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?"
No
These things do almost nothing but enable the governement to trample individual rights. This is a Very Bad Thing; the less data on me the government has, the happier I'll be; not because I'm a terrorist, but simply because I think that my civil rights are important.
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.
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.
Thats all you can say? Your goverement will trample your rights as individuals by haveing a standerdized way of telling who is who? I honestly think a national ID would be a good thing (at least here in the US). Every work a cash register and have to card someone with an out of state ID? Its easy to get away with a fake ID if you make it from a state most people are not familiar with.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1
I'd throw in my opinion, but I'll defer to Bruce.
Worst Sig Ever
What about the need for unambiguous, authenticated, recognized proof of identity? Certainly we have long since entered the age of digital sigantures. Short of being able to provide a thumbprint, blood sample, photo, and voiceprint convieniently to anyone, a compact and secure card/ID would be the next best answer.
We can't just wish ID theft away, and the current methods of "protection" are little more than that.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
As an Australian Citizen I think this is a terrible idea and it will not stop any fraud, terrorism or whatever stupid reason the government dreams up to tell the public.
Firstly they will be able to be forged, just because it will be a smart card doesn't mean that you will not be able to make another one. All that you would need to duplicate the smart card is to read all the current data off the card then to program an emulator on your own card to spit out those values whenever they are requested, this is the way that a GSM card can be copied. Couple that with the current equipment that forgers use and you have a duplicate card.
However the point is kind of moot, we already have a medicare card that we need to carry around at all times should we want medical care.
I for one will be writing a letter to my local MP, I suggest all Australians do the same.
Even then the "liberal" party have a majority in government... there really isn't that much we can do.
...I personally don't see what's the big fuss about. Back in Slovakia, we've got national ID cards (called "Citizen's Card"). We use them only for identification; the same way I use a driver's license in the US. the ID cards have five pieces of information: Your picture, name, address, date of birth, and a unique ID number. This makes it no different from a US driver's license, with the small distinction that with the exception of writing personal checks you don't give out your DL number. Instead, you use the social security number as your identifier.
Of course, I don't dispute that ID cards can be abused, for example by having them carry much more of your personal information. However, that's not the ID card's fault; it's the responsibility of the government to determine which information will be available through an ID card.
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.
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.
Let me summarize:
- Watch out for Australian Gestapo.
- That's a bad analogy.
- No, it's a good analogy.
- Here's a link to a German film about police powers.
- We already have drivers' licenses; how are national ID's any different?
- Here's a humorous comment.
- It's not compulsory per se; you don't have to get the ID card. You just can't access government benefits without one... putting a *very* big carrot in front of Australians.
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.
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.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Most countries place the ID information on the card. This is foolish as any physical or digital representation can be duplicated with relative ease. This makes the good guys work for naught to stop the bad guys who don't have to worry (as they have proper ID). I propose that all the ID information should be server side (picts etc - presented to a terminal). The only thing on the card should be a Name, Number and Bar Code. The information shown could be location specific - to enhance privacy rights (the reader only sees information germain to their function).
Imagine how many dead-beat dads would be forced to pay. Imagine how many jobs would would newly occupied by legal workers. Imagine how much nicer getting on a commercial airplane would be. Imagine if the person reading the card knew that the ID information they were seeing was coming from an encrypted database in some locked room, as opposed to being produced in the back of a van somewhere.
Americans support National ID card : http://www.time.com/time/columnist/stengel/article /0,9565,180144,00.html
... but guess what, check your junk mail. Check out your RICO score. Check out your entry in the voter database. Law abiding tax paying Americans are already compromised and nothing can undo it.
It's a good idea.
1) We won't have to build a Maginot Line on the Mexican border.
2) We can enforce our immigration laws better and more cheaply.
3) We can cut down on fraud.
4) We can catch criminals more easily.
I know that some are scared of it but the benefits outweigh the minor costs.
Some might complain about privacy
Only criminals fear the National ID card.
Shneier starts with a bunch of wrong assumptions: he assumes that national ID cards are needed for fighting terrorism and he assumes that they require a central database. Both of those are bogus assumptions.
