Not quite yet illiterate-boy. The current system is implemented to contain both drivers licenses (a mandatory license to DRIVE) and an OPTIONAL state issued ID card. Both of which have been used to identify fugitives.
Quite an ironic statement. Even if my argument were false, it would have nothing to do with literacy. On the other hand, you tenuous grasp of common diction falls within very definition of illiteracy.
The current system is implemented to contain both drivers licenses (a mandatory license to DRIVE) and an OPTIONAL state issued ID card. Both of which have been used to identify fugitives.
Please give me one example (i'll give you one more chance to live up to your own standards of proof) where a fugitive was caught after voluntarily submitting his identification. Specifically, an example where said fugutive was aware that no ID was required, but decided to produce it anyway. Such a preposterously self-incriminating act would amount to surrendering, and if fugitives are so anxious to turn themselves in, we wouldn't need further measures to catch them.
I used to work for the government
NOW it starts to make sense:
Your mania for bureaucracy
Your blind faith in authority
Your ineptitude at the task of justfying your assertions
Your reliance on ad-hominem bluster in the face of opposition
Why didn't you just SAY that you worked for the Government? (Too efficient?)
Talk about an unsubstantiated argument, after 10+ requests for a conclusive logical loss of liberty or freedom and still not receiving one.
You understandings of "logic", "conlusive", "liberty" and "unreasonable searches" are clealy on par with your grasp of the term "draconian". Why don't we just agree that there are no such examples that you can comprehend in your hysterical rush to hide in the underskirts of the Federal Government
Yes, it will cost money - but I'd be willing to bet that cost anlysis over the course of 10 years maintaining this system Vs. maintaining 50 seperate systems will yield a tremendous surplus in favor of a national system
While logic tempts this conlusion, a simple look at the real world shows it to be false. The Feds do little, if anything, in a manner that can be described as "efficient." Moreover, one must concluded that the same amount of resources are needed to manage data for the same number of people. Even if there were economies of scale, they would be overshadowed by the additional resources required by the unwieldiness of the nationalized system.
and does work well, a lot of people get caught because of a traffick stop when they are wanted
Hah! Only because they are MANDATORY when you are driving.
The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency).
I'm sorry, but capitalism is NOT efficent because of the maximization of corporate profits. It is efficient because of competition's downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on corporate efficiency. Without competition, a company can maximize profits by inflating prices, which is clearly not an efficiency from a societal standpoint (or, in fact, from a corporate standpoint). The Corporate desire to maximize profits and Society's desire to maximize efficency stand in stark contrast.
It's related to law. Oh no! So is the national ID card
The point is, my opposition to the ID card is NOT made in a legal capacity, so my opinion can NOT be classified as draconian.
Same way that a drivers license does.
So, not at all. Or at best, in a way that is completely redundant and utterly ineffective, as history had demonstrated.
How in any interpretation of the fourth amendment (one M, Mr. Critical), allow your freedom to get impacted by having an identification card that you can voluntarily produce for identification purposes.
Read the sentence again. I said "IF this card becomes mandatory." I also said that it would offer NO protection if it were NOT mandatory. I assume you concede that point, since you have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary, and someone with such high rhetorical standards would surely not leave his argument unsubstantiated. As such, please stop supporting these hare-brained schemes to waste my tax dollars.
I still say that my usage of your sentiments are draconian.
Say what? This sentence makes no sense. You've gone from using words that you don't understand to using sentences that no-one else understands.
Go look at your dictionary.com reference, "draconian budget cuts"
Guess what? Budget cuts are enacted by law makers, or people acting in an equivalent regulatory capacity.
The security you gain is it makes fugitives easier to track.
WTF!? How, exactly, does a voluntary ID card help track fugitives. You are apparently of the ilk that beleives that terrorists and fugitives will be anxious to sign up for this card, and will happlily check the box marked: "I am a violent criminal, please subject me to detailed scrutiny."
IF this card becomes mandatory, or in any way an unavoidable standard, it will clearly impact the rights guarunteed under the Fourth Ammendment.
If, as your pollyannaish argument suggests, it will remain voluntary, no one with anything to hide will ever use it. As such, it is a complete waste of time and resources.
the goal of a corporation in capitalism is not to become a monopoly, but to become profitable
Actually, the goal is to MAXIMISE profits. In order to truly maximze profits, a corporation must eliminate competition which has a downward effect on profits. As such, monopoly is most certainly ultimate corporate ambition.
You do have "exceedingly harsh" under-informed assumptions about this system.
