Are you against a National ID?

[Ravenseye]

I'm curious as to why people oppose it. What specific reasons or philosophical objections people have. What a nightmare scenario would entail involving a national id.

Enlighten me oh great DU!

[ret5hd]

1. as long as i get dibs on...

#666-666-666F

[Squatch]

2. Onehundred percent against it.

To have a national ID, there has to be an office that administers the program. That means bigger government, more government intrusion into my business, yet one more fucking thing you have to stand in line for.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ravenseye]

34. Ok follow up

If it didn't mean bigger government, just hypothetically, would you still be against it. Say it was as simple as a passport application or simpler. Say taking the DMV in every state and wrapping that up, and then making it easier than the DMV. Just hypothetically.

Do you have any other objections to it?

[Squatch]

39. Your papers are not in order.

Come with me.

[Ravenseye]

42. They can already do that though

Say you get pulled over at a checkpoint (which by the way I have in this country many times growing up...not so much recently) and they ask for your liscence. If they look at the ID and the photo doesn't look like you, or the date is expired, they can (and probably will) arrest you.

What's the difference between doing it with a state ID and a national ID?

I know you're implying that a national id card is the next step towards fascism. I've heard that argument repeatedly. Why? Why does a national ID card lead towards fascism moreso than various state ID's?

[Lerkfish]

because you have to connect the dots...CHILLING ANSWER

it isn't just the ID, simultaneously you have huge govt. contracts going to ID companies that inject chips under the skin.

Here's my envisioned scenario: the national ID passes, and then there are amazingly instances of people having fake IDs, perhaps committing some atrocious act of terror. Then, its decided a simple ID card is not good enough. We need something that stays with the person no matter what, can be read remotely and cannot be faked (they will tell you).

Voila! surgically implanted ID chips.

Now, why is this bad? consider: a permanent chip, implanted when you're born, readable by remote scanners, possibly by satellite. Consider: you attend one peace march. Thereafter, your chip is flagged, your credit is destroyed, you lose your job, worse: the govt. can track your whereabouts to prevent you from starting over in another town.

the govt. can make you a criminal without having a committed a crime, AND they can enforce it and cull you from the herd.

Imagine if they kept track of your behaviour, your likes and dislikes, and your political leanings. Imagine if they set up readers at political events. Imagine your chip was coded to PREVENT you from attending.

Think about the shadowy "no fly list' and put it on steroids.


then, read revelations, and find out what the mark of the beast is all about: people were required to have the mark in their hand or their head, and were not allowed to buy or sell without it. What would happen to you if you could not buy or sell? how long would you last with no way to buy food?

[Ravenseye]

70. Well putting aside Revalations

I don't make my political decisions based on what even some Christian scholars describe as the ravings of a madman, so we'll put aside Revalations (though I always thought that phrasing WAS interesting and possibly the most prescient in the bible)...

A national ID and a surgical chip are two separate issues I feel. I agree that connecting the dots used to be much more of an issue, but these days with computers it just isn't. A police officer can, or soon will, be able to simply type in your name and see ALL your combined data from each form of ID. Being different dots meant more in the days before the internet and relational databases. Now, a few quick types, or a swipe of a card and they have it all anyway.

People have fake ID's now and game the system, they will in the hypothetical future of the national ID.

Is a national ID really a 'gateway drug' that will lead to chip implantation in your opinion?

[Jed Dilligan]

83. All expanded police powers

are a gateway drug to further expansion of police powers. This country started going all wrong with Nixon's law 'n order, and if you don't join the backlash soon I will hold you as guilty as anyone.

[Ravenseye]

84. Fair enough

But how is a national ID different from a state ID in these respects?

[Jed Dilligan]

86. I'm pretty pissed off about those too.

They started having "ID cards" and the requirement to carry ID in CA in my own living memory, and I want it back the way it was.

[Ravenseye]

90. I think you need a photo ID now to get a job here

The employeer to fill out the proper tax forms needs proper identification, which can either be your birth certificate and photo ID, or a passport I think...It's been awhile since I got a new job.

so you're fully against all forms of mandatory ID. Doesn't it at some point become practical in our society to prove that you are who you say you are? How else would you propose we deal with disputes that fall down to identity?

[Jed Dilligan]

92. What kind of disputes? nt

[Ravenseye]

98. Lurching into Strawman Land

We're purely in the realm of hypothetical fantasy now...but take a squatter for instance? Say you own a piece of property up in the hills, and you go up there to find a squatter living there. You call the police, but have left the deed in the house sadly. You tell the policeman that you are Jed Diligan and that this is your house. The squater presents the deed and says that HE is Jed Dilligan and that it is HIS house.

How does the policeman determine who is who, and who should be removed from the property? Obviously a valid photo ID would help here. How would you resolve it otherwise?

[Jed Dilligan]

101. Well, if I were a property owner

I would probably choose to carry ID, whereas if I was a squatter I would choose not to. I'm neither and I would carry ID voluntarily to drive a car or go to another country. I think the respectable party in the situation you mention would probably have people to vouch for him. And this would not be an on-the-spot go-to-jail situation, the sheriff's decision is which one to evict (usually in minimum of 3 days.)

19th century history does not indicate major social problems arising from a spate of impostors.

These disputes came up before ID's were required and they didn't lead to the fall of the American way, the way required ID's and prisons and guard gates and patrols and dogs and security cameras everywhere just might.

[Ravenseye]

104. It's a smaller world nowdays though

We dont' live in the 19th century anymore. More people, less space, newer problems.

