Why is there such an aversion to having to carry ID

[Toots]

To me it is a part of normal life and I don't mind a bit. Every time I cash a check or charge something I am asked for ID and I for one appreciate it. It guarantees that someone is not using my credit cards or checks illegally. To me it is only a matter of common sense and I think opposition to having to carry ID will do nothing but harm our cause. It is a matter of security both financial and national..It is not an infringment on a person's rights to be asked to identify themselves...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. My papers are in order!!!

[ReadTomPaine]

101. This statement nails it on the head in five words, Bravo. n/t

[rinsd]

105. Nazis were also into gun control go figure......(nt)

[Inland]

2. I'm a national ID card backer, but even then, carrying everywhere

shouldn't be required. After all, the point of asking someone for ID is to detain them if they do not, and ID simply to ride a bus....

[MindPilot]

24. If you want a National ID for travel,

get a passport.

[Inland]

31. I have a passport. I don't need an ID for myself.

I already know who I am, and so does the government. It's everyone else I want to have an identity.

[MindPilot]

49. I think you have hit on the real crux of the issue there

It's Ok for me; *I* have nothing to hide. Therefore it should be applied to everyone else because {insert talking point justifying rights infringement here}.

[Inland]

53. Finish your own thought: because some people DO have something to hide.

That they are fugitives, or here illegally, or hoping to escape after a terror attack, or something.

Or that they want to keep their options open to become one of the above.

Just saying.

[Sparkman]

59. The 911 hijackers were here LEGALLY, and our prisons are past full. Take

some personal responsability for our own security, and that starts with our need for more freedom, to protect ourselves, here at home in our daily lives. The police are never there when a criminal decides to victimize, but AFTER the fact in a catch up function of policing. Savy criminals act only after they have found ways around our security measures.

[Inland]

63. They came in legally. Then they disappeared.

For them, it was more a case of nobody looking, but still, it would seem that having every person have a single identity assigned to them is a good idea.

[CornField]

60. It must be horrible to live with such fear.

I cannot fathom looking out at the world and only seeing the 1% of people who are out to do harm. I also cannot fathom the government using tax dollars in an attempt to save me from that 1%. It's illogical, yet seen everyday here in the U.S. Fear this... fear that... it's a gang signal to flash your lights... don't help the man who says his child stopped breathing... don't breathe the perfume because it's bio-terror... buy this new purse with a hidden compartment for your gun...

In order for me to be safe:

1) I must be recorded at all intersections.

2) I must be recorded at all financial institutions, entering public buildings (built with my tax dollars), at all ATM machines, at the airport and train stations, at the convenience store, at the post office and, often, at schools.

3) I must carry an ID which can be scanned from afar.

4) I must have a chip in my passport.

5) I must understand the government has a right to my library check-out list.

6) I must wear my seatbelt, even if my car has airbags.

7) I must agree to place metal detectors in our public schools.

8) I must use toilet seat covers in public restrooms.

And so-forth and so-on.

Yet, even with all these things, our country still had the OKC bombing, still had 9/11 and still "misses" intelligence which leads to mass murders and everything else. So, let's make not make the mistake of naming this beast "protection." The correct terminology is "monitoring" -- of you, me and everyone else.

[Inland]

62. Toilet seat covers didn't stop 9/11. Can't argue with that.

But then again, we weren't talking about toilet seat covers. Or recording people at intersections, or even recording your financial transactions, even though I suspect your bank records them already.

But the 9/11 hijackers did overstay their visas. So maybe there's something to be said for, oh, I don't know, being able to find someone when there's something like an arrest warrant out for them.

I'm not sure how that affects you. You can still use a public toilet sans covers.

I'm not sure which of us lives more in fear. You seem to trot out a parade of horribles pretty quickly.

[CornField]

65. You're so right... we need to be able to find these people...

And a little card is going to make all the difference. :eyes:

[Inland]

68. Well, since you think it is going to magically record your appearence

at intersections and what your butt is resting on in a public john, yeah, they are going to magically teleport criminals to the police station, too.

Or are id cards are only effective when used for evil?

[CornField]

77. It will be as it always has been

That is, those who wish to do bad things will find a way around the system. The system, then ineffective for its original purpose, will still be kept in place and expanded as a tool for monitoring those of us who follow the rules.

Case in point: recording devices were originally placed at ATMs as crime deterrants. Those who wish to rob ATMs know how to do so regardless of the cameras, so what are they really being used for now?

Another case in point: The last time the government provided us all unique IDs (for a legitimate purpose) the IDs were seen as a great tool for monitoring. Bank accounts, employment, credit, school, etc. all have used Social Security numbers in the past to identify individuals.

The difference in the Social Security numbers and the proposed new National ID cards is a microchip. How long will it be before stores will be able to monitor which items you leave the store with (so they can sell this information to advertisers who will then target you)?

If you live in fear of those who would do bad things, I suggest you lobby for an expanded workforce in the areas of investigation, law enforcement and so-forth. To blindly place your faith in a piece of plastic is about as worthwhile as placing your faith in toilet seat covers.

[Inland]

107. Actually, toilet seat covers and IDs and cameras work fine

I don't know how you think the government is abusing toilet seat covers, but ATM cameras ARE crime deterrents. I don't know what crimes you think were being carried out, but apparently you think it was robbing ATMs. It wasn't. It was robbing people at the ATMs, or using ATM cards stolen earlier.

It seems that you think that the fact that crimes can be committed outside the view of the cameras means the cameras aren't working. In fact, they are, if a criminal can't just club someone as they reach for the cash. Almost all crime prevention involves making crime more difficult, so it's too easy and wrong to argue that it just makes criminals move on, as if my locking my door gets my neighbor robbed. Same with IDs. Fake IDs are an indicator of something criminal besides fake IDs.

For you to argue that I should lobby for expanded areas of investigation and law enforcement, while ruling out something as simple and non-threatening as an ID card, is a little disingenuous. Maybe you live in fear of someone knowing what you buy at a store, but really, if that's the worst you can come up with, let me tell you that I am one of the 99.9% of Americans whose purchases are kept in big long computer lists, all available to the government for the fifteen minutes it takes to lie to a judge about the reasonable cause for a subpoena. It's pretty funny that you think that the government needs a computer chip to know your whereabouts.

Which shows the essential fallacy of the argument that the government wants info to take care of the law abiding people. The government already can track you and any other person living in society all it wants. It doesn't want to. Laws prevent it, common sense prevents it, and a lack of interest in your reading list prevents it. Blindly placing your faith in the lack of a piece of plastic to prevent totalitarian rule doesn't help anybody.

[TheFarseer]

96. maybe I need a retinal scan to cross state lines

Maybe I need to be finger printed to get a library card. Maybe we should have checkpoints everywhere to stop random motorists who might be carrying a bomb. Maybe people's houses should be randomly searched to make sure they aren't making anthrax. Where does it end? What good will it do anyway? Will having to get a national ID prevent anyone from bombing NY?

