Governmental ID System in Japan

Kaan writes: "Japan just launched a mandatory, nationwide ID system whereby every citizen is assigned an 11-digit identification number. The database stores personal data (name, address, date of birth, gender, possibly more data) for each person. At least five municipalities are refusing to join the system, which accounts for ~4 million of the 127 million total. While some Japanese folks are refusing to cooperate, most are going along with it. Is this the beginning of the end of privacy in Japan? How much longer until we see something like that in the U.S.?"

Comments

SS#

[DrStrange]

Ahhh, don't we have something like that already known as a social security number?

Re:SS#

[Kefaa]

"Technically, no, because you don't have to have a social security number"

No longer true. When my children were born, a SSN form was required for them prior to leaving the hospital. The days of an "optional" SSN are gone.

Re:SS#

[Zathrus]

Technically, no, because you don't have to have a social security number.

If you're a US Citizen you do, ever since 1987 I believe.

The SSN is a national ID system. Period. Anyone believing differently is fooling themselves. You have to present it to work (because of that 15% that goes *poof* out of your paycheck), you file it with your taxes, you have to give it for most bank accounts, for mortgage loans, heck, for most financial data (auto loans, credit cards, etc). Most medical plans use your SSN as your ID (or the SSN of the primary cardholder, followed by -# for others).

Don't think living in an apartment means your SSN isn't on file. Most likely the apartment complex wanted to run a credit check on you to lower their risk of a bad rentor. That involved getting your SSN because your SSN is the most reliable way of uniquely identifying you in the credit bureau systems -- I know, I wrote algorithms to try and do matches without the SSN. They weren't nearly as accurate (I think the best we got to was 3 false positives out of 11 million).

Anyone who's had their SSN stolen and used for identity theft can tell you just how much of a nightmare that creates. And this is largely because the SSN has evolved into a national ID without it ever having been designed as one. You can't just reel off a 9 digit number and use it as a SSN (there are check digits), but if I know your SSN then I can pass it off as my own without any additional checks.

Re:SS#

[King_TJ]

Yes, you're quite right - although the system the Japanese are implementing is a little more invasive than the SS# in the U.S.

If you think about it, the SS# is really just a numerical equivalent to your full name. The reason it became ubiquitous is because too many people have the same exact first, middle and last name. Banks had issues with directing deposits to the wrong person's account, because they shared the same name (and still do sometimes, when they only do look-ups based on name and get careless).

If people were willing to refer to themselves by unique strings of numbers - there would never have been a need for the SS# in the first place.

The whole "national ID" controversy comes into play because they want everyone to carry around a form of ID that contains some of your personal information, tied to your unique identifier.

Even if you have to give out your SS# to pay with a personal check at the gas station, the attendant doesn't automatically get to know much else about you (other than your address and phone number printed on the check). If they start making you swipe a national ID card through a reader, however, they just added lots of your personal information to their computer database.

Re:SS#

[hyperturbopete]

bleh. another good thing FirstName-MiddleInitial-LastName has done for us- our last presidential election - Florida (i know, let it go)

John S. Smith commits a felony. about a dozen people named John S. Smith show up to vote but are not allowed because the felon lists include the name John S. Smith, and the voters who turned up couldnt prove they were'nt THAT John S Smith :-)

ironically, had we used a national ID system (and if these people had ID cards) it may have gone differently :-)

Regardless, though, mandatory ID cards encourage some nasty behavior on the part of the government- though its not like it would be a big change. you already have to have an ID card if you, say, get in your car, or want to travel at an airport.

-pete

Not As Big A Problem As You May Think

[Self Bias Resistor]

This sort of thing has been in place in many countries for quite some time. In Sweden, for example, every resident has a "personnummer" (personal number) that you use for identification purposes. It consists of your birthdate followed by another four-digit number. And the US has their Social Security number.

So what I'm interested in is, what's the problem?