Why can other modern countries such as Germany do national ID's without becoming oppressive while we couldn't? Or do you argue that other industrialized nations with national ID's are just one step closer to totalitarianism?

[Jed Dilligan]

108. Germany's a special case, though I fear for it.

They were the first, understand, to require papers back in the 30s... if you don't count the passports the British (who also invented concentration camps) and other European powers made non-white colonized people carry. The Germans can "do" law enforcement without being fascist primarily because they've been there, done that, and know the signs and collectively lack the will to bring it back. The younger generation, though, I'm not so sure about, all these skinheads running around waiting to be deputized.

I don't understand how the world is smaller and you still haven't gotten at the specific (WIDESPREAD) problems that need to be addressed with more ID.

[Ravenseye]

109. You're right lets back up

What specific widespread problems need to be addressed with more ID? Is that the question?

[Jed Dilligan]

113. Yes, exactly.

Beyond hypothetical issues of impostors and what-not, what's going on on a widespread social level that a National ID could ameliorate?

[Ravenseye]

114. Hmm

All I can think of are the following

1) Easier ID recognition for Bartenders, Bouncers, and anyone requiring a valid Photo ID including Airport Security and places like that.

2) Better enforcement of legal hiring practices, especially if it's tied to a system that reports whether the ID is valid, maybe just containing a scan of the Id itself, so you swipe it and see if it's in the record and looks correct. Will cut down on illegal immigration and all those 'problems'.

3) Making voting easier and less confusing. You want to vote, you have your card. You go vote.

Though honestly I can't say that I'm necessarily clamoring for a national ID. I'm sort of ambivalent on a personal level. So if you're point is "why do something if it's unnecessary." I can follow that.

[Lerkfish]

118. yes, I think a national ID is a step down that slippery slope.

I think there are abuses already, without national ID.
But I think if it goes to an implantable chip, then we really are screwed. You won't even be able to peaceably gather to oppose anything the govt. says.
The difference between a card and the chip, is that chips can be read remotely and TRACKED in real time.


the chip represents CONTROL rather than simple data. the chip represents the ability to exclude based on unique ID.
The chip represents the ability to segregate people based on their database profile.

If you don't find that chilling, you're not paying attention.

[TahitiNut]

87. Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, what's to be afraid of?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/283

Do you REALLY think the absence of a National ID system will/has precluded tyrannical abuses?

:evilgrin:

[Jed Dilligan]

91. Against any and all further requirements being placed on my

ass by any form of law enforcement agency whatsoever. How about that?

[TahitiNut]

95. Gee... thanks for reading what I offered.

Not. :puke:

[Jed Dilligan]

97. I did read it.

There's too much rationality there. You are wasting time thinking about this IMO. Law enforcement asks, the answer is no. It seems a lot simpler to me than you make it out to be.

[Ravenseye]

96. Excellent Entry

So would you argue that if we are going to increase our entitlements, hopefully, in the near future with some sort of Universal Health Care, or other rights, that it would be better to have a national ID and open border than a militarized border with no national ID?

[TahitiNut]

112. I think any tool can be used for either GOOD or BAD.

A national id is a tool. My greatest concern is that we've demonstrated that we ignore the very real and extensive abridgments to our civil liberties by a plethora of powerful institutions, including government. I've raised the alarm about corporate excesses for many years. Piss tests. Privacy violations. Discrimination. Restraint of trade. Oppression of labor. The relationship between capital and labor has completely capsized in this country. It's INSANE that Wal*Mart can just close down a store if the workers organize. Insane. Corporations have nuclear weapons! (They're the ones who make them!) And we talk about a human being being allowed to own a handgun? Insane! Airlines demand identity even AFTER physically searching the person and their possessions! Just what fucking sense does it make to allow the denia service to someone based on some arbitrary and secret list when that person must submit to even a cavity search? It makes absolutely no sense.

I do not see this nation as being at all concerned about the expansion and empowerment of civil liberties - and is instead obsessed about curtailing civil liberites. (Other people's, of course.) Thus, it's the ABUSE of the tool that's assured.

At the same time, those abuses are proliferating already. Until we stop the abuses, stopping the tool is mere window-dressing.

[Lerkfish]

116. no, I think its inevitable regardless. The OP asked what my OBJECTIONS

were.
How you got from my post that I think the absence of a national ID system will preclude tyrannical abuses is beyond me.

My OBJECTION is that implanted chips make the abuses that much easier, invisible and absolute.

[TahitiNut]

128. Whether abuses are easier or harder has not stopped increased abuses.

That's my point.

To argue that "X" makes "Y" easier (where "Y" is bad) isn't a persuasive argument against "X" when we're seeing increased "Y" as it is. "Y" must itself be prevented and eliminated, completely independent of what facilitates it. From a propaganda/political perspective, blocking a proposal to do "X" tends to create a perception "Whew! We won't get 'Y'!" - and that's a smokescreen behind which those who hypocritically perpetrate 'Y' operate.

Case in point. We 'protect' ourselves from violations of our privacy rights against government intrusions. While we're locking and guarding the government door, we're leaving the corporate door open and 'sharing' private and personal data with various corporations. The government then forms a 'front corporation' and obtains that information through that vehicle. We're screwed. The difference between government and global corporatism is virtually nonexistent. Anything the government is purportedly prohibited from doing can be done by the very same powerful interests under the guise of a 'private' corporation. We've 'privatized' government, which means it's no longer subject to public scrutiny or public control. At the same time, we've entitled corporations to operate without liability and without visibility. (They have 'privacy' a human being does not have.) The creature that operates as the amalgam of the two is a beast that will not and cannot be stopped very simply at this point. National ID 'debate' is a diversionary kabuki. The abuses are now the rule.