The purpose of national ID cards is so that you can identify yourself reliably to other people if the transaction requires it. National ID cards make it hard for people to impersonate you, and that's a good thing. They are much less useful in identifying people who don't want to be identified (e.g., terrorists).
National ID cards also don't require a centralized database. Such databases are often incorporated into national ID card proposals, but they are not an intrinsic part of a national ID card system and are probably a bad idea.
The fact is that the US already has a national ID card system in place, it just happens to be poorly designed and permits rampant identity theft. That ought to be fixed by creating an ID card system. If done correctly, everybody ends up with more protection against identity theft and with more control over their personal information than they now have.
National ID cards are a bad idea in the United States, for a few reasons. First, this country is supposed to be a confederation of states (hence, we are the United States of America; not "America" like many people say); the federal government should be strictly bound to the Constitution. (This is different from most European nations; they are nation-states, not confederacies. Federalism doesn't exist in those nations, whereas federalism is what makes the United States different). National ID cards trample over the states' sovereignity. Ideally, I should report to the state of California, not to the feds. According to the Constitution, what function does the National ID card would have? I'm pretty sure the Consitution doesn't allow for this. However, the Constitution and the concept of federalism has been spat at and vilified since 1933 (with how the Supreme Court has acted since FDR, you would have sworn that the 10th Amendment was repealed along with the 18th in 1933), so they'll probably use the "commerce clause" or some other excuse to implement it.
National ID cards aren't the cause of totalitarian regimes, but if the United States were taken over by totalitarians, access to data would be much easier with a centralized database somewhere in Washington, DC vs. individual state records. Besides, terrorists, phishers, con artists, and other crooks would have an easier time stealing somebody's "American Freedom ID Card" and have access to all of their personal information, than if they just stole a California ID card, for example.
My objection to a national ID card in the United States is based on four reasons; it defies federalism, may give the federal government too much information (which may be very bad if our government gets worse), could make identity theft much easier and centralized, and civil liberties issues (why should I have to carry my papers around to walk down the street?). The United States needs to return to its Constitutional roots based on federalism, instead of implementing some big government program to fix all of the problems that it allegedly has.
We have a mandatory id card in Hungary, and our biggest concern is that policemen are always have the right to ask You to show Your id.
Why?
Nobody knows.
In Hungary, sometimes a policemen comes into the bar and checks the id card of everybody, without any reason.
In contrast to the U.S., nobody checks age limit at the doors, but policemen can ask you every time to show your pass.
Back in the 50's if somebody did not have the id card nearby (e.g. riding a bike), they arrested You for a night. Nowtimes other parties might
identify You for the policemen and the driving licence is also o.k. for that.
What an advance - You can say. But: If I go into my bank, they still ask for my id card at every transaction and they don't trust the driving licence. Therfore everybody takes all his neccessary cards in their pockets, because it is a daily, regular use for EACH of them:
-ID card
-card officially stating your home address (this data is no more on the ID card)
-Tax card
-Driving licence (card)
-Health card (for any health issue)
-EU health card (If you leave the border...)
-Credit/Debit cards
-Paper based traffic card
-Card for the ownership/traffic eligibility of your car
-Parking card (in the city)
-Dicount cards and entry cards for specific stores (e.g. Shell Smart card, Supershop discount card, etc.)
-Parking card or remote for your office
-Cards stating the id number for your company at a store to get company receipt in a "fast" way - minutes with a card... You should get paper receipt for the name of the company every time...
And almast every place in my country is in 50 mile reach of some country border, if You leave the country and it's not in the Eu., You'll have to use passport, international driving licence,...
Yes I know You have a lots of cards too, but mainly for the same reason, as membership and discount cards, or bank cards, but such a mess of cards is simply frustrating. What do You do if somebody steals your cards? It takes monthes to get new ones. Besides You will be the owner of some fake companies etc.
