Do we need a National ID Card?

[muzikool]

I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is behind the rewording; maybe it's just trendy to paraphrase important writings these days.

:laugh:

 

[ignipotentis]

I'll jump into this thread late. I have done the typical thing and have NOT read everyone's arguments. If I cross something which has already been addressed, I'm sorry. I think people need to relax about the Orelian nightmare they are envisioning. The UK is in a much worse position right now trying to record everyone's public movements. State ID's and Drivers Licences are the standard for idendification in this country. The problem is, people don't know what they look like. Put yourself on a college campus where there are students from all over the country, and think about how you are going to confirm this person is who they say they are. I think its more convienent to have one card for that.

That being said, it will NOT make us more secure. Its just a convienece. In reality, some things do need to get standardized (my opinion). These things include the rules of the road, and other similar setups where simple ignorance could land someone a nice ticket.

 

[Petros]

Encased in spoiler tags to keep the thread tidy looking, and it's kind of long. I have put this here because the thoughts are interesting and they harmonize a lot of discord about the subject. Read the last paragraph if you read anything. This was not written by me, but a poster on Fark.

Spoiler: RealID.

Thoughts on REAL ID, related through a recent encounter with the police:

Just a couple of hours ago, in a TF thread about "almost" getting arrested, I mentioned that I was arrested a couple years ago (Sept. 03) for refusing to ID myself to a sheriff's deputy. Well, shortly after posting that, I decided to walk to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes, and just to get out of the house for a little while. This was about 4AM.

Walking down the street, a Harris County Sheriff's department deputy passed me, turned around and drove up behind me. Here we go again. She pulled up beside me and asked me to stop. It's best to be polite, I've found, so I stopped. It didn't hurt that this was a hot, young, female deputy with curly blond hair and a nice smile.

She wanted to know where I lived and where I was going, questions which are easy answered with vague responses. Then she wanted ID.

Well! In the state of Texas, you aren't legally obligated to give ID under these circumstances. I know this well, because I prepared heavily to defend myself against the charge back in '03. I explained this, and even quoted the penal code section (38.02) to Deputy Hawtee. She said some typical cop stuff like, "I drive this route every night and it's unusual for people to be walking down the street at 4AM." Without being too argumentative, I explained that although it might be unusual, it's not illegal.

Then I turned up the heat. I said I'd prefer to be on my way, unless I was being detained. Deputy Hawtee said that I was, in fact, being detained- and she needed to see ID. I said that lawful detention requires reasonable suspicion (supported by specific and articulable facts) and asked what crime she suspected me of having committed. "No crime, I just need to know who you are."

Well, she was very nice, but I declined to give her the information several times. Finally she put me in the cruiser, got in the front and again started asking me for my ID information. Again, I explained why, according to the penal code, I didn't have to provide it. She seemed genuinely inquisitive, and asked why I wouldn't just provide ID. I explained that I've been given similar commands dozens of times through the years, and had almost always caved in to pressure and threats of being jailed. Finally, I'd had enough. I refused, was arrested, jailed, put before a judge who eventually threw out the charge. I absolved her, personally, of blame because "that's just the way you guys are trained" to execute the law. But it's wrong and it needs to be brought to peoples' attention, and I was perfectly willing to go to jail again if need be.

Well, finally another cop showed up, and she left me in the back seat while she went to confer with her colleague. About 15 minutes later, she got back in the car and asked me a few more questions, mostly things like, "Okay, but you understand why we have to stop people on the street, right?" ("Sure I do, and if they want to waive their right, or they're ignorant of it, that's their choice. But you understand why I choose to reserve the rights guaranteed to me, don't you?")

So she got out and opened the back door, told me to collect my pocket knife and soda from the truck of the car, and said, "Get out of here." I thanked her, got out, got my stuff and then played my hold card. I said, "So, do you want it now?" ("Want what?") "My ID." She laughed and I gave her my driver's license number. The screen quickly showed that I have no warrants, nothing. We parted ways with niceties.