[Lerkfish]

129. on the contrary, imbedded chip technology is an exponential increase

it takes it from merely inconvenient to absolute.

I understand your point, but I don't think you understand mine.

[MindPilot]

3. I already have two IDs -- I don't need more

Driver's license is my California state ID.

My passport is my federal ID.

Reason number two: the government has proved quite recently it cannot be trusted to perform even the most rudimentary due diligence with regard to data security.

[Ravenseye]

38. Isn't it three actually?

SS#, Passport, Drivers License.

Is your information any safer in the hands of the state government rather than the U.S. government? If your driver's liscense is used as a defacto ID, does the decentralization provide any benefits as far as data security or other means?

[MindPilot]

119. I thought about mentioning the SSN

but I have to give my ssn to get either a driver's license or a passport so it's already a de facto national ID number that I need to get any physical form of ID.

And yes, I most definitely trust the government of the state of California more than I trust the federal government. Or more accurately, I distrust the state less.

[Beelzebud]

4. I already have a driver's liscense.

[Ravenseye]

40. What if you don't drive

I know people who don't drive and dont' have a drivers liscence. They still need to go get a state photo ID. Well they dont' NEED to, but life is nearly impossible without some form of valid photo identification. I suppose you could also use a passport.

What's the difference with a passport and a national ID? Why is having 50 different state ID's ok but a national ID isn't?

[Beelzebud]

53. Why have a national ID if we have State ID cards?

It seems we already have system in place.

[Ravenseye]

60. That's another aspect

From personal experience I can think of one reason. I was for a short period a bouncer in a college town. I had to have a book with all the valid ID's that was pretty big. Many states would change their ID's on a fairly regular basis so that each state would have 3-5 valid varieties of liscence or ID that looked different. Multiply by 50 + even more for territories and it could be difficult to determine a valid ID. One national ID would be easier to recognize as valid by eye.

Of course it could be forged just like a state ID can.

The argument against national ID though rarely takes the angle of "well we already have a valid system in place", but more one of privacy and anti-fascism.

couldn't it also be used to better ensure an accurate voting record?

[dogday]

5. We already have a national ID

it is called our SSN... Can't do anything in this country without one these days...

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Despite the fact that federal law EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS such a use

That prohibition was put in place at the demand of conservatives -- real conservatives -- who greatly feared the power of a mandatory national ID system, seeing as how such systems were used in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China and other fascist countries.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. We could put a big dent in so called ID theft by enforcing that law.

Until recent years I was successful at denying SSN to any entity without a legal basis for demanding it. Now it's nearly impossible.




On edit: to answer the OP's question, a national ID will enable more detailed monitoring of our every move at a time when we should instead be focusing on codifying the right to privacy. I'm equally afraid of misuse by the government, private industry, and crooks. A national ID will ENABLE identity theft.

[987654321]

29. It's interesting to say this...

But thanks to the corporate take over of our government, I seem to find these days that I have more and more in common with "real" conservatives than I ever thought I would. Even my father-in-law, who has been a staunch republican conservative since the beginning of time, and I get together and bash the republican party these days. He even voted for Kerry and Gore, for pete's sake! I do think he cried a little when he did, though.

[Phx_Dem]

14. what are you talking about?

your SSC is shown to employers and that's pretty much it.

[Squatch]

20. Are you kidding?

Employers
Banks
Government services (DMV, etc)
Schools
Credit check companies

The list goes on and on.

[Phx_Dem]

26. I know that some entities want to see your SSC

but you do not have to show it to anyone, including cops. There are probably some exceptions, I know when you are depositing more than 10K in cash you have to fill out a fed form inc. SS#.

[Squatch]

30. Of course you don't *have to* show it to anybody...

then again, you won't be able to partake in the services offered by the entity requesting your SSN in the first place.

[dogday]

28. Thanks!!!

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

58. A few more to add to your list

My student loan used SSN as an account number. Same with my health insurance company. My first driver's license in Arizona used the SSN as it's ID number, too.

[Ravenseye]

63. You can opt out on the drivers liscence in PA

In fact I think the default is a random number and you have to request it to be your SSN for security purposes. Couldn't you do the same with a National ID though? Keep it separate from your SSN and financial data?

[lectrobyte]

36. Opened a bank account lately? Taken out a mortgage? Opened an

account with the electric company?

[Phx_Dem]

61. Just say no..

The university wanted my social, I would not give it to them, still graduated. The DMV wanted my social, didn't give it to them , they assigned me a special #. None of the banks I deal with have my social.

I honestly don't know about utility accounts, though I imagine that if you can provide 2 forms of ID then you don't heed the SSC.

[Ravenseye]

45. This is part of my confusion

Just knowing someone's social security number will net you a plethora of information these days. Obviously many places have no right to ask for it, but as others have mentioned many do, particularly when there is a large transaction involved.

I try and decline giving a social security number whenever it's asked for just on the principle that usually people aren't even allowed to ask.

[dogday]

48. See Post # 30

[Ravenseye]

51. Not always

Things like a mortgage you're backed into a corner, but I've had moderate success in declining. Heck i don't even give cashiers my zip code.

Them - "Can I have your zip code?"
Me - "No, that's ok."

It is true though that for many things in this country you are powerless unless you have a state photo ID, a social security card, or a passport. I guess I don't understand the difference between having those three separate, rather than as one.

[dogday]

56. Just for the reason you mentioned

I may not want to reveal my ssn to someone but am inclined by law to prove who I am.. Since my ssn contains my financial information, I should not have an id that does both.....

