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?"
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.
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.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1
I'd throw in my opinion, but I'll defer to Bruce.
Worst Sig Ever
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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
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?
Income tax was a temporary measure to fund World War 1.
Well, I got to here, and I almost stopped reading. Sorry, but the income tax in the U.S. has been around since the Civil War, which was more than 50 years before WWI. There were some issues with constitutionality for a while there, but the 16th Amendment, which brought about the income tax for good, was ratified in February 1913, a year and a half before WWI started, and four years before the U.S. got involved. Wikipedia.
But I decided to keep reading, until I got to:
The 65 mph speed limit began as another temporary measure to reduce gas consumption during an oil embargo by Middle East producers in the 1970's.
(a) That was 55mph, not 65.
(b) It was kept around for safety, because there was a drop in highway deaths after the limit was lowered. Correlation not causation, perhaps, but that was the rationale.
Didn't read the rest of your post, since I figured with such glaring mistakes in the first three sentences the rest of it would be pretty suspect.
"either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means" I choose to communicate it through interperative dance!
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.