Slashdot Mirror
Is Homeland Security's Face-Scanning At Airports An Unreasonable Search? (technologyreview.com)
schwit1 shares an article from MIT's Technology Review:
Facial-recognition systems may indeed speed up the boarding process, as the airlines rolling them out promise. But the real reason they are cropping up in U.S. airports is that the government wants to keep better track of who is leaving the country, by scanning travelers' faces and verifying those scans against photos it already has on file... The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has partnered with airlines including JetBlue and Delta to introduce such recognition systems at New York's JFK International Airport, Washington's Dulles International, and airports in Atlanta, Boston, and Houston, among others. It plans to add more this summer...
As facial-recognition technology has improved significantly in recent years, it has attracted the interest of governments and law enforcement agencies. That's led to debates over whether certain uses of the technology violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches... Harrison Rudolph, a law fellow at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, and others are raising alarms because as part of the process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is also scanning the faces of U.S. citizens... They say Congress has never expressly authorized the collection of facial scans from U.S. citizens at the border routinely and without suspicion.
"We aren't entirely sure what the government is doing with the images," the article adds, though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks. But Slashdot reader schwit1 is still worried about the possibility of an irretrievable loss of privacy, writing that "If the DHS database gets hacked, it's hard to get a new face."
As facial-recognition technology has improved significantly in recent years, it has attracted the interest of governments and law enforcement agencies. That's led to debates over whether certain uses of the technology violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches... Harrison Rudolph, a law fellow at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, and others are raising alarms because as part of the process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is also scanning the faces of U.S. citizens... They say Congress has never expressly authorized the collection of facial scans from U.S. citizens at the border routinely and without suspicion.
"We aren't entirely sure what the government is doing with the images," the article adds, though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks. But Slashdot reader schwit1 is still worried about the possibility of an irretrievable loss of privacy, writing that "If the DHS database gets hacked, it's hard to get a new face."
nope
Airports are very public locations so there's no reasonable presumption of privacy under the 4th Amendment. This is not an unreasonable search. Now, for general policy reasons I by and large *don't want the government doing this* for what amount to privacy concerns as well as concerns about too much data being gathered with little oversight, but that doesn't make it an "unreasonable search" in any legal sense. It is possible for something to be a bad idea without it being unconstitutional.
There are a lot of people that are freaked out about the idea of facial recognition but the reality of walking through the airport without having to show a boarding pass is going to win this argument in the end. People don't like the idea of having a wire tap in their home either but how many times a day is someone, somewhere saying "hey wiretap, can cat's eat pizza?".
once more into the breach
There's little chance this will not be extended to cover domestic air travel as well. That's how these things always go.
Related: Homeland Security says Americans who don't want faces scanned leaving the country "shouldn't travel"
Yes, you are in public, but there is a qualitative difference between randomly noticing someone's face in a public place, and a systemic collection of everyone's biometric data in a single central government database.
No.
Your face is already visible to the public. And if it's an issue of tracking people _leaving_ the country, there are numerous ways to leave with no supervision whatsoever. The country you are entering may want to run a check, which is perfectly reasonable.
As for the issue of collecting facial scans, I assume that they are capturing an image for the purpose of facial recognition. Meaning that they already have a picture of you on file somewhere. Which has been true since the first person ever sat for a passport or drivers license photo.
Have gnu, will travel.
Travelers are required to produce photo ID to board a plane, and that requirement has morphed into a need to produce photo ID to enter the terminal.
"The Government" already knows you are there, they saw your ID, if they see a face that is supposed to be there, either a face that slipped past security or a known face of a wanted/watched individual, that is something they need to know.
You gave up your right to annonynimty when you showed the TSA worker your driver's license/passport.
Ken
At every single passport control my face was scanned. That includes the EU countries.
I am not particularly outraged by this US airport policy (though I don't travel to the US much, lately).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Probably not unreasonable by itself. It would be possible to turn it into an unreasonable search depending on what they do with the information. If they automate a deep dive into your background then somewhere along the line they probably have crossed a line violating 4th amendment rights. But merely attaching names to faces in a place where they are already asking for your id anyway probably isn't too big a deal. It just automates basically what they are doing already.