[Ravenseye]

62. What if the SSN was kept separate from the National ID

your financial number private, and your national ID replacing your State ID and/or Passport?

[dogday]

68. And we would sign for it

and I wonder what the small print would be on it???? Don't you???

[Ravenseye]

71. If I didn't wonder I wouldn't be asking questions

What if all the card would do is act as

1) Photo Identification.
2) Voting Identification.
3) Driver Liscence Information.

per 2) it wouldn't record your votes, but would simply be your floating voter registration...sort of a motor voter...so that it would be your ID to take to the polls when you vote as opposed to the small card I get mailed and lose every year.

What if it were limited to that?

[dogday]

73. Do I really want my political

affiliation available to anyone??? Is that not my right to keep it to myself?? I see that as a big no-no and a label, and I don't like it and would not go for it....

[Ravenseye]

76. ok scratch affiliation

it doesn't record your party, just that you are registered via your number to vote, and corresponds to their list at the voting station?

[dogday]

79. That's the problem with this

too much of your personal information involved with your need to know information... Anytime you get an ID, you sign a contract with the ID provider... I am leary to even think what the federal government would designate as compliance for said contract....

[Ravenseye]

82. Interesting angle

I hadn't thought about the compliance aspect before.

Still, my mind comes back to the fact that we already do this with the state Id's and drivers liscences...why is that ok, but national bad?

[bowens43]

6. Absolutely opposed.

It's a violation of our right to privacy. It's none of the governments god-damned business who I am or where I am.

[Phx_Dem]

16. nice attitude

your wrong btw...

[Squatch]

19. Is that all you're going to do in this thread?

Engage in personal attacks? Take it someplace else.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

23. And that, sir, is a personal attack.

As I said, take that elsewhere.

[MindPilot]

33. So can I take that to mean you WANT government in your private life?

If you are so enamored with authoritarianism, then perhaps you should look into the Republican party. I hear they really hate the idea of individual privacy.

[Ron Green]

52. I think what the Republicans want is for the data gathering to be

in private hands, not accountable to citizens but to shareholders.

[Phx_Dem]

74. Last I heard the republicans were the party..

of limited government, little regulation of business etc.

Funny thing is that I have not stated my opinion on this thread about national ID cards. I have mixed feelings, believe there are good arguments on both sides but I do not think that privacy or "move towards fascism" are good arguments.

[Ravenseye]

47. Howso?

How is a national ID a violation of our right to privacy while a drivers liscence, or heck for that matter a fishing liscence, is not? How bout a passport or a social security number? What is the difference, particularly if you wrap them all together into one ID?

[Xithras]

93. Drivers and fishing licenses are optional.

You're not driving or fishing without them, but neither is really needed to live.

[Ravenseye]

100. It would be hard to live without a photo ID these days

I know someone who doesn't drive and has a state photo ID. It's necessary for many reasons beyond buying alchohol or using a credit card, though I suppose that you could survive without any photo ID your life would be very restricted.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. What is the constitutional basis for a national ID?

The list of things Congress can do is very short, and I don't see "issue a national identification card" as being on that list.

[Ravenseye]

49. You could make different arguments

That damn preamble always makes things complicated....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's used as an argument for Welfare or Universal Health Care, I'm sure it could be used as an argument for a National ID.

[ugarte]

8. Why stop at a national ID?

Let's all just get the implanted chip and be trackable 24/7.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/BIZ02/602140331/1076

[Ravenseye]

57. I fear things like this

It's the kind of thing you read and think "Wow that might be something we'd have to deal with, but probably not in my lifetime." and then five years later...

I think a trackable chip definately violates our privacy.

The main thing that confuses me is that we already have a variety of ID's that fullfill essentially the same purpose of a national ID. A unified ID is different from tracking. That's just plain scary.

[ugarte]

65. Actually, the bigger threat is probably from the private sector

Just like with urine tests, people will yield their privacy and get these implants if it means getting a job. I actually fear the government less than what we will end up doing to ourselves voluntarily.

[Ravenseye]

72. That does seem more likely

The government isn't doing on the street piss tests, it's the companies you work for. I think you've hit the nail on the head on that one. I bet the government never does actually chip us (outside of maybe people who work for the government or soldiers). I bet you're right. I bet we do it to ourselves.

[TechBear_Seattle]

126. And so do the neo-con religious fanatics, oddly enough

In the 1970 smash hit, "The Late, Great Planet Earth", failed prophet and 700 Club preacher Hal Lindsay hammered home that "the Number of the Beast" that Revelations said was to be put on every person's hand or forehead would be an implanted microchip. That such technology actually exists now, and that the GOP is far more likely to mandate it than the Democrats, should be giving the Talibangelicals a moment of pause.

Oddly enough, they now seem fine with the idea of carrying the Number of the Beast.

[Lerkfish]

67. exactly, see my response further up the thread.

[-..__...]

9. Against.

Intrusive (some of the proposals I've read would include a magnetic strip that would include all sorts of personal information including medical and bio-metric data). That, and at some point it will be abused just like our SSNs have.

[Ravenseye]

75. What if...

What if it only replaced the standard state Id/driver's liscence and unified those into one singular form of identification, even if it's issued by the states?

What if it was just that...photo identification with no other tied in information much like a state ID?
What if it also added in just voter registration information (not voting records, just registration)?

What's the difference between a national Id in that regard and a State ID in your opinion?

[-..__...]

110. If it could be guaranteed that would be all.

Then I might not have much of a problem with it. Thing is, at some point in the future, someone (or some agency), is going to want to "improve" or add information "for our own good".

