Australians to Get Compulsory Photo ID Smartcard

syousef writes "The Sydney morning herald reports that a new national ID card will be issued in Australia."From 2010 people will not be able to receive government health and welfare payments without a card. People may choose to have other information stored on the card, such as health and emergency contact details which, for example, ambulance officers could use.". Your papers please."

Comments

Fritz Lang's M

[eldavojohn]

Your papers please.

I'm not sure what emotion the author is trying to evoke with the above statement but that phrase carries a lot of baggage. The most memorable association I have with it is that of Germany around the first half of the 20th century.

If you've ever seen the famous German film M (which is made by Fritz Lang--the same director of Metropolis fame), you would recall the scenes in which people are asked for their papers and arrested if they don't have them or they are suspected to be fake. This is in an attempt to crack down on a child molester/murderer.

Why do I pick M and not some modern day movie that reflects this? Because as I watched M, I realized that Fritz Lang was probably commenting on the futility of that system of law enforcement although his audience probably watched it with a "that's just the way it works" attitude. How profound it was to see an act of injustice only to realize that when and where this movie was made it was not at all out of the norm.

I was born in 1982 so I'm sure I don't know the half of how 'papers' work but I do know that I have a social security card, two birth certificates (state and county) and a driver's license. Are these my papers? Maybe they could be construed as such but I highly doubt I would be arrested should I lack any of them. You will, of course, argue with me and tell me I would be considered an illegal alien without the birth certificates. I know this is true most places and I do fear for my country, the United States of America.

The article was very concerned with how much this would cost versus save the Australian government. The article was also very concerned about whether this would crack down on identity theft or make it easier to steal an identity. What I'm concerned about is what happens when you're a suspect of a crime that happened in proximity to you and you don't have your ID card? I'm also very concerned to see whether or not the Aboriginal peoples of Australia will be forced to carry this card.

Are the laws surrounding this card being mandated such that it would be very easy for law enforcement to abuse it? Will this give them an excuse to arrest whom ever they so choose? Identification is easily abused by both the identifiers and those being identified.

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[KDan]

I think you're over-concerned. We've had ID cards for many years in Switzerland, and if they're anything, that's extremely convenient. Whenever you need to provide ID for age verification (e.g. to buy alcohol or go into a club), instead of lugging a passport with you or some other less adequate item (e.g. driver's licence - if you have one. I don't), you just show your ID card, which is like a credit-card sized passport, essentially. It also allows me to go to most european countries without having my passport with me. Basically it's very handy as a passport substitute, and just because it exists doesn't mean the police are constantly asking for it.

Please note that Swiss ID cards do not have biometric nonsense attached to them. They are just ID cards. ID cards are useful.

Daniel

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[gowen]

We've had ID cards for many years in Switzerland, and if they're anything, that's extremely convenient.

Be quiet, you'll break the groupthink.

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[Bromskloss]

the famous German film M

The film (original version from 1931) can be downloaded from our friends at archive.org.

So put the lights out...
M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Moerder

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[Tom]

I don't know the half of how 'papers' work

Most european nations have had what you americans would call "ID cards" for decades if not centuries. Actually, they are not called ID cards, but passports. That's a bit confusing because you probably consider a passport something for travel, whereas in most of europe, you have a second (and slightly different) passport for that.

Most europeans don't consider national ID cards (let's stick to that terminology) evil in any way and wonder why you americans make such a big issue of it. We've had them for as long as anyone can remember.

And yes, in some european countries it is mandatory to have your ID card with you when you leave the house. I don't think you'll be arrested for not having it, at least I've never heard of that happening after WW2.

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[bhima]

I moved from Australia to the US in 1978, in that year in both countries it was extremely unlikely that a law enforcement officer would approach you for no particular reason and ask for identification.
However this very much was not the case in Eastern Europe (where I was born) and presumably the redder portions of South East Asia as well. Also at the time you did not need written permission to live, work, or just be at any certain place. So the "paper's please" thing became a jibe from the armchair anticommunists as sort of a short form of our country is so much better than yours. Indeed my own father, a staunch Anti-Communist, took us for a car trip both around Australia and across the United States in a prolonged state of rapture caused by the fact that we could go all these places and see all these things and not only not present papers to anyone of authority but not go through inspections or checkpoints (even at state lines!).

