimously, with no discussion, and without even reading the bill -- to create a national ID card.

[Mr. I-MAN]

You guys right.


I guess in my 8 1/2 years in Marine Corps

3 1/2 - enlisted(Non Com) 5 - Commissioned
&
3.5 years gov't contracted to put in GPS E911 system for this country.

I havent learned difference between freedom, The 50 states and my TAINT!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[transio]

Oh, the drama. This could be a made-for-TV movie.

[mbeach]

Oh, the drama. This could be a made-for-TV movie.

...if it weren't so boring.

I guess that now we'll get a chance to wait and see what happens. Print out this thread, so we can keep score in the future.

I-Man,
I always liked Marines, very disciplined and tough. With 8.5 years of service, I'm sure that you were given the opportunity to "...uphold and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...". Think about that for a minute, then you can return to pondering your taint.

Sheep are safe only as long as we keep them penned up. I, for one, would rather take my chances in the open pasture.

[DK]

[I was a Paratrooper in the Army for 11 years.
I have served as a consultant for a defense contractor, and I've worked for the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I have also guarded some of our nations most secret technology at a Government research facility.

I have sweat blood and watched some of the finest men I'll ever know, die in service to this land (and you, who have never served anything greater than a dinner, armchair Generals). So if I want to criticize our (my) government's use/misuse of technology, then by God I will. I have earned it.

This bill, if approved and implemented, rubs even my strict conservative fur the wrong way. If it doesn't set off some mental alarm, than you're just not paying attention.[/QUOTE]


This reminds me of the story of the frog in the pot of water. The heat slowly rises and the frog doesn't realize it's in trouble until it's too late and it's boiled alive.

Who are these guys that want so much control over us and what are their motives? From what I've seen them do to lie us into a war that has cost over 1600 lives of our military, 10,000 or more injured, and will end up costing us at least a half a trillion dollars -- all, as it has now been documented, based on lies and manipulated intelligence -- I sure as hell don't want these incompetent SOB's in charge of a national database that, if they don't screw it up completely, has ever chance of being misused.

Let the games begin.

[transio]

I was a Paratrooper in the Army for 11 years. I have served as a consultant for a defense contractor, and I've worked for the Dept. of Homeland Security. I have also guarded some of our nations most secret technology at a Government research facility.
Awesome. Great credentials. Here are mine; I've been a database programmer with specialization in personal information directories for many years. One of the central metadirectory databases I helped architect and build was for a security / time tracking database for its million or so employees at 100 or so International facilities.


I have sweat blood and watched some of the finest men I'll ever know, die in service to this land (and you, who have never served anything greater than a dinner, armchair Generals). So if I want to criticize our (my) government's use/misuse of technology, then by God I will. I have earned it.
Is it your contention that those of us who have not served in the military have not "earned the right" to have an opinion on the matter? No one is telling you that you have not got the right to an opinion. We're telling you that we believe your opinion is wrong. Try to recognize the difference. And I don't care if you are a former president, you are not right to imply that your credentials make you any more entitled to your opinion than anyone else here.


This bill, if approved and implemented, rubs even my strict conservative fur the wrong way. If it doesn't set off some mental alarm, than you're just not paying attention.
Why?


This reminds me of the story of the frog in the pot of water. The heat slowly rises and the frog doesn't realize it's in trouble until it's too late and it's boiled alive.
Actually, it was a TV commercial.


Who are these guys that want so much control over us and what are their motives? From what I've seen them do to lie us into a war that has cost over 1600 lives of our military, 10,000 or more injured, and will end up costing us at least a half a trillion dollars -- all, as it has now been documented, based on lies and manipulated intelligence
What does the war have to do with an ID card? :confused:


I sure as hell don't want these incompetent SOB's in charge of a national database that, if they don't screw it up completely, has ever chance of being misused.
LOL yeah, I'm sure they'll get George Bush to program it instead of hiring someone like me to do it. He's got nothing better to do with his time anyway, right? :)

With all your bitching and moaning, I don't see a solid argument anywhere in there against the technology.