Safest bet is not to let them get their foot in the door to begin with.

The whole concept of a national ID is probably a moot idea anyway with the passage of the Real ID Act.

Just wait until the state DMVs and citizens have to deal with that nightmare.

[LA lady]

11. For

I am actually for it. I had family members who had their vote stolen (they went to vote and someone already had). We tolerate Social Security numbers,why not? Don't most other countries have one? I know I did when I lived overseas.

[slide to the left]

12. Speaking of SS card

Why are driver's licences changing to keep them them being faked, but the more important SS card is paper and has no picture? How stupid is that. If they would put our photo on the SS card, or a thumb print or something, then people could not use fake ones to get a job. I mean, my college ID was more tamper proof than my SS card.

On Edit: I have been for a Nation ID card as long as I can remember. No address needed, just a photo and SS#. It would be the new and updated SS card. If you are not a citizen, it would have your tax ID#, if you are not legal, you would not get one. That means, to get a job you would have to have one. It would not be something you carry with you everyday, just like your SS card.

[Beelzebud]

15. Then we can get Walking Papers to visit nearby towns!

And have checkpoints along the interstate exit ramps to check you for citizenship!

I'm starting to wonder why we even bothered to fight the Nazi's in World War 2. Was it because of noble intent, or jelousy?

[Ravenseye]

77. Do you honestly see that as a next step?

First a National ID card to replace 50+ different State/Territory Photo ID cards, next we'll be stopped at a checkpoint hoping we can go visit grandma?

[Avalux]

17. Why do we need one?

That's the question I ask, and I can't think of a good reason.

So I say no.

Identification should remain at the state level, imho - our SSN's were never meant as a national identification number as they have become.

[Ravenseye]

78. How bout if it's separate from the SSN

Just a photo ID that replaces your state ID/drivers ID. Heck even have the same places still do it, but instead of having it say Wisconsin, or Alabama on it, it's just based on one template?

[Avalux]

99. I still don't like it.

Our government was never meant to have such a hold over our lives. It's not necessary unless it's to control.

[radio4progressives]

18. I oppose anything that Smacks of Fascism .. and the Police State

that's just what the National ID helps to do.

May I ask how old you are and if you attended public school?

I only ask because i am observing a curious level of historic amnesia with the American public in general. Sometimes I wonder, if is because of the passage of time that people have forgotten, or is it a lack of historical memory - or is it because how the elements of the Rise of the Nazi state and Fascism in Italy, Spain as well as Germany is no longer being taught in our public schools?

I'm just wondering...

[Ravenseye]

32. Answers

I'm 32 and I attended a mixture of public and private. Mostly public schools.

I'm not ignorant of the misuses of 'papers' in the past by fascist governments, nor am I saying I'm necessarily for a National ID. I just am curious as to the actual reasons people on DU oppose it. I was more curious in just understanding other people's viewpoints.

Personally I see both benefits and drawbacks from such a system and I don't necessarily think it's as clear cut as others do, though I'm trying to learn more through posing this question in an attempt to make me think about it more and maybe get off the fence and choose a position.

[radio4progressives]

54. Thanks. I hope I didn't give the impression

that you were "ignorant"... as it was not my intention, but i don't think i was careful enough in my writing to make that clear.

anyway, i thought i'd try and make that point clear now.

My daughter is 34.. she doesn't have the "historical memory" and the issue doesn't have the impact on her as I feel it would had she grown up when I did, when the rise and fall of Fascism wasn't buried in the "distant" past.

I now have a fuller appreciation of the old axiom:

"Those who do not remember History are doomed to repeat it"...

I think also, that since elements of "big brother" have been implemented incrementally through the years, vis a vis
"The Corporation" has a desensitization effect on the public as far as understand the fuller implications.

[Ravenseye]

66. No offense taken

I'm ignorant about plenty of things. ;)

I agree that many people don't have the historical memory. I think it goes both ways as well, with people throwing about a fascist label haphazardly.

From personal experience though, I have family that still live in authoritarian countries. I've had decades of phone conversations monitored 'live' and if we said the wrong thing the connection would be cut. I've had to help gather up tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and payouts to get the right 'forms' to help relatives leave said countries. I've been stopped on the street and questioned and harrased for lack of appropriate documentation. I've been held at gunpoint and stripsearched.

I just don't necessarily see that having a national ID is going to turn our country into that though.

[radio4progressives]

122. well.. Given your own personal experience of a Fascist system..

I find it difficult to understand how or why you are unable to see the problem.

[magellan]

24. Oppose

Any ID they come up with can and will be forged, quickly rendering it an ineffective tool to combat the abuses they claim it will remedy. The problem lies in the improper use of established ID systems by certain officials and underfunded, haphazard oversight by the relevant agencies. Why throw another log on the fire?

What a National ID will do is provide just one more way for the government to restrict liberties by impeding participation in basic rights like voting, while demanding ever more information about each of us under the guise of "national security".

[Ravenseye]

80. How?

You mention "What a National ID will do is provide just one more way for the government to restrict liberties by impeding participation in basic rights like voting, while demanding ever more information about each of us under the guise of "national security"."

How would it be used in that regard?

[magellan]

89. By forcing people to show documentation to prove who they are

...before being allowed to vote.

How does one ensure that the entire voting populace is armed with this wonderful ID? Further, how does one ensure that the information each one contains is correct and always up-to-date in order to avoid surprises come election day? Onus will be on the holder...but we already have a system like that in place. It's called voter registration. And we know the official abuse that goes on there.

