National Identification Card. Honest question.

[darmok167]

How would this be a Violation of Privacy?

I ask this honestly and with a completely open mind.

I have already established that I am a white, middle-class, married man with two children and I live in a red state and I am a "convert."

I carry my wallet in my (right, if you're interested) ass pocket every time I go out. In it is my state issued drivers license, my (illegally laminated) social security card, and a couple of credit cards that have my name on them, not to mention the pictures I have of my family.

What I don't understand is how having an identification card with your name, picture and address would be a violation of our civil liberties.

I understand the "slippery slope" argument, and to be honest, I use it frequently, but I am not sure how it would apply here.

I guess what I am asking is this...I don't see a problem with a National ID. But I am used to carrying an ID with me at all times. I want to understand.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. It's not necessary and I don't want any more government intrusion in my

life than in necessary.

[idgiehkt]

2. I think it might be a fourth amendment issue.

But I'm not clear on exactly why. I'm out of brain practice since I've been being a big baby and hiding out from the world for the past little while. My analytical screws are rusted.

[Katina]

3. I think the credit companies know more about us than the govt

and no one seems to mind...I got a call yesterday from some "investment people" looking to "confirm" my address. I asked why. They said so they could send me new investment info. I again asked them why. THey answered, so that I could update my portfolio if I wanted. I then asked them, "what makes you think I have a portfolio, and what makes you think I want to deal with you?" They couldn't answer and said, "OK, I guess that means you want us to take you off our mailing list?" I answered, "good guess."

[hedgehog]

5. I love to see the assortment of mail mass marketers send me.

Somehow I get catalogs for both farm equipment and one for high fashion shoes that retail for $400 a pair. I want to see what kind of demographic I fit in that I get such an odd assortment.

[hedgehog]

4. I think it is too reminiscent of all those old movies where the

policeman comes through demanding to see everyone's papers. We use ID now to get people to cash a check for us. That's a little different than worrying that if we don't have the proper ID we will be arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


By the way, since getting a passport costs somewhere around $130 by the time everything gets processes, who is going to finance all these national ID cards? I don't think Homeland Security has thought that thru. Maybe Diebold is getting the contract to make up the cards and that's where the push to issue them has come from.

[SofaKingLiberal]

6. Here is Ron Paul's (R -TX) take on the issue.

Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card - and it may well become law before the end of the 108th Congress. The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report released in July recommends a federal identification card and, worse, a "larger network of screening points" inside the United States. Does this mean we are to have "screening points" inside our country where American citizens will be required to "show their papers" to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!

As I have written recently, the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than ex-government officials and lobbyists advising current government officials that we need more government for America to be safe. Yet it was that same government that failed so miserably on September 11, 2001.

Congress has embraced the 9/11 Commission report uncritically since its release in July. Now Congress is rushing to write each 9/11 Commission recommendation into law before the November election. In the same way Congress rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act after the September 11 attacks to be seen "doing something," it looks like Congress is about to make the same mistake again of rushing to pass liberty-destroying legislation without stopping to consider the consequences. Because it is so controversial, we may see legislation mandating a national identification card with biometric identifiers hidden in bills implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have seen this technique used in the past on controversial measures.

A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. We would do well to remember what happened with the Social Security number. It was introduced with solemn restrictions on how it could be used, but it has become a de facto national identifier. <snip>


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst090604.htm

It's nice to see that there are some Republicans against shit like this.

[grasswire]

8. thanks for posting Paul's memo

The national databases of personal information will be this nation's downfall yet. When dissent is criminalized, the "checkpoint" networks will prevent dissenters from traveling and allow a noose to be drawn around their necks very easily. This is dangerous, dangerous stuff.

[Floogeldy]

7. I have no problem with you sharing your name, picture and address.

So, just post them here, on this message board, if it is not such a big fucking deal.

Surely, you are not reserving that information for only government entities who will demand it from you.

Post it.