My baby is only some weeks old. He already has
-official paper about his birth
-health card
-eu health card
-card stating his home address
-passport
-tax card
Good, eh? It took days to get those, with queues of 50.
How do You get all these cards? All at a different office, and they have introduced internet based check-in (date reservation) lately in the last year... For some cards you bring your photo. For some other they make it personally. For some cards, you have to go to the post office to pay for it, for some you don't have to.
So - the mandatory id card is just a piece of dust, nobody cares.
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.
Now, some random details. ID cards here only gives a little more certainty over someone's identity, since it's an offical (think notarized) document with a photograph. It's legal for anyone to ask for the ID card on a commercial transaction, for instance, and that makes ID verification processes go much more smoother (due to the non-repudiation.) There's a lot of other numbers we have to deal with on our daily life: social security, financial operation and tax ID, voter ID, passport, driver's license number, work permit number, professional syndicate ID. Therefore, the ID number by itself is the least of our problems.
OTOH the number hell is our final line of defense. It raises the cost of a successful ID theft or a welfare fraud. But the same mess make it easy to fraud as well, since some numbers do not have standard formats across city or state borders.
I conclude that, while the national ID thing is not a bad thing by and on itself, the concentration of many different government services on a single point of failure can have catastrophic results.
If you are so against privacy then why are you posting anonymously?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Our drivers licenses are about the only photo ID that any of our people have. Some have passports, but not many people carry them day to day.
If you're cashing a check or using a credit card, you are sometimes asked for photo ID. So we show our drivers license.
But our employment laws specifically state what types of ID are needed for employment and a drivers license is just one option.
And I'm okay with that.
I have never lived in a country without a national ID card so I'm not sure what are the advantages of having or not having such a document. In Spain, we've had national ID cards since before I was born, and I have one, of course.
My general feeling is that they're a good idea if used right, which I think is the situation now. National ID cards are used mostly in situations when they want to establish exactly who is going to participate in a given event. The national ID number is a private data, like your phone number. Nobody knows which is your national ID number and when you're requested to give it, you have the impression you are going to establish a formal and serious relationship/business with something or somebody.
For example, it's usually requested in contracts. Let's suppose you buy a house. Your contract says the amount you are going to pay, the conditions, etc, *and* your national ID. So it is *you* who is buying the house and not somebody else. And the house will belong to *you* and not somebody else. And it's also requested for the company to have a similar number that will be in the contract. So it's *that* company. But, for example, you are not requested to give your national ID when you buy a PC.
I was requested to give my national ID number (and show the card, of course) when I started my studies at the university. While not a common practice, some teachers requested the cards at the final exams. They have a list of people who has paid to assist their classes and go to the exams, they bring that list to the exam and ask people for the card to enter the exam room. That way, they make sure it's really *you* who is doing the exam and not somebody else in your behalf.
Another usual situation in which you are requested to show your ID card is when paying with a credit card at some supermarket or shop in general. Instead of checking that your signature matches the one in the credit card, which is a loose relationship IMHO (and easy to fake), you show your credit card and your ID card. The shop assistant holds both cards in their hands and checks that you are the one in the ID card by looking at the picture and that the name in the credit card matches the name in the ID card. This way you couldn't use a stolen card unless your name and the owner's name match. Note that in Spain you have one name and two surnames (one from each parent), making coincidences slightly more unusual.
And a final word about the cards themselves: they have the typical security measures used for bills and other "official" documents (probably on a higher paranoid level I'd say). Of course, they can be faked, like everything, but it's not easy at all for a common individual to do it. Currently it's made of plastic, with special ink and your picture, of course, it not attached to it, it's printed on the card itself.
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
Some of those hijackers had LEGITIMATE ID with their REAL NAMES and paid for the tickets with credit cards issued to those names.
We can't even stop known bad guys using ID we've issued in their real names.
There is no way we can stop bad guys from getting fake ID's and using that. And the more "national" an ID card is, the LESS it will be questioned.
The ENTIRE system hinges on the worst idiot working in the issuing office being 100% resistant to bribes and threats.
I know you asked for people who lived in places where this has been implemented but I took the liberty to put in my 2 cents too.