As far as gathering information and its potential misuse, you can bet your bottom dollar a massive, government-controlled database will accompany a National ID. I leave the rest to your imagination.

[Ravenseye]

102. Wouldn't that solve more problems than it would cause?

As far as voting goes, I hate our current system. I never know where to vote. I moved across town and my voting location changed, and they dont have record, blah blah blah. Constnaly having to register, change registration, notify about moving, and more.

Sure if you stay in once place and never move or change anything you're fine. Maybe I should just sit my ass down. ;)

As far as ensuring the voting populace is armed with the ID...well it'd obviously be a transition, but how many voters now dont' have a photo ID? If the state ID were replaced with the National ID, particularly one with a voter number you could vote and they could sort it out later if there were some problem at the precinct and track problems better.

AS you say though, they're absuing the current system, they'll abuse the future system, so the question is can we create a system that will sponsor LESS abuse.

AS far as the big database. They already have them. Pay a few bucks and put in your name and social and you'll find out all about yourself. The government doesn't need a big database. Thanks to relational databases they can more efficeintly check on you through many. It won't increase their ability to do that.

[magellan]

124. Well, I can agree with you about the benefits in the case of moving

I'm something of a gypsy myself. In that sense, it would be nice to be able to plunk myself down anywhere in the US and have not just my voter's registration updated, but all my information update, from one source, rather than having to contact endless lists of businesses with new address information.

Nice, that is, if I felt I could trust even more strangers with my bank details, credit card information, and so on. Strangers who, as we've witnessed over the last year or so, care for our personal data about as well as a team of trained monkeys might. No, that's not fair. Trained monkeys would at least attack someone who tried to steal our personal information. These bastards are walking out of their offices with it and selling it for profit, for all we know.

But that's besides the point. This brouhaha appears to center around the idea that voter fraud is rampant, and a National ID card will fix it. (Election fraud is a far more serious problem, but it gets none of Congress's attention...for obvious reasons.) Once again, in an attempt to appear to be tough, legislators want to add what amounts to an additional layer of vulnerability to voting -- a system that would work perfectly fine as is, if only it was administered efficiently and honestly.

They are failing us in that regard. A National ID card will be a boondoggle, I guarantee it. It will create more problems than it solves.

Do you think National ID cards won't be forged? That the fraudulent cards won't be used by whatever nefarious types do such things to cast illegal votes? You dream if so. It would make it easier for them. One set national standard, and all they have to do is replicate it and juice the resulting cards up with the details they already use to defraud the system. Bonanza.

We are much safer when our personal data is PRIVATE, in our own hands, leaving the onus on us for its safe-keeping. A certain amount of responsibility comes with being part of democracy; too much of that responsibility is being ceded to private corporations and the government. If my future ability to vote comes down to having to possess a National ID card, I'm afraid I will probably not vote.

[987654321]

25. I am against it!

Our federal government does not have the technological means to carry out such a task, nor do they have the manpower. This would mean contracting with private corporations, just as they do now for many things. The last thing I want is for US corporations and our government working together to keep track of what our citizens are doing! (oh wait, that's already happening)

Secondly, with the counterfeiting of drivers licenses, Social Security cards, and all other forms of identification already rampant, it would never work anyway. There would logistically be no way to ensure the validity of these cards.

I say we just forget about the cards and put computerized chips into the brain of every legal resident here. Doctors would be instructed to install them into every new born baby. Then the local and federal law enforcement officers can just carry around guns that detect these devices and aim them at suspicious looking people (that is, anyone who is a minority). They could even make designer chips for rich folks, or maybe red and blue chips according to one's political ideology. Right wing conservative Christians can get crosses on theirs, and force us to get upside down crosses on ours because we all know all the rest of us are going to hell anyway.

[MindPilot]

27. It's frightening that ANYONE on DU thinks this is a good idea. n/t

[Squatch]

31. Not only that...but if you oppose it

prepare yourself for snide personal attacks.

[Phx_Dem]

50. what's interesting is that many people..

have a unusual take on what constitutes progressive/liberal ideals.

"That means bigger government, more government intrusion into my business, yet one more fucking thing you have to stand in line for."

In general liberals accept that the government needs to be of a size that is sufficient to provide for the welfare of it's citizens as well as proper regulation of business.

Personally I think there are good arguments on both sides of a debate about national ID. The above quote is not one of those "good arguments".

[Ravenseye]

85. Why?

Why is it such a frightening idea? What aspect of it worries you the most?

[MindPilot]

120. Timing has a lot to do with it. And this is not the time.

In an earlier more enlightened time I would not have been opposed. In fact, I have in the past advocated for a national driver's license & federal vehicle registration with the idea that those things could be more efficiently handled at a federal level.

But the US is not what it used to be; it is now an authoritarian theocracy and any information its government collects on its citizens will be used against them. Since there is no longer any privacy when you hand over personal information, I prefer to resist anything that would make it easier for government or business to share and compile data.

[Ron Green]

35. I'm not that much afraid of it.

I think it would solve much of the identity theft problem as well as citizenship/immigration issues. Libertarians are very much against this, but in a modern complex society on a crowded planet, we can't maintain the Old West forever.

I'm always amused at how afraid some "liberals" are of Big Government, when Big Business is the real power nowadays.

[MindPilot]

121. These days Big Government and Big Business are one and the same. eom

[Ron Green]

125. Almost, but not quite.

That's why it's important not to let citizenship be subsumed under "consumership." As long as we can vote for people who tell us the truth we retain some public control of our affairs. When political discourse is exactly the same as advertising we've lost that.