We are waiting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. The other ID's you carry don't exist for the sole purpose of tracking

you or your movements.
In the wrong hands or in the hands of despotic government officials, the potential for harassment is greater with a national ID system.

[guinivere]

25. That's a good point. The thing is, how do we know that

a driver's license couldn't be used for the same purpose. Credit card companies and banks already know where and how we spend money. Everything about everyone is already out there.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. True, but protecting whatever privacy remains should not be regarded

as an exercise in futility. It's a right. In fact, we're going to need to pull back and limit the manner in which that information can be used. Both parties have sold our interests out to business in that regard.

[Cruzan]

10. I think it really goes against the heart and spirit of the Constitution

and what this country is about and founded on, i.e. limiting the powers of the federal government, particularly arbitrary intrusiveness as prohibited in the Fourth Amendment. All the other cards you mentioned in your wallet, with the exception of your social security card, you possess entirely voluntarily -- there's no law requiring you to have a driver's license or credit card. And as far as your SSN, that's intended for a specific purpose, the Social Security Program whose constitutionality itself is a whole other debate. The fact that your federal SSN, which you are compelled to have, is now used by many entities, both public and private, as a sort of de facto national ID number I personally find troubling and think should be prohibited.

[treestar]

12. I don't think that is so much a problem as the general ignorance of

the people. They think it's a national ID of some kind and therefore don't get the real consequences of actually having one, thus the main post.

I've had to explain to people outright that the SS number is just being "borrowed" by other entities, because it is convenient and people learn to remember it. It isn't really a de facto ID in that these other entities don't have to use it. They could just issue their own numbers. It's just that people would have to keep track of all those numbers, so it turns out to be convenient.

This could pass, too, because the computer age is full of usernames and passwords and the ID number therefore could become obsolete.

I'm waiting for the government to "require" us all to have passports, in the name of national security. If they try to put the SS number on passports, that'll be another bad sign.

[treestar]

11. In a free country the government does not get to keep track of

every single individual in it. If the government refuses to give you the ID, then you have no rights. They can make a nonperson of you.

It's a free country. We are free, we cede some power to the government to protect property and mete out justice and provide for the common defense. We elect them in, as the People. They don't keep track of us, we keep track of them.

Use a little imagination. Or study life in countries like the USSR, etc. It sounds fine until you realize what it means. Sure, life could go on and seem the same, for a while. But eventually someone is going to realize they have power, someone who works for the government. People find it irresistible. The founding fathers figured this out a couple hundred years ago, yet we still have people today who can't. Go figure.

[radfringe]

13. like putting chewing gum on a leaking pipe

doesn't work

Fine, so we're required to have a national i.d. card - and that does what? Will it stop bullets? Can we use it to hide behind as a protection barrier when a bomb goes off? If we hold it up to our face will it protect us from a gas attack?

As you said - you already have several pieces of ID in your wallet. We all do.

We hear of identity theft every day. What's to stop someone from stealing/forging a national ID card in addition to other forms of I.D?

It's a placebo, a sugar pill designed to make you think it's doing something when it really does nothing.

[baldguy]

14. .

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/video/pizza.html

[ThomWV]

15. The Government Has No "Right" To Know Anything At All About You

Other than the fact that you exist, and they only get to confirm that once every 10 years.

[Deja Q]

18. Do corporations?

One look at a bank statement speaks not just volumes - it's the entire encyclopedia set.

[WinkyDink]

24. People aren't compelled to work for those corporations. It's a bit

different when speaking of CITIZENSHIP and RIGHTS of same.

Damn, I can't stand the insidious equating of the NATION to some money-obsessed private company.

[ima_sinnic]

16. the more rights you hand over to govt/law enforcement, the more

they can abuse their power.

I really do not want to be asked for my "papers" as though I were some kind of criminal and did not have a legitimate right to be here. The burden of proof is on the accuser, i.e., anyone who thinks I am "suspicious" or "illegitimate." Let them be the ones to dig up evidence, not me who has to "prove" that I am who I say I am and entitled to the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.