[Inland]

115. It might prevent a bombing. More likely than causing you to need

fingerprinting or a retinal scan to cross state lines. It seems that only ridiculous supposition is okay when arguing against a national id. If the same standards were applied, I'd say that national ID would whiten your teeth and get you better gas mileage.

And just to show how the national id is used here as a proxy for "bad", my local library already suggested using fingerprint technology as a means of identification. No shit. Of course, that's without a national id in existence, and the only possible relationship is that, maybe, if there were a real form of id that anyone trusted the library may not have considered using data based on fingerprints. More likely, a national id has no more relationship to that than it does to people being stopped and id demanded on buses, also happening now.

[Cats Against Frist]

112. Bravo!!!

Yet, even with all these things, our country still had the OKC bombing, still had 9/11 and still "misses" intelligence which leads to mass murders and everything else. So, let's make not make the mistake of naming this beast "protection." The correct terminology is "monitoring" -- of you, me and everyone else.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

:yourock:

[barb162]

103. agreed, Inland

[xxqqqzme]

74. I have an identity

and it is not written on a card w/ my picture.

[Lerkfish]

3. Ve mustt haf yur Papers! sieg heil!

that is why.

some people actually remember history.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I don't mind them for banking purposes

or for driving a car. But I've heard that soon we'll have to have ID on us at all times. I don't like the idea that I can't walk downtown to mail a letter without having to take ID.

[indepat]

5. Not if there's a legitimate purpose for asking

[Sparkman]

51. We gave up the right to reasonable search 15 years ago, random searches

were conducted on trains, allegedly looking for "drugs", in the south east, sans warrants. Detainees are held incognito in U.S. prisons offshore, and now torture pops up all around the globe, in U.S./CIA run cells. The Red Cross just complained that we have denied them access to priosners, how's this help the land of the free and the brave? I think we need to resist more, rather than less.

[Ezlivin]

6. Because it interferes with my ability to travel freely.

Say I want to ride my bicycle across town to visit a friend. Why should I carry ID? I know who I am. My friend knows who I am.

We don't need to have our IDs checked when we go from state to state. What if they implemented that? Wouldn't it cut down on crime?

We don't need to have our IDs checked when we go from city to city. What if they implemented that? Wouldn't it cut down on crime?

Eventually the authorities will not allow you leave your home without identifying yourself.

This is a damned slippery slope.

"Your papers, please," is where it is headed.

[Toots]

9. What if there is a child rapist supposedly loose in your local area

And the general description fits you? Would you rather be able to show proof of who you are on the street or downtown at the local jail?

[MindPilot]

16. In that scenario, no amount of ID is going to help you.

If you fit the description, it doesn't matter what is in your pocket. You are going to jail until *they* decide you aren't the one. And as we've seen in recent cases, that could take decades.

[MadHound]

20. And how often does that happen

And actually you still wouldn't have to go downtown to clear the matter up. Your drivers license can be called up on his computer or radio, and you can be quizzed concerning certain pertinent information. Long ago I got pulled over without my license and wasn't charged for it, but they indeed pull up my license and quizz me over the info.

[MindPilot]

43. A coworker was taken down because he "fit the description"

He was a parts driver at the car dealer and there had been a bank robbery nearby. As he pulled up to the loading dock, cops surrounded him, dragged him out of his vehicle, pinned him to ground and cuffed him. With two cops' knees in his back and a gun to his head, he certainly wasn't given much opportunity to "clear the matter up."

A few minutes later the cops got a call that the real robber had been caught a few blocks away. Had they not caught the real robber, it's entirely possible my co-worker would've gone to jail and maybe even trial before it was determined he didn't do it.

So no, an ID does not help you.

[MadHound]

57. Doesn't sound like having an ID helped him or would have helped him at all

He "fit the description" of an anonymous bank robber, therefore whether he had ID or not was irrelevant, he would have been taken downtown because he "fit the description". And once downtown, he would have been questioned and alibi would have been established and checked, and when the police were satisfied that your friend had indeed been delivering parts at the time of the crime, he would have been let go. In those kinds of cases it isn't who you are, it is where you've been and when you were there.

[tuvor]

14. What if you're killed as you travel freely?

Getting in touch with my next of kin in case of an emergency...That's my main reason for preferring to carry ID.

[MadHound]

26. Let's see, DNA, fingerprints, dental records.

All of these can be done quickly enough.

[tuvor]

54. "Quickly enough"? I doubt it.

I have none of these on file anywhere, except for maybe 20 year old dental records, in a city a thousand kilometres away.

That aside, is the technology really advanced and ubiquitous enough in the USA that they can take a swab of anyone's cheek cells, or fingerprint and find out who they are "quickly enough"? If so, I'd suggest you've got bigger problems with privacy than carrying an ID poses.

[MadHound]

61. Jaws don't change much in twenty years

And dental records have been databased and computerized. Takes about five-ten minutes to get a good dental impression, scan into a computer, and another fifteen to thirty minutes in order to get the match, and voila, they would have you IDed, using your twenty year old dental records.

And if you haven't donated your DNA or fingerprints anywhere, and I do mean anywhere, then no, they couldn't ID you from them. But if you gave it out for security clearance somewhere, or if your parents did the ID thing when you were a small child, or you printed in order to cash a check, or were arrested, or a dozen other scenarios, you are on file in a database somewhere.

[Inland]

130. So your argument against a nat id are databases of teeth and DNA?

I guess I'm missing the point. A database of teeth IS a national id. It's just a really piss poor one, only good for searches if the government has gotten a good gander at my teeth. A database of DNA isn't much different.

Maybe a national database with height, weight, eye color and face is just as well. At least that I could use to buy a gun or get social security benefits.

[Ezlivin]

27. What did we do for the past 50,000 years when a loved one died?

They didn't have IDs.

[tuvor]

55. I dunno.

Waited a lot longer for the bad news?

[400Years]

66. but you are conflating choice versus mandatory

Your concern about being killed leads you to WANT to carry one. Others are not
so worried about that and don't feel they should be forced.

[tuvor]

72. No conflation. Just offering my perspective. n/t

[sexybomber]

75. Good point.

My reason is that my ID proves I'm an organ donor :-)

Should I (Gaia forbid) be killed, I'd want people to find my ID and get my organs out of me as quick as they could!

[sabbat hunter]

15. no where

in the initial post does it say anything about needing ID for just walking around. the poster was talking about needing ID for cashing checks or using your credit cards.

nothing about the "authorities"

[Ezlivin]

28. Read the subject title

"Why is there such an adversion to having to carry ID"

That is what I was responding to.

And your point is?

[Bridget Burke]

36. "National Security" is mentioned as a reason for ID.

ID needed for getting on a plane? Maybe.

For riding a bus? Why?