Well! Now on to the fun stuff. REAL ID won't affect a damn thing. I think it's a bad idea, but an inevitable one. What we really need to be looking at are the circumstances under which we're obligated to present our ID. Texas law was changed after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. State of Texas (1979). The law had previously said that you must ID yourself if asked to do so by a police officer. It was changed to its current wording which basically says you must ID yourself if lawfully arrested (presumably for some other crime), and that it's an offense to give false ID under any circumstances.

Last year, however, the current Supreme Court ruled on the case of Hiibel v. State of Nevada. The decision affirmed Nevada law and opened the door for other states to rewrite their ID statutes to be something more like Texas law was before Brown v. Texas. Texas has not yet changed their code, but I suspect they will soon enough.

So at least in Nevada, if you're just standing at a bus stop and a cop wants your ID, you've got to hand it over or face arrest. That truly is "your papers, please." Combined with a new Federal identification database (the heart and soul of REAL ID), we're going down a dark path. Police officers will be able to stop anyone, anytime; demand their ID; and with it gain access, conceivably, to much more information than is necessary. Think of all the things known about you by various Federal agencies. I'm trying not to sound like Chicken Little, but the stage is certainly set for a complete erosion of your right to privacy.

The ID isn't the problem. The problem is determining when you're required to show it. The 4th amendment right "to be secure in [your]... papers" has been severly weakened, and reclaiming it should be the focus of our efforts.

 

[gonaads]

Well here are two opposite points of view from two "experts".

Robert Siciliano (he is the author of The Safety Minute and is a Boston-based personal security and identity theft expert... www.IDTheftSecurity.com)

America needs a nationalk ID system because the way that we identify people now is fundamentally flawed. We currently rely on pieces of paper with typed words and photos laminated in plastic. Some IDs have security features such as holograms and foils laminated under or imbedded into the plastic. While these security features make it harder to counterfeit, they can all still be compromised. And until we incorporate secure/smart standards, our nation's security is at risk, identity theft will continue to spin out of control and illegal immigration will continue, unchecked.

Our current IDs are dumb. We need to make them smart, meaning the IDs can communicate digitally and electronically with a server. Chip-based digital IDs could use radio frequency identification and biometric technology. Biometrics are digital records of the unique characteristics of your features. We know DNA is our unique biological thumbprint, our unique genetic code. Nobody has the same DNA. Nobody has the same thumbprint. Biometrics digitally store and record the uniqueness of your face, eyes, ear canals, voice and fingerprints. Technology can process this information and store it on smart cards that can be used to properly identify people. And if we encrypted the information, it would be secure.

We should use this technology as part of a national ID system. It's all about authentication. And authenticating who is making the transaction and confirming the cardholder is who they say they are can only be done by incorporating digital features that are specific and unique to the cardholder and can't be counterfeited.

Also with a national ID system we could standardize our ID cards. There are currently 200-plus forms of driver's licenses in this country, 14,000 types of birth certificates and 49 types of valid Social Security cards. All of these identification documents are easily counterfeited. Don't believe me? Go online and do a search under "fake ID." There are hundreds of web sites that sell them.

Many feel a national ID card would move us into George Orwell's vision in his book 1984. What they don't realize is that we are already there. Privacy is an illusion. Everthing we do from the time we're born is documented. Every time we go to the bank, use a credit card, use a transponder at the highway tolls, get married, buy a house-all of this is documented. Participating in society means obscurity is not an option. Now we must manage our circumstances.

And now the other side...

Ron Paul (R-Texas) (He consistently argues in Congress for limited constitutional government)

Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card-and it may well soon become law. A national ID 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 ID 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.

Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style intermal passport system because they think it will make us sfer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and screening points will actually make us less safe, not in the least because it will devert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present and form of ID before they engage in private transactions. Instead of forcing all Americans to prove to law enforcement that they are not terrorists, we should be focusing our resources on measures that really will make us safer.

For starters, we should take a look at our dangerously porous and unguarded borders. We have seen how easy it is for individuals possibly seeking to do us harm to sneak across the border into our country. Last July, Pakastani citizen Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who is on the federal watch list, reportedly crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico. She was later arrested when she tried to board a plane in New York, but she should have never been able to cross our border in the first place!

To be sure, we must take effective measures to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. But that doesn't mean rushing to embrace legislation that in the long run will do little to stop terrorism, but will do a great deal to undermine the very way of life we should be protecting.

