T Nation

National ID Card

[quote]usdsig wrote:
The legitimacy of carpet bagging this through with military funding is suspect, as are the personal privacy issues, but I am surprised nobody has brought up any positives.[/quote]

Well, it’s mainly because they aren’t any. At least, none that aren’t massively offset by all the negatives.

It won’t help in stopping terrorists.

It won’t help in catching criminals.

Worse, it might lull people in a false sense of safety, actually increasing the risks.

Excellent piece on the problems with those cards:

http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html

[quote]
If this truly seems like a solution to illegal immigration to you, I am amazed. Once again, fear is being used to take away your freedoms. I truly doubt illegal immigrants are worth this and the potential long term harm it can cause. Some of you seriously need to stop only thinking of right now.[/quote]

ProfX- maybe you should read my entire post… I say in the very next paragraph that this may not be the solution, however the concept of national id, or a stricter id deserves some discussion…

Maybe everyone would just like to second each other, but I prefer a discussion that at least provokes thought rather than whole hearted agreement.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would think anyone familiar with the Bible or Revelations specifically would be a little uneasy about this. It amazes me how the “religious right” seems to be letting it slide simply because of who proposed it. [/quote]

the mark of the beast , in the book of revelations the christains will be blamed for whats going wrong.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m referring to Social Security Cards of course – you can’t do much of anything without a Social Security Number, and all sorts of your personal information is attached.

nephorm wrote:
I agree, but the reason we are in that situation is that the American public was lied to. IIRC, we were told that we wouldn’t be required to give out those numbers for filling out non-SS related paperwork… yet government and private agencies alike routinely require you to provide them with it. And supposedly, a business or private person shouldn’t be able to get information using your SS number unless they have authorization. In theory.

One of my main concerns here is that the dept of Homeland Security shows a high interest in using RFID, which would allow remote sensors to read the card while it is still in your wallet. This troubles me. Imagine having a GPS on you that allows anyone to track exactly where you are at any time (although technically, many cell phones can be used in this way already).

Already in the UK, they have a plan to put RFID tags on automobiles with automatic readers placed along the highways. Ostensibly, this is just to catch speeders (in itself insidious); but it also means that if you are in a car in the UK, the government would know exactly where you are.

Further, the card will/could have all sorts of additional information in it… effectively allowing the federal government to create a national database through private businesses. Every time you walk into the grocery store, if they have a reader, they can get all sorts of nice information on you. No need for that frequent shopper card now, buddy, just swipe that national ID (or worse, you don’t even have to take it out of your pocket).

I encourage everyone to read up on RFID… this technology was developed, in part, to make shoplifting harder… so that they could easily track merchandise as it moved in a store. Think carefully if you want something like that on your body at all times. [/quote]

nephorm,

While I agree with you that I don’t like stuff that stuck on to bills in general – and that goes from spending riders on stupid little pork projects to anything unrelated to the main topic of the bill, like when the Dems used to attach anti-Contra riders to all the bills in the 80s – that’s about where my worrying about this in the abstract ends.

If that technology is there, I fail to see what would stop the government from simply having it included in drivers’ licenses. And if you combine drivers’ licenses with Social Security cards, you basically have a national ID card now. With states’ requirements for attaining a drivers’ license or state ID coalescing, and with national databases and info sharing between the states and the feds rising, I just don’t see a big difference – other than easing the bureacratic administration of everything.

What would worry me more is if the technology weren’t at all supervised – which I doubt – I don’t think there would be a constant monitoring program, but rather something along the lines of how they can triangulate your cell phone if they have a reason to do so, which I think they need a court order for (but I really don’t know that for sure). What would also worry me is if I were required to carry and produce the ID at all times. Right now I need my license only to drive, and I don’t have a duty to produce it unless I’m stopped for violating some law. Or if they made it illegal for me to wrap my card in tinfoil…

So while I don’t like the way they’re going about it, the underlying concept doesn’t really bother me too much.

Would you like some kool-aide with that?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m referring to Social Security Cards of course – you can’t do much of anything without a Social Security Number, and all sorts of your personal information is attached.

nephorm wrote:
I agree, but the reason we are in that situation is that the American public was lied to. IIRC, we were told that we wouldn’t be required to give out those numbers for filling out non-SS related paperwork… yet government and private agencies alike routinely require you to provide them with it. And supposedly, a business or private person shouldn’t be able to get information using your SS number unless they have authorization. In theory.