[Toots]

44. When I mentioned National Security it wasn't about terrorism I was referri

It was illegal alien employment. To me that is one of our biggest problems and it effects us all. As long as illegals are being employed for substantually less wages than average Americans it will drive down all wages and that is a national security issue..IMO

[sabbat hunter]

67. stop illegal employment

fine the companies millions of dollars for hiring illegals and put the execs of the company in jail. solves a lot of problems

[Toots]

71. I agree but how would you know if you couldn't ID them?

:shrug:

[sabbat hunter]

89. citizens

have social security cards
legal aliens have "green cards", resident worker visas, etcs

[hunter]

91. Everybody has Social Security Cards!

Just not real social security cards.

[sabbat hunter]

93. fake ones

can be traced.

hmm according to our records SS# xxx-xx-xxxx belongs to john doe who was born in 1900 and died in 1980. how is it you have his SS #?

[hunter]

94. Usually it's the I.R.S.

"You didn't report the income you earned from your job in Florida!"

"I've never even been to Florida, much less worked there!"

"Can you document that?"

[Bridget Burke]

97. I mentioned that I, personally, was not afraid of being hassled...

But it's not OK with me when anyone with brown skin is automatically under suspicion as a threat to National Security.

[Inland]

38. STOPPING someone for ID interferes. That's the point.

Having or requiring ID for certain purposes isn't a checkpoint on the road.

Therefore one has to ask, what is ID used for? To ride a bus, silly. To get back into the country, not silly. To apply for social security, to adopt, to be in a police dept....

[sabbat hunter]

7. if the government

made it so you could be stopped on the street and asked for your "papers" that would be illegal.

to ask for id to cash a check or use a credit card is done to protect you from your information being used illegally.


although with identity theft they simply make up fake ids as well so everything matches up, but that is a different story.

[Speed8098]

135. Try telling that to a cop

if the government
Posted by sabbat hunter


made it so you could be stopped on the street and asked for your "papers" that would be illegal.





Here is an exercise for you.

Go to the bad part of your town, you know, the area where the crack dealers stand around on the corners selling their dope. Park you car and start walking, and if you get pulled over for being in a seedy area, refuse to give your ID.

Remember, your only crime is walking around.

I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't be happy with the results of refusing to provide ID.

[MindPilot]

8. Because it is such a short step from simple identification to

political affiliation, religion, income, gender orientation, purchasing habits and all manner of things that should be private. I'm real skeptical when it comes to the "it's fro your own good" argument.

[Nashyra]

52. We are a free society (or supposedly)

We are not nor should we be required to be attached to a national data base. Should doctors, teachers and other sensitive employees be required to carry ID on premise? you bet. We could solve so many ID problems in the field of problem employees in sensitive areas if they would not seal employee record as a bargaining tool to get rid of poor employees. If it is too difficult to check different state drivers licenses too damn bad, technology was supposed to make this easier.

All these folks who speak about your own good crap, that slippery slope gets real steep when it affects them the first time. We are a society (majority, not all) of people who do not get involved unless we think programs or issues will affect us directly, myself included. I got involved because I have a son who wants to join the military after he graduates from college, I needed to find a candidate to support who I thought I could trust with his life. It morphed into elective office:banghead: ,school board with no children enrolled any longer in the district. It has absolutly amazed me that so many in my district, especially my area who think their child has had the benefit of a private education at a public school price and all they can think of now is I do not have to do anything else, no sense what so ever of doing good to help pay back the efforts of those who helped before them. A high School with 200 kids and recieved over $82,000.00 in scholarships and only 1 person has come forward to volunteer to be part of the parent volunteer scholarship program. I have to admit my girlfirend and I did volunteer for that after our boys graduated, we sold donuts from Krispy Creme until we found out they were a "RED" company, have to admit the low carb craze did not help, it's still one of my highest priorities. My first article in the paper about running for school board idenified me as the "donut lady" and my opponent as the COO of__________in education. There are numerous community groups and service clubs that donated to the scholarship effort that these parents could help out, even for a year.

I guess what I am trying to say is that with good old fashion hard work, passion and spreading the democratic message of the common good we can get Democrats elected, and we can start with any issue, we do not have to wait until it effects us personally.
Go out get involved, educate yourselves about the dangers of a national ID card and let your friends and family know. Do it factually and personalize it, it works. that is what grassroots are all about.

[sui generis]

10. I think it is

I grew up on military bases behind barbed wire where not showing your ID could get you detained and get your parents reprimanded.

We're not children living in a foreign country - we don't need to be treated like children. This is America. Maybe we should set up roadblocks in white neighborhoods and stop every car driving through there that has somebody with dark hair, dark skin, or an inappropriate car. Similarly at the grocery store.

It's just not America if you have to worry about being rounded up at Walmart and checked for ID as part of an exercise.

I carry ID because I want to. That's the funny thing about freedom - it allows choice. When it's illegal to exercise your choices, then you no longer have freedom.

[converted_democrat]

80. Well....edited to add link-

"It's just not America if you have to worry about being rounded up at Walmart and checked for ID as part of an exercise."

You do know that is going to start soon in Miami, right? Part of their police department is going to do just that. The plan is to go into Miami businesses and public places, and surround them, and check I.D. of all the people there. Wish I could say this is a joke, but it isn't. There was a scary article about the plan in Latest Breaking News forum, about a week ago. I'm going to go look for the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1953042

[sui generis]

88. yeah I saw and posted in it

I'm afraid, law or not, I would have to sit in the white section on that one.

There are two things that I would use in a countersuit.

1. If I owned the business and this caused a financial disruption to the business there would be associated damages.

2. If I was detained or kept from going to the restroom or held in a line or treated like a criminal or disrupted from my routine, my personal time is worth an easily documentable amount of money, and once again, these dumbfuck yahoos are gonna pay.

Finally, I would civilly not comply, and tell them why I was engaging in wilfull civil disobedience, and let them arrest me.

People have to protest and change this shit or it will only get worse. If we all just go along with the gestapo like Jews to the gas chamber, that's exactly how we'll end up.

Remember this point: we haven't found a lot of real "foreign" terrorists to justify DHS' existence. At some point they're going to have to make some up or start making speeding and parking tickets a terrorist activity because it's easier to find terrorists when you make them up at your local five and dime than when you actually have to find them infiltrating aboard cargo containers from Hong Kong.

That's what this is really about.

[Warpy]

11. Eff you got your papersss?

was the signal in old movies that the protagonist had found himself in a totalitarian state.

There is a world of difference between showing an ID for a financial transaction when people don't know you and being forced to produce one by the government when you're just out and going about your ordinary day.

One is verification. The other is harassment.

[rock]

39. And please note

That you are not forced to show ID for a financial transaction (OK, so the bank won't complete the transaction, but that's your choice!)

[Straight Shooter]

12. Using your ID does not guarantee illegal use of your credit card or checks

Research identity theft and see how many people have been ruined who thought they were being cautious and prudent in protecting their identity.

Carrying ID is just another way for authorities to confiscate something in order to restrict your freedom of mobility. Losing your driver's license is one thing. Losing your national identity card would be a maze of red tape. And in the meantime, what do you do to prove you are who you are?