McDonald's and Disney and Nike want the private sector to manage the world's affairs, and so does Bill Frist. I'd rather have a national ID card and more accountable representatives than Wal*Mart as the only place to shop.

[Initech]

37. A national ID would be just one more way of reducing our liberties

and remining us that they can fuck with us at any time. Anyone who thinks otherwise should lose their voting privaleges.

[ObaMania]

41. No, not if it allows me to move freely throughout my country..

.. 9/11 changed everything y'know. (/sarcasm)

[High Plains]

43. National ID? We don't need no steenking national ID.

[RebelDawg]

44. How long would it be

Before you couldn't cross state lines without your ID? Just another way for Big Brother to keep tabs on all of his servants.

[Ravenseye]

105. Do you really think that's coming?

How long do you think it would be between instituting a national ID and making it illegal to cross state lines without one?

Do you really think that would happen?

Why couldn't that happen with state IDs but it could with a national ID?

[RebelDawg]

111. Not everyone has a state ID

I imagine a national ID would be mandatory. "You don't have your National ID card on you? Then come with me sir."

And yes, I absolutely think that would be one of the consequences to a National ID.

[Ravenseye]

117. Yeah but they do that now

How many poeple do you know that dont' have photo ID or a drivers liscence? I bet you can count them on one hand if they're under 70. If it's more I'd be really surprised. You might not be required to have one now by law, but in all practicality it's tough to live without a photo ID in our country.

As far as lack of ID, you can be detained or arrested for no reason in this country. It used to be for what...24 hours? Now of course they're holding people indefinately without trial. All without a National ID. I've seen people who were arrested for refusing to provide any sort of documentation in this country. Sure they were released shortly thereafter, but they were detained.

Having a mandatory national ID is different than making it a crime to not carry or provide one to law enforcement, which would be unconstitutional.

If they passed a national ID law tommorow to replace state id's and driver's liscences only, how long from that to totalitarianism?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

46. As a child of holocaust survivors, I oppose anything that moves

further in the direction of keeping tabs on all of our citizens.

Period.

It also has great potential for abuse.

[Ravenseye]

107. How does it do it moreso than the current system?

How can it be abused moreso than state IDs?

Does a state ID or drivers liscence let the state keep tabs on you? Why would a national ID be different?

Doesn't Israel have a national photo ID?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

115. I do not have any answers nor time to think of them. I was presenting

my philosophy about it. Partly based on what I heard about growing up with holocaust survivors.

I know not whether Israel has them.

[peacebaby3]

55. I'm completely opposed. I have several IDs now. Here's a good Q&A on Real

ID.It's horrible and gives the incompetent Homeland Security Dept. (that can't handle weather) a huge amount of power.

<http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html>

[savemefromdumbya]

59. SS # is good enough

get that from birth - could add a photo every few years by renewing it.

[TahitiNut]

64. That's a very difficult issue. While I'm very opposed to it ....

... I find that the typical "public discourse" is error-laden and fallacy-prone, and doesn't really capture my core misgivings.

Many folks merely allude to "Deine papieren, bitte!" as an allegedly equivalent example of the tyranny of such national identification. Yet this isn't really accurate. Nazi Germany didn't merely implement a National Identification system; they classified and categorized people according to ethnicity, authority, entitlements, and other demographics. The "papers" were not only identification, they were permits to travel - one of many civil liberties curtailed by the Reich using the typical specious rationalizations that any autocratic regime peddles. While it's very clear that such abridgments of civil liberties were facilitated by a national identification system, the Nazi processes were far more than mere ID assignation.

Some folks allude to Social Security as a 'national identification' system. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth, even though the abuses of SSNs bear some resemblance to the potential abuses of a national identification system. Simply stated, we 'identify' our Social Security account, it does not 'identify' us. While we must provide evidence that we're entitled (by virtue of citizenship) to a Social Security account when we apply or application is made on our behalf, the mere claim to any such account does NOT identify us.

Some folks claim that a passport is the equivalent of a National ID. This is closer to the truth - except for the fact that we're not (yet) required to have (and carry) a passport (inside the U.S.) and most people don't. The reason this is closer to the truth is because a passport literally IS a "National ID" for international travelers, and in those countries with national identification systems, it's identical in all respects. (There are many countries where its confiscation is the equivalent of "house arrest.")

There are many who'd claim that a driver's license is the equivalent. Again, this is hyperbole. By the very fact that there are so many issuing authorities for a driver's license, including an international driver's license, the parade of horribles made possible by a single, unified, and centralized National Identification Authority is stifled ... and few civil rights are abridged by not having one. Abuses, nonetheless, do occur. We've permitted these abuses - any demand to produce a driver's license for other than the operation of a motor vehicle should, imho, be outlawed. (Likewise, any demand by a private or civil authority to produce a Social Security number for other than legitimate transactions with the Social Security administration should also be outlawed - including the corrupt and brain-damaged use of the SAN as one's military service number!)

Thus, we are permitting the abuses that a national identification system makes possible, even without having such a system. It's in this fact that my misgivings gain footing. Few could argue that there's something inherently evil about a national identification system. All valid arguments focus on the abuses of power that such a system facilitates. But we seem to be deluded that prohibiting such a system is an effective way to prohibit the abuses. This is demonstrably false. In a perverted way, we've been drugged into some political stupor - merely assuming, in some unstated way, that we're precluding the abusive consequences of a national identification system by merely preventing its implementation.

There is simply no substitute for directly comprehending and addressing the authoritarian abuses that abridge our civil liberties. Just because "A leads to B" doesn't mean we can't get "B" without "A".