Fast forward to 2006 and world is different place. Terrorism has replaced Communism and the many of those same armchair anticommunists are now demanding the very things that they derided during the cold war in communist countries. It's a bizarre thing that I cannot travel around the US without identification, Can I refuse to show a policeman identification anymore? (I don't think so, but it's been awhile since I've been back to the US). I can not walk down most US streets with a simple beer in my hand... But I can take train from where I live now to the place where I was born and I can pass the abandoned check point which I passed as a child in a box in the trunk of a car... drinking what ever I want and showing my passport once as I pass over the border into Czech Republic.

I don't need papers in the place my parents ran from... but I need them in the place they ran to.

So you're right "Papers Please" does have baggage... it should.

Re:Fritz Lang's M

[ari_j]

The fear in the USA is more related to a strong national government taking full control. We have, for longer than our federal government has even existed, taken great pleasure in being a confederation of states and not a single government with political subdivisions called "states." I don't know how Australian federalism (if such a thing exists there) works, so I don't know if the same fear makes sense there. Remember, our nation's constitution was strongly opposed at first and nearly was not ratified because of exactly the same fear.

Most Americans proudly carry an ID card issued by their state of residence, and are happy that full faith and credit must be given to it in other states within the USA. However, many of us dislike one or more of the following:

1. Mandatory carrying of identification documents and mandatory production of them to police when the police have no probable cause to make an arrest. See the Hiibel case that was decided in our Supreme Court not that long ago - a Nevada man was arrested for refusing to identify himself under a Nevada state law requiring him to do so when the policeman made what is known as a Terry stop, meaning one where you have reasonable suspicion (but not probable cause) that a crime is being committed and can confront the suspect about it to give him a chance to either dispel your suspicion or confirm it. The Supreme Court basically said that the law was just fine, but largely because it allowed you to identify yourself just by stating your name to the officer and not producing any documentation of who you are.
2. National ID. The US Constitution does not provide for this. I can see an argument for the federal spending power to allow Congress to condition certain expenditures on the condition that the recipients have a national ID card, but even that argument is on shaky ground.
3. Biometric information on ID cards. A photo and a signature, plus a holograph to show that it's state-issued, is all we want.
4. RFID and the like in ID cards. We do not want our ID to be "visible" to the government without us showing it to them. It's not that we have an evil government - it's that things like this make it easy for an evil government to thrive if it comes to exist.

Dumb.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm not particularly opposed to ID cards (They've been compulsory for sometime where I am in Europe - with no loss to my freedom that I can discern). However, statements such as:

The Prime Minister, John Howard, said the Government had considered a national identity card after last year's London bombings but in the end it "was not predisposed to adopt a national ID card".

Are just plain stupid. Perhaps the Prime Minister, John Howard is unaware that the London Bombers were all British citizens and would have been eligible for identity cards had Britain been using them. More likely however he is a typical Western fear mongering politician.

Oh - and the summary headline "Australians to Get Compulsory Photo ID Smartcard" seems to be incorrect. Quoting the linked article:

From 2010 people will not be able to receive government health and welfare payments without a card.

My understanding is that Australia does have a reasonable health & welfare system, so thats a big carrot (stick?) to wave. But it's still not compulsory.

Re:Dumb.

[gowen]

We much prefer the American system, where if you get sick, the choice is
i) mortgage yourself in penury
ii) or die.

The funny thing is, can you imagine if passports were a new idea? Just think of the outraged slashdotters that would vent their fury on a scaremongering story entitled "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to leave the country".

Or Driving Licenses: "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to operate vehicles!"

Oh, The Huge Manatee!

Can't they just...

[dohzer]

...implant it on the back of my hand? I don't want to have to remember to take it everywhere!

See? See?

[Max Threshold]

This is what happens when you willingly give up your assault weapons!

This is rediculous.

[NipsMG]

Your papers please.

This is a seriously rediculous statement. I understand the need for privacy, however I don't see how this is any more invasive than requiring a drivers license or a state ID or a passport to get certain benefits as well.