In Brazil we do not have a national ID. We have one document called R.G. (Registro Geral) but despite the name it is a regional controlled ID and it is not guaranteed to be unique nationally.
Pros:
P1. Unique ID has its advantages.
I recently worked on a national children oncology system and uniquely identifying a patient was and is a problem. It is very cumbersome to guarantee uniqueness, safety, precision and portability and a unique identifier provided by a national ID card would be very nice. And we all REALLY want to be sure the right treatment is being provided to a child with cancer.
P2. Less bureaucracy.
Less documents to be issued, less fields to fill in forms, less redundancy.
P3. Less mistakes.
Identity theft apart we have still honest mistakes. What a pain in the neck was to prove that my dishonest homonym (I meant to say a person with the same name as mine, I am not sure if that's the right word) was not me when I was buying my first apartment.
P4. Easier to track the bad guys.
The good side of the big brother / privacy issue.
Cons:
C1. Easier to track the good guys too.
Privacy, civil liberties, etc may suffer abuses having an instrument that would make it easier to track everyone.
Did you watch "V" ? I liked it.
Any other cons ?
Considering these points I would say YES, let's go for it.
Best regards to all,
mau.
"Think globally, act locally".
I suspect the main difference between Switzerland and the US, beside size, obviously, is social. Switzerland is a settled country, where the government has a pretty good idea where its citizens are: people have ID cards, and are supposed to register in the place they live - most men also have to register with the army. All in all, people don't seem to worried about the government, but then again, Switzerland has a weak executive and direct democracy.
The funny thing for me is, the prospect of national ID cards raises such a ruckus, but nobody talks a lot about the requirements the US imposes on foreigner's passports. First the US required machine readable passports, and now it wants biometric information. Basically, the Swiss government will collect biometric information about me not because it wants to, but because of the US.
For example, it's a nice evening. You and an attractive young lady decide to visit a secluded area for some amorous pursuits. Meanwhile, about a mile away and unbeknownst to you, someone is murdered.
So the cops pull up the records--which cars were in the area around the time of the crime. My, your car was in the area. Perhaps the police should have a little talk with you because, after all, you were in the area--maybe you saw something. So the police show up at your door.
Now we can move to various entertaining scenarios:
And so on and so on.
Add to that the recent issues of not needing a warrant for such things as terrorist investigations. Again, the police have been known to stretch the laws which constrain them in order to get information. How quickly would your information become part of a terrorist investigation where it does not need a warrant?
Finally, if the information exists, it can be accessed. Tell me that if I slip a quick $1000 to somebody on the police force, they won't look up somebody's history and give me the information. They're not stealing anything, after all--they're just copying information. The worst they'll get is a slap on the wrist.
If the ID is neutral and uniquely identifies the person carring it and each living person has a right to one without any discriminatory markings on them ... so if the card is _really_ only a peronal ID, then it could be a good idea. Identity theft and other things would become much more difficult.
The bureau handing out the cards should be directly controlled by the people and be law required to be neutral. The cards could have SSN and other info on them and be used as a transport medium for own usage like bank account access or medical data if one whishes.
If all that would be than they'd be an advantage and would make life easyer imho. We've got compulsory IDs here in germany. The most bugging thing about them is that they are to big to fit into a wallet without folding and that they can't be used for usefull stuff.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Germany is a federation aswell. Where do you draw the line?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Why do you think this is a Republican issue? There are plenty of statist scum in both parties who support internal passports.
All this national-ID shit started under Clinton, and Hillary still wants a national ID card encoded with biometric data.
You owe freedom-loving Republicans like Rep. Ron Paul an apology.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
As a security geek, and an aussie, they are, as can be expected barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not whether we have identity cards, or how they are tracked in government databases, but are.
a) are they of benefit to the general population. i.e. will it be possible to include say, bank account, or medical details onto the card.
b) does the government protect us, from abuse internal to the government in relation to them. Trust me, it happens, The TAX Office (aka IRS) has had several instances of employees doing the "wrong thing" with peoples tax records. I personally was working in a government department (not even the police) who looked after police records - They were kept in boxes stacked in a spare office. I have also worked in the State Health System - there is ZERO security within their systems.