Re:Not As Big A Problem As You May Think

[SeeFood]

exactly. Israel Has it, I'm sure most of Europe has that. it's been that way for well over half a century, get REAL. how else are you counted as a citizen? given a voting right? accepted to schools, and government benefits? accepted to work and fill out the tax forms?

The idea that frightens Americans is not being tagged - come on, the idea of a society with no tagging of who's a member is as rediculous as saying you don't need to release memory when you program. Memory leaks anyone? when we are talking about a country, you are facing problems of population density calculations, which effect infrastructure development, housing, roads, schools, fire stations, everything. you have to keep track, otherwise you break into chaos and people are born and die without anyone taking care of it.

What I think Americans are afraid is the fact that the big brother(s) -NSA, CIA, FBI, whoever, are crossing the information. well ofcourse they are, and have been for years, and they will continue to do it efficiently with or without national ID. it's their JOB. it MAY make their job a little easier, but not by much really.

I appreciate the anarchistic spirit, but it's kinda impossible to maintain a nation and an economy without numbers and tags, or you end up back in the good old wild west. the fact it's not happening is because the system already exists. the fact you are not carrying an ID card in your pocket does not mean you were not assigned one and cross-linked in all the government databases.

Re:Not As Big A Problem As You May Think

[Tikiman]

So what I'm interested in is, what's the problem?

I agree - it seems like the biggest privacy issues in this country are petty at best. Oh no, someone is sending me targeting advertising! Oh no, someone is searching my luggage for a bomb! As an honest citizen, my privacy/body/anything is *far* more likely to be violated by another citizen than the government - I think the Constitution and Supreme Court have done a fine job protecting privacy (perhaps even a little too fine).

Re:Not As Big A Problem As You May Think

[Guppy06]

"how else are you counted as a citizen?"

The census, every four years

"given a voting right?"

Voter registration, facilitated by a piece of mail sent to me proving that I live in said voting district

"accepted to schools,"

Becoming a legal resident in state X, also facilitated by a piece of mail.

"come on, the idea of a society with no tagging of who's a member is as rediculous as saying you don't need to release memory when you program. Memory leaks anyone?"

The US is a heck of a lot more immigrant-friendly than European countries and we don't see as much need to prevent "memory leaks" as you seem to. Most Americans would rather have a few people sneak into the system than to have a national ID card.

"when we are talking about a country, you are facing problems of population density calculations, which effect infrastructure development, housing, roads, schools, fire stations, everything. you have to keep track"

Again, we have a census every four years.

"otherwise you break into chaos and people are born and die without anyone taking care of it."

That's why states give out birth and death certificates.

"What I think Americans are afraid is the fact that the big brother(s) -NSA, CIA, FBI, whoever, are crossing the information. well ofcourse they are, and have been for years,"

Apparently you don't understand the concept of interservice rivalry...

"the fact it's not happening is because the system already exists."

If it already existed there wouldn't be so many pushes in Congress to pass new legislation creating it.

Most countries...

[Kobal]

...already have identification numbers, be they for ID cards, social security or both. In most cases, the only centralized information is in the number itself, linked to the name. I haven't heard of any widespread falsification through hacking. Of course, if the number itself isn't directly based on the info, which is instead stored in a database, things could get awry... Yet, it's weird people would complain about getting such a unique id number when database cross-referencing is already common practice.

privacy in japan?

[small_box_of_stuff]

have any of you ever been to japan? the idea of privacy is silly. they never had any, what would they be giving away exactly?

Oh my god...

[MosesJones]

The GOVERMENT WILL KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!

How scary is that, they know where you work, they know how much you earn, they know how old you are, they know your gender, they know how many kids you have, they know who your parents are.

This is so scary, and even worse every few years they let you put a poxy "X" on a piece of paper to say you agree with it.

This has to be the biggest non-story of the year, almost every country already does this. You pay taxes, the goverment knows who you are... avoiding taxes then you are a criminal.

