brits r even more stoopider then i thought...

[bitWISE]

I don't want the government tracking me--that's what credit cards are for
I already have ID in the form of a drivers license
I don't want to live in a culture where I have to "present my papers"
I don't want private business to have access to my information
The security of the technology is weak, according to that article. Anyone with an RFID reader can nab your personal code over their air with little difficulty.
You no longer own your identity... According the article, the UK government (and ours as well, I'm sure) will be able to revoke your card with a half baked excuse

1) I don't really want that either. That is the only real problem I have with a super ID card. I really don't care if people know what I do but I could see it being abused.
2) So what's the difference if we had a single, nationwide driver's license?
3) You already have to if you buy cigarettes/alcohol/porn
4) They shouldn't have free access to the info. From what I gathered in that article it was being used a replacement for filling out forms with the same personal information. If you use any "shopper's cards" the store already has a profile of your personal habits.
5) I agree that RFID is a bad idea atm but credit card style or smart card style would be ok.
6) Yeah, you shouldn't be able to lose your ID unless you are being deported.

I think that given the right implementation, ID cards are a good idea.

Let me guess, you supported and continue to support the Patriot Act because you think it will never affect you or your friends. You can add ID cards to the long list of things like the Patriot Act, the TVA, the 1917 Espionage Act, etc that gave government extra-Constiutional authority in times of crisis when people were afraid. It's not something politicians like to admit, but Control is a central tenet of modern government. Government looks for any excuse to insert its authority wherever and whenever it smells fear in the population.

Drivers licenses are controlled by the individual states, not collected in a centralized nationwide database. As far as I know, the state is pretty open to meeting official national requests for information, so why do we need another system? Will my national ID replace my drivers license? I highly doubt that considering most driving laws are decided at the state level, not the national level. States will not to give up control of intrastate transportation rules to national authority. Now I'm going to have to keep track of two different ID cards.

I don't think you understand the concept of presenting your papers... This is not Nazi Germany or whatever else you can think of. I don't want to have to show ID to prove my identity. You start giving people ID cards and people in authority are going to want to see it and verify it. I have a social security card for access to social services and a birth certificate to show where and when I was born. I don't need anything else. I registered with the Selective Service when I turned 18, but that's another issue all together.

No "free access" to info, eh? Paid access then? Access to the highest bidder? A lot of shady people can afford that... How about "no access."

"If you use any "shopper's cards" the store already has a profile of your personal habits." So basically, if they have my info because I gave it to them independent of the ID card system, they're entitled to read it out of a central official DB, which would contain considerably more info about myself than I gave the grocery store, to save me time? I don't think so.

On your last point, consider the fact that citizenship is now based on your possession of an ID card... If the government revokes your card and deports your or not, you've lost your citizenship. Ben Franklin didn't need an ID card.

Nope, I'm completely against the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure I've posted several threads about it in the past.

National driver's license is simple. You have a standard design and each state would give you an endorsement to drive there. Makes it 100x easier for employees (lets say of a liquor store) to ensure the ID is valid. You wouldn't have to get a new license if you move, just take whatever test they have and get another endorsement.

Maybe I don't mind "showing my papers" because I always show ID with my credit cards as opposed to signing them. And I practically charge everything to my debit card so I'm used to doing this many times a day.

Yes, shoppers cards are voluntary (if privacy is worth that much to you) and limited to a single store.

Like I just told MQ. I'm not hoping to see ID cards. I just dont think they are a great evil.

[R00k]

Nope, I'm completely against the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure I've posted several threads about it in the past.

National driver's license is simple. You have a standard design and each state would give you an endorsement to drive there. Makes it 100x easier for employees (lets say of a liquor store) to ensure the ID is valid. You wouldn't have to get a new license if you move, just take whatever test they have and get another endorsement.

Maybe I don't mind "showing my papers" because I always show ID with my credit cards as opposed to signing them. And I practically charge everything to my debit card so I'm used to doing this many times a day.

Yes, shoppers cards are voluntary (if privacy is worth that much to you) and limited to a single store.

Like I just told MQ. I'm not hoping to see ID cards. I just dont think they are a great evil.

Drivers licenses are already accepted in other states - you can use your license in any state in the country. Except if you move there, you have to get a license in that state. If you had a national license, and had to take the state's tests and get a stamp, how would that be different from what you have to go through now to get a new license?

I think the "showing your papers" you're talking about is different from the one others are envisioning. If there is a federal ID card that shows proof of national citizenship, then we're one step closer to federal officers stopping people in the street and asking them for their papers for no good reason, just to prove they have a right to be there.
If you think that's far-fetched, read about the recent White House lawyers' statements that contend the warrantless wiretapping that Bush has been doing is constitutional, and also makes warrantless physical searches constitutional by the same token. Which by my reasoning, probably means they have already done it; but even if they haven't, they are trying to justify it for a reason.

[bitWISE]

Drivers licenses are already accepted in other states - you can use your license in any state in the country. Except if you move there, you have to get a license in that state. If you had a national license, and had to take the state's tests and get a stamp, how would that be different from what you have to go through now to get a new license?

It really wouldn't be any different. But my argument for the national license is that we would have a standard that is easy to authenticate. If you're working in a retail industry that requires you check IDs (which is pretty much every retail store and bar) you would only need to know a single design, not 50 which change every few years.

I think the "showing your papers" you're talking about is different from the one others are envisioning. If there is a federal ID card that shows proof of national citizenship, then we're one step closer to federal officers stopping people in the street and asking them for their papers for no good reason, just to prove they have a right to be there.