Draconian means "exceedingly harsh" in reference to laws. Free tip: you have to read the ENTIRE definition, or you miss the context. Try this on for size:
"I don't use AJAX brand cleanser on my tiles. It is draconian." (Hint: this is an incorrect use of the term.)
You keep asking for an example of freedoms that you would lose with a National ID. Rather than waste my time connecting the dots between "privacy invasion" and "unreasonable search," let me ask you this: Your answer to ever possible loss of freedom is that it doesn't count becaus the card won't be mandatory, and the police can't demand to see it. Given that, please tell me what security you will gain.
Sure.. till some one pays your for it. Still freedom of speech? No, it is making money off of someone elses copyrighted works.
The act of talking about circumventing copyright profits no-one and threatens the profits of no-one. I think that is pretty obvious.
You do have a civil liberty protected god given right to commit a crime.
The idiocy of this is just appalling. Please make this the last time you confuse civil liberty and god given right.
Police officers cannot intervene unless a crime is in the act or has already been committed.
Or if they suspect a crime is in progress. Or, more to the point, if they claim such a suspicion. As such, no crime needs to take place for the police to barge in and start harrassing people. You are confusing abilities and rights. You are able to do many things that you don't have the right to do.
What privacy I am giving up that I don't already have or don't have.
For the nth time, by making this kind of abuse more convenient, you are encouraging it's wider and more frequent use. I suppose you think that getting pistol-whipped by one mugger is pretty much the same as getting pistol-whipped by 10. It's already an abuse. Facilitating an increase in the frequency of an abuse does, in fact, make it worse.
Set the crack pipe down son, and step away slowly.
Don't worry, I wouldn't touch your pipe.
. ..come up with at least one (that's all I'm asking for) valid liberty that will be sacrified by using this system.
Liberty from unreasonable search and seizure is certainly one of them. What right does an airline have to know your criminal record? Assuming you were tried, convicted and served your time, they have no business subjecting you to more scrutiny than the next person.
How's that make you feel, that your draconian under-informed assumptions are the same reason why we have to fight the DMCA?
How about you look up draconian, and then re-phrase that?
Discussing mechanisms (which can be concepts) can be held under the trafficking clause.
Which just goes to show the degree to which the law will pervert seemingly simple concepts such as "freedom of speech." And here you are ready to surrender more power to them.
Uhm.. and a national ID card would change this how?
By making it faster, more convenient and universally available. Speaking of the DMCA, notice how the RIAA didn't give a damn about digital music until the above conditions applied to it? Now they are falling all over themselves trying to come up with more draconian ways to fight is.
The simple fact is that more of a bad thing is WORSE. Getting harrased by cops on 30 occasions is WORSE than on 3 occasions. (Paradoxically, if you filed 30 complaints, you would be taken less seriously). The idea that our rights are already being violated so we may as well let law enforcement go hog-wild is ridiculous.
Feel free to commit a crime, it's your right.
WTF!? I'm pretty sire that commiting a crime is NOT a right. That's why they throw you in jail.
But don't bitch about how it's hard to get on a plane after you have been convicted of planting bombs in a mail room.
If you were convicted, served your time and were released, they would have no right to keep you off a plane. Since this card is voluntary anyway, your hypothetical bomber would just opt out. So, for all of the privacy that you are willing to give away, you get no added security. (I think Ben Franklin said something about people with that attitude.)
Well, considering copyright cirvumention is illegal (which I oppose, as long as it is under fair use) now, there is just cause for you to be associated.
Circumventing copyright may be illegal, but discussing the concept is not.
The choice to be discouraged from pursuing legal activities remains to the individual. It's a choice they make. Your freedom remains, you choose to cease your legal activities.
I'm happy to say that it is NOT legal for police to intimidate and harrass innocent civilians. In the above example, discouraging people from discussion with the threat of surveillance amounts to intimidating them from excersising a civil liberty.
This kind of tactic could be used to discourage all kinds of legal behavior. There are many law-abiding citizens who do not want their private lives pried into. You don't have to be a criminal to be the victim of harrassment and intimidation.
To be a suspect, you just have to have association.
Right. But "assosiation" can take many forms, especially in the hands of a paranoid government. As someone who has an account with a web-site that favorably discusses hacking and copyright circumvention on occasion, you are now associated with subersives, pirates and terrorists. How does it feel?
The point here is that there are any number of perfectly legal activities that are associated with questionable behavior in the narrow view of law-enforcement. When you are discouraged from pursuing legal activities because you are fearful of police scrutiny, your civil liberties are infringed upon.
