National ID Cards - Coming Soon to Your Wallet

[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 [big three auto] 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?

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.

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.

[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.