[b]You have not presented one negative about the technology. Only made blank assertions like "it infringes on our rights" and "it takes away our freedom." In short, your argument is baseless, essentially saying "I'm an expert because I used to carry a gun. I don't like this technology mumbo jumbo. They can turn us into drones."

Y'all have been watching too many movies. It's a F***ing ID card for christ's sake.

[nyc #1 ironman]

Big Brother is watching

[DK]

Transio, I'm sure you personally are very competent in your field -- but what I see so far with these large systems is one monumental screwup after another. Besides the mess the "no fly" list is in, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of people's confidential info by one of the credit rating companies, the persistent success of hackers penetrating even the most secure data bases including military and financial, the billions that have been spent by the govt to try to update the computer systems of various agencies only to have them tell us that they don't work and they will have to scrap the new systems (meaning flush those billions down the toilet), I have no faith at all that a database and i.d. card system in this country will lead to anything more than chaos on a massive scale.

And the potential for misuse by federal agencies and/or criminals who have penetrated the data base is very real.

And to what purpose is this data base? They've told us it won't make us safer from terrorists -- so it would appear that it's greatest potential would be to help control us. Personally I like to be out of control when bureaucrats are involved.

[transio]

what purpose is this data base?This pretty much says it all. Without an understanding of the basis of a discussion, how can you expect to provide a valid argument? There are many possible benefits to this type of card. I and others have stated them above.

That said, I agree that the U.S. government pretty much sucks at every system it implements (usually in terms of cost efficiency). I think you're right that extreme care should be taken in creating this ID system. I have no doubt that the top experts will have their hands in it.

[mbeach]

Awesome. Great credentials. Here are mine; I've been a database programmer with specialization in personal information directories for many years. One of the central metadirectory databases I helped architect and build was for a [big three auto] security / time tracking database for its million or so employees at 100 or so International facilities.
Excellent. I'm perfectly confident in your ability to ensure that I get paid correctly and on time. The logistics of an undertaking of this magnatude just blow my mind. Good luck trying to coordinate all of this data.


Is it your contention that those of us who have not served in the military have not "earned the right" to have an opinion on the matter?
Not quite, but close. I respect the opinions of ALL who have sacrificed their time/money/family/happiness/lives in service to the public. They chose to work for the higher cause, rather than the higher bidder. Take it how you will, but I believe that citizenship should be earned, not inherited.

I rarely discuss my military service, as it is a source of pain for me (I am a disabled vet). But when I do bring it up, it's for a good reason. Namely someone who implied that I/we should leave the country simply because we disagree with it's policy -It's not like I'm a Baldwin or something...

DK-
I don't know where you were going when you quoted me earlier, but I let it slide, as it's obvious what side of the fence you are on. Don't use me to support your argument.
Transio is holding his own just fine. :thumbup:

[Heraclid]

This is wonderful! For once there's a political argument where I can just sit back, relax, and watch the rest of you duke it out - because I haven't quite decided on this one yet. This thread is a great read and it really hasn't gotten too out-of-hand... this is how it's done...

[DK]

Sorry, mbeach, my message was directed TO you but I screwed up the quote part somehow.

Maybe it was the national i.d. gremlin showing us what it intends to do should we move forward.

[kpaske]

I think it's great that we are debating the possible implications and consequences of National ID Cards and abuse of technology, but if you actually bother to read the proposed bill, all we're talking about here is the following:

- Standard information and security features on driver's licenses

- Standard criteria for documents used to verify identity for issuing licenses

- Electronic archival of identification documents and digital photographs

- Crossreferencing of driving records throughout all states

We should really limit our discussion to these topics, because the Real ID Act only makes a few significant changes to State ID Cards. All this talk of loss of privacy and whatnot really isn't convincing me that there is anything wrong with THIS BILL.

The information beings collected and maintained is in thousands of national databases already, including those already controlled by the U.S. Government.

The security features aren't anything that isn't already on some state ID cards - digital photos, shadow images, holographs, etc. They are just trying to bring all the States up to a standard level.

The documents being archived are all documents that were issued by some government agency or another at some point and time, in many cases before electronic archiving was a practical possibility. If the government wants to keep a scanned copy of my birth certificate or passport or whatever, this doesn't bother me in the least - they were the ones who issued it to me. I'm glad to see they are finding a practical way to get themselves organized.