Maybe they are going to be posted on twitter, along with the rest of the voting data? All the while our dear commander in chief keeps his own tax data private.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Almost everything they do at airports today is unreasonable.
As far as I am concerned, if the government has no specific and articulable facts that would lead a REASONABLE person to believe that you are involved in criminal activity, then the government has no right to even ask your name, let alone look you up in a database, run your license plate, or google you.
by anonymity. As tech improves it's inevitable. What we should be focusing on is making sure it doesn't matter. Ask yourself why people abuse tech? It's always the same reason. Wealth inequality. A small group of people take all the money, use it as power and then have to oppress to keep it. Everything always comes down to money. To wealth.
If you want to stop these kinds of abuses you need to create a society where the people with more money than average don't get to decide who lives and who dies. Until then it's all just deck chairs on the Titanic.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm waiting for the AMA to declare "Investigating Hillary Clinton" a leading cause of death.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
You'd think that a law fellow would know the difference between pictures in public vs an unreasonable search & seizure.
Is there a way to disbar him for yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
the reality of walking through the airport without having to show a boarding pass is going to win this argument in the end
Really? Showing a boarding pass is just about the least onerous thing you do in an airport. If it allowed them to reduce the security theatre required then I'd say it is perhaps worth it. However, since a boarding pass contains information about your seat, gate number and boarding time I am still going to want one whether or not I have to show it and once you have it showing it to someone is not really that hard.
Setting aside for the moment the sillyness of the no fly list and our specific paranoia about terrorists on airplanes (as compared to other more practical threats)...
If the purpose of the scan is strictly to more quickly and accurately answer the question "Is this person on a list of people we have decided should not fly?", I don't find the concept so offensive and in conflict with unreasonable search. However if the the purpose of the scan is (or becomes) to track the movement of citizens who are not charged with any crime and who are not on the no fly list, then scanning everyone that passes seems to be or at least encroaches on unreasonable search. The problem is the shift from the first purpose to the second purpose is way too easy.
The checking of ID / boarding passes has never been the limiting factor when boarding the plane. All this would achieve is moving more people from the queue outside the gate to the queue inside the airbridge or worse on the tarmac as we wait for several hundred people to one after the other get their shit together, find some space in an overhead compartment, sit down, and then stand up again when the next person needs to move past them.
If airlines wanted to speed up boarding that would abolish priority boarding and board by seat row only and additionally actually enforce which rows they are boarding. Though they pretty much have given up on priority anyway since every schmuck has a priority card now. Heck I flew in a flight once where there were 7 people who *didn't* have priority boarding, and then some business class passenger got upset when the airline refused to let him push infront of the other priority passengers. But I digress.
The more the USA tries to 'fight terrorism' with these kind of measures, the more the terrorist will win. Terrorist organisations come and go. Look back in history. IRA, ETA, Osama Bin Laden, Taiban, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram, Islamic State, and the list goes on. For one a terrorist, for the other a freedom fighter. But, they never last. The only thing changes is the way countries deal with it. If you look at the amount of terrorist attacks over the years, you come to the conclusion that the world has become a saver place. Yes, although we hear more of terrorist attacks due to better news coverage, there are less terrorist attacks today then 10 or 20 years ago. But governments somehow don't see that. They come up with more and more 'security' measures. But those measures don't make this world safer, they only take away freedom and privacy.
The USA has very strict anti-terrorism measures, but the attack in Boston still happened. The anti-terrorism measures in Europe also become more strict, but the attacks in Madrid, Brussels and Paris still happened. Airports are becoming a hard target, so terrorist move to other tactics, like simply taking a van and drive it into a crowded place. We have to accept that you can't stop it. Name an anti-terrorist measure and I'll tell you a way to still commit a terrorist attack. To only way to fight terror is by not giving in to fear.
Scanning faces at airports won't stop any terrorist. So, yes, I say they are an unreasonable search.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
We have millions of people going through each airport every year. You'll need a pretty huge database. And a lot of people look fairly similar.
Are the false match rates really good enough to make this worthwhile?