Just as we must not aloow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national ID card.

Now those are some strong remarks in both directions. Wow!

please excuse any typos... I had to type this out.

 

[Petros]

Well here are two opposite points of view from two "experts".
please excuse any typos... I had to type this out.

Good reads...I actually agree with both authors. Better ID is necessary these days, AND we need to beef up border security.

Privacy is an illusion. Everthing we do from the time we're born is documented. Every time we go to the bank, use a credit card, use a transponder at the highway tolls, get married, buy a house-all of this is documented.

This one hit the hardest for me because it's true!

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Yes good reads and I dont think the police need a national ID to place false charges on someone they do that all the time and always have, I think that the views of Mr BF would like anything change with time and circumstance no one in their right mind does not change their mind at some point in time.

 

[lancer]

I have to say that was one of the most enjoying posts i've read in long time, i was wondering when she was gonna sit in th backseat with you and fish out the id herself. haha

But on a serious note, the REAL ID, i have no doubt will have parts of it restricted to certain agencies, but no doubt something will happen where the program crashes or gets hacked your **** is either all stolen all the cop that just pulled you over really does know far more than he/she/shem should.

Encased in spoiler tags to keep the thread tidy looking, and it's kind of long. I have put this here because the thoughts are interesting and they harmonize a lot of discord about the subject. Read the last paragraph if you read anything. This was not written by me, but a poster on Fark.

Spoiler: RealID.

Thoughts on REAL ID, related through a recent encounter with the police:

Just a couple of hours ago, in a TF thread about "almost" getting arrested, I mentioned that I was arrested a couple years ago (Sept. 03) for refusing to ID myself to a sheriff's deputy. Well, shortly after posting that, I decided to walk to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes, and just to get out of the house for a little while. This was about 4AM.

Walking down the street, a Harris County Sheriff's department deputy passed me, turned around and drove up behind me. Here we go again. She pulled up beside me and asked me to stop. It's best to be polite, I've found, so I stopped. It didn't hurt that this was a hot, young, female deputy with curly blond hair and a nice smile.

She wanted to know where I lived and where I was going, questions which are easy answered with vague responses. Then she wanted ID.

Well! In the state of Texas, you aren't legally obligated to give ID under these circumstances. I know this well, because I prepared heavily to defend myself against the charge back in '03. I explained this, and even quoted the penal code section (38.02) to Deputy Hawtee. She said some typical cop stuff like, "I drive this route every night and it's unusual for people to be walking down the street at 4AM." Without being too argumentative, I explained that although it might be unusual, it's not illegal.

Then I turned up the heat. I said I'd prefer to be on my way, unless I was being detained. Deputy Hawtee said that I was, in fact, being detained- and she needed to see ID. I said that lawful detention requires reasonable suspicion (supported by specific and articulable facts) and asked what crime she suspected me of having committed. "No crime, I just need to know who you are."

Well, she was very nice, but I declined to give her the information several times. Finally she put me in the cruiser, got in the front and again started asking me for my ID information. Again, I explained why, according to the penal code, I didn't have to provide it. She seemed genuinely inquisitive, and asked why I wouldn't just provide ID. I explained that I've been given similar commands dozens of times through the years, and had almost always caved in to pressure and threats of being jailed. Finally, I'd had enough. I refused, was arrested, jailed, put before a judge who eventually threw out the charge. I absolved her, personally, of blame because "that's just the way you guys are trained" to execute the law. But it's wrong and it needs to be brought to peoples' attention, and I was perfectly willing to go to jail again if need be.

Well, finally another cop showed up, and she left me in the back seat while she went to confer with her colleague. About 15 minutes later, she got back in the car and asked me a few more questions, mostly things like, "Okay, but you understand why we have to stop people on the street, right?" ("Sure I do, and if they want to waive their right, or they're ignorant of it, that's their choice. But you understand why I choose to reserve the rights guaranteed to me, don't you?")

So she got out and opened the back door, told me to collect my pocket knife and soda from the truck of the car, and said, "Get out of here." I thanked her, got out, got my stuff and then played my hold card. I said, "So, do you want it now?" ("Want what?") "My ID." She laughed and I gave her my driver's license number. The screen quickly showed that I have no warrants, nothing. We parted ways with niceties.