While the Govt geeks get excited about smart cards, the real solution is a) governance within the government (there is a strange concept), and b) not storing "data" on the smart cards, but simply storing a range (hierarchical or other wise) of access keys... i.e. Medical Records - the information that a paramedic needs, versus a GP (MD) versus a Health Fund (HMO) are different, and access to one's "data" should be very specific to the requirements at hand.
Personally, I think that this is just a step along the way. If some of the above could be guaranteed, then I would gladly have a subcutaneous ID implant, to replace all of my credit cards, driver's license, passport etc.
Given the popularity of tattoos nowadays, maybe we should consider tattooing barcodes on the back of our necks instead...
q
might erupt because of some random, improbable chain of events. I wouldn't care if I get questioned one per lifetime because the computer said I happened to be near the scene of a crime. Any inconvience that this would cause would be greatly offset by the decrease in the crime rate. So yes, maybe once in a hundred lifetimes, I would be questioned about an innocent-but-embarrassing situation as you described, and once in million lifetimes questioned by her little brother. That is a risk I am willing to take.
Since I am unlikely to call Pakistan and say "nuclear" in Farsi anytime soon, I am not too worried about terrorist investigations. As for corrupt cops, the system is likely to protect me from them as let them accuse me of a crime of which I am innocent, as the system is likely to give good alibis.
Thanks for pointing out another great benefit of the National Car Tracking system (the great reduction in crime rate!). This alone probably offsets the bizarre, low-probability problems you bring up.
Like, say, recording a show off TV or downloading a song ?
How about engaging in some peaceful protest or exercising free speech ?
Maybe you'd like to ingest a harmless substance someone has decided you shouldn't ?
The fundamental flaw with the "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear" line, is the implicit trust that the Government will never decide to define something you think is perfectly ok as "wrong". This trust is naive at best, blatantly stupid at worst.
We dont' even have a nationally established "freedom of speech".
Yes, we do, from legal precedent.
However, nobody who isn't taking part in illegal activity has ever been quashed or locked up under these laws.
The issue is not whether or not they have, but the fact they could be at all.
Personally, I'd love a national ID card. When so many places insist on a simple "Your mother's maiden name" as a form of identification outside of a non-photo/biometric ID, identity fraud is all too easy here.
Having to forge but a single piece of documentation to establish an unquestionable false identity is only going to make it easier.
I challenge anyone to find proof of the government using their databases they already have established here in Australia, of ever pursuing someone who was not suspected of committing a crime in the first place.
I am glad you trust all those people in Canberra to always do the right thing. I think it's an incredibly stupid thing to do, but at least you're happy doing it.
However, as always, I am amazed by people's complete and utter inability to learn anything from history.
First we had slashvertisements, and now we have commentvertisements! Amazing, truly amazing.
:)
This post brought to you by jrockway widgets inc. The finest supplier of imagniary objects this side of http://amazon.com/.
My other car is first.
I'm amazed the Americans made this about them so quickly. All the Oz govement want to do is know who they are giving tax payer's money to. If you don't want to the card, don't get one and don't put your hand out for free money. Simple.
... we have had ID cards forever. One consequence is that I didn't even know what "Identity theft" meant until I cam in this country. And even now, I have to explain what it is to my French friends.
Something to think about :
u e/1/ --
There are a large amount of 'consensual' crimes on the books. As far as I can tell, these involve acts which a certain segment of the population finds distasteful but in the end, harms nobody. Examples of this are things such as prostitution, drug use (using the drug in and of istelf only harms arguably yourself, ergo it's consentual), gambling, and the laws that forbid certain sexual acts.