As for facial images - US (and other) passports already require expression-neutral images explicitly for the purpose of machine recognition to make it impossible for multiple passports to be issued to a single individual. If you have a passport issued in the last decade or so, your face is ALREADY in "the system". Again, this isn't an unreasonable search and it's not creating a new security hole unless the scanning systems being installed have new, implementation-specific holes; as far as "the database" goes, you're already in there. If you've got GlobalEntry like me, your fingerprints are in there too. And while you are in the airport, you have no expectation of privacy. Ever been in a US airport? There are signs everywhere indicating that all persons and property are subject to search. You have the option not to enter if you do not wish to be searched.
>" though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
OK, could there be any funnier statement? That is just beyond unbelievable. So no photo is retained, no record of the comparison retained, and no meta data or biometric representation is retained, by ANY government or private agency? And how would they prove that?
The really sad part is that there are actually people out there who would believe such things. The only truly safe information is that not allowed to be collected in the first place.
I'm ok with it, as long as everyone understands about false positive matches, and gets the requisite education in statistics to treat the results with the proper amount of skepticism.
Yes, it is an unreasonable search.
FTA: The effort is in response to a years-old mandate from Congress that DHS implement a biometric system for recording the entry and exit of non–U.S. citizens at all air, sea, and land ports of entry.
The Supreme Court can strike down illegal laws, or more specifically, ones in conflict with the US Constitution. So, just having a Congressional Order doesn't make it ethical, legal, right, or enforceable.
Additionally, this is clearly outside of the purview of the DHS. From their Mission Statement on their own web site:
The Department's border security and management efforts focus on three interrelated goals:
(1) Effectively secure U.S. air, land, and sea points of entry;
(2) Safeguard and streamline lawful trade and travel; and
(3) Disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal and terrorist organizations.
It's stated elsewhere on their website that their duty is "control of Customs". Any dictionary will define Customs for you: "the flow of goods into."
Someone leaving, possessing a human face, is not bringing anything into the country, and there is no law in place that states that departing people are subject to inspection. That duty is on the shoulders of the destination country. And BTW, possessing a human face... it's a part of your body, not an "item" being brought into the country.
This will get to the Supreme Court in a few years. How they rule (knowing the judges) is anyone's guess.
You're in a public place. You, just like the police, can be filmed and / or watched at any time.
You can't bitch about one and demand the other.
I fly at least once a week from Germany to Switzerland and back. Never once I had to show my id.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
FTA: "... According to DHS, if a U.S. citizen asks not to participate, an available CBP officer “may use manual processing to verify the individual’s identity.”"
and
FTA: "... , but DHS says that all data pertaining to the images is deleted within 14 days."
So, "If a US Citizen..." STOP right there. Hey, you TSA dipshit, I just showed you my US Passport, therefore you know for certain that I am not a foreign national, and am exempt from this facial-scanning scrutiny.
Then the deletion of "data pertaining to the images". Check your dictionary again, this time for the word "pertain". The DHS statement cannot be interpreted as them deleting data (facial-biometric-point measurements). Sure, they might delete the photos, but they will keep the photo-derived biometric data. . . for later comparison to future photos on the street? Or what? There is no prohibition of retention of this data, nor any statement relating to its future use.
It's like fingerprint databases. They don't store all of the entire fingerprints; they store the relative locations of discernible features in a given fingerprint (whorls, etc.).
So, you, the US Citizen, could be nabbed because someone committed a crime, and has the same facial-biometric profile as you. The photo of you wasn't saved––good luck proving your innocence.
Yoda, I am. First your face take off, you.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
You think that perhaps it is time to do away with the drivers license? At least for non-commercial drivers.
The drivers license is mission creep at its worst. Had it not been for the creation of the drivers license we'd likely not have so many other interactions, public and private, needing the showing of ID. Buying alcohol would not likely require the showing of ID today if so many adults did not already have an existing ID that met that requirement. Can you imagine the outrage if everyone had to go to some state office to have their picture taken to buy a beer? I imagine a large portion of the population don't even think much of the nonsense to show a driver license to get into a bar or buy a six pack at the grocery store. I thought we wanted people that drank alcohol to not drive?