Too much fuss

[Saib0t]

There's way too much fuss over something very legitimate, IMHO.

As a belgian citizen, I've been living with a mandatory national ID card for all my life (well, from age 12 anyway). This card holds my names, adress, name of wife and kids, a national ID number (birth date + some digits) and a picture. Is that national ID card an infringement on my privacy? NO!

I use the card to identify with state services such as when I want a copy of an official document, when I go vote, etc.; when requested by the police, for banking purposes: I have to show my ID card before doing a withdrawal at the bank, to create a new bank account, ... But NOTHING besides that.

Does my governement keep all this data in a database. Sure they do. What do they do with that? Most certainly nothing.

I fail to understand how you all people see this as an end to privacy. It's your government after all, they're supposed to know who's living where, who voted (voting is mandatory here). There's no pretending you're someone else than you, because that ID card is mandatory and there's a picture of you on it. So you can't pose as someone else (and someone can't pose as you).

Do you remember the story of that wife who kept being arrested because she shared the same name as a wanted criminal? That could never happen with a national ID card, because all she'd have to do was present it and be left alone.

National ID cards are GOOD, not bad.

Re:Too much fuss

[Dave Bailey]

Several people have commented on European schemes which run without too many difficulties or objection.

Maybe the point here is that Europeans trust their governments more than Americans do...

Re:Too much fuss

[cduffy]

I fail to understand how you all people see this as an end to privacy. It's your government after all, they're supposed to know who's living where, who voted (voting is mandatory here).

Since when was it my government's job to know anything about me?

My government's job is to offer services to the public -- law enforcement, fire protection, roads, public education, that sort of thing. Good government is the servant of the people, not their master. Anything which upsets this order is dangerous in the extreme.

Re:Too much fuss

[Saib0t]

Since when was it my government's job to know anything about me?

My government's job is to offer services to the public -- law enforcement, fire protection, roads, public education, that sort of thing. Good government is the servant of the people, not their master. Anything which upsets this order is dangerous in the extreme.

Examples of needs to know where and who you are:
- You didn't pay your taxes and left the place you lived in. As a responsible citizen, you're supposed to. The government needs to know where you are.
- You're elligible for a tax rebate: Where does the government send it to?
- A criminal decided to kill you. He does but the governement doesn't know where you are.
- A fire in the woods is coming near your house, you live in the basement of your hut in the forest, the fire brigade needs to know to warn you.
- You just turned 100 (congratulations, by the way). You don't have to pay any taxes anymore, you weren't aware of that, but you receive a letter in the mail from the gov to inform you of that nice situation.
- You kidnapped 7 girls, the FBI finds traces of your DNA on the location the rapts were made. Now they know where you (used to) live to start looking for clues as to where the girls are.
The list goes on, there are plenty of cases where the government needs to know about you...

The job of the government is to serve you, but to do that, the government needs to be aware of your existence and your whereabouts. If you don't trust your governement, maybe is it a sign that you need another one...

Re:Too much fuss

[cduffy]

You didn't pay your taxes and left the place you lived in. As a responsible citizen, you're supposed to. The government needs to know where you are.

This is one of the reasons an income tax is so problematic -- with other taxes (sales taxes or property taxes, for instance) this problem doesn't exist.

You're elligible for a tax rebate: Where does the government send it to?

Doesn't happen with sales taxes, or value-added taxes, or flat income taxes, or any other tax designed not to have that misfeature..

A criminal decided to kill you. He does but the governement doesn't know where you are.

How would it help if they did? (Especially since I'm already dead)

Most reports of this kind of crime are made by family or friends. Said family or friends will generally be able to provide the needed information -- or at least a location of the victim's most recent home, so that evidence there can be used to make whatever other determinations are necessary.

A fire in the woods is coming near your house, you live in the basement of your hut in the forest, the fire brigade needs to know to warn you.