Let's just make it easier and tattoo everyone's SS# on their wrist. :sarcasm:

Not being sarcastic at you, but the idea of a national ID card gives me the willies. Not everybody drives, not everybody has a checking account and/or credit cards. Criminals will be criminals, and once again it will be the law-abiding people whose lives will be further restricted by such draconian measures as a national ID.

[sabbat hunter]

22. national ID

national ID cards as a requirement is very bad.

[Straight Shooter]

34. I believe that is what Toots is referring to

... I think opposition to having to carry ID will do nothing but harm our cause. It is a matter of security both financial and national..It is not an infringment on a person's rights to be asked to identify themselves...

I don't have to carry ID. I choose to for writing checks or using a credit card, but that's minimum precautions. I think we're being "softened up" with rhetoric on how it will "protect" us to use the National ID, but that's not the end goal. It never is when you seek to restrict the citizens of a country and impose arbitrary rules on their mobility.

[bemildred]

13. I choose liberty over "security".

The notion that you can be required to document your right to be there to any agent of government or corporate power at arbitrary times and places is not consistent with the liberty of a free people. It is they who should document their right and necessity to bother me, and politely too.

[sabbat hunter]

19. not randomly

we arent talking about 'arbitrary' times for the ID check or by government agencies. the credit cards are not a right. they are something issued by companies. if they want to implement a policy where you must show id in order to use the card that is their right. it is also your right not to use the card. pay cash.

[bemildred]

37. Right, I have no objection to that.

I don't know anybody that objects to identifying themselves to cash a check.
Or carrying a license to drive when driving.
But if I'm walking down the street without my wallet, that's my right.

[Left Is Write]

45. It's against the policy of Visa and Mastercard for merchants to require ID

unless they have a substantial reason to suspect that person of fraud.

Visa:

Are merchants allowed to ask for identification when using Visa products?
While a merchant may ask for identification if fraud is suspected, it is contrary to Visa policy to require the consumer to show identification as a condition of the sale. If a merchant asks for identification and the consumer is unable or unwilling to produce it, the merchant is still obliged to accept the consumer’s Visa card. Consumers who experience refusal of service based on identification may either call their card issuer to report the problem or call 1-800-VISA-911.

http://usa.visa.com/about_visa/newsroom/press_kit/faq.html#anchor_18

Mastercard:

Mastercard: http://www.mastercardmerchant.com/docs/accept_mastercard/merchant_rules.pdf
On 2.21 at section 9.11.2

[Gormy Cuss]

70. I love to haul out that bit of info when retailers ask for ID.

The phrasing I learned was "It is a violation of your company's master agreement with (Mastercard/VISA) to require ID for a credit card purchase." If the retailer refuses to budge, I leave the purchase on the counter and walk out.

Another fun thing to cite is Reg. E (12 CFR 205), the electronic funds transfer regulation. It's where the stipulation of a $50 maximum liability for fraudulent use of a credit card is established ($500 if you don't report it stolen or missing in a timely manner.)

[BillZBubb]

17. Because ID requirements can become a powerful totalitarian tool.

History if rife with examples. It is an absolute infringement to be asked to identify yourself by government authorities for no reason--without real probably cause. Suppose you don't carry your ID, can they arrest or fine you? An ID requirement can easily become abused. Personally, I don't wish to move towards a police state for a questionable improvement in security.

If I recall the quote correctly: "Those who would trade their liberty for more security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin.

[HereSince1628]

29. Did I hear someone call out Bingo? I think we have a bingo here!

[HereSince1628]

35. There is this thing about being secure in your person and your papers

that included in the Bill of Rights.

Put an RF readable chip on an ID an Voila! No more securit in your person and your papers. It's already happened to the US Passport, if there is a national ID it will be there too. I don't think I need or want to trade knowledge my place of residence, and potentially other information such as voter registration and party affiliation, for some strange idea that this will make my community more secure.

[Inland]

56. As can police forces, mass media, welfare, the military

The fact of the matter is that everything necessary for government can be used for bad government.

The real question is, will people be stopped without probable cause? If so, wehther they are arrested for not having a driver's license or not having some other form of ID is a moot issue. The fact is that they are going to be detained.

[converted_democrat]

86. You think this is okay?? Do you think this is a good idea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1953042


The Miami Police Dept. is going to start randomly surround places, and ask for I.D. for anyone there. All in the name of combating terror.

[Inland]

108. They are being stopped without probable cause. Which I said is bad.

No, I don't think it's a good idea for police to detain without probably cause. Yes, I think there should be a national I.D.

[converted_democrat]

110. So, you're for giving a government which has shown itself to be fascist,

a new "tool?" What info would be attached to our "new" i.d.? Our party affiliation? Our credit history? A RFID chip so we can be tracked? I admit, I don't understand your reasoning. Why are you for giving them a tool, that would undoubtedly be abused? They abuse the power given to them via the Patriot Act, so why would they "choose" not to abuse this, if it was handed to them?


"They are being stopped without probable cause. Which I said is bad."

So, we've established that stopping without probable cause is bad.... Do you think if a national i.d. is established, you think the stops without probable cause will just magically stop? Or do you think they will get worse? Do you think it's smart to hand over "more" info to a government, that has shown it won't play be the "rules?"

[Inland]

113. You mix up a national ID with stopping without probable cause

A national ID won't prevent police stopping people without probable cause, but then again, neither will the absence of a national id.

As it is clear that a national ID isn't a prerequisite for a problem like problems like police rounding up the occupants of a bank, you denigrate it for not PREVENTING the illegal stops. It's just an ID.

I'd defend it in terms of what it doesn't and does change, but apparently, a lot of DUers have decided that a national ID is the proxy for being for or against a police state.

Nobody is interested in talking about a national ID itself, but all the problems that have nothing to do with id whatsoever. The US government didn't need a national ID to come up with the theory of jailing US citizens forever at the discretion of the president, or to stop buses and demand forms of identification from law abiding citizens. It's a facile correlation between id and movies on the classic movie channel. Of course, all our western european brethren have national ids, but nobody is making movies about citizens of EU states being waved through national borders because they have a reliable form of identification.

A national ID won't cancel the fourth amendment, or for that matter, do a lick to enforce it. You're simply in the wrong ballpark entirely.

[converted_democrat]

116. I'm not "mixing" anything....I'm asking you point blank if you think it is

a good idea to give a fascist government a new tool. A tool that they currently don't have, that is ripe for abuse. I'm not mixing anything, I'm asking a question.

on edit- forgot a word

[Inland]

117. "Tool" -- That's where you mix it up and load the question.

You pretend id is a tool for something like illegal search and seizure. It isn't. Your question is loaded with a premise I don't accept. You are confusing an id with something else.

[converted_democrat]

118. Okay, let me get this straight.You don't think it could be used as a tool?

"You pretend id is a tool for something like illegal search and seizure."

Do you honestly not see how it could be used for a more sinister purpose, besides keeping you "safe?" So you're saying it could not be used as a tool, because you don't want to recognize that it could be used as a tool?

edit-for my awful spelling...and to make clearer.