Freedom, in my opinion, is at its core the ability to do whatever you wish with your person or property. This can be extended since we live in a society to also mean that you can do whatever you want with a consenting person's body or property (since they consented to whatever it was). To me, this idea seems pretty simple. However apparently somewhere long before I was born, the idea that certain actions were distasteful took hold. People started worrying that maybe, just maybe... someone might be visiting a prostitute, or drinking alcohol. Look back at the United States' history folks. There's a line of laws a mile long about what can and cannot be done, regardless of consent. In most places, prostitution is illegal. Not because it harms someone, but because people found the idea repulsive...especially when they thought that perhaps their spouce or significant other could be going to one. Speaking of significant others, can someone PLEASE tell me the harm in homosexuality? There are so many laws, for example... the recently amended Ohio State Constitution that basically screws everyone who's not straight out of ever being considered 'married' for the purposes of insurance, taxes and death benefits. Funny, last I checked marriage was between two people who loved each other.
--"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/iss
How does this relate you may ask? You mentioned "I was doing something wrong (in this case adultery) and I got caught because of some entirely unrelated event." Adultry should not have ever become an issue for the government to step into. Yes, you could argue that the courts would need to sort out a divorce if one were to happen because of it, but adultery in and of itself isn't a 'crime'. Neither are prostitution or gambling. These are crimes simply because some people say they should be.
To further expand on this, consider the fact that reading 1984 isn't illegal right now, but if a law was passed banning it (for the sake of arguement.) then you have just become a criminal, just for reading a book. You can insert any 'bad' behaviour in this scenario... it all depends on who is determining what 'bad' means, and some of the people out there right now scare me a lot when it comes to what they think is good and bad.
I say we should leave the personal matters to people. Leave the actual CRIMINAL matters to the gov't or some other *elected* official.
For the record, an interesting book on the subject can be found here:
http://www.mcmillian.com/
The book is called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do", look in the back for a chart (somewhat dated, I'll admit) that outlines sexual laws in the states. I'm amused that I've broken at least one quite a few times in Ohio (According to that chart oral sex is illegal here.)
My 2 cents.
A.A
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
An ID card will not add anything to the equation, unless they possibly start gathering biometric information for an ID card, but not for the passport or driver's license. A "mandatory" ID card will also not mean that everybody would have carry one around, lest they be denied of whatever services or god forbid arrested because they don't have one or don't want to show one; "mandatory" simply means that every citizen is expected to own one and keep it somewhere, so that service providers can make services and be sure that their clientele is able use them. Whatever real world event or location, such as dinner with the President, would require your authentication, any form of ID would do, just like it works today. It's just another, convenient form of ID that everybody already has, but which also enables neat, strongly authenticated electronic services.
BTW, the existing US system with the only half-heartedly secret SSN looks simply woefully ripe for identity theft.
This is why national ID cards are scary (no matter what Newspeak euphemism it is called.) The government has a database of every citizen. Initially the database contains just basic details, such as name, date of birth, address, etc and maybe tax information. Over time more and more pieces of information become linked with this database, for example passports, travel history, perhaps even police records, medical records and transaction history.
This gives extreme power to the government in two ways. Firstly, whenever you present your ID card to a governemnt official, he/she can instantly bring up an incredible amount of personal information about you. i.e. The government now knows more about you than many of your friends. Secondly, the government security agencies (i.e. the secret police) can now easily generate lists of people that match any given profile. For example I've noticed that a lot of the recent terrorist bombings were carried out by engineers. Bring up the complete list of all single male engineers aged 18-35 with an ethnic background. Bam! I've got a list of 50,000 potential terrorists, better keep a closer eye on those guys.
My grandparents lived in Holland during the second world war. Holland had a very detailed and complete national registry of its citizens, which included personal details such as religion. The Dutch government had used this registry to assist in social planning, etc. However, when the Nazis took power, they of course used it to identify all the Jews to be rounded up and killed. Dutch Jews had the lowest survival rate of any occupied country, and this was because the national registry provided them with the complete list of Jews.
This piece of history illustrates that a national registry containing personal details is a very powerful and dangerous tool. While it can of course be used to benefit the population, it fundamentally entrusts the government with a lot of power over its citizens. The citizens must trust not only the current governemnt, but also all future governments, (and we don't know who they will be) to never abuse that power.