If I live in a rural area, my safety is my own lookout -- no matter how much information is in some government database. Fire and police protection simply can't be trusted to assist those living in such areas in time, and this isn't something I expect to change in the near future.

You just turned 100 (congratulations, by the way). You don't have to pay any taxes anymore, you weren't aware of that, but you receive a letter in the mail from the gov to inform you of that nice situation.

Easest solution is not to have such complicated tax rules that such notifications are needed.

You kidnapped 7 girls, the FBI finds traces of your DNA on the location the rapts were made. Now they know where you (used to) live to start looking for clues as to where the girls are.

So the FBI can find a sample of my DNA but not my current address?! In any event, old-fashed police work has been effective long before central databases existed.

If you don't trust your governement, maybe is it a sign that you need another one...

If you do trust your government, you may soon end up with one less deserving of such trust.

"The government" is, like any other organization, made up of people -- and people are fallable. People (particularly those going into politics) are also power-hungry, and manipulative, and prone to making decisions that seem like the Right Thing at the time but have dire consequences down the road. One of the best ways to keep a good government is to view its actions with suspicion and distrust, and be cautious that it not overstep its bounds.

Finally, let me note that it's entirely reasonable for a local government to keep land ownership records, birth and death records, voting rosters and the like. It's when these records become centralized and easily searchable by a wide variety of entities (not all of whom are prone to public oversight) that I become concerned. Finally, if I travel out-of-state and spend a month or two living with friends, that's my business and that of those I choose to inform. Requiring people to register their every movement is a tactic used frequently by those who would repress others -- and thus, caution in its face is well-deserved.

Re:Too much fuss

[swillden]

If you don't trust your governement, maybe is it a sign that you need another one...

Ah, but even if you trust the government you have now, how can you be certain you'll trust the next one?

I never understood American fear ...

[Khazunga]

... of a national ID number. In Europe its quite common -- except for the brits. The real question is whether companies or the state can do joins on the different databases.

Portuguese laws forbid different entities from cross-referencing their databases, without explicit approval of the citizens. The way it is written, it even affects different departments of the state -- leading to a social security number, a tax ID number, etc.

I think it is a lot worse the way its done in the US, where everyone and their dog knows your SS#. It is very easy to cross-reference the DBs. At least here, they'd need to do some data mining...

Benefit--voter registration

[PMuse]

In a country where video rental stores routinely demand your social security number before they allow you to rent tapes (and it takes a minimum 30-minute argument with 3 managers to convince them that's an illegal requirement), most or all of the harms of universal ID number are already here. Let's get some of the benefits. With a national ID number and national ID card,

1. Voter registration can be eliminated: Along with all the civil rights battles that entails. Anyone old enough can simply show up at a polling place on election day and vote. This eliminates a whole level of exclusionism.

2. Driver's Licenses can be just for drivers: So, so many Americans who can't drive (for reasons including age, disability, etc.) fight to maintain their driver's licenses because it's HARD to participate in society and commerce without one. A national ID card would provide all persons with an ID that merchants wouldn't question -- and no need for a driving test. Furthermore, people who know that they're unsafe, incapable drivers would have an alternative to keeping their licenses. This would allow them to avoid the temptation to drive.

What's everyone worried about?

[altgrr]

If the Government chooses to keep such information about you, that's fine. I for one would find life much easier if my health records were accessible to every doctor's surgery - when I come home from uni, I have to re-register if I want a doctor's appointment.

Far, far more important that the storage of such data is who is allowed to retrieve it. For example, if there were to be a medical study, you might expect that your health records (relevant parts thereof), gender, age, region and the kind of conurbation you live in (village/town/city etc) were made available, but no personal identifiers.

I find it far more of an invasion of privacy that my telephone and e-mail contacts are abused by people or companies wanting to sell their wares for me. The only reason we might be afraid of a centralised data repository is that it could be hacked. I would contend that, providing appropriate measures are taken, and that photographs are not stored on the database, there is nothing to be afraid of.