One of my main concerns here is that the dept of Homeland Security shows a high interest in using RFID, which would allow remote sensors to read the card while it is still in your wallet. This troubles me. Imagine having a GPS on you that allows anyone to track exactly where you are at any time (although technically, many cell phones can be used in this way already).

Already in the UK, they have a plan to put RFID tags on automobiles with automatic readers placed along the highways. Ostensibly, this is just to catch speeders (in itself insidious); but it also means that if you are in a car in the UK, the government would know exactly where you are.

Further, the card will/could have all sorts of additional information in it… effectively allowing the federal government to create a national database through private businesses. Every time you walk into the grocery store, if they have a reader, they can get all sorts of nice information on you. No need for that frequent shopper card now, buddy, just swipe that national ID (or worse, you don’t even have to take it out of your pocket).

I encourage everyone to read up on RFID… this technology was developed, in part, to make shoplifting harder… so that they could easily track merchandise as it moved in a store. Think carefully if you want something like that on your body at all times.

nephorm,

While I agree with you that I don’t like stuff that stuck on to bills in general – and that goes from spending riders on stupid little pork projects to anything unrelated to the main topic of the bill, like when the Dems used to attach anti-Contra riders to all the bills in the 80s – that’s about where my worrying about this in the abstract ends.

If that technology is there, I fail to see what would stop the government from simply having it included in drivers’ licenses. And if you combine drivers’ licenses with Social Security cards, you basically have a national ID card now. With states’ requirements for attaining a drivers’ license or state ID coalescing, and with national databases and info sharing between the states and the feds rising, I just don’t see a big difference – other than easing the bureacratic administration of everything.

What would worry me more is if the technology weren’t at all supervised – which I doubt – I don’t think there would be a constant monitoring program, but rather something along the lines of how they can triangulate your cell phone if they have a reason to do so, which I think they need a court order for (but I really don’t know that for sure). What would also worry me is if I were required to carry and produce the ID at all times. Right now I need my license only to drive, and I don’t have a duty to produce it unless I’m stopped for violating some law. Or if they made it illegal for me to wrap my card in tinfoil…

So while I don’t like the way they’re going about it, the underlying concept doesn’t really bother me too much.[/quote]

BB:

I have to disagree with you on this one pal.

If they are able to have something like a national ID card without having one, then let them do it. The fact is they can’t. It is difficult for the federal government to obtain information with 50 different states (relative to drivers licenses) and that’s the way I’d like to keep it. I don’t want or need big brother tracking my every move! I find this entire national ID issue offensive and far to over reaching.

“Government does not fail to serve because it has to little power. It fails to serve because it has to much power!”

Ronald Reagan

[quote]If that technology is there, I fail to see what would stop the government from simply having it included in drivers’ licenses.
[/quote]
That would also be a problem, so I’m not sure how moving the technology to the driver’s license would ameliorate anything.

The government has no right to know where you are, with or without a court order. They may have a right to question people with regards to your whereabouts, but unless you have a tracking bracelet as a parole condition, they have no right to track you.

In the state of Maryland, it used to be (I don’t think it still is) law that anyone in the state was required to carry a photo-id, and was required to “furnish it upon request.” I can’t claim that I know much about the law beyond that, but when I was an RA we were instructed to use that as a way to force students to show us their licenses.

[quote]
So while I don’t like the way they’re going about it, the underlying concept doesn’t really bother me too much.[/quote]

I may not be able to sway you on based on a pro and con list, but I think the will of the people, in the negative, always trumps the interests of the state. This is a republic, after all.

Here’s an interesting critique on the actual security substance stuff w/r/t IDs – and it doesn’t sound good:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

It passed the Senate, if anyone still cares.

I, for one, welcome our new barcode overlords!

[quote]nephorm wrote:
It passed the Senate, if anyone still cares.

I, for one, welcome our new barcode overlords![/quote]

So where’s the tinfoil howto?

This is yet another shining example of voter disinterest in action. Blah.

This is an exerpt. For the full post, go to

http://atreides.blog.com/

What’s the big deal? Think about RFIDs, wireless readers, Bluetooth, and the internet. It’s not enough that they can track everyone who uses a mobile phone these days. Try to buy a new Chevy today without OnStar. Good luck! With the National database and REAL ids they can track everyone. Over the top? Not really, talk to anyone with an EZ Pass who comes home only to find a speeding ticket in the mailbox.

Still, there are people who don’t care. I’ve talked to many friends who say ? hey, I don’t break any laws, I don?t care who watches?. Military folks are more ambivalent; they get tracked all their lives. There aren’t any Constitutional rights in the military.