I also especially do not want to hand that additional power over to law enforcement. If they have the right to stop me to verify my identity, it is absolutely certain that ultimately they will abuse that power. Corrupt/racist/bigoted/abusive cops are a reality and they can make life a living hell for those they want to mess with. Suppose one evening you very innocently accidentally forget to bring your ID, or have misplaced it, and just happen to be "checked" by someone who for no reason at all just doesn't like your looks? With the current idiotic hysteria over "profiling," this could get ugly very very fast.

[Deja Q]

17. To my understanding, Europe and the UK have it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And they seem to be more free than America. Or at least less hung-up on things.

[magellan]

19. They're getting it

And bear in mind they don't have the constitutional protections we do, regardless of how hung up or not they might be about these senseless intrusions into their privacy.

[Vidar]

20. First thread I've seen moved from the lounge to GD.

[suffragette]

21. The violation comes from the back-doored passage and insecure

implementation of this by an administration that has already shown that it is untrustworthy in so many areas.

1) REAL ID has already been passed and calls for a de facto National ID. It was passed in 2005 and is scheduled to be implemented in 2008. Since it was not called the National ID act and those who passed it deny it is National ID, many people still are unaware of it. Furthermore, since it was purposefully tied to a an Iraq funding and tsunami relief bill, debate was not allowed separately and specifically about the merits of the bill - this was how it was back-doored into passage without a national debate about having a National ID card.

2)The process is also a back-door one. We aren't being issued a "National ID card." Instead, states face an unfunded mandate to change their process to conform to DHS specifications and oversight or risk having their state license and ID cards become unacceptable for federal uses such as boarding an airplane or entering a federal court. People will notice more stringent requirements (and maybe wait periods and probably fees) to obtain licenses or ID cards, but they will appear similar rather than "National." Why is this? So that some people who might otherwise balk will just accept this as a state-created bureaucracy need? And many people will be unaware of the deeper changes occurring when the procure or renew their licenses and ID cards. Our state licenses and ID cards will still be issued by each state but will have to include DHS mandated specifications such as including more personal information which the DMV will now have to also store digitally, currently unspecified "security features" which may include biometric info and RFID chips (yes, those little tracking chips) and all this info will be in an interlinked database overseen by DHS and available to ....well that part is up for debate. And that is one big reason why many organizations and people raise the privacy question. Who will be able to access this data by an RFID reader, either from swiping or the ones that can read from a certain proximity? How secure will this data be? What about the interlinked database? How many entities will have (or will be able to gain) access? How will this database be used?

3) DMV offices (and states) will now have myriad new duties to perform if they participate, in effect taking on INS (or whatever new acronym they are using today) screening responsibilities along with attendant storage of all this new data they must request and keep. Again, this is not federally funded. This part alone has the potential for massive problems.

I could list more reasons (none of this even touches upon other non-ID related, onerous provisions of REAL ID) , but instead will add some links so you can review concerns raised and make up your own mind about the issue.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/Action/AbuseOfPowerArticle/101872/

http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.num

http://news.com.com/The+Real+ID+rebellion/2010-1028_3-6061578.html

http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
The ton o'links page. You'll notice many links to UK's new National ID card program as well since they are implementing theirs around the same time (curious that, isn't it?) though they at last are acknowledging that it is really a national card.

Edited for a few typos

[Odin2005]

22. We already HAVE IDs, they are called DRIVERS LISENCES!

I swear, some DUers must have fits because they have to show the cops thier driver's licenses if they get pulled over. :eyes: Having a national ID isn't what bothers me, most other Western countries have them, it's how much is on the ID card and how much it costs to get said card (making the card expensive = trying to keep the poor from voting) that bothers me. As long as what is on the ID is limited to the basics (picture of self, date of birth, if you are a citizen or resident alien, signature, organ donor status, medical stuff a paramedic might like to know if your in an accident, and other stuff you find on a driver's licenses) I have no problem with it. If it is used to track people's whereabouts THEN I have a problem with it.