You forget that each individual state is essentially its own country. And now most people don't think of it like that, but crossing a state line is really like going into another country. Europeans do it all the time on a very similar but different scale.
Therefore, if someone violated NY law, then why should PA care? Even if they flee to PA? It doesn't matter because the person did not violate PA law. Now the states often have reciprocal agreements in order to assist with this type of activity, which often leads to extradition.
If it is federal law however that was broken, that is an entirely different situation because then the feds have jurisdiction.
If you break US law and go to Costa Rica, do you think the Costa Rican's will care? NO! Vice versa. It's the same with the states.
And having a government issued ID from ANY level of government isn't part of a libertarian philosophy.
Perhaps you had better study libertarianism a bit more by reading these two pages first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
Libertas in infinitum
It's been billed as the answer to terrorism/benefit fraud/identity theft/god knows what else at various points in its life, and at one point was even called an 'Entitlement Card'. They've more or less admitted that it won't make a blind bit of difference to any of those, but have still decided to press on.
They plan to start shortly by issuing identity cards to people who apply for a passport, at a combined (planned) cost of £93. The Government claimed that the scheme was voluntary, because, hey, you don't *need* to get a passport. Eventually they climbed down somewhat, and now you don't have to get an ID card with a passport. But - and it's a big but - you still get entered on the NIR and you still pay £93. So you're essentially paying for something and then not getting it.
Eventually the scheme will become compulsory, at which point a whole lot of fun ensues. The Government plans to summon every adult to a processing centre to they can be fingerprinted, photographed and iris scanned. Oh, and interviewed. Don't turn up? That's a £1,000 fine for you. For *every time* you don't turn up. Need to amend your details on your nice shiny new card? You pay the Government. Lose your card? You pay the Government. The list goes on.
Coupled with the fact that the UK Government never seems to get its IT systems quite right, we're heading for a nightmare. I certainly don't want somebody, possibly with a grudge or who could be bribed to have access to a multitude of information on me. There's no security from the perspective of the card either - the possibility of them cards using some sort of PKI certificates or such was ignored.
The UK Government constantly tries to remind us that the majority of the countries in the EU have an identity card scheme, but what they fail to mention is that most of these are just that - an identity card, in many cases without a central database. Indeed, the UK scheme would be illegal in Germany.
There's a non-partisan pressure group that was set up in the UK called No2ID (disclaimer: I'm a local co-ordinator). If you're in the UK, no matter what your views are on ID cards, I urge you to check them out and see what the scheme really means for you.
Here in the UK we have credit card sized driving licences. It's a form of ID but we have the bizarre situation where it's not sufficient to hire a rental car. To do this you need your paper licence too or have the office call the DVLC and have you authorise them to confirm your identity. This is nothing to do with anything but is irritating. (Especially as this telephone confirmation incurs a charge). Cynically, it might be this awkward to make ID cards look attractive.
The proposed UK ID card will contain biometric data and fight terrorism.
Presumably the application process will be flawless and it will be impossible to obtain multiple cards to support different identities. Presumably the IT systems supporting it will be delivered on time and to budget.
There are objections to this because it's thought that it will be personally expensive and ineffectual. It may also be mandatory - there's been some to-ing and fro-ing between our elected House Of Commons and the unelected House Of Lords (which continues to resist its implementation) - when applying for, or renewing a passport.
There are other, liberty based, objections. The counter-argument is often that the government is at some level basically trustable. It wouldn't do anything nefarious with its information, after all. We're a civilised country that's benefited from a fairly turbulent history and respects the individual. Against this it's argued that civil liberties do not disappear overnight but are eroded, gradually, day by day.
So although in the UK we live a top-five economy in a free democracy over recent years the following have occured:
Before the allied invasion of Iraq >1 million people took to the streets of London (as elsewhere around the world) to protest: the "not in my name" demo. The week before this a government minister suggested it shouldn't go ahead on public safety grounds. Nothing to do with reducing the right to protect, obviously.