[Inland]

123. Oh, I suppose it like anything else could be used for a sinister purpose.

It just strikes me as a silly worry. Mass media, armies, police forces, police searches, even criminal statutes are potential abuse. All government is potential abuse. Make a big bible, and I could brain you with it.

I just don't see the particular danger is a government id that will tell anyone a lot less than the local fucking Jewel store already knows about me.

[converted_democrat]

127. Think about it, really......

It would open the door to discrimatory practices, due to the data that would be attached to the card. This is one of the ACLU's biggest gripes about the card. Secondly, the I.D.'s would not make you any safer. Thirdly, people that are tracked, aren't free people. Here are some good links to read the pro's and con's, and the con's far outweigh the pro's.

http://www.cpsr.org/issues/privacy/natidfaq#Q4

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_45/b3756006.htm
snip-
CHECKS. Taken to the extreme, a smart card could record your ethnicity, religion, political leanings, or favorite cereal. And at every turn, government agencies, employers, banks, insurance and health-care companies, and grocery stores would pressure you to add data to your life-on-a-chip. A prospective employer using the card to check your citizenship might notice that you vote in Democratic primaries--since the ID is required when you go to the polls. Hmm, maybe you aren't a good fit for this company. What about that prescription you're taking to control schizophrenia--part of the medical record that your health-care provider insists must be on your card? Airport security might decide you're unfit to fly. "We need to very carefully think through what our objective is," says William P. Crowell, former director of the National Security Agency and head of Cylink Corp., a Santa Clara (Calif.) technology company. "Let's make sure...use of the card is limited to purpose before moving ahead."
----
http://www.newsweekeducation.com/extras/idcard1.php
In conclusion, while homeland security and public safety are the driving forces behind the national ID card proposal, we believe these arguments do not outweigh the possible benefits, which may not even be achieved.
-----
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001sep/gee20010925008011.htm
snip-
For example, the Internal Revenue Service has, for the Government, very stringent safeguards. None of its data is online. The IRS does admit that a small number of its employees browse the restricted files illegally, however. You may recall that foreign hackers were into some seriously secret Government databases a few years ago.

We Geeks know that putting sensitive data online makes it several orders of magnitude more susceptible to penetration. Perhaps even scarier than penetration is corruption. Your file could have incriminating things inserted into it that are totally false. Explain that away when the authorities pick you up while boarding an airplane. Your confidential data could have a way of leaking carelessly or maliciously to the wrong people.
------

[Inland]

128. "Taken to the extreme......."

Sure, all one has to do is take a very simple idea to the extreme and sure nuff, it looks bad. The same argument is made against having a standing army, police force, and government itself. Heck, why have drivers's licenses, which record enough information about me to tell anyone my race, age, even likely socio economic status? Oh, that's DIFFERENT.

As to my confidential data being leaked to the wrong people, it's the government that is most likely to prevent that, not cause it. It wasn't the health care industry that passed HIPAA, it wasn't the government that sold my telephone number (usually, although it did happen on occassion to public outcry).

Fact is, the EU already has a national identity card. The most obvious effect has been actually LESS intrusive government, because while I'm being searched during my layover in Munich, the EU card holders are being whisked through. Similarly, to get a drivers license, you have to bring your lease, a dozen bills, a credit card, god knows what else.......or flash a passport. Which person is more exposed, me with my passport or the guy who has to bring a dozen pieces of shitty identification about his life?

You guys are simply worried about all the wrong stuff.

[converted_democrat]

139. Taken to the extreme. Like they are doing w/ the Patriot Act& the Quakers?

Go look at the tech sites that have anything written about the I.D., it's clear that NONE of them believe that the cards and the info on them would be secure. It isn't logistically possible. Who will control what info goes on the card? Who will be able to view it? It will have medical info on it, imagine how many would not be able to get jobs due to medical history. Have the wrong political leanings? No job for you. Tracked people are not free people. The Patriot Act was supposed to keep us safe too, but right now it's being used to spy on Quakers, and other non-violent groups. The Patriot Act has been taken to the extreme, why would the I.D. be any different? I'm not in favor of this, and I can't imagine how anyone that values freedom could favor it. Oh, and go look up the numerous protests in the EU, about the cards. Many groups are flat out refusing to get the card, no matter the penalty.

[Inland]

145. Actually, no. Like the parade of horribles you list.

Assuming the card gets loaded with your med history, political leanings, shoe size, and then is timed to blow up.......

Who will control what goes on the card? One would think the government. But this would be the same goverment that could accumulate all the info it wanted on you. Why would it put it on a card?

Fact is, a card only comes into play in areas of identity theft, identity confusion, and people working hard to disguise who they are because they are criminals.

Otherwise, you could tell me a single ADDITIONAL danger a real form of identification would cause me or mine. Good luck. I have fingerprints on file with TWO government agencies, a passport, a social security number, health insurance, VISA and mastercard, Store cards at Jewel and Osco, I work in a licensed profession, I pay income taxes to the state and federal government, I pay property taxes, I have education from highschool to post graduate, I've had listed phone numbers. All that info is already with the government or is availble for a subpoena.

I know that some people might not have a passport, fingerprints out or pay property taxes. Aside from that, my profile is as public as about 90% of Americans. About another 9% live off the grid to a degree. And One percent is trying to hide something they shouldn't by avoiding all public records, using aliases, dealing in cash, and moving around. Why almost everyone should pretend like a national id will change their lives, when in fact the only lives it will change are people who should be in jail or out of the country, is beyond me.

[converted_democrat]

120. Just because you can't "recognize" something, does not mean

that it does not exist. It could be used as a tool, and no amount of you "not recognizing" it, will change that fact.

[Inland]

122. And putting something in quotation marks is no argument.

Just saying.

As whether ID are a tool for totalitarianism, I would suggest that mass media, army, police, even parents have just as much potential. It wasn't a lack of ID that put Jose Padilla in prison forever.

[converted_democrat]

140. For every inch we have given, they've taken a mile.....

Look at the Patriot Act it was to keep us safer, no? Then why is it being used against Quakers, and other non-violent groups? Why should I for a second believe that I.D. would not be abused, just as the Patriot Act is?

[converted_democrat]

83. Yea!!! Someone "gets" it!!! n/t

[BiggJawn]

18. "Ausweis, Bitte..."

First we get the National ID Card. Then we have to aply for "Work Travel Permits", then Travel Permits to go to the grocery store.

I don't mind a store clerk asking me for ID when I hand over the plastical cash.

A Robo-Cop wannbe stopping me at random on the street is a different matter.

"What is your business here, Citizen?"

[HereSince1628]

21. Why don't we just tatoo the inside of our lips? Sorta like horses.

That way you will never be without it.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. The right to be let alone

In a simple paraphrase of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, law-abiding citizens should enjoy the privilege to move about in society anonymously should they desire to do so. Brandeis in effect ruled that it is an infringement. Note this is about government requirement of carrying ID, not private arrangements such as retailer policies.