Well! Now on to the fun stuff. REAL ID won't affect a damn thing. I think it's a bad idea, but an inevitable one. What we really need to be looking at are the circumstances under which we're obligated to present our ID. Texas law was changed after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. State of Texas (1979). The law had previously said that you must ID yourself if asked to do so by a police officer. It was changed to its current wording which basically says you must ID yourself if lawfully arrested (presumably for some other crime), and that it's an offense to give false ID under any circumstances.

Last year, however, the current Supreme Court ruled on the case of Hiibel v. State of Nevada. The decision affirmed Nevada law and opened the door for other states to rewrite their ID statutes to be something more like Texas law was before Brown v. Texas. Texas has not yet changed their code, but I suspect they will soon enough.

So at least in Nevada, if you're just standing at a bus stop and a cop wants your ID, you've got to hand it over or face arrest. That truly is "your papers, please." Combined with a new Federal identification database (the heart and soul of REAL ID), we're going down a dark path. Police officers will be able to stop anyone, anytime; demand their ID; and with it gain access, conceivably, to much more information than is necessary. Think of all the things known about you by various Federal agencies. I'm trying not to sound like Chicken Little, but the stage is certainly set for a complete erosion of your right to privacy.

The ID isn't the problem. The problem is determining when you're required to show it. The 4th amendment right "to be secure in [your]... papers" has been severly weakened, and reclaiming it should be the focus of our efforts.

 

[lancer]

oh and what the hell what that guy talking about dumb id's, not sure what other states do, but don't you all have black bars on you DL's, that the cops swipe in their vehicles that are linked to servers at the station or wherever, where is the need for additional ID, i'm not even against it, i just see it as a waste of time and money, instead phase in mandatory states ID's for over 16's, and anyone with a license should have new ones phased in with either smart chips or this (see attached pic of the back of my green card, is this illigal to post this?).

The scanner made it black but actually the back bar is one big glass like hologram with all my info and pictures on it, also it have over bars and stuff on if, which are probably for ways to use it, also at the bottom there is a bar code*. and on the other side (which i'm not gonna show), has a large string of numbers like a passport with the usual stuff you have on a drivers license, plus it has my fingerprint and Alien number. Basically this card have everything anyone of note would every need to know about me, or would need to find out WHAT the they wanted to know about me. So if i have this card, why cant you, and in the long run, unwonted and the rest of you touting your freedom (stops himself from laughing), when you travel outside of America ( if you have already why are you still deluding yourself), you will realise this country is not based on the freedoms you think you enjoy. You are only according enough freedom as the government sees fit. Why do you think a society with such a stringent control can survive, Capitalism, people would rather have money than freedom.

*took it off for security reasons.

 

[gonaads]

Yeah, the so called security "expert" kinda strikes me as if he's just looking for the big monopoly on any form of digital IDs that the government may put into effect.

"Let's scare the population and we can get the government contract with our product and we'll all be millionares."

Makes me wonder if there is a hidden agenda... Kinda freaky really.

 

[Xie]

I really can't understand what the **** you're all talking about aren't drivers licenses exactly the same thing.

If it was only about the actually ID. This act included much more power then just a US ID card. It gave the government the ability to take away all your rights and, hold you indefinatly w/ no lawyer, no rights, till they see fit how to deal with you. It basically makes the government above the law if they feel the need. How long before that need it extended into more then just "terrorists"?

 

[gonaads]

I have to say that was one of the most enjoying posts i've read in long time, i was wondering when she was gonna sit in th backseat with you and fish out the id herself. haha

But on a serious note, the REAL ID, i have no doubt will have parts of it restricted to certain agencies, but no doubt something will happen where the program crashes or gets hacked your **** is either all stolen all the cop that just pulled you over really does know far more than he/she/shem should.

Your story is quite interesting. As things go. But you may need to look up the provisions of the Freedom Act. If I remember correctly (someone will correct me if I am mistaken ) you now have to give up (show) your ID to any law enforcement officer if they ask for it. And if you refuse you can/will be arrested. I remeber reading this, but for the life of me I can't remember where. You can prolly "google" and find an outline of the "Freedom Act" and see if what I have posted is true or not. I am pretty sure it is though. This kinda one of the "freedoms" we have givin up.