Re:What's everyone worried about?

[InternalWave]

It comes down to, how do you define privacy anyway? What are you, as an individual, concerned about keeping private?

Here's some possibly hypothetical cases, that may or may not be an issue in your area right now. Imagine your reaction to each:

1. You commit an indiscretion and contract an STD. It gets treatment, and you're clean again. Do you want every IT worker in the health system (doctor's office, hospitals, insurance companies) accessing this record? Maybe one of them knows your parents...
2. You have a conviction for assault on your record. It's 10 years old, you served a bit of time, and it's only because you had a substandard lawyer and no money that you got convicted at all. And in fact the actual offense consisted of a single punch after provocation (which original provocation went unwitnessed). Does every prospective employer need to know about this?
3. You are checking out certain material from the library, or buying certain books from the store...does law enforcement need to know what you're reading?
4. Systems are put in place to track purchases of alcohol and tobacco against the Number. Insurance companies have access to this information. And you are buying and pounding down way more booze than is good for you. But you never get in the car after drinking. You get refused driver's insurance, or the rate gets jacked up, because of "reasonable suspicion".
5. All the posts you have made to certain politics newsgroups get gathered and analyzed by the police, against your email address, which is then correlated to you by asking your ISP. And you've not been complementary about the government...you get paid a visit by the cops.

These are possible privacy issues. Some may not be concerns now, and may never be. But they could be. Anyone of us can think of many more possible cases. As the above poster said, it's partially a case of who is allowed to retrieve it. But it's also a question of what gets gathered.

It's also a question of what gets retrieved. I am not knee-jerk about keeping all personal info private, and I don't even mind information sharing and cross-referencing to a degree, but I _do_ want the information to be depersonalized most of the time. I mean, do you really need your employer's wife, who works at the Health department, finding out that you, by name, have undergone treatments for substance abuse? And she is only assigned to data entry tasks? Probably not.

A lot of times when people start hypothesizing like this, the typical reaction from some unimaginative or narrow-minded people is, "if you have nothing to hide then..." Well, that's a crock. Number one, everyone has something to hide - it just may not be a tracked datum at the moment. But it could be. And before you get so blase, think about relatives and friends for a moment - you think that all of them are also as squeaky clean as you are? When something like this affects a child of yours, or a friend, then it's a different story...

Mind you, this kind of thing has always been a problem. Modern technology has little to do with it...most places and most times people knew a heck of a lot about you. So in this respect, we (at least in North America in the year 2002) are operating with a bit of tunnel vision.

Re:What's everyone worried about?

[BlackHawk]

I find it far more of an invasion of privacy that my telephone and e-mail contacts are abused by people or companies wanting to sell their wares for me. The only reason we might be afraid of a centralised data repository is that it could be hacked. I would contend that, providing appropriate measures are taken, and that photographs are not stored on the database, there is nothing to be afraid of.

I suppose it's too much to hope you're joking. Out of curiosity, where do you think those telemarketers and spammers are getting your contact information in the first place? There are several states (Michigan comes to mind immediately) that have no law prohibiting the state government from selling the data they collect to any business who buys it. The fear that the centralized databased could be cracked is actually minor. After all, why break in, when you can slip the doorman a large enough payment, and have him open the door for you?

In addition, given the current climate of terror running amuck in the US ever since 9-11 and the passage of the so-called Patriot Act, there will be little resistance in the halls of the legislature to idea of some kind of biometric data attached to the central record. Whether that's a photo, a retinal print or a genetic sequence would remain to be seen.

Don't bother, Big Brother's not for tomorrow...

[Arkan]

As mentioned in previous (and surely following) posts, this kind of PIN (as in Personal Identification Number) already exists in some form or another in many countries. In fact, I doubt that any country with a social security system can do without such a number.