The current government introducde tough new laws to control demonstrations and protests. Again, if public safety is a concern, what to complain above. However, they then tried to retrospectively apply this to a longer running protest in Parliament Square. Sense prevailed and the legal system rejected this, which is reasonable given it's one man and some banners.
At the party conference for the current government an elderly gentleman takes issue with the Home Secretary's speech. He mumbles - unheard by the speaker - that the justification being given for the invasion of Iraq is nonsense. He's immediately bundled out of the conference by security. There's an apology later for this - overkeen stewards, etc. However, the chap was detailed under the prevention of terrorism legislation by police for a few hours and barred from reentering the conference. The apology doesn't excuse the fact that this happened in the first place: a quiet heckle by an elderly - and lifelong party member - is a threat to national security?
And there's more: an increasing number of cameras monitoring traffic flows, with no real indication how vehicle movements are monitored or how long data is kept; fingerprints being kept by police where no charge or caution is issued.
On paper, a single unified ID has benefits. But under some circumstances it's seen as the no longer thin edge of the wedge. We may have no privacy because many busy streets are camera monitored but this doesn't mean everything else should be tacitly surrendered.
You cannot hide from your society. If one can make healthy living illegally for decades without trouble, that does not mean that one can walk naked or praise Ben Laden on a street without getting in trouble in 20 minutes. Because one's way of thinking generally must be socially accepted.
National-wide IDs have not much to do with privacy. They are just a step in an automation process.
Implementing National-wide IDs in a free society would never destroy neither privacy, nor fraud.
If someone knows everything about everyone, that does not mean he knows something special, because people differ not so much. Whatever you've done, they will have to close their eyes if they have analogous records for many others of respected society members.
Besides, until society remains free, there will always be possibilities circumventing any technological measures of control. Just because governments can not invent technologies. Governments can only use technologies, invented by people.
But nothing helps if society turns paranoid. Nazis killed millions of Jews in Germany and in invaded countries, and felt no lack of computation power.
Stalin had managed to kill millions for no obvious reason, and people had no practical possibilities to hide.
Not that he had a perfect people tracking system. Social paranoia sufficed.
In Sweden we've had one for or another of a national ID card for over 100 years, so it is not a controversial issue here. It's not mandatory to carry it and basically contains one relevant piece of information: your personal ID number. While this number is used as a key in virtually every government database available we generally don't have any identity theft problems.
The ID cards themselves are pretty well made and their authenticity can be verified in a number of ways (ranging from features that appear under UV light to the ability to check the validity of the serial number of the card both electronically (stored on the chip) or simply by calling a number. The main part of the security comes from the fact that everything is centralized and few businesses are not hooked up to the verification servers. Next year they'll be uploading fingerprints and possibly some more biometric data on the chip. I have not heard of a single case of counterfeit ID cards (at least not the current generation).
The ID card is valid throughout the rest of the EU as well.
As for privacy implications, well we have constitutional protection against aggregating databases. In general one government agency can't access the databases of another. For companies the restrictions are pretty severe - they are for instance not allowed to store personal information about you, unless you give them explicit permission to do so. (with personal information they mean information that can be used to individually identify you - for instance storing IP numbers is generally not allowed). In many cases even a permission is not enough - for instance the rules for storing the personal ID number are very restrictive.
So, if you trust the system then you can assume that your privacy is well-protected. Of course the centralized infrastructure makes it easy for all privacy to go away should the laws change.
Incidentally, that has been partially happening in the last year, since the London tube attacks.
Basically, national IDs and other such centralized data control/gathering schemes are based on the assumption that you can trust your government. In Sweden people do that - to a fault. But that's the consequence of having 200 years of not-terrible governments. Since we have not been seriously screwed over by a government in modern history, people become complacent.
So for now it's just very convenient. Centralization allows me to use the same national digital ID to declare my taxes, pay my bills and buy stuff. E-government is a breeze and the bureaucracy is basically non-existent. However, should we one day get a terrible government, then we're thoroughly screwed.