At the same time, we have a problem of national sovereignty and the legitimate entitlements of citizenship. There are only two historical approaches to maintaining the integrity of a nation: (1) physical border control and (2) individual identification for national entitlements. Countries with "open borders" have national identification systems. (A 'nation' is PEOPLE, not dirt.) The more successful of them have a level of vigilance against the abridgments of civil liberties that just doesn't exist in this country. Our historical physical/cultural boundaries and our national mythologies have allowed us to go to sleep. Without national integrity, self-determination is impossible and global tyranny is facilitated. We have a Devil/DeepBlueSea choice. I'm not sanguine that we're capable of making choices that assure preservation of our civil liberties.

Thus, I'm led to the conclusion that the expression of some kind of "need" for a National ID is driven MORE by the difficulty some encounter in implementing the ABUSES that'd be facilitated by such a system than by the far fewer benefits of such a system. What's appalling is that we're constantly permitting such abuses.

I hope this makes some kind of sense. :shrug:



On edit: Unfuckingbelievable! When I began composing this post in reply to the OM, there were 14 prior posts - all of which I read completely. In the time it took me to compose a (hopefully) thoughtful reply, nearly fifty shit-on-the-wall posts were made to this thread - most of which are bullshit knee-jerk superficial crap, adding absolutely nothing that hasn't been plastered into even fourth grade 'discourse' on this subject. Worthless trash - posted without using 1/10th of one's mental resources - the same old obvious and superficial shit. There's no fucking way even half of those who've posted bothered to read, think, and organize their thoughts before posting. It's no fucking wonder that this forum is filled with brainless vitriol! Why do we even bother? "Discussion"? Hardly! (Sheesh!!)

[Blaukraut]

94. perfect sense!

You just said it! These abuses are already taking place without a national ID card system, and it's surprising how many people think that by not implementing these ID's, their civil liberties will be safer. Too late - the fox has entered the hen house a long time ago.
While I generally don't oppose national ID cards (originally from Germany, where there is such a system in place and works well post Nazi era, might I add), I do oppose it here in the US, for the exact reasons you stated, Tahitinut.

[TahitiNut]

103. Thank you, ma'am!

I'd given up any hope that, due the ultimate relegation of my reply to the bottom of a thread filled with superficial knee-jerk crap, anyone would bother scrolling down to read it. You've resurrected my frustrated spirits by your demonstration of diligence, thoughtfulness, patience, and respect. Bravo!

Even better, you show that you comprehend my rather clumsily-stated concerns - concerns that lie below the surface of the ordinary discourse on this topic. I actually admire the European approaches which, due to far more vigilence, use such systems to amplify and expand the scope with which folks exercise their civil liberties and morally legitimate entitlements. More and more, I feel like I'm living on the perverted "dark side" - in a nation that's becoming so seduced and despoiled that we're selling out our civil liberties wholesale and creating the narrowest of entitled classes: the uber-wealthy.

[warrens]

69. Your papers please

As soon as they have a mandatory national ID, they will have no qualms about tracing your whereabouts whenever it pleases them.

[Blaukraut]

106. 'they' already can

'they' being Big Business rather than the government. Credit checks, anyone? Also, every tried to find anybody on the internet(s)? With a little cash, you can find out everything, including criminal records, assets, account numbers, residence, what-have-you. Your privacy has been sold long ago, and not by the government, either.

[Jed Dilligan]

81. General opposition to the centralization of power.

Interpreted as either in the Executive Branch, in Washington, DC, or in the country's law enforcement agencies in general.

Too Nazi-ish, really. I don't take police-power expansions on a case-by-case basis, I simply oppose them all.

[Tracer]

88. I already have one. It's called a "passport".

n/t

[LSK]

123. i hate the idea. I thought I was in the land of the FREE

Freedom means FREE, NOT having to register with the Government or having to "identify" myself everywhere.

I HATE WHERE THIS IS GOING.

Go read 1984 RIGHT NOW.

[rucky]

127. Will it replace my driver's license, passport, social security card...

library card, copies of my utility bills to show that I'm a resident of the county so I can get my library card?

Can i swipe the card to avoid filling out duplicate forms?
Can I be assured that I can see all the information contained on my ID card? Will it make government run more efficiently without jeopardizing civil liberties?



If so, then I suppose I'd be for it.

but the way it's been packaged, and it's intended use...

HELL NO.

[sweetheart]

130. I am for a voluntary national ID - digital certificate

The government, like it or not, throught the courts, is the ultimate arbiter of identity.
If it offers citizens a more reliable and private way to establish their identity in this
increasingly digitial world, without putting their life-assets at risk, data assets, or
whatever else, then identity supports property rights, as without identity, you can't
assert virtual property rights.

That would justify a national, voluntary digitial identity certificate, that would have a
private, protected and public key data mode, to enable a legally authorized agent, to
verify a secure identity. This would empower online taxation evolutions, online supply chain
developments and other areas of transaction processing, web and non-web.

The problem, frankly, is that the data is NOT controlled by the public, and every utility
company, every phone company and every emplyer you've ever worked with has a tome of info
on you that you have lost the ownership rights to. Were the data kept under public-key,
and "used"/checked-out by a corporate user, then it would not belong to a corporate user
to lose or dump or sell as they please to whichever agent private, foreign or government,
TIA, bushian or any.

But this identity scheme is a prison number scheme, plain and simple. It is a law to
force every person in the prison to be counted, "stand and be counted" by the plantation
man little slaves. And for that, bushian lowlife can kiss my behind. :-)

[Joanne98]

131. Against it. Being able to hide, makes me feel safe.