Crossreferencing records is something they should have been doing a long time ago. By neglecting this, we've let countless number of criminals commit crimes in one state, then easily slip across borders and start over without getting caught because the state databases don't always share records.

I just don't see how any law abiding citizen can really object to any of these things.

[mbeach]

Don't ruin it -this is fun ;)

Seriously, if a database expert like Transio can convince me that all of this information can be archived safely and accurately, I'm all for it.
As odd as it is given my recent statements, I am a proponent of big government -some people just can't govern themselves. You'll find no ACLU card in my wallet.

As for standardized features on IDs, it's been a long time coming. Since I'm back in school, I've been forced to take on an old standby job -I'm a bouncer in a BIG bar/nightclub. Because of our proximity to a major sports venue, I see at least 12 different state drivers' licenses each night, all of them sporting a myriad of security features, but with no continuity between them. By standardizing the security features from state to state, the possiblity of a false ID being passed is decreased.

[WyrreJ]

By standardizing the security features from state to state, the possiblity of a false ID being passed is decreased.That assertation is 100% false.

Ok only 99% false.

That 1% of correctness applies to the first 6 months or so during which all the ID forgers in the entire country are still spinning up on the now nationwide standard.

Once you have 50x the people focused on forging the single, standardized set of IDs, the quality level will go through the roof. The end result will be forgeries of the highest quality for prices lower then ever before. Economics applies to criminal enterprise just as much as it does to any other kind.

Meanwhile, most people aren't even asking the really important questions -

Why do we need identity cards?
How did we go from a license to drive to a license to travel?
What compelling interest is there for the government to force a national identity system on law-abiding citizens?
What happened to the fourth amendment - right of the people to be secure in their ... papers ... against unreasonable searches ?

When real criminals are just going to use cheap, ultra-high quality forgeries,
what possible benefit is there to law-abiding citizens in such a system?

[WyrreJ]

The documents being archived are all documents that were issued by some government agency or another at some point and time, in many cases before electronic archiving was a practical possibility.That is a key point.

The majority of the documents that have been issued and the laws that enabled the government to create these documents in the first place pre-date electronic storage and retrieval.

In other words, that's the not what we signed up for when we allowed the government to have such records in the first place. Easy searchability and cross-referencing on a national scale was not part of the bargain.

Circumstances have been changed by technology and no one has asked us, the citizenry, if the new powers that technology has enabled for the government are OK by us. The government just went off and assumed that the data is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it. That's not the original bargain we agreed to.

The data about me that government holds is MINE, not theirs, and their use of it is
suppossed to be subject to my agreement. If you want proof of that, just read the 10th amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[WyrreJ]

I've been a database programmer with specialization in personal information directories for many years.With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.

I'm sure more than a few of us here have worked on databases of personal records, at least one person here that I know of even had a substantial part in building the FBI's IAFIS database. But it is quite rare that those doing the engineering work have any experience in studying the social policy that leads to and results from that engineering.


You have not presented one negative about the technology.
Only made blank assertions like "it infringes on our rights" and "it takes away our freedom." So far no one has made a supportable statement that the Real ID act will do anything positive. Nebulous assertions about stopping terrorists and illegal aliens have been easily disproven. It is simply yet another unfunded federal mandate with no practical benefit to the average citizen that could not be better served by private industry that at the same time increases the risk of government and criminal abuse of identity information.

[kpaske]

That assertation is 100% false.

Ok only 99% false.

That 1% of correctness applies to the first 6 months or so during which all the ID forgers in the entire country are still spinning up on the now nationwide standard.

Once you have 50x the people focused on forging the single, standardized set of IDs, the quality level will go through the roof. The end result will be forgeries of the highest quality for prices lower then ever before. Economics applies to criminal enterprise just as much as it does to any other kind.I disagree. Most forgers go for the easiest targets - the state drivers licenses that have minimal security features - because they don't have the budget or expertise or equipment to reproduce the highest quality cards.
What I do agree with is there is probably no technology that will be impossible to forge, but there are technologies that make it extremely difficult and expensive, which will put the majority of forgery operations out of business. This will raise the cost of a forged card and decrease the number of cards produced.