There is good reason for requiring identification for certain benefits to ensure that people don't abuse the system. As of right now, the USA doesn't have a "national ID card", however a drivers license is close enough. Police from any state can take your license and request all of your information.

This system not only simplifies that process, but allows you OPTIONALLY to put in more health and contact information to benefit you if you run into problems.

Passports, State ID Cards, Licenses, are all essentially the same thing. What the hell is the problem?

Where does this end?

[VorpalRodent]

I don't so much disagree with these in theory. But in practice, how many more problems are going to arise as a result of this?

What happens when a wallet gets stolen? How many hoops do you have to jump through to prove that you are who you say you are, so that you can get a new card? If I lose my credit card, I make a phone call and they cancel it and send me a new one - surely it wouldn't be that easy with some form of national identification.

And like the previous poster stated - how much longer before this really does turn into compulsory chipping (except in Wisconsin)? While I am not afraid of the government, and have nothing to hide, I'm not exactly enamoured by the idea of being required to have some form of absolute ID on me (or in me) at all times.

Where does this all end? Gattica had the nifty system of checking DNA for everything...will the Police officer someday just ask for a strand of hair? I like my bodily fluids, and I don't want to give them away, especially not for something as mundane as identification...it would be okay to give them to the proverbial "female".

So What?

[ArcherB]

I've debated other Libertarians on this issue, and the main point they can not refute is, "So what?"

In nearly all 50 of these United States, you are required to carry some form of ID, usually a driver's license. Once you cross state lines, your ID is no longer familiar to those who may want to look at it (airport ticket counter, liquor store cashier, hotel clerk, police officer, EMT) and thus becomes easier to forge. A national ID instead of 50 differnt state ID's could help prevent this sort of thing and make absolutely no difference people's lives, as we are all required to carry a state ID already.

I've carried a state ID for over 20 years, and I've never had anyone ask to see my papers.

w00t! Just moved back to NZ

[xerxesdaphat]

Excellent. After living in Australia for 6 years I've moved back to NZ. Whilst we do occasionally do ridiculous things wrt environmental issues, our general method of governance is much much `pre-9-11' (as people say ^_^). Maybe that's because we're an outdated backwater; but whatever the reason, at least we avoid lunacy like this. In case anybody doesn't know by now, we have also effectively banned any US ship from entering out waters (although how we do that is not something I agree with; we are `nuclear free' which, although prevents any US ship from visiting, also means we are nuclear free).

NZ is sort of like Amiga OS (or perhaps I should say *BSD? ^_~)... secure and free mostly by obfuscation and isolation =^_^=.

Bruce Schneier article on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce Schneier wrote an op-ed a couple years back on why a national ID doesn't offer any more security. Interesting reading, to say the least: http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html

Re:The Letter of the Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested in what the law of Australia states. Would it be possible for someone to be arrested simply because they don't have their ID card?

Maybe if you had read the linked article, instead of frantically going for an apparently well thought out first post, you'd have read that it is NOT compulsory to carry the ID card in question at all times. In other words, you'll carry it when you expect you'll need it. I always carry my Medicare card and I will probably also always carry this ID card.

I am not worried about what the Australian government or police will do with this opportunity. I am however worried about the design and implementation of the technology. Regardless of whether the government develops the card and support system in-house or with contractors, they have a tendancy to fuck things like this up, with beurocratic bullshit getting in the way of proper design and implementation. Which I suppose is mostly typical of governments around the World.

I would really like to get my hands on one with some known details on the card to check it for myself. Hopefully the format of the data stored on the cards will be version numbered to allow automatic updates when needed at trusted points of use (hospitals, post offices, etc), so that the cards details can be updated to reflect critical changes in the back-end systems.

Re:Identity Track Creep

[cowbutt]

Why does carrying a card stop you from doing what you want to do? How does it stop you from being 'free'? What does it disable, prevent or otherwise hinder you from doing?

The only answer that comes to my mind is "Crime". And I'm all for a government cutting that down.

The French Resistance were 'criminals' under the laws of the Vichy regime during WWII.

Nelson Mandela was a 'criminal' under the laws of Apartheid South Africa.

Do I really need to go on?