The danger of these primary keys are not their existence, but the amount of data you can obtain when knowing them. For instance, how much a problem can it be is the social security file contains only your name/birthdate/gender?
Now imagine that you could (and at least here in France, it's technically impossible: even the social security services can't find their way in their own files!) correlate with a given PK the whole life of a person: from is medical history to his credit card log? Here is the real danger!
Fortunatly for us, such a thing is far from achievable for three reasons:
- the different databases are not interconnected, making a correlation a pain in the cheek
- access to some of these databases is restricted, as in "please show me sufficient proof of your identity to access your own information". You'll certainly have more information from news papers archives
- the PK mentionned above is only used in just a few files, all the others mainly indexed on your firstname/lastname. Yeah, regularly someone "dies" in place of someone else...

Add to this the cluelessness of government services regarding technology as a whole, and before they come to know anything about relationnal databases, we'll all be far more controled and filed by RIAA/MPAA and affiliates.

--
Arkan

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean this is something that could make so much of life easier. There are people you want to know who you are and to only have one number or card to present that is in the same format in my home state as it is when I visit another, damn! And think of writing software. No more screwing with 50 different formats for a drivers license. Ya'll get too worried about this like this is a nazi state. It aint. It may be fast approaching a socialist state due to Democrat plans, but... As long as it isn't abuse, it would be great. The gov't could regulate it's use.

Identity numbers

[Twylite]

Every time someone mentions identity numbers, the YRO group gets up and slits their wrists. Why? Like it or not, you are identified every day but several numbers that you don't argue about, and probably have less control over.

Let's start with the basics. Every country needs a central population register. If it doesn't have one, it can't recognise its citizens and afford them their rights; or take action to protect itself against illegal immigrants; or issue you with a passport. At the very least that system has your legal name (at birth) and your date of birth. Without an entry in that system you can't prove your age or citizenship.

Now, as every database expert should know, full name and birth date do not have to be unique within a population. Therefore this "database" will include a unique number for every person. Even if its not given to you or used somewhere, you still have an identity number.

Now let's look at the implications of using that number outside the system. First, you have a card which can be used for identification purposes. This has good and bad points. It can be used to secure your transactions (prevent fraud against you), but also to link you with a transaction (reducing privacy). The better the security system of the card, the more difficult it is to forge, and the better the trade-off.

The ID card also serves to verify age. This is pretty important. How do you *know* she is 16? How does a bank know you are old enough to have a credit card? Many establishments that require age verification use a credit card or driver's license, but just because you are of the legal age to obtain one of these doesn't mean you actually have one. Not to mention that the legal age for driving is different in various parts of the world, and in many places you can get a credit card at any age if your parents sign surety.

What about SSNs? They are commonly used for a variety of identification purposes, but are a very poor choice for this! Knowing an SSN is a direct route to being able to abuse an SSN (in most countries) -- it is a number you NEED to keep private, but the lack of a unified identification system often prevents that from happening.

The lack of an ID card doesn't prevent the linking up of various disparate systems. In fact, most of these systems have poor design from a privacy standpoint, as they never had it in mind. You bank WILL know your SSN, drivers license, name, home address, and preferred make of condoms if it wants to. An ID system does not make this any more or less difficult.

So what's the BAD part about mandatory ID cards? The government and/or industry may enact policies that require positive identification at a time when such identification should not be needed. And that is what privacy legislation is there to ensure does not happen.

I, for one, like the fact that I have an identity card which is REQUIRED (by law) to be produced in any interactions with the government for the purposes obtaining passports, etc, or when opening accounts with a bank. It requires a fair amount of effort to fraudulently open an account in my name or otherwise impersonate me, and electronically secured (i.e. digitally signed) ID cards will make that more difficult in the future.

On the other hand, I don't give my ID number out to people or institutions who don't require it. I am aware of the privacy implications of having that number, even if there is no publically accessible means of misusing it.

