Are National ID Cards a Good Idea?

Dracophile asks: "The Sydney Morning Herald recently ran a front-page article about a 'smart card' to access government services and that it would double as a national identity card. The article points out that the current Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who fiercely opposed from opposition the Australia Card idea in 1985, is now a supporter. The article goes on to say that about 100 nations have some form of ID card. Is your country one of them? What concerns were raised? How were they addressed? Have welfare fraud and other identity-related crimes decreased? Have National ID cards improved or deteriorated conditions where you live?"

Comments

Yes

[ejdmoo]

Here in the US, the social security number (and other *very* insecure methods) are already used as identification. (even though it's illegal)

It's way too easy to impersonate me right now. I'd like a smart card with a pin/biometric setup.

If you're reasons for not wanting an national ID are because the government will accumulate massive amounts of data about you, news flash: it's too late. They're already doing it. I'd rather they do it in a secure manner.

Re:Yes

[DrMrLordX]

The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume we need an ID card to prevent identity theft. Sadly, the reason why identities can be stolen is that we already have universal identifiers (Social Security #s, bank account numbers + PINS, credit card numbers, etc) that can be used anywhere by someone who steals them and knows what they're doing. The only way to prevent theft of identity is to have no identity, or at least have no universally-accepted identification code. Introducing yet another identifier, such as a biometric signature paired with a PIN code, and linking it to our existing identifiers will only make us more vulnerable to identity thieves once the thieves figure out how to successfully steal and utilize our personal identifiers. Biometrics have been, can be, and will be spoofed. PIN numbers can be stolen via hacking or social engineering.

In short, I believe that national ID cards will make us more vulnerable to identity theft.

Re:Absolutely not

[Mrs. Grundy]

This is the answer we hear most often and it is often the most frustrating because it offers nothing but vague warnings...in the parlance of slashdot: FUD. So maybe some folks here can enumerate some SPECIFIC examples of how this will "trample individual rights". Since, as the question states, there are other countries doing this we should have some recent historical data to back up such claims. My gut is against National IDS but having real, well-argued, reasons to be against them will go a lot further in preventing them than simply stating that we will lose our rights and that they are bad.

Information

[wall0159]

The problem with an ID card, as I see it, is that it gives the government lots of information about the citizenry, which it should not *need* to know. History shows us that there are always cycles of totalitarianism and 'freedom'. Having national ID cards mean that when a totalitarian authority comes to power, it can do a lot more damage.

Part of the reason the Nazis were so efficient at rounding up the Jews and other 'undesirables' was because they had good information about where they were living/employed/etc, and the Public Service was quite happy to provide that information to the SS (or whoever it was who coordinated the death camps - my knowledge of history is a bit shady). Had they had a national ID card, this process would have been even more efficient.

We should oppose an ID card, unless we're certain that such a government will never arise in our country. If you believe it never will, I think you're deluding yourself.

ps. This assumes that the ID cards are 100% secure - an impossible feat. If you consider ID card hacking, and identity theft, etc, then you uncover a heap of additional reasons why they're a Bad Thing.

One Ring to Counterfeit Them All

[Stephen Samuel]

It will make life soooo much easier for counterfieting rings... Once you get the knack of how to make a good-looking counterfit, you can pretend that you're from anywhere in the country.

And you'll have a false sense of security, too -- most people aren't going to have the tools to reliably recognize most half-decent forgeries, so all you'll need is a half-decent fake, but -- because most people will know them as 'secure' IDs, they'll just be accepted at face value.

Most importantly, however: Being able to positively identify someone after they blow themselves up doesn't do much to stop terrorism.

Even after he was arrested, Mousaui is still trying to get himself killed.

Re:Absolutely not

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Following this logic, I suppose slashdotters should also use this against gun control laws if they use your argument against national IDs. But I doubt it.

Gun control/registration is frequently followed by confiscation, so people are right to be nervous. An unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of criminals, elected and self-appointed.

no.

[Aurisor]

The abuses that could stem from a centralized system of identification are absolutely mind-boggling. Before we launch into that however, we ought to take a second and consider exactly what it is that we're in jeopardy of losing, don't you think?

The fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What this effectively creates is a system of enforcement which makes the law enforcement play at a disadvantage. This was created because our founding fathers did not trust government not to oppress its citizens.

One of the biggest points that most people don't get about the constitution and the bill of rights is that it provides allowances for people to get away with crimes. This is a necessary step because 100% enforcement of all laws is both the natural goal of any government AND the very definition of the most orwellian of hells. The founding fathers decided to draw the line somewhere to even the playing field between citizen and government. If you break copyright laws within your home or among your friends, smoke some pot in your basement, or anonymously leak some piece of government information to the press, THE LEVEL OF INVASION REQUIRED TO CONVICT THOSE CRIMES OUTWEIGHS THE EVIL OF THOSE CRIMES GOING UNPUNISHED.

Furthermore, this relies on eyewhitnesses, regular people, to report crimes and turn people in. This is precisely in step with the principle of the jury trial: all power is mitigated by the complicity of the populace and the human error and decentralization of the enforcement. Yes, that means that there are situations where murderers and rapists and all manner of other evil people are going to get away with things. This is the price we must pay to maintain a sane government.

With that said, here's why the mandatory ID is a horrendous idea: by creating these IDs we are taking the first step into the machine. We will all be inventoried in an absolutely literal way. Once this happens at a national level, it becomes possible for diverse sources of information to be correlated with unprecedented precision. As soon as this becomes possible, the government will necessarily, naturally, perhaps gradually begin to use it to fight drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or whatever evil they're spouting about at the moment.

Just consider it. A single database with an ID number for every citizen in the united states. At that point it is so, SO very easy to start associating things:

* Library Records
* Internet History
* Criminal Records
* Taxes
* Credit Card Purchases
* Driving Records

But that's not even the beginning. What happens when we start using this thing on a day-to-day convenience level?

* Swipe it at the metro
* Swipe it at the grocery store
* Wave it through the toll booths

Or, hell, just put a RFID chip into the thing. Imagine: you'd be able to just walk into a library, pick up some books, and walk out...the books are automatically checked out via RFID. You could fill your cart up at the supermarket and just walk out the door. Instantly, the balance is deducted from your credit card. The police could fire up a scanner at a football game and get a list of every person who's been to the middle east in the last year. They could just deduct all of your taxes as you go; what would there be to report come April?

On some level, we're all guilty of something. Some of us like weird porn. Some of us lie about things. Some of us hate people and wish them dead. Some of us hate people because of the color of their skin. Some of us are friends with drug dealers and terrorists. Some of us are Communists. Some of us break encryption.

If you add up enough information about anyone, they're guilty of w

Re:Absolutely not

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis used this sort of data to round up Jews, Homersexuals and Race Traitors and send them to the ovens.

I look at that example and see the bad thing being rounding up and killing people, not the method used to locate them.

Nazis undoubtedly used cars to do this. Clearly cars are the tool of oppressive governments. Nazis used guns to do this. Clearly guns are the tool of oppressive governments. Nazis used ID cards to do this. Clearly ID cards are the tool of oppressive regimes.

I really don't understand the paranoia some people have with ID cards. They are a tool just like any other. The particular purpose of this tool is authentication. As other people have pointed out, this purpose is already widely implemented - sans the scary "ID card" moniker - with nary a complaint. So why do the two magical words "ID card" get such knee-jerk reactions? Is there a particular Hollywood film that used this phrase? The exact same functionality, but called "state ID" instead of "ID card" doesn't so much as raise an eyebrow. So what's the deal here, where's the fear coming from?