Lawmakers Eyeing National ID Card

[Newsjock]

Source: Wired

Lawmakers are proposing a national identification card — what they’re calling “high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security cards” — that would be required for all employees in the United States.

The proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) comes as the states are grappling to produce another national identification card at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security. Virtually none of the states are in compliance with this Real ID program — adopted in 2005 — requiring state motor vehicle bureaus to obtain and internally scan and store personal information like Social Security cards and birth certificates for a national database.

Now comes a bid for a second card.

Homeland Security officials pointed to the Sept. 11 hijackers’ ability to get driver’s licenses in Virginia using false information as justification for the proposed $24 billion Real ID program. Schumer and Graham point to illegal immigration as cause for their plan.

“We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card’s unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone’s information,” they said. “The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.”

Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/two-id-cards

[annabanana]

1. "Your papers, please"

Will the new version of the Social Security cards still be printed "Not for identification purposes"?

[dmr]

13. That's something we were assured way back in grade school

while we were at the height of the Cold War, our teachers proudly taught us we would never, ever, ever have to show our papers.

Our freedoms were so guaranteed that we could cross from Michigan into Ohio and no one would ever stand in our way. We could fly to California, or take a train to Florida, and drive into Canada and we would never be asked for our papers. (for Canada they'd ask where you were born, where you were going and for how long, but that's it - never had to show papers).

Now we have to pay extra for an enhanced driver's license. Son got his recently, and I'm going to get mine soon just so we can cross over at Sault Ste. Marie this summer.

It's a sad damn shame it's come to this.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. duplicate n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. But nobody under 30 seems to know, since civics & civil liberties not taught since the Cold War.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. This is important question, are they changing the law to make SS card for identification purposes?

Since it says "not for identification purposes" presumably the current law requires them to say that.

[Thothmes]

24. In reality they already did that, at least in one segment of

American society. I think around 1970, the armed services stopped issuing new recruits service numbers and instead shifted to using their SSNs as the service number. All of those on active duty at the time, ceased using their old service number, and started using their SSNs. In the military you are identified by your SSN.

[arcadian]

2. 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11

What a joke this country has become.

[Hutzpa]

3. A Gestapo America?

have they lost their pea brain minds.

This has got to be a republican mantra.

[Arctic Dave]

4. Fraud proof, is that like hacker proof?

No such animal

[Mojorabbit]

5. Oh for crying out loud....nt

[The Northerner]

6. schumer & graham?

well, well, well.

an awful idea that has bipartisan support.

[Synicus Maximus]

7. I have not had a physical copy of my Social Security card in 30 years.

[nilram]

14. ditto. No, make that 40. Hasn't made a difference.

Jeeze, what a codger. I just noticed I'm walking slow, too.

[kestrel91316]

8. I got my Social Security card when I was 11, the year my dad went to Vietnam and I

started babysitting. I still have it, complete with my 11-yr-old signature. I'm actually rather fond of it.

[IDemo]

9. "no government database would house everyone’s information,”

Yeah, that's the ticket.

:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

10. Should not have that type of database especially if there is ever again

another President like Bush.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. Do they take us for fools? They already house and track info on anyone they want, warrantlessly.

[Selatius]

23. They just want to condition us further so that we'd more willingly accept authoritarianism.

Do it slowly, and people won't resist. Take it all at once, and you have a rebellion on your hands.

[Odin2005]

11. Fascism.

[AdHocSolver]

12. Actually, whatever they come up with will make identity theft EASIER.

Why? Because the people who propose this so-called "fraud proof" ID system will blindly accept their wonderful system over any evidence to the contrary.

Also, any system they come up with will probably have verification data on it in digital format to make it even easier to provide an identity thief with the information needed to make counterfeit ID's that will be blindly accepted as valid because it is believed to be "foolproof".

The kind of systems they propose can be defeated, and any system that would be "foolproof" would necessarily invade the privacy of honest citizens, and set the stage for the implementation of a totalitarian police state.

After all of the problems with electronic voting, computer viruses, worms, and trojans, back door hacks, computer fraud, and all the other mischief that can be achieved with computers, you would think that there would be a healthy skepticism about using computer "solutions" for such a serious issue.

There is NO such thing as a "fraud-proof" ID card.

Beyond this fact, their proposed solution assumes that employers who hired illegal immigrants were duped by the immigrants into believing they were legal because of wonderfully made faked ID. Yeah, right. Employers were duped into hiring illegal immigrants who cleverly forged identification papers as they were illegally entering the country from Mexico or Guatemala or wherever.

Heaven help us from "techno-idiots"!

[pampango]

22. The point is not whether you think all employers are evil cheats, but getting a conviction if

they are charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Thankfully, juries can't just assume that a person is guilty if the government charges him with a crime. His guilt has to be proven.

In your black-and-white world there are no "cleverly forged identification papers" (after all they're coming from Mexico, Guatemala - they can't possibly know how to forge documents!) and no employers who can be duped by forged immigration documents (or counterfeit $20 bills, I assume). In reality many employers who may indeed be guilty are not convicted because they prove a "reasonable doubt" that they thought the immigration documents were genuine.

I think national ID's are a terrible idea even if it is supposedly limited to dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. E-verify, while not perfect by any means, is effective and can be refined to be even better in the future. I agree with your point that "There is NO such thing as a "fraud-proof" ID card." It is better to live with (and work to eliminate) the inaccuracies of the current system than to adopt a "solution" that is worse than the problem.

Many people want to throw employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants in jail. We read that on DU all the time. The problem is that to throw people in jail you have to actually convict them, not just charge them and "know" that they are guilty. While some of those behind this ID concept may want to make these convictions easier, but on balance it is a bad idea.

[hunter]

27. Yep, it makes it safer for corporations to hire illegal aliens.

When I was doing temp work in my wild young man days, the big places with the most stringent security were the easiest places to wander around in.

In a place with no security, people would often ask you who you were, who you were working for, and what were you doing.

In places with very stringent security, in the nuclear and aerospace industry for example, once you had that visitor or temp badge you could just wander around on your lunch break entirely unnoticed. Behind the temp badge you were invisible, especially if you were doing something thoroughly menial and disgusting like removing seagull crap.

[Hannah Bell]

15. of course they are. it's the logical next step. except why do we need two types of surveillance ID?

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. So you can prove you have health insurance, of course.

[Hannah Bell]

21. of course. how could i not have realized.

[troubledamerican]

25. Chuck "Gimme Alito" Schumer & Lindsay Neocon Graham... of course

No Thanks, fascists.

[Toucano]

26. Democrats are exempt, evidently. It´s for those "...who want jobs...".

:rofl:

Personally, I plan to live off the welfare state of which I am advocating the rapid development with help of my "socialist" leader.

:sarcasm: (just in case)

[PVnRT]

28. Make sure your passbook is in order when you go traveling!

We are implementing more identity checkpoints for your protection!