There are more people, yet, that see it only as a small measure of freedom surrendered in the name of ?security?. That, too, is a slippery slope.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a life long Republican and despite my position, herein, I am not moving to the Left. This comes down on the wrong side of freedom. At the end of the day there is only downside here. In a nutshell, that’s why I don’t like it. This process, this sacrifice of freedom won’t protect us from anything.

The state governors could revolt, but I doubt it will happen, especially, when federal funding comes into play. Just look at how they extort state capitulation with federal highway money. Regrettably, we may have to rely on the Left and their ACLU buddies to save us from our own folly. California is already passing a measure making it illegal to track anyone using RFIDs. Anyone know how to neutralize an RFID? I see a back alley business venture here.

To quote Rush ? I am already a little long in this segment, so thanks for reading. One more thing, don’t forget to show your papers on the way out.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an interesting critique on the actual security substance stuff w/r/t IDs – and it doesn’t sound good:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html[/quote]

I think what concerns me most is the identity-theft issues from linking all the data to unsecure systems.

The part that bothers me the most is how these kind of things always seem to wind up attached to a “must pass” funding bill, so that it can’t be fairly debated.

Bush should, but absolutely won’t, use the line item veto to send this pig back for proper, and open, discussion.

Atreides wrote: Military folks are more ambivalent; they get tracked all their lives. There aren’t any Constitutional rights in the military

Amen to that. As for the SSN, I don’t know how it is in the civilian world but in the military I only have to give my last four on anything I fill out that requires a SSN. A national ID card, for me, would be just another thing to carry in my wallet. Europe has had them for years and while I was stationed in NATO the different nationalites were in agreement that they were a good thing. One of the common rallying cries I keep seeing is the need for a national health care plan. Well, you have to have some way to track it so that plays right into a national ID card. I doubt they would just take your word for it.

Also could someone explain exactly what rights/freedoms you are losing and how it is negatively affecting you. I keep hearing about losing rights/freedoms but no one ever identifies them.

[quote]CDM wrote:
Also could someone explain exactly what rights/freedoms you are losing and how it is negatively affecting you. I keep hearing about losing rights/freedoms but no one ever identifies them. [/quote]

One large one is the right to privacy. Is it really anyone’s business if you go out of town for the weekend? I am in the military as well, but I can assure that when I am no longer in, having my every step tracked as far as where I am and what I am doing is not how I would like to live my life.

Further, there is also the fear of how this info could possibly be used against you. Unless you simply trust anyone in power to only use this info to determine who is a foreigner, I see a possible risk. What kinds of info will be maintained about you?

[quote]CDM wrote:

Also could someone explain exactly what rights/freedoms you are losing and how it is negatively affecting you. I keep hearing about losing rights/freedoms but no one ever identifies them. [/quote]

The right to be anonymous for one. The right to leave my house and not have big brother track my every movement. Right now with the use of credit cards, it would be pretty easy to track where I am and what I do. But I reserve the right to pay cash and to be unnoticed by anyone.

I’m not saying that bits and pieces aren’t already out there in one form or another, but I can thank beaurocracy and red tape, not to mention lack of computer integration - so that the bits and pieces stay bits and pieces. Once the National database is setup, the eventual tie ins would never stop.

It passed in the Senate 100-0. Also included provisions that will prevent states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, stiffen asylum laws, complete construction of a fence between California and Mexico, a ton of tusnami relief, and $592 million for a new embassy in Baghdad.

[quote]john p wrote:
It passed in the Senate 100-0. Also included provisions that will prevent states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, stiffen asylum laws, complete construction of a fence between California and Mexico, a ton of tusnami relief, and $592 million for a new embassy in Baghdad. [/quote]

Slightly off-topic rant:

This is precisely why we should amend the Constitution to allow for a line-item veto (an amendment would be required because the USSC, in its infinite wisdom, decided that this would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power from Congress to the President – yet somehow having federal agencies under the executive branch that pass rules, which you can go to jail for breaking, is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority…).

Congress can’t seem to help itself when it comes to attaching completely unrelated riders to large bills.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Congress can’t seem to help itself when it comes to attaching completely unrelated riders to large bills.[/quote]

Worse yet are those who, years down the road, will use a politician’s voting history as a gauge of his ethics without knowing whether reasons like this are why it was rejected or voted for. They combine enough good reasons to sign for it so that very few will contest it. I swear, they could reinstitute slavery and some fools would vote for it as long as they attached it to a bill that got rid of the right have an abortion.