On behalf of the state os Missouri, Ashcroft opposed the intergration of public schools all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case. During his confrimation hearings for Attourney General, Ashcroft lied about Missouri being found guilty of any wrongdoing.
I can't fathom an example when Ashcroft has tried to use his disagreement with a position by the Constitution or any Amendment
His use of the office of Missouri Atourney General to attempt to deny civil rights to people of color, and by extension deny them their constitutional rights, are well documented.
Now we have 140 million rows. How the fuck do you expect anything to sift through that. Not only is it (currently) technologically infeasible, it's just assinane and mundane for people to do so.
Tell that to the Eschelon/Carnivore crowd. They seem to be fairly confident in their ability to sift through impossibly large amounts of data.
Also, if you think it's not so ridiculous that he'd try to go against Article I, Section 9, please cite where you (and the original poster) get the idea that he'd like to start passing ex post facto laws
The whole point is that Ashcroft clearly holds beliefs that are counter to the spirit and the letter of the constitution (not including Abortion, you are right about that), and has used his position to try to undermine it in his favor. As such, it is not unimaginable that he would try to subvert the restriction against ex-post-facto laws to further his agenda.
if anything a facial scan and fingerprints will increase your personal security, because someone won't be able to impersonate you as easily.
Wrong. All someone will have to do is forge a card with your name and their picture/prints, and they will OWN you. Centralizing personal data is an idea that only appeals to credulous dimwits who can't recognize the facetiousness in:
You have no proof that Ashcroft wants to do anything but ensure the internal security of the United States.
The fact that this and the many other opportuinistic measures that Ashcroft and his ilk are trying to push through would have done NOTHING to stop the terrorism of 9/11 and will do NOTHING to deter future terrorists is proof enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite an ironic statement. Even if my argument were false, it would have nothing to do with literacy. On the other hand, you tenuous grasp of common diction falls within very definition of illiteracy.
The current system is implemented to contain both drivers licenses (a mandatory license to DRIVE) and an OPTIONAL state issued ID card. Both of which have been used to identify fugitives.
Please give me one example (i'll give you one more chance to live up to your own standards of proof) where a fugitive was caught after voluntarily submitting his identification. Specifically, an example where said fugutive was aware that no ID was required, but decided to produce it anyway. Such a preposterously self-incriminating act would amount to surrendering, and if fugitives are so anxious to turn themselves in, we wouldn't need further measures to catch them.
I used to work for the government
NOW it starts to make sense:
Your mania for bureaucracy
Your blind faith in authority
Your ineptitude at the task of justfying your assertions
Your reliance on ad-hominem bluster in the face of opposition
Why didn't you just SAY that you worked for the Government? (Too efficient?)
Talk about an unsubstantiated argument, after 10+ requests for a conclusive logical loss of liberty or freedom and still not receiving one.
You understandings of "logic", "conlusive", "liberty" and "unreasonable searches" are clealy on par with your grasp of the term "draconian". Why don't we just agree that there are no such examples that you can comprehend in your hysterical rush to hide in the underskirts of the Federal Government
Yes, it will cost money - but I'd be willing to bet that cost anlysis over the course of 10 years maintaining this system Vs. maintaining 50 seperate systems will yield a tremendous surplus in favor of a national system
While logic tempts this conlusion, a simple look at the real world shows it to be false. The Feds do little, if anything, in a manner that can be described as "efficient." Moreover, one must concluded that the same amount of resources are needed to manage data for the same number of people. Even if there were economies of scale, they would be overshadowed by the additional resources required by the unwieldiness of the nationalized system.
and does work well, a lot of people get caught because of a traffick stop when they are wanted
Hah! Only because they are MANDATORY when you are driving.
At last, Q.E.D.
The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency).
I'm sorry, but capitalism is NOT efficent because of the maximization of corporate profits. It is efficient because of competition's downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on corporate efficiency. Without competition, a company can maximize profits by inflating prices, which is clearly not an efficiency from a societal standpoint (or, in fact, from a corporate standpoint). The Corporate desire to maximize profits and Society's desire to maximize efficency stand in stark contrast.
It's related to law. Oh no! So is the national ID card
The point is, my opposition to the ID card is NOT made in a legal capacity, so my opinion can NOT be classified as draconian.
Same way that a drivers license does.
So, not at all. Or at best, in a way that is completely redundant and utterly ineffective, as history had demonstrated.
