National ID Cards - Coming Soon to Your Wallet

[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.