Meanwhile, most people aren't even asking the really important questions -

Why do we need identity cards?
How did we go from a license to drive to a license to travel?
What compelling interest is there for the government to force a national identity system on law-abiding citizens?
What happened to the fourth amendment - right of the people to be secure in their ... papers ... against unreasonable searches ?
The answer to these questions is simple. You need an ID to use certain select modern conveniences, i.e. credit cards, driving a personally owned vehicle, travelling on an airplane. These aren't constitutionally guaranteed rights, these are conveniences. If you want to live "under the radar" you can pay for everything with cash and ride the bus or walk everywhere you go. This is fine if you are a recluse, but makes your life much more difficult if you're a terrorist. Nothing in the bill says you have to have an ID card.

[kpaske]

The majority of the documents that have been issued and the laws that enabled the government to create these documents in the first place pre-date electronic storage and retrieval.

In other words, that's the not what we signed up for when we allowed the government to have such records in the first place. Easy searchability and cross-referencing on a national scale was not part of the bargain.

Circumstances have been changed by technology and no one has asked us, the citizenry, if the new powers that technology has enabled for the government are OK by us. The government just went off and assumed that the data is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it. That's not the original bargain we agreed to.

The data about me that government holds is MINE, not theirs, and their use of it is suppossed to be subject to my agreement. If you want proof of that, just read the 10th amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Actually, we really did grant the government these permissions when we agreed to pay federal taxes. They need to identify us in order to collect taxes from us.

[transio]

With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.And the architect?

[WyrreJ]

This will raise the cost of a forged card and decrease the number of cards produced.
The more important having a card is, the more people will pay for a forgery. It is an arms race between the government vs the free market. Free market always wins.


The answer to these questions is simple. You need an ID to use certain select modern conveniences, i.e. credit cards, driving a personally owned vehicle, travelling on an airplane.
That is not anything like a reason. That's simply saying, "it is that way because that's the way it is." There is nothing about any of those activities that mandates an ID, especially a centralized, digitzed one. In fact, your first example of using a credit card is completely backwards. The standard merchant agreement actually PREVENTS them from requiring the customer to show ID unless there are exceptional circumstances.


These aren't constitutionally guaranteed rights, these are conveniences. If you want to live "under the radar" you can pay for everything with cash and ride the bus or walk everywhere you go.

As a law-abiding citizen why should I even be ON the radar in the first place? As for actually traveling beyond your local town, ID is now mandatory. As I've already pointed out - you can't board a bus, train or plane without an ID. You can't drive without an ID either. The best you can do is to hire a car and driver which is prohibitively expensive. If you have to be rich to travel anonymously, then there is no fourth ammendment.

The worst part about all these requirements for ID? They don't do a damn thing to make us safer. Not one damn thing. Anyone intent on committing a serious crime is going to use false id anyway and always will no matter how much technology we wrap around id cards. All they do is put the rest of us "on the radar" so that if someone with malicious intent can abuse the system to hurt law-abiding citizens. These procedures and systems only reduce security while superficially making it seem like, "the government is doing something to protect us." The government is doing something alright - increasing its size and influence, but that does not protect anyone but the goverment itself.


This is fine if you are a recluse, but makes your life much more difficult if you're a terrorist. Nothing in the bill says you have to have an ID card. As I said before, you can't travel without one., that means it is effectively mandatory to have an ID. Meanwhile the terrorist, or the child pronographer, or the drug-dealer, pick your evil-doer-dujour, is out a couple of hundred dollars for a fake id and, ironically, that makes him more secure than the rest of us.

[WyrreJ]

> With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not
> make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.

And the architect?
Brick-layer, architect - neither of them are responsible for deciding if a wall is a net good or bad for the community that it divides. They only get called in once the decision to build has already been made.

[WyrreJ]

Actually, we really did grant the government these permissions when we agreed to pay federal taxes.
They need to identify us in order to collect taxes from us.

It is like you missed my entire point.