Now we have "motor voter" laws where people can register to vote at the DMV. Can I go to the county auditor's office to get my license to drive? If it goes one way then why not the other? Then there is "Real ID" which wanted to turn the driver license into a passport. There are laws to indicate organ donation preferences on a driver license. People go to the DMV to get a non-driver identification card. So, you have no intention to drive, or are unfit to drive, but you must go to the DMV to get a card that let's you vote, indicates organ donor preferences, allows you to travel as a passenger on a bus, train, or plane, allows to to buy alcohol and tobacco, and basically everything but allow you to drive. At the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Yes, I have a problem with the DMV taking my picture. I have a problem largely because the license to drive is no longer a license to drive. If it were then the only person I'd be required to show it to are law enforcement investigating a traffic violation. I should get an odd look for showing my driver license to a bank teller when making a withdrawal. As an experiment I once gave a different form of ID to a teller, a government issued and perfectly valid form of ID by the way, and I was asked if I had a driver license to show.
Once after I had moved I went to buy a rifle for some hunting. My license did not show my current address so I brought ample, and I mean AMPLE, forms of identification to meet ATF requirements to buy the rifle. The store refused to do the paperwork for the transfer until I had a current ID from the DMV. (Having to show who you are at all to buy a rifle is another rant.)
The issue is when the database gets hacked and misused.
We are long passed that now. You can argue on if it's been "hacked" if it's being used for things like ID to vote, or buy a beer, but I mentioned nothing about how people have abused the driver license system for fraudulent means. DMV databases get "hacked" all the time, through corruption, mismanagement, and actual computerized copying and manipulation of databases.
I do not see people jumping up and getting pissed over that.
You found one.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
In order to be able to determine an answer to this question, there are at least two or three factors we would have to consider - without which our answer should be that this is not OK (on the grounds that it is better to fail safe than fail dangerous). 1. Presumption of Innocence
This is the most important perspective for me. The moment we see blanket surveillance or blanket monitoring or blanket call screening or capturing license plates of all vehicles... we have moved into a scenario where the observers, through the act of capturing details of everyone, have effectively removed the presumption of innocence, *if* any related consequence emerges.
2. Rights of Access and Usage
We would need to understand all the uses to which the information captured is being put, and we would need to know the moment that those uses were changes in any way. Unless or until we know this, how can we possibly determine that this is a power or level of access that we are willing to delegate to those who have agreed to serve our administrative governments?
3. Accuracy
Obviously at the root of automated face recognition surveillance like this there is the presumption that an algorithm somewhere is going to be employed to identify 'persons of interest', with that interest being declared and defined up front... OK. But how accurate is that software? If an innocent citizen is 'detained' or 'interviewed' through this process (or worse), what protections does that person have? Could they sue the government for wrongful arrest? For a detention that caused them to miss a flight? For associated expenses? With power comes responsibility. A government requesting the authority to monitor citizens in this scenario must accept full responsibility for any negative consequences that occur as a result.
4. Privacy
Who would gather and have access to this information? Would the work be performed directly by the government for government use only, or would the work be performed by private contractors? If the latter, who would own the data being collected - and more importantly, what rights could a private contractor have to 'do other things' with the data, i.e. What if they wanted to try and 'monetize' it in some way. For that matter, what if the government wanted to do that?
5. What is the Risk/Threat?
OK, so we can infer from the OP that someone in government believes that this is a good idea. Why is that? What, specifically, is the threat? How was this analyzed? Once we take existing safeguards into consideration, what is the residual risk? Can the proposers identify any negative consequence that has happened in the last say 5 years that this solution would have irrefutably stopped?
6. What is the Cost?
So if we get to the point where we have answers to all of the above questions and they seem reasonable - and I am not for one moment suggesting that we are there already, then what is the cost of implementing this security? Obviously there will be the argument that it is cheaper than eyes-on-glass, built that would be a specious argument because we don't have that today (as far as we know). But we still need to perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis [and maybe factor loss of freedoms in to the cost] before we can determine that this is a good idea.
This is neither a simple nor a binary question. There are far too many variables, far to many potential up-sides and down-sides that simply have not been articulated. Most importantly, the potential for misuse and abuse is so high that nothing as powerful and far-reaching as this should be considered without some very careful controls.