 

[Geffy]

National/Real IDs wont really serve to prevent counterfeiting. No matter what they create given a little time people will be able to break/hack it

whatever man may create man can destroy, its as simple as that.

 

[American Zombie]

Senate just passed it and now all that is needed is for Bush to sign it which he is expected to do.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5702505.html

 

[melon]

Ben Franklin would probably also be shocked that gays were attempting to gain marriage rights and not running from angry mobs. He would be amazed at the Judiciary and how they can defeat hundreds of lawmakers with a single decision. He would be appalled that taxes were so incredibly high, and that we borrowed an income tax system from Karl Marx. The man who once said "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise" would be shocked that people who do neither and choose not to work can still collect a paycheck and eat until they're fat.

I don't think invoking the name of Ben Franklin is a good idea in this matter.

Ben Franklin ran away from Puritan-dominated Massachusetts for the "liberalism" of Philadelphia. He was not a religious man. He spent over a decade in France, having affairs with French noblewomen. Franklin was famous in Europe for having invented the lightning rod, so he was very popular with the wealthy and important. He died in 1796, so he was never able to live to see the American judiciary gain the credibility that it first attained in 1801. We can't assume one way or another what he would have said about the judiciary. As for those who "choose not to work," give an example, please. Men can't collect welfare, as far as I know. It's generally only single mothers and children. If you'd like to start a bill to force poor women to be sterilized so they can't be on welfare, contact your Congressmen and see how far that goes.

I don't think invoking the name of Ben Franklin and implying that he'd support the conservative cause de jour is a good idea either. He'd probably be horrified at how the U.S. increasingly resembles Puritan Massachusetts.

Melon

 

[gonaads]

Senate just passed it and now all that is needed is for Bush to sign it which he is expected to do.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5702505.html

Hah... I was just gonna post that link.

 

[Xie]

Senate just passed it and now all that is needed is for Bush to sign it which he is expected to do.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5702505.html

Yep .. passed yesterday. I posted here when it hit /. Was 40 posts before yours :dead:

 

[Xie]

The whole ID card thing is just something to make people feel safe, and to make it look like something is being done. People breaking the law will continue to break the law. The additional things that take rights away should be the main concern.

 

[ignipotentis]

Your story is quite interesting. As things go. But you may need to look up the provisions of the Freedom Act. If I remember correctly (someone will correct me if I am mistaken ) you now have to give up (show) your ID to any law enforcement officer if they ask for it. And if you refuse you can/will be arrested. I remeber reading this, but for the life of me I can't remember where. You can prolly "google" and find an outline of the "Freedom Act" and see if what I have posted is true or not. I am pretty sure it is though. This kinda one of the "freedoms" we have givin up.

While some may argue that the fourth amendment protects against the casual request for identification, this may not be the case. For good or bad, the supreme court has decided that this only applies when a reasonable amount of privacy can be expected. The casual request for an ID is something that the supreme court views as not violating this request. When society (not just a few of us) remembers that the casual asking for papers to let you continue about your day is the practice of an overcontrolling government, we may have a chance... assuming the 4th admendement still exists.

Don't missunderstand me, I don't think that there is some conspiracy to take away our rights. I think this is just a simple measure of people not understanding the laws they quote. I'm for a national id. As i stated before, some things need to get standardized, and I think this is one of them. The rest of the act is something i need to framiliarize myself with before fully comenting on. I'm just hesitent about the orilian outlook.

 

[Sazar]

What is ironic is that this was proposed post 9/11 when the public was receptive to this kind of measure. The administration did not see it as necessary.

Now all of a sudden an ID card bill is requsite when people don't see it as something necessary?

What gives?

 

[Xie]

What is ironic is that this was proposed post 9/11 when the public was receptive to this kind of measure. The administration did not see it as necessary.

Now all of a sudden an ID card bill is requsite when people don't see it as something necessary?

What gives?

It's all to get re-elected. They have to "show" that they have done something to make the people of the US "safer".