Slashdot Mirror
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?"
In Canada we have identity cards for various services, such as our national medicare plan, but we don't "mix-n-match" the data too much.
when it was found that HRDC (Human Resources Development Canada) HAD created a sort of "master database", the newspapers were quick to jump on it, and one of them printed up directions and a form to request your complete file. 29,000 people responded. Rather than comply within the 30 day limit, they destroyed the database.
Score one for the little guys.
The politicians in this country are reticient to use the word id. They prefer access card. Also we do have a choice of whether to get one. Of course if you don't then you can't access government medical and welfare services. Funnily enough this was announced on the same day that the government said it wants an Australian Citizenship test to make sure you're Australian enough before entering the country. Yep we're really laid back over here.
Absent any other factors, I think most slashdotters would say that not having a country-wide ID card is greatly preferable to having one.
But there are other factors. Some recent debates in the US highlights these well: the need for identification to fly, and the need for identification for voter registration. In other words, ID is already necessary to fully participate in the society.
But when ID is necessary in practice, the question shifts to one of access - can all citizens gain access to valid ID equally? And from the debates (especially regarding voting), it seems that perhaps not. A national ID card - issued for everyone, and presumably for free or at a very, very low cost, since it is mandatory - would equalize access to something that is already neccessary.
Make sure you're protesting the right thing.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Also, if I have a fak NY ID many NY police would spot it in a second, if I hand them a fake Iowa drivers license it would slip right by.
I am mostly libertarian and even I support having a national ID system.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
The GP obviously does NOT understand what a "national" ID is.
In California there are lots and lots of illegal immigrants who seem to have no problem getting a job, living quarters and such despite the fact that they shouldn't be able to get a CA drivers license.
So, having one item that can be used for identification purposes is not the same as having one item that DOES identify you.
Gun ownership is a civil right.
You could make the argument that censorship reduces the incidence of offensive language, but that's a small benefit to receive in exchange for a civil right.
It's very difficult to really tell conclusively what long term effect gun control has on the incidence of violent crime in general. But regardless, I stand for the civil right for law-abiding citizens to produce, own, transport, and trade firearms. I believe that this right is an important deterrent for oppressive government.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.