When you show ID as part of a check or credit card transaction, you are making the choice to trade anonymity for some sense of security in the transaction. As you are probably aware Federal law protects you from fraudulent credit card charges in excess of $50 in most instances. The growth of so called identity fraud, which is really credit identity fraud, was aided by lax credit rules and the failure to use state of the art security screening systems to prevent the use of stolen credit cards and checks. Retailers have deftly shifted the burden to customers by insisting on photo IDs for certain transactions. Just wait a few years. I predict that showing ID for cash transactions will become standard too. It's about security after all. Only people with something to hide pay cash anymore.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Who Controls What?

I don't mind ID. I don't mind video security. When cops casually ask me who I am, I tell them.

But I would HATE it if I couldn't avoid it. I would HATE it if it was a mandatory situation, and I was compelled by law to give information about myself.

The point is that we should be the ones to control our environment, not the "authorities".

--p!

[Sparkman]

42. Will you allow me to wear a disquise amidst all your video security?

[Dogmudgeon]

98. Yep

But don't assume too much about what I accept -- monitoring is still much too unsettled to draw conclusions except that "when in doubt, respect privacy". I reserve the right to change my mind, and if you have counter-arguments, I will probably not strenuously oppose them. It's a big, new area of concern, and I won't pretend to have all the answers.

I'm also fairly supportive of the idea of giving people "in impacted neighborhoods" (i.e., ghettos) cheap video cameras to keep organized crime and rogue cops in line. I don't give a rat's ass about hookers or numbers-runners, but gang-bangers and billy-club bullies deserve to live in fear, not the neighbor folks.

Most public monitoring is done in the name of promoting safety, not arresting people. So wearing a disguise is fine. When the "legal intent" mutates from safety to enhancing a young prosecutor's CV, that's a civil rights case waiting to enhance a young public interest attorney's CV.

--p!

[Sparkman]

106. It is illegal to enter government buildings disquised. It is illegal to

falsefy one's identity if you are wrongfully accused of a crime, by a cop, in your car or on the street. The loss of our freedoms, for the sake of a modecum of order and security, has steadily lead to the place we are today. You can be arrested for no cause, searched without a warrant, and jailed for no charge of criminal acts in today's America. And the Bill of Rights is constantly eroded.

[Beelzebud]

30. I'm not carrying intelligent design with me anywhere!!!!!!!11

Oh wait. You were talking about identification.

I don't mind that.

:D

[enlightenment]

32. Speaking only for myself,

a large part of the aversion is the sense that the choice to carry ID is being removed and replaced with the requirement to carry ID.

I am old enough to remember when you could buy an airline ticket without ID, board an airplane without ID, use a credit card without showing ID, VOTE without showing ID. It may be more 'secure' but it's damn depressing.

I also remember when no one would have dreamed of using my social security number as an ID number, or of asking for it on an application or to verify a check. The fact that people do that is horrifying, imo -- and I will not comply, even though I might as well tattoo the number on my head at this point.

Erosion of personal freedoms has moved so slowly in this country that many of us were not even aware of the fact. Since Bush-co, the pace has increased dramatically and the assault has become much more severe -- but he didn't start it.

I shouldn't have to carry ID to walk down the street, but it is getting to that point. If I am stopped by the police for some reason, and fail to identify myself, I can be arrested -- for failing to identify myself. Would they actually do it? I don't know -- but the idea that they could is appalling.

I don't think that attempting to preserve a measure of personal liberty is going to undermine the cause -- the Bill of Rights is a big part of that cause, and capitulating to the rabid right is not necessarily the appropriate course to take. Being cautious is reasonable -- bending over and taking it for "national security" is not.

Peace,
e.

[Toots]

40. Do you think Freepers are all for carrying IDs?

I somehow don't think this is a far right issue. I feel it is more a middle of the road issue and both extremes are opposed to it. I think this is one issue Freeperville and DU might agree upon. I personally think it is an extreme position.

[enlightenment]

46. I was referring to the new, corrosive

infringements put in place since 2000 -- but I've only had one cup of coffee, so my logical writing cells are not functioning well at the moment. Many pardons for lack of clarity.

You're right; I imagine many folks on the other side of the political spectrum are unhappy with the issue, for similar reasons (if not similar goals).

However, in the sense that you place it -- as one in which moderates 'understand' the reasons for stricter rules and the 'extremes' object to them -- I guess I'll have to place myself on the extreme end. I object, for the reasons I stated: when it moves from choice to requirement, we have lost personal freedom.

And that's the sticky wicket -- when and how does my personal freedom intersect with yours (or anyone else's), and who gets to decide.

Can we agree to disagree on this one? At least until I wake up?
Peace,
e.

[Toots]

50. Peace indeed

:-) I don't necessarily dissagree. I just want justification and that is why I asked the question? It obviously is a question that interests people judging by the comments.

[enlightenment]

109. You've got that one right!

Never having started a thread myself, I suspect it is gratifying to start a successful one with an interesting topic.

:hi:

[Silverhair]

90. Yes, the RWs are strongly opposed to it. NT

[Bridget Burke]

33. I can understand financial security....

Although I'm rarely asked for ID when I charge something. And a Driver's License is really handy if you drive.

But why do you include "national security"? Why should a bus rider be required to identify themselves? As a middle-aged white lady, I'm not personally worried about harrassment. But I don't think it right that others would be hassled because of profiling.

[Sparkman]

41. Barrier to access services, method of tracing EVERY activity, BIG brother

can make you account for every action, and eventually restrict or arrest us based upon long past activities that were legal back in the day, and then made illegal for repression of association, speech or activies.
Freedom loving Americans, will resist the government caste when those in power try to increasingly whittle down the few freedoms we now have.
The first Americans had no ID's, payed no taxes. The 1st European conquerors came to America and began to revolt at paying homage to the then Royal British Crown, and to worship the Anglican Bishops, while they brought their tradition of killing and conquering and enslaving and land theft.
Seems obvious that those traditions are espoused and promoted by requiring more and more government tracking of our movements, our spending and our access to money and goods and services. Sheep need shepards, now free men and women.

"Those who are willing to trade a little liberty for a little order, will lose both and deserve neither." Thomas Jefferson

[porphyrian]

47. ID is a load of shit.

Ninety percent or more of us will never attempt to falsify our identity. The majority of the remaining ten percent will do so only as minors trying to by cigarettes or alcohol. The matter of stolen identities would never have reached the public consciousness had financial institutions not suffered such loss in having to free victims from covering the entire bill. Just like the useless and wasteful new security procedures at airports, most of us are being inconvenienced to stop a very small percent of people abusing the system, and only with moderate success at best. Don't believe for a second that any of this increases your actual security, it is only effective in giving you a sense of security. As soon as measures like this are in place, the determined criminal has already moved on to the next effective ploy. There won't be another terrorist shoe bomber on a passenger airline, and even if there is, they will know how to get past the "security" in place.