Um, I don't know where you live but around here I'm lucky to see a single cop driving around and I've never seen one on foot. Around here cops aren't any different than normal people. Working with them as a security guard for two years changed a lot of the false images I had about cops.

Actually, the more I think about it, cops already do ask for your papers. Ever been pulled over? Ever walked home from a college campus at night?

If you think that's far-fetched, read about the recent White House lawyers' statements that contend the warrantless wiretapping that Bush has been doing is constitutional, and also makes warrantless physical searches constitutional by the same token. Which by my reasoning, probably means they have already done it; but even if they haven't, they are trying to justify it for a reason.

I said before, I'm against the patriot act. God I can't believe how much you guys are grilling me for simply trying to argue the other side of things.

[Dave]

I don't think we're grilling you. Remember that you keep responding... If you feel like you're on the defensive, maybe you should wonder why and think about who you're defending. Is issue about simple identification or control? I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but if there's anything I've learned since I went back to school is that you have to worry more about the ideology of the person arguing than the actual argument.

[Hannibal]

...if there's anything I've learned since I went back to school is that you have to worry more about the ideology of the person arguing than the actual argument.

I agree, and what a sad motherfuckin state of affairs that is.

[R00k]

It really wouldn't be any different. But my argument for the national license is that we would have a standard that is easy to authenticate. If you're working in a retail industry that requires you check IDs (which is pretty much every retail store and bar) you would only need to know a single design, not 50 which change every few years.

So ordinary citizens (like me) would not benefit from it, aside from saving me a minute when I need to fill out forms. On the other hand, my fingerprints, SS#, address, shopping habits, banking information, medical history, and other personal info, will be stored in an easily searchable federal database - by the same people who are demanding that public libraries tell them who has checked out certain books, who have thousands of people locked up for no public reason whatsoever, who have been arresting people who look like "potential protestors," and who have been wiretapping and spying on animal rights groups and others who oppose government policies.

I'm not grilling you, that's just the basic issue here; we're discussing the policy. You said you support it, and I am clarifying what its implications are. If you still support it, that's your perogative, but do you not want to know what it means for everyone it affects?

Um, I don't know where you live but around here I'm lucky to see a single cop driving around and I've never seen one on foot. Around here cops aren't any different than normal people. Working with them as a security guard for two years changed a lot of the false images I had about cops.

Actually, the more I think about it, cops already do ask for your papers. Ever been pulled over? Ever walked home from a college campus at night?

If you are pulled over, you are asked for your license, which is just like being asked for your dump truck license if you behave in a way that does not comply with the rules that were specified when you got your dump truck license. That license can be taken away, it is a priveledge; it has nothing to do with proving your identity in that situation, legally speaking.
If you are walking home from school, and a cop asks you for your license, you do not have to give it to him, or even tell him what your name is. Of course he can take you to jail if you are doing something illegal, but the point of these rights is that you do not have to disclose anything about yourself except voluntarily. If you are not doing anything illegal, and you refuse to show your license or speak to the cop, and he takes you to jail anyway, then you can sue for the unconstitutional treatment.

I said before, I'm against the patriot act. God I can't believe how much you guys are grilling me for simply trying to argue the other side of things.

This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act though. The White House is essentially saying that even the Patriot Act does not provide enough flexibility, and they need to be able to eavesdrop and physically search people with no warrant or any legal requirement at all. They already had the ability to do this, as long as they went to the FISA judges within 3 days after the fact, and got a retroactive warrant. They do not want to get a warrant, even after the fact, or justify to anyone why they were spying on American citizens, so the White House lawyers are writing opinions that say they don't have to.

[Dave]

The Patriot Act is relevant on the the grounds that it requires the people (or congress) to release liberties in exchange for security. That's why I mentioned the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) and the 1917 Espioage Act (the legal basis for 'clear and present danger'). The constiutionality of each of these measures is questionable, although the TVA and many of the other New Deal policies probably did more good than harm. You really have to balance the good and bad in matters like these, and ID cards are one of those instances where there is no net benefit. It's on the same level of dumb as curing disease by killing the paitent. It's a kneejerk reaction that requires no rational thought to enact driven by fear.

[S@M]

ahhh, ID cards for the ideal society (controlled and monitored by the govt and commercial interests that they onsell to).
If the Brits get it, its very likely that Canada and Aust will too.

[Massive Quasars]

...if there's anything I've learned since I went back to school is that you have to worry more about the ideology of the person arguing than the actual argument.

I agree, and what a sad motherfuckin state of affairs that is.

Including but not limited to those arguments of course. From your Ivory tower, have things become that much worse than they already were in the past in this regard?

[R00k]

The Patriot Act is relevant on the the grounds that it requires the people (or congress) to release liberties in exchange for security. That's why I mentioned the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) and the 1917 Espioage Act (the legal basis for 'clear and present danger'). The constiutionality of each of these measures is questionable, although the TVA and many of the other New Deal policies probably did more good than harm. You really have to balance the good and bad in matters like these, and ID cards are one of those instances where there is no net benefit. It's on the same level of dumb as curing disease by killing the paitent. It's a kneejerk reaction that requires no rational thought to enact driven by fear.

The Patriot Act is definitely relevant to this discussion - I just meant it didn't have anything to do with the particular legal opinions I was bringing up. They were written around the same time the PA was enacted, and in the same environment of course, but were separate events; I was just using them to illustrate what kind of people are asking for so much trust from the public at large.

[Dave]

Just checking... and making an opportunity to soapbox some more