Because you can bet that if this scheme goes ahead, it will be declared a success and followed with similar approaches at railway stations, bus depots, shopping malls, street corners. Then anyone running a private CCTV camera will be legally required to push copies of their image streams to central monitoring, until the only way to disappear from view will be to escape to the wilderness [and then hide in a cave to miss the passing satellites] or crawl under a duvet.
There are several reasons why this might be a good idea. But I'm not hearing any of them set out with anything like the right level of detail.
Just like Vince Foster
It's so common there's even a name for it - Arkancide!
You think that perhaps it is time to do away with the drivers license? At least for non-commercial drivers.
No. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Ken
As long as we're going to have a legal drinking age, there's going to need to be some form of identification involved.
Then do away with the drinking age.
The examples you gave are examples of the government creating a problem where an ID card is the solution. The government can still get their taxes, it just doesn't have to be from income and such. The government can tax the property, that's not going anywhere. Eliminate the other taxes and adjust the property taxes accordingly. Then you can have the tax collectors go around and collect from those occupying the property, like they did way back when before photographic identifier cards existed. Of course this can be automated in any of a number of ways, an actual person doesn't need to go around collecting coins, but the effect is much the same.
Not only does this simplify the tax code it gets the government out of my business and your business. They don't need to require banks to keep government ID cards on file, let the banks figure it out on their own. Like how one bank I have an account with, they take your picture and keep it in their database. I can walk up to the teller and give my name, and it's searched on their computer, on the screen will come up my account, and photo. They can ask me certain questions to verify my identity such as asking my address, or a password, or something. Everything is written down, there are cameras recording everything, and signatures on paper. If there is a dispute somewhere then there is ample evidence to go back to and no government ID required.
This not only applies to banking but any business in which an account or membership is kept, from a bookstore, to a golf course, to a barbershop. A barbershop isn't going to keep as meticulous records as a bank but no matter how it is measured up we should not need a government ID to do business.
I think having to show ID to buy alcohol is stupid. It may have been a while ago but I remember high school and college. It was not difficult to get alcohol or tobacco then, especially when it was your buddy working behind the counter.
Maybe the government should not concern itself over some teenagers getting drunk in a cornfield. I'd think making sure bridges don't fall into rivers as people are driving over them should be of a much greater concern.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Assume I agree with you, how does the absence of a license prevent people from driving? You can say it's a privilege, and to exercise it one must submit themselves to a written test, test of eyesight, having their photo taken, and so forth. How is this enforced?
Due to a mix-up while I was in the Army my license to drive was revoked but I didn't know about it. I drove for four or five years not knowing I didn't have the "privilege" to drive. I found out only after I went to have my license renewed. To get my new license they made me take a "driving test", which involved taking a lady in uniform for a drive around the block and managing to not hit another car in the process. The license to drive is a joke. If that's what people are tested on to get the "privilege" of driving then just get rid of the license, it tests nothing.
By most estimates there are millions of people driving without a license in the USA today. Seems to me that they are likely some of the safest drivers out there because they don't want to get caught. The truth is that every day is a "driving test". If you pass then you retain the "privilege" of being able to continue driving. If you fail, then you are punished for your failure.
Some may ask, how would we deal with bad drivers if they don't have an ID? I ask in return, how do we deal with those millions of drivers that don't have a license now? Whatever the answer is, do that.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"the Department of Homeland Security is saying it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
then they do not have the power of the government to enforce it. If they do, then that entity becomes the government's representative and the difference is therefore anulled.
If you wanted to argue it that way, and I am not convinced you are correct...
Oh, and to the AC, "this is a picture, so not a search", yeah, right, and if I take a photo of you in the nude, or your wife, or one of your daughters, then that's just a picture, so not an invasion of your privacy, right? Retard.
And all the other evidence, right? I mean, apart from all the evidence, there's no evidence!
Tracking who enters and leaves that is.
I imagine a large portion of the population don't even think much of the nonsense to show a driver license to get into a bar or buy a six pack at the grocery store.
I haven't shown an ID to buy alcohol in probably 25 years. Gray hair does that to you. Oh, and get off my lawn!