Re:Sounds like the danish system.

[n-baxley]

I am a proponent of personal privacy, and I don't have a problem with this system - probably because I can't think of a single intrusion into my privacy caused by it.

And yet you won't give us your number. Why is that? Just curious what your thought process was.

What's important to Americans isn't privacy.

[bons]

What's important to Americans isn't privacy.

It's the illusion of privacy.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that between names, addresses, social security numbers, credit cards, drivers licenses, and hosts of other identification methods, tracking someone isn't very difficult. You match up the information on their tax forms with the information from their credit card purchases with the information at various country offices and you're pretty much good to go.

It's like the lock on your car door. People lock their car doors because it makes them feel secure. But if they lock the keys in their car, they know they can call a locksmith and he'll have that door open in 60 seconds. What they don't think about (and what they don't want to think about) is that if a locksmith can open it up in 60 seconds then a good theif can do it in half the time, especially as the code required to make a new key is right there in plain sight.

For now Americans have the illusion of privacy. It makes them happy and it makes the job of those people who would gather information about them easier.

Beware.

[hateddamntruth]

Everything starts out somewhat justifiably, but when the laws are passed to give those in government that power, you see the true color of those people in power. Yes, there are potential advantages to such a system - all activities will then be monitored. But this is also a *VERY* risky thing to just sign off on.

The problem comes in when the government starts requiring that number for essential livelihood, and monitoring all activities pertaining to every person in every activity. That gives them too much power. Power corrupts. Trust me. Look at history. Someday, when they make laws that are unfair, or against the rights of the individual (and trust me again, there are many that ARE out to get you, and are lobbying the government heavily to do so), enforcing these laws will become trivial, and attempting to reject them will be life-threatening. It would be naive to think that there isn't a lot to protect or lose, a lot of liberty in jeopardy, when the most powerful forces are so desperate to push such legislation. And it would be naive to think that the government is always working in the interest of the common man, and always on your side. (This is probably the most important point - That government itself is frequently untrustworthy.)

Take it or leave it. The future itself is in jeopardy. Beware what you are complacent about, who you vote for, and what you sign off on. A word is enough for the wise.

What I think that other countries dont get is....

[Darkninja666]

that Americans know first hand (and second, third) what can happen to freedom. I've seen many other posts on here from citizens of countries with a National ID, and they say that it doesn't hurt privacy and that its gold in their hands.

The problem (or potental problem) is that how do you assure that 1)the information is safe (from hackers,crackers,id thieves, goverment officals), 2)that it won't be used for evil (for example Nazis or the Soviet Union) and 3)that only the proper (read: legally held responsible ones) people have access to your data. I feel fear everytime I hear about this crap (even though it is currently in place anyway), because I don't want my local librarian or grocery store, knowing if I have an STD or I'm gay or I'm a smoker, or I'm a buddist or I'm a Christian or I'm overdrawn or I'm divorced, etc etc.

Americans for all their bitching, know that freedom is easy to lose (even though they passed the Goddamned USAPA). And even harder to get back. And you are also talking about some of the more enlightened ones (those that read slashdot), as they think about these things and understand the technology involved.

I have some questions for those in countries with national ids....Would you feel safe if you we in the Unpopular minority of your country? Do you think that that national registry, would protect you if they suddenly declared all (insert your favorite minority here) to be evil and must be cleansed from the earth for the good of your country?.....people rarely want to think scary thoughts.

The scary consequences of tagging citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I realize that the whole citizen registration database doesn't really bother you sophisticated Europeans and Canadians. But it bothers Americans because of our thoroughly untrustworthy, chaotic and incompetent government.

Here are my two not-so-unique experiences:

1. I knew a woman employed as a government worker for a social service program look up her friends and neighbors in the social welfare database that she administered. Not so bad, right? Except that she then got enterprising and began selling the data to Private Investigators, ID Thieves, violent husbands looking for where their wives are secretly sheltered, and a host of other people with unknown motives and backgrounds. Think of the potential for blackmail, extortion, job discrimmination, stalkers, etc.