IDs are not there for your security at all. Their purpose is to document taxpayers, protect institutions from financial loss and liability, and to streamline law enforcement procedures. ID is no more than a brand of ownership used in tracking the herd.

[rpgamerd00d]

48. ID is a class issue - rich vs poor

Poor people do not have drivers licenses, and often, do not have ID.

This isn't about what you think its about.

Its about persecuting the poor.

[hunter]

84. Universal ID makes it easier to falsify identity.

This is especially true for agencies that maintain the identification database. Create a new ID and you can instantly create a new person. (This is pretty easy to do with a supermarket discount card. Try it yourself!)

Think of it this way. In a workplace that does not require employess to wear an identification badges, people are much more likely to challenge strangers. "Hey, I haven't seen you around here..."

In a workplace that requires identity badges, strangers who have the appropriateidentity badges are much less likely to be challenged. People simply assume that anyone with a badge, especially a badge that opens doors and such, is supposed to be there.

As a practical matter, universal ID makes us less secure. Universal ID is especially helpful to a secret police force because they can use the system to create and dispose of false identities at will, it's sort of like a real-world version of Democratic Underground disruptors.

Mandatory Identification is certainly a civil rights issue. Oppressive governments have always used identification documents to control groups and individuals they are oppressing. Imagine if you were at some Democratic Underground meet-up, and the police could come by and remotely record the information on everyone's RFID encoded national identity card, maybe without anyone noticing.

It would be a very easy way to quickly collect an "enemies list" wouldn't it?

[mattclearing]

58. It is to track your travel, ideology, and movement.

For instance, in many television shows and movies Government agencies can access all manner of private/personal records, such as credit card transactions, medical records, security cameras, etc. The extent to which this aligns with reality is uncertain, but the probability is that if these capabilities have yet to exist, it is only a matter of time before they do.

Here in the District, we have prepaid 'smartrip' cards for our subway system, with which our movements around the DC metropolitan area can be tracked.

With access to proper sources, your every electronic action can be monitored...your internet usage, your credit card transactions, your use of public transportation, security cam video, toll-booth usage, traffic cams, telephone calls, and on and on...

A national ID could likely be used to combine all of these various services into a single card which can be tracked across all of these platforms. It makes it much easier for government agencies to track your movement in the event that they take an interest in you for law-enforcement reasons, or any other reason.

Since political concerns are becoming increasingly monitored by the FBI due to terrorism fears (and plain old political paranoia), this concerns anyone with a mind of their own, and a point of view that does not fall within the realm of acceptable thought. It is a means by which to control a large population.

For instance, such a card would reveal that I saw Syriana, purchased a Radiohead cd, donated to DU, buy organic foods, have a wishlist at Amazon that includes all kinds of liberal-oriented stuff, and on and on...

Anyone who thinks the government will not use this kind of information to harass people with "out of the mainstream" views or stifle political action is naive.

[Inland]

64. I already have a card that reveals what books I buy.

Between Visa and my B&N membership, it's all out there. Amazon remembers forever, too.

I don't think a national id is going to be used to buy books.

[mattclearing]

69. Wait till they introduce the "Visa CheckCard ID"

You laugh now, but I'll be shocked if this doesn't happen in the next 30 years.

[truebrit71]

73. When transacting business it makes sense...

...so that your business partners know who you are..

In your private life, like simply walking down the road, you should NEVER have to prove who you are to ANYONE, EVER.

[mmonk]

76. I prefer a number on my skin

[Greyhound]

78. Because one of our most cherished rights is the the right to

travel freely throughout our country (free association). Once IDs are required it is a small step to restricting as well as tracking you movements. It removes one of the very last restraints that the government has. It solidifies their dominance over the sheeple, they have the power over you and ID requirements means you cannot even get away.
See amBushed reply #17. Every totalitarian government uses these methods to stifle interaction with others of like mind and to instill a pervasive, yet non-specific, fear in the sheeple. It is another step toward the 'utopian' society that those who would control you are building.
Require official identification. Then require approval to travel across arbitrary lines. Eliminate cash so that all transactions will be tracked.
Once they know who you are, everything you buy, everyplace you go, and they have the means to stop you from doing anything they think you shouldn't. The Constitution becomes a quaint piece of paper that they can trot out anytime they fell like reminding you how free you are.

[Walt Starr]

79. I have no problem carrying ID

I have a problem with a single ID tied to everything being in a federal database and being forced to provide said ID upon orders from any government agent simply to move about the country.

[seabeyond]

81. i am NOT that afraid. i have lived in this world 44 years and i dont

need to carry an id around with me to be protected and feel secure. soemone doesnt get to insist i have an id card to walk this planet. i just might walk out of this house without id, and am totally comfortable with that. i shouldnt be arrested or worse on a cops bad day tasered shot or beaten up. all the reason he needs is i refused to hand over my id

82. Don't you have any concerns about a totalitarian

government, where people are held down and persecuted??

A national ID isn't helping people, it is putting power in one place. And power is always abused.

[genieroze]

85. What's next, tattooing our SS # on our arms?

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. mostly that thing called the Fourth Ammendment

I am sure you have haerd of it...

[wixomblues]

92. ID is needed for most people.

I don't understand the opposition. Well, I sort of do, but it's misguided. In my own experience, the only people who didn't want to carry ID are people who had suspended licenses, and would give someone elses name while driving. I'm sure there are many other reasons, that stretch beyond that.

However, most normal people, people that work, go to school, have bank accounts, or drive, need some sort of ID anyway. People that don't carry ID with them are few and far between.

However, the notion that I HAVE to carry Id is wrong, because it would give the police the right to stop and check me for ID at anytime.......

[Xenotime]

95. You should have a card telling you if you are a freep or other...

so you can be denied access to places like this. There are too many radicals in power taking over this country.

[Toots]

104. Are you suggesting I do not belong here?

Or was the you a generic you? If you are suggesting I don't belong here then I would like for some rational for your viewpoint...

[triguy46]

99. The ID for shopping is different...

it is part of a transaction in which you have agreed, and to which you feel some personal benefit is worthy of supplying some level of intrusion. This of course can be avoided by paying in cash. For fun, when you pay in cash and they want a zip code, uses 90210, they will recognize it as Beverly Hills, CA and boy do they treat you differently. All the way from "Wow!" to "Cool" and "What brings you here?". that is much more fun than having somebody gathering enough information to clone your identity in return for a sack of wal mart crap.

But, an id to use public transport is getting a little scary, "Where are your papers comrade?" of which we have traditionally scorned as sovietesque to the extreme. Why are we so willing to allow 9/11 and the world of orange alerts to be used as an excuse to sacrifice our rights?

[truebrit71]

100. WHY? Because it's a fucking right-wingers wet dream....

That's fucking why!!!!

[CornField]

114. With all due respect - it is not.

Many on the right are just as upset about the infringment on personal rights as we are. As soon as we can learn to set aside our differences in area A and concentrate on our similarities in area B, the nation will be much better off.

[truebrit71]

121. Bollocks! Absolute bollocks!

The whole concept of being free is the ability to travel without let or hinderance, and without some pea-brained jackbooted thug demanding our papers.