[Greyhound]

26. But they are not required by law. n/t

[Odin2005]

27. No, but they might as well be.

What if you write out a check and are asked for you ID and you have no ID? That's my point, they are not required by law but some form of ID is de facto reqired to function in society.

[WinkyDink]

23. Authorities have NO RIGHT to know who NON-suspects are! We are

allowed ANONYMITY.

[Greyhound]

28. That you don't understand why this is a violation demonstrates

exactly why this is so dangerous. In theory (only), The United States of America is a nation of free citizens governed with the consent of those citizens and if consent is withdrawn the government ceases to exist. A legal requirement to carry a government issued identification is in direct violation of the 4th amendment;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The fact that this clearly stated right of the people has been significantly eroded is not, in and of itself, an approval or legitimization of that erosion. The State issued drivers license is a prime example of how we have allowed the weaseling denial of that basic right. It has been accomplished by saying that driving is a privilege, not a right, and therefore Constitutional protection does not apply, IOW you can conceivably choose not to drive and thereby, chose not to participate in the licensing process. This is not the case with social security, and was one of the most hotly debated issues (126 pages of the congressional record in the Senate debate and 350 pages in the House) at the time.

As has been the result in nearly every case where the rights of The People are in conflict with the accumulation of governmental power, the government decided in favor of control over individual liberty. Where once the only legally authorized requirement to give your SSN was to the government, and your employer, it is now a commonplace requirement nearly everywhere.

We have abrogated so many of our freedoms already, and a legal requirement to carry a national identification is the de facto confiscation of yet another individual liberty.

[The Straight Story]

30. Freedom to disappear, as it were

Why should a few in washington track the many? When we cannot track them?

What need do we have to identify ourselves in daily life to anyone, what is wrong with being anonymous in this world?

I am reminded, many times of late, of the Amish. Something to think about...

[Solly Mack]

31. I have a DoD ID. I don't have any privacy

but I don't see the need to add an additional ID to my birth certificate, my DL, my SS#, my passport, my credit report, and my DoD ID.

They already know who I am. There's already a data base with me in it.


Requiring one more form of ID won't give the government any more access to my information than they already have

So the question remains, as a national ID will serve no purpose - why does government want it?

and I haven't seen a reason good enough yet.

[ima_sinnic]

32. Randi Rhodes has now been put on the no-fly list--arbitrarily,

no reason given other than something to the effect that "her name must be the same as a terrorist's."

This demonstrates how they can abuse ability to track and monitor people. Such arbitrary and capricious abuse of power is very frightening and is just another chipping away at our freedom of movement and of privacy.

If, as mentioned upthread, a national ID is about to be instituted, you can expect to see a lot more of this shit. If you think it will PREVENT this from happening by "proving" she is who she says she is, you are sadly deluded. Someone like Randi, who is an obvious threat to the status quo, could then be tracked infinitessimally. The next logical step will be to have checkpoints at state borders. Watch them come out for the big need to check state to state movement. Not only drivers, but every passenger.

[ima_sinnic]

33. kick, because this frightens me & I'd like everyone to see (nt)

[MissHoneychurch]

34. A German view on that discussion

We have a National ID. It contains our picture, name, birthday and -place, current address, hight, eye color, pseudonym (if you have one) and the personal signature. We use it to travel to countries that don't require a visa or a passport (we have that one separately). We use it when we go shopping and pay with credit card, some stores wanna double check the signature to make sure it is really you. When we move, we have to go to the city hall and tell them we move to another town. There you have to re-sign in. That way the government can do the census without sending us a letter with all those questions. You show your ID when pulled over by the police (also the drivers license and the car license). When we go voting we bring the notification with us and the ID. We don't have to sign in for a specific party to be able to vote.
I don't see the problem you have with the national ID. I don't think it is much of a deal. For me it is no violation of my privacy. It is a paper that confirms who I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: check spelling