It's not that our government is evil, its that they don't take our personal privacy seriously enough to secure it properly and responsibly.

Did this woman have authorized access to this database? No, she was just a low-level database administrator who got access because the password was never changed and everyone in the office knew it. Citizen privacy was completely disregarded.

2. Ever been stalked or had your ID stolen? How about losing a job prospect because of the ID theft and its resulting effect on your credit report? Background checks suck because no one believes you when you explain the identity theft.

3. Everything looks worse on paper. And when you combine a universal ID# to a permanent personal record of your life and a government who can't be trusted with securing your private data, you get screwed. You aren't allowed to make a mistake and you won't have a chance to explain a misunderstanding.

I got caught in the act of pulling a really cool technical prank in college and was arrested for vandalism. If I hadn't been caught, it would have been a clever hack with no lasting damage. People would have talked about it for years. The engineering faculty would have praised my skills.

A fair judge kindly expunged my record so I wouldn't be haunted by a simple college prank.

But there it is everytime I apply for a job. Sure the government doesn't have a record of it but the commercial employee background checking companies have it in their database.

My lawyers say there is nothing I can do because my arrest was a public record. Sure, I can call the background checking people up and have them note an expungement and dismissal but the arrest is still there.

Now, I have a record that makes getting jobs difficult. Corporate security profilers don't look at the explanation or appreciate the humor. They just see that I must be a violent person. They just see a vandal.

Consider this. What happens when you want to protest something and get arrested? What happens if you need to stand up to our government with civil disobedience like they did in the sixties? Ten years later, despite the good intentions, you won't have a chance to explain yourself, you'll just have a record that shows that your were disturbing the peace and potential employers will form their own conclusions as to your character.

Given these scenarios, consider the consequences of a National ID system.

biometrics

[s4m7]

what is far more frigtening than the nationalization of our id system (which is already pretty damn draconian, i've known several people who have been arrested because they were unable to prove who they were at the time), is the fact that there is already legislation in place currently that says that if states don't adopt biometric information into their driver's liscences by i believe 2006, they lose their federal highway money. sure wish i could remember a citation here, but IANAL.

Its all about trust

[Damaged Brain]

I've been reading the arguments for and against a national ID card and came to the conclusion that the Europeans and Americans don't understand each others standpoint because Europeans simply trust their government more than Americans ever will. Seriously, being an American, I trust my government to do nothing but take my money and fill my life with meaningless laws and forms. Americans might seem a bit upitty about defending every little bit of our liberties because the government scares the living bejesus out of us. Granted, im not saying that America is on the verge on anarchy, Its just the way the system works.

Re:Cool...

[JimBobJoe]

...in an odd way, you bring up a point that not a single person has mentioned.

Japan is a highly bureaucratic country--has been for hundreds of years now, and certainly since the war.

Japan is also a country which prides itself on organization, and strives to put in place hierarchies of bureaucracy.

So why do they need the number now? Clearly they have survived perfectly well without it. That to me is the oddest part--I can't find a single article saying why they suddenly need a universal ID number. My personal stereotypes of the Japanese say that it certainly has nothing to do with fraud or identification theft.

I don't think it's Ashcroft incidentally, but I believe that the companies who make ID card systems (Polaroid, Viisage, Unisys...et cetera) are really good at selling their systems to schmuck politicians who don't realize that they have no need for em.

I heard that was the Bulgarian experience. Bulgarians had pre-berlin internal passports for identification with the government security forces...after communism collapsed, the need for an ID card took a big dive. However, a country on the verge of bankruptcy, required that everyone get new ID cards in the mid to late 90's. The general belief is
a.) some ID card maker made a great pitch
b.) part of that pitch was that new ID cards would represent a profit opportunity for the government.