By most estimates there are millions of people driving without a license in the USA today. Seems to me that they are likely some of the safest drivers out there because they don't want to get caught.
Um, no. Many people driving without licenses do that because their license was revoked - and for good reason, like being a habitual drunk driver and smashing into things all the time.
Nope, airports in the US are generally privately-owned/managed locations.
Don't know where you got this idea but this is not true. Most airports in the us are owned by public government entities of one form or another. Airport operations are typically contracted out to private companies. Twenty seconds on google would have cleared that up for you.
Private shopping malls are also free to establish policies that would seem to be in violation of basic constitutional rights - because they are on private property, and because governments are not implementing those policies.
No they do not get to violate your constitutional rights just because it is private property. The extent of their remedies in the event that you haven't committed a crime on their property is to ask you to leave. That's hardly a violation of your constitutional rights.
I must have missed Switzerland joining the EU.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Others have been in sufficiently many accidents that they can't afford insurance, and got caught driving without insurance and had their license revoked. This isn't a recommendation of driving ability either.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So, you admit that people can and do drive without a license? Also, you admit they had a license, and still drove poorly? I mean you cannot revoke a license if they had none in the first place.
If we cannot keep people from driving without a license then what purpose do they serve? It's not like the presence of the license makes them drive safely. All we are doing is making life inconvenient for the safe drivers. If at some point they prove to no longer be able to drive safely they are "asked" to not drive any more by taking away their license. We don't need the licensee to ask people to drive safely, or to ask them to not drive if they are incapable of driving safely.
Drivers are only a problem if they fail to drive safely, and we don't need a piece of plastic in their pocket to enforce safe driving.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So, you admit that people can and do drive without a license? Also, you admit they had a license, and still drove poorly? I mean you cannot revoke a license if they had none in the first place.
If we cannot keep people from driving without a license then what purpose do they serve? It's not like the presence of the license makes them drive safely. All we are doing is making life inconvenient for the safe drivers. If at some point they prove to no longer be able to drive safely they are "asked" to not drive any more by taking away their license. We don't need the licensee to ask people to drive safely, or to ask them to not drive if they are incapable of driving safely.
Drivers are only a problem if they fail to drive safely, and we don't need a piece of plastic in their pocket to enforce safe driving.
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law? If we cannot keep people from killing what purpose does a law against it serve? It's not like a law against murder makes them not kill.
A licensing process shows that people are at least somewhat competent at driving. When they cease to be competent, their license is revoked so that they no longer permitted to drive. Eliminating licensing would definitely increase both the number of incompetent drivers and the level of incompetence.
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law?
In spite of what you might see in the movies no government entity issues licenses to kill.
Would you believe that there are 10 states in the USA that do not require a license to carry dangerous weapons like firearms? You shouldn't because the actual number is closer to 30. This wasn't always the case but people realized that the license did not make people safe, training did, enforcement did. People don't need a license to get training, and the police don't need people with pieces of plastic in their pockets to enforce the law.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law?
In spite of what you might see in the movies no government entity issues licenses to kill.
Would you believe that there are 10 states in the USA that do not require a license to carry dangerous weapons like firearms? You shouldn't because the actual number is closer to 30. This wasn't always the case but people realized that the license did not make people safe, training did, enforcement did. People don't need a license to get training, and the police don't need people with pieces of plastic in their pockets to enforce the law.
You fail to understand that licensing is what is used to indicate that training has occurred. Without it, how does one know if training has occurred?
You fail to understand that licensing is what is used to indicate that training has occurred. Without it, how does one know if training has occurred?
You know the training has occurred because the driver is staying in their lane, stopping at stop signs, using turning signals, and so on. Every day is a driver's education exam and the "proctors" drive in white cars, wear blue uniforms, and are willing to give you your failing grade if you make a mistake.
I'm not saying get rid of all licenses, just those for people not in the business of driving. I don't think professional drivers necessarily need licenses, I'd think that the businesses that hire them would develop their own means to assure people are trained. They do that already, showing up with a commercial driver license is good, since you've met a government minimum and they are legally required to check for these things but that's not saying much about their training. If you have a certificate from a school that specializes in training safe drivers then you have a much greater chance of landing the job.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.