How in any interpretation of the fourth amendment (one M, Mr. Critical), allow your freedom to get impacted by having an identification card that you can voluntarily produce for identification purposes.
Read the sentence again. I said "IF this card becomes mandatory." I also said that it would offer NO protection if it were NOT mandatory. I assume you concede that point, since you have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary, and someone with such high rhetorical standards would surely not leave his argument unsubstantiated. As such, please stop supporting these hare-brained schemes to waste my tax dollars.
I still say that my usage of your sentiments are draconian.
Say what? This sentence makes no sense. You've gone from using words that you don't understand to using sentences that no-one else understands.
Go look at your dictionary.com reference, "draconian budget cuts"
Guess what? Budget cuts are enacted by law makers, or people acting in an equivalent regulatory capacity.
The security you gain is it makes fugitives easier to track.
WTF!? How, exactly, does a voluntary ID card help track fugitives. You are apparently of the ilk that beleives that terrorists and fugitives will be anxious to sign up for this card, and will happlily check the box marked: "I am a violent criminal, please subject me to detailed scrutiny."
IF this card becomes mandatory, or in any way an unavoidable standard, it will clearly impact the rights guarunteed under the Fourth Ammendment.
If, as your pollyannaish argument suggests, it will remain voluntary, no one with anything to hide will ever use it. As such, it is a complete waste of time and resources.
Chip design wants to be free!
the goal of a corporation in capitalism is not to become a monopoly, but to become profitable
Actually, the goal is to MAXIMISE profits. In order to truly maximze profits, a corporation must eliminate competition which has a downward effect on profits. As such, monopoly is most certainly ultimate corporate ambition.
You do have "exceedingly harsh" under-informed assumptions about this system.
Draconian means "exceedingly harsh" in reference to laws. Free tip: you have to read the ENTIRE definition, or you miss the context. Try this on for size:
"I don't use AJAX brand cleanser on my tiles. It is draconian." (Hint: this is an incorrect use of the term.)
You keep asking for an example of freedoms that you would lose with a National ID. Rather than waste my time connecting the dots between "privacy invasion" and "unreasonable search," let me ask you this: Your answer to ever possible loss of freedom is that it doesn't count becaus the card won't be mandatory, and the police can't demand to see it. Given that, please tell me what security you will gain.
Can't do it, can you?
Sure.. till some one pays your for it. Still freedom of speech? No, it is making money off of someone elses copyrighted works.
.come up with at least one (that's all I'm asking for) valid liberty that will be sacrified by using this system.
The act of talking about circumventing copyright profits no-one and threatens the profits of no-one. I think that is pretty obvious.
You do have a civil liberty protected god given right to commit a crime.
The idiocy of this is just appalling. Please make this the last time you confuse civil liberty and god given right.
Police officers cannot intervene unless a crime is in the act or has already been committed.
Or if they suspect a crime is in progress. Or, more to the point, if they claim such a suspicion. As such, no crime needs to take place for the police to barge in and start harrassing people. You are confusing abilities and rights . You are able to do many things that you don't have the right to do.
What privacy I am giving up that I don't already have or don't have.
For the nth time, by making this kind of abuse more convenient, you are encouraging it's wider and more frequent use. I suppose you think that getting pistol-whipped by one mugger is pretty much the same as getting pistol-whipped by 10. It's already an abuse. Facilitating an increase in the frequency of an abuse does, in fact, make it worse.
Set the crack pipe down son, and step away slowly.
Don't worry, I wouldn't touch your pipe.
. .
Liberty from unreasonable search and seizure is certainly one of them. What right does an airline have to know your criminal record? Assuming you were tried, convicted and served your time, they have no business subjecting you to more scrutiny than the next person.
How's that make you feel, that your draconian under-informed assumptions are the same reason why we have to fight the DMCA?
How about you look up draconian, and then re-phrase that?
Discussing mechanisms (which can be concepts) can be held under the trafficking clause.
Which just goes to show the degree to which the law will pervert seemingly simple concepts such as "freedom of speech." And here you are ready to surrender more power to them.
Uhm.. and a national ID card would change this how?
By making it faster, more convenient and universally available. Speaking of the DMCA, notice how the RIAA didn't give a damn about digital music until the above conditions applied to it? Now they are falling all over themselves trying to come up with more draconian ways to fight is.
The simple fact is that more of a bad thing is WORSE. Getting harrased by cops on 30 occasions is WORSE than on 3 occasions. (Paradoxically, if you filed 30 complaints, you would be taken less seriously). The idea that our rights are already being violated so we may as well let law enforcement go hog-wild is ridiculous.