On your second point, are you seriously suggesting we set aside our differences with the right?

Are you out of your mind?

They can set aside THEIR differences, and then, MAYBE then, we will talk to them....other than that they can piss up a rope...

[Kralizec]

102. Why is it, or should it, be a normal part of our lives? n/t

[rman]

111. Problem is the govt controlling us while we can't control the government.

Almost invariably governments that implement mandatory ID are more secretive then governments that don't. It makes abuse of power so much easier.

[leesa]

119. Because THIS ID is going to be linked to your financial and health records

ALL your personal information will be available. Why? Because Americans are irrational with fear?

[liontamer]

124. a national id card reminds me of fascist regimes

Nazis, soviet russia, north korea etc. Since I grew up during the cold war, it was very much indoctrinated in me that freedom is what makes america great, and at any moment someone may swoop down and take that freedom from us. And the primary example is having to get governmental permission to travel more than X miles from home.

A large part of america for me,is the freedom to pack up and move 1000 miles away on a whim. I see the national ID as a slow chipping away of that freedom. Keep in mind that now they want us to have a passport to go to cananda or mexico.

I would like to think that the world would progress at some point to a borderless one. That was after all the promise of things like the UN, the EU and the commonwealth. Yet somehow despite increased globalization, individuals are becoming more and more tightly regulated.

That just can't be a good thing.

[donco6]

125. Are you an idiot or just ignorant?

Have you no knowledge of how identification papers were used against undesireables of every stripe throughout recent history? How they were used to ghettoize entire classes of people? How they facilitated huge injustices on entire races of people?

Before you post such an idiotic statement, try reading some history.

It's one thing to choose to use your own ID as a tool for commerce, another thing to be required to carry and produce it on demand by authorities. Quite another altogether.

Sheesh.

[Jed Dilligan]

126. Until you go out without one,

and spend 20 hours in a concrete cell with no chairs or benches, full of illegal aliens and gang members, because you didn't have your ID, you probably won't understand. This happened to me when I was walking home one night. But I'm glad you're safe from credit card fraud...

[Obamarama]

129. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid, pal.....

While you're slurping it down, you might want to take another look at history to answer your question.

[deadcenter]

131. Have to

say not just no, but hell no to this idea. I mean, if we're going to go to the extreme of issuing National ID cards in the name of security, why stop there, why not simplify the process. Issue everyone a unique number and tattoo it on their forearms? Heck, with todays technology we could make it a scannable bar code and no one would ever have to worry about losing their ID.

[walldude]

132. Implants...

They already have them. And you know if there was a way to make it legal they would force everyone to get one. As it is they are going to try the "it will hold all your important medical data" approach, they just neglect to tell you they can track you anywhere in the world using the GPS system. :tinfoilhat:

[incapsulated]

133. It's not the idea that bothers me

It's who is issuing them. I don't trust anything like this coming from this admin. They would use it in all the wrong ways. Scary ways. You know what I mean. Like, oh, the Patriot Act.

[loyalsister]

134. Those of us who are marginalized

seriously resent the word "normal." The phrase "part of a normal" life is exactly it. Many of us don't lead lives that you would classify as "normal."
I know people who have no drivers lisence, checking account or credit cards. Should they not be allowed to vote????
It's usually republicans who don't want those other "abnormals" voting. Because, those freaks are usually negatively affected by their policies. Now Dem supporters want to tell them how worthless they are. No difference indeed.

[Nobody]

136. I DO have something to hide

My social security number.

I won't even give cashiers my zip code when checking out. I politely refuse.

[sweetheart]

137. No, i am free

I don't *HAVE* to have my ID with me. I carry it sometimes.
If i'm asked, i can produce it within a week, which is british law
as i understand.

Really, i think its important to separate the "citizen" from the "economic actor".
The latter requires an ID. The former has equal rights, and the institutions of
state see "citizens" with equal rights for all. But citizen has become the twisted
words "economic citizen". With that degeneration, all our franchise as human beings
becomes based on identity, rather than our mere presence in a society of equals.

I disagree with it on principal, as it is the total leaving
behind of the concept that a person is a whole citizen without
any of the artificial economic devices of recent technology.

On edit: that said, identity is the government's ultimate legal monopoly to assess.
If your identity is ever in dispute, your only recourse is the courts and the
government who will say once and for all "who is who". So, if that is the charge
of the government anyways, in a world of instant electronic identity checks, then
the government should keep this monopoly of verifying identity, and extend it as a
network service to commercial entities. Then rather than forcing identity cards
down people's throats, they might just create a universal digitial citizen certificate
database, as the future of a world where citizens rights increasngly will become
manifest online as the digital certificate empowers their liberty.

[LWolf]

138. Because it is an invasion of my privacy.

No one, imo, has any "rights" over my personal information or identity.

[ima_sinnic]

141. b/c then I'd be surrendering my FREEDOM to walk WITHOUT ID

--why should I have to prove who I am if I am not driving a car, cashing a check, or doing some other kind of transaction that does not involve identity?
so you would trust those "in power" (ie, police) not to abuse their "right" to see your papers? so it's okay with you if I happen to forget my ID one day and, for that, go to jail? because I didn't happen to be carrying a particular piece of paper on me? why would a "national ID" be needed if not to be able to stop someone in the street to ask to see it? and that is the very thing we are (so far) free of. anybody with any sense at all should be fighting this national ID BULLSHIT tooth and nail. it was a great way to enforce apartheid in South Africa, if you remember, and it WILL be abused to the max here, too--COUNT ON IT.

[Odin2005]

142. People are really overreacting over ID cards.

Many other perfectly democratic western countries have national ID cards. Drivers licenses have been defacto ID cards since who knows when, I don't see the problem.

[ima_sinnic]

144. so you don't mind cops asking to see your ID when you're just

out walking and minding your own business?
you know for sure that no cop, no where, at no time, is ever going to carry his/her power to do that a little too far? because I will bet any amount of money that that power will also come with a national ID. Otherwise, if they couldn't ask to see it at any time, why have it? the ONLY purpose of a national ID is to keep tabs on people. and that goes totally against the grain of a "free" country.

best policy: if the REPUKES want it, it's got to be bad because they do NOTHING in the best interests of the country and its citizens. Only what is best for THEIR OWN agenda.

[Tsiyu]

143. You have obviously NEVER been poor

And I forgive your ignorance, but when you have no job, no money, your parents are dead and they never left you a copy of your birth certificate, no car, no money, you are many miles from the state where you were born.....I could go on and on.

Someone in my home is living with that same situation. Next week when I get paid, I'll drive him to Alabama to pick up his birth certificate, which he MUST have in order to get a driver's license or a job. He has been hired, but must "prove" who he is before they will let him work.

Should he also be incarcerated because of his hardship?


PLEASE answer MY question:

Where did so many comfortable, self-satisfied, CLUELESS-ABOUT-POVERTY Americans come from?????????????????????????????????????