Tax collection is one extremely limited requirement. The need for photo id, residence, etc all that is not required to do that job. A simple taxpayer number is all that is needed and certainly all that was even used for many decades. These systems are an undemocractic expansion of power by the government, far beyond what is necessary for their original purpose.

[kpaske]

The more important having a card is, the more people will pay for a forgery.Yes, that is true. I agree that it doesn't stop the well funded professionals, but it does help to deter the small timers. Isn't that a positive benefit?


That is not anything like a reason. That's simply saying, "it is that way because that's the way it is." There is nothing about any of those activities that mandates an ID, especially a centralized, digitzed one. In fact, your first example of using a credit card is completely backwards. The standard merchant agreement actually PREVENTS them from requiring the customer to show ID unless there are exceptional circumstances.Umm, I simply have to disagree with you here. I believe that these are all conveniences, or even privledges. I'm glad when someone checks my ID when I use my credit card. This protects me as a consumer. I don't feel violated in any way because someone wants to ensure I'm not a criminal. And if giving "the government" the right to track movements of a sex offender, murderer, or terrorist also means they could figure out I went to Northern California to visit some friends last November, so what?


As a law-abiding citizen why should I even be ON the radar in the first place? As for actually traveling beyond your local town, ID is now mandatory. As I've already pointed out - you can't board a bus, train or plane without an ID. You can't drive without an ID either. The best you can do is to hire a car and driver which is prohibitively expensive. If you have to be rich to travel anonymously, then there is no fourth ammendment.Why you need an ID to drive is obvious - you must be licensed. Why? For the safety of yourself and others. Travel by bus, train, or plane is monitored for the same reason. There are dangers that come along with modern conveniences that weren't considered when the constitution was written. The fourth ammendment guarantees you no rights to utilize modern conveniences anonymously. If you want to be "secure in your papers" you can walk. Or go by horseback.


Tax collection is one extremely limited requirement. The need for photo id, residence, etc all that is not required to do that job. A simple taxpayer number is all that is needed and certainly all that was even used for many decades. These systems are an undemocractic expansion of power by the government, far beyond what is necessary for their original purpose.If you can't be identified, then how do you suggest the government should assess our net worth / income and collect the appropriate taxes from us? A taxpayer number? Riiight. If I'm a tax evader, I'd just make up a number or buy one from a homeless person so nobody would know how much money I make. Maybe using only an ID number works in a town of 30 where everybody knows everybody, but let's see how well that would work in New York City.


The worst part about all these requirements for ID? They don't do a damn thing to make us safer. Not one damn thing. Anyone intent on committing a serious crime is going to use false id anyway and always will no matter how much technology we wrap around id cards. All they do is put the rest of us "on the radar" so that if someone with malicious intent can abuse the system to hurt law-abiding citizens. These procedures and systems only reduce security while superficially making it seem like, "the government is doing something to protect us." The government is doing something alright - increasing its size and influence, but that does not protect anyone but the goverment itself.


It is like you missed my entire point.

Yeah, likewise. You obviously don't believe that "the government" ever uses technology to protect us, and that being required to identify yourself in any situation is a violation of your rights. How about when murderers are tracked down because of a paper trail they leave, or habitual drunk drivers are taken out from behind the wheel after several DUI's and not permitted to drive anymore? Even fake identification, no matter how perfect, leaves a trail that can eventually be followed. The more difficult or expensive it is to acquire, the fewer criminals will have access to it, and the less likely they will be to just abandon one identity and operate under another one. The ones that are well funded enough and disciplined enough to operate under false identities, commit serious crimes, then abandon those identities completely to start their crimes over again are very sophisticated and very rare, and are damn near impossible to catch almost no matter what we do. I'm not suggesting that stronger identification standards would eliminate 100% of the criminals out there, but it certainly would narrow them down.

Regardless of how you feel about the government being too large or too powerful, you have to agree that identification is a necessary part of existing in a modern, densely populated society. You can't possibly believe that it is possible for us all to coexist in an anonymous society and expect any level of safety from threats foreign or domestic. It is the ability to identify people, and trace down their actions and movements that actually allow us to catch criminals in many cases. Sure, it's an invasion of our privacy to some extent. But I'd really love to hear your idea of an alternative solution.