Feel free to commit a crime, it's your right.
WTF!? I'm pretty sire that commiting a crime is NOT a right. That's why they throw you in jail.
But don't bitch about how it's hard to get on a plane after you have been convicted of planting bombs in a mail room.
If you were convicted, served your time and were released, they would have no right to keep you off a plane. Since this card is voluntary anyway, your hypothetical bomber would just opt out. So, for all of the privacy that you are willing to give away, you get no added security. (I think Ben Franklin said something about people with that attitude.)
Well, considering copyright cirvumention is illegal (which I oppose, as long as it is under fair use) now, there is just cause for you to be associated.
Circumventing copyright may be illegal, but discussing the concept is not.
The choice to be discouraged from pursuing legal activities remains to the individual. It's a choice they make. Your freedom remains, you choose to cease your legal activities.
I'm happy to say that it is NOT legal for police to intimidate and harrass innocent civilians. In the above example, discouraging people from discussion with the threat of surveillance amounts to intimidating them from excersising a civil liberty.
This kind of tactic could be used to discourage all kinds of legal behavior. There are many law-abiding citizens who do not want their private lives pried into. You don't have to be a criminal to be the victim of harrassment and intimidation.
Are iBooks really that cheap? I haven't shopped around that much so I may well be wrong, but aren't equivalent Wintel notebooks cheaper.
Just curious. A friend of mine needs a new notebook, and she would probably prefer another Mac.
To be a suspect, you just have to have association.
Right. But "assosiation" can take many forms, especially in the hands of a paranoid government. As someone who has an account with a web-site that favorably discusses hacking and copyright circumvention on occasion, you are now associated with subersives, pirates and terrorists. How does it feel?
The point here is that there are any number of perfectly legal activities that are associated with questionable behavior in the narrow view of law-enforcement. When you are discouraged from pursuing legal activities because you are fearful of police scrutiny, your civil liberties are infringed upon.
Don't be a criminal, don't get stored in the database. It's rather simple.
What you fail to apprehend is that definitions of "criminal" and "evidence" are very fluid.
Just in case anyone is still reading this thread:
On behalf of the state os Missouri, Ashcroft opposed the intergration of public schools all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case. During his confrimation hearings for Attourney General, Ashcroft lied about Missouri being found guilty of any wrongdoing.
So they only store tracking data flagged as evidence of subversive behavior. So what's the difference?
I can't fathom an example when Ashcroft has tried to use his disagreement with a position by the Constitution or any Amendment
His use of the office of Missouri Atourney General to attempt to deny civil rights to people of color, and by extension deny them their constitutional rights, are well documented.
Now we have 140 million rows. How the fuck do you expect anything to sift through that. Not only is it (currently) technologically infeasible, it's just assinane and mundane for people to do so.
Tell that to the Eschelon/Carnivore crowd. They seem to be fairly confident in their ability to sift through impossibly large amounts of data.
You have correctly identified the Thin End of the Wedge.
It makes retrieving your data more convenient for those that need to see it like:
Government snoops
Private sector snoops
Identity thieves
(Not neccesarily in that order.)
You already brought up the point of forgery. Just about anything can be forged. As such, these things are powerless to stop a determined criminal.
I would classify someone willing to crash a plane into a skyscraper as "determined."
Touché.
Also, if you think it's not so ridiculous that he'd try to go against Article I, Section 9, please cite where you (and the original poster) get the idea that he'd like to start passing ex post facto laws
The whole point is that Ashcroft clearly holds beliefs that are counter to the spirit and the letter of the constitution (not including Abortion, you are right about that), and has used his position to try to undermine it in his favor. As such, it is not unimaginable that he would try to subvert the restriction against ex-post-facto laws to further his agenda.
if anything a facial scan and fingerprints will increase your personal security, because someone won't be able to impersonate you as easily.
Wrong. All someone will have to do is forge a card with your name and their picture/prints, and they will OWN you. Centralizing personal data is an idea that only appeals to credulous dimwits who can't recognize the facetiousness in:
Well, well, you also have bought a copy of the hacker OS linux?
You have no proof that Ashcroft wants to do anything but ensure the internal security of the United States.
The fact that this and the many other opportuinistic measures that Ashcroft and his ilk are trying to push through would have done NOTHING to stop the terrorism of 9/11 and will do NOTHING to deter future terrorists is proof enough.