If you rely on something that is entirely under the control of the public, someone will find a way to tamper with it, it is only a question of how long it will take.
If you rely on public, private, or secret data it's only a matter of tyme before it's cracked or an insider is paid off. Oh yea, there was no Cambridge Five paid off by the Soviet Union.
I would not be able to clone your card, then change the biometrics to my height etc. and pass myself off as you.
The difference is that with all the data on a server all it takes is one corrupt employee to create fake IDs or change data on people's cards. Oh yea, that's right there hasn't been any Anthony Blunts, Guy Burgesses or other Cambridge Five spies never mind any working for organized crime.
In the state of Illinois its already illegal to walk around without an id. They can actually fine you for not having some sort of state or federal id on your person when you step outside your house.
That's illegal in the US. In the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada case the US Supreme Court has ruled that persons are required to identify themselves to law enforcement, however all they required was the person giving their name. "All nine Justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification."
note that no one criticising the scheme seems to have a problem with plastic cards or the concept of ID in general.
I care, I don't want to be required to carry any ID, whether a card or an implanted RFID. It is nobody's business who I am other than those I choose to interact with. And then I agree to what information I will share. If we don't agree we either compromise or we go our separate ways.
I only want to have to identify myself when I want to, such as writing a check, which I haven't done in years or cashing a check.
Social Security card?
I don't want to and don't carry my Social Security card. Read yours some tyme, it's illegal to require it as an ID card.
Driver's license?
Guess what? Driver's licenses are called that because they are licenses to drive, not ID cards. They used to identify people as being licensed to drive.
How hard it is to forge one of these?
I don't care how easy they are to forge, the only legitimate use for an ID card is for financial transactions, and maybe for driving. Social Security? I don't believe in it, I believe in personal responsibility. Nor do I believe in income tax, a person shouldn't have to pay taxes on what he or she works to earn.
The best idea with keeping information secure is to not give it away
Only until security is broken. Just as with closed source vs open source software, closed security is only good until it's broken. With open source though thousands can read and improve the code. Security by obscurity doesn't work that well.
Not that I think ID cards should use open info, I don't agree these cards are needed at all.
The power to require ID, "papers please", and to track citizens to start with.
How about you present an alternative to our current justice system which gets a smaller false positive rate while maintaining a low false negative rate.
Seeing as there's this thing called innocent until proven guilty the burden is on you not me to prove the justice system has to have more power. You're the one who wants to punish the guilty, I want the innocent free. And I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than falsely punish one innocent.
Would you please point out where in the Constitution it says the federal government can build dams, fund road construction, and so forth?
Of these the Constitution only gives the federal government authority for some roads, the interstate commerce clause allows the interstate highways. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress also allows the Post Office and postal roads. Dams, which I support the removal of, are not an authorized function of the federal government. Neither is the Energy Department, Federal Communications Commission, or many other authorities, bureaus, departments, and offices. For years I've advocated for the abolishment of all of them.
If you want to limit the government in that way, we're going to have a very powerless government.
Which is what I want, a weak government. The more power the government has the more it can violate people's rights. And as I've repeatedly said I do not trust government. I'd be more likely to say "Swing heil" than "Sieg Heil".
Which is a measure of the low/relative/ importance of these documents.
How is it a "measure of the low/relative/ importance of these documents"? IDs and driver's licenses are very important as are passport. I wish they weren't but they are.
If you cannot make any credit card purchases
If you can't make normal purchases without a credit card then you seriously need to sit down and evaluate your finances. Actually credit cards like Visa used to have a rule that people could not ask for ID, those accepting CCs had to compare the signature on the receipt with the one on the card. I didn't know this until someone told me, I wrote "check ID" where I was supposed to sign the card. The person told me they could not check ids, that Visa did not allow it. As for making purchases without an ID, Credit Card Finder as this to say about not having ID:
"While a sense of security may be invaluable to some, in the long run, whipping out your identification whenever you use your card will get tedious and frustrating. If you ever lose your credit card or get it stolen in the first place, all you need to do is simply contact your bank ASAP and under normal circumstances, you will not be held liable for fraudulent use/charges of your card."
Ah, here we go, the Rules for VISA Merchants pdf has the rules for Signature and Identification on page 28. It first says to check ID if the card is not signed. On page 29 what it says about checking ID is this:
When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance . Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID . Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures . Laws in several states also make it illegal for merchants to write a cardholder's personal information, such as an address or phone number, on a sales receipt."
Quite simply those who accept Visas do not need to check ID in most cases, they only need to compare the signature on the card to the one on the receipt.
You know... I really think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is.
No I don't know. What I know is I don't trust government and want it as small and have as little power as possible.
Now what I think is that those like you refuse to acknowledge that historically it was governments that was the biggest violators of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The NAZI government killed millions and tried to exterminate a number of different groups. The Soviets, China, and yes the US did the same. You may not mind giving up some liberty but you want to require everyone else to give up liberty as well.
Let me put it this way, would you want the NAZIs, Mao, or Stalin to have the same powers? If not then you shouldn't want any government to have them. If you wouldn't mind them having those powers then I don't want you anywhere near me or my government.
There is no such thing as a military which has the ability to protect everyone on a block except Steve Jones who refuses to pay - it either protects the block or it does not.
The last tyme I can recall the US was invaded was the Battle of New Orleans. When I was in the Army I was stationed in one of the units that fought in the battle, the song The Battle of New Orleans" written by Johnny Horton was about my unit. Yes the territory of Hawai'i was attacked, the Roosevelt admin allowed it, however it was not invaded by Japan but by the US.
I don't see anything unconstitutional about bailing out banks
What part of the Constitution of the USA gives the federal government the power to bailout banks? You can't because it doesn't and the Constitution set limits on what government can do, if something's not in the Constitution the federal government can not do it. Heck the 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and Peoples, spells that out "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
How, exactly, is it outside of the government's power to provide loans to banks so that they don't collapse and destroy the economy?
See above. The Constitution only created a government of limited power. And where's the prove the economy would have collapsed if the banks had not been bailed out? Never mind, you'll just say some economists said it and I'll reply others said otherwise.
These bailouts are not free cash handouts, despite what the media wants you to think.
They weren't? So a bunch of bank executives who created the problem for the banks didn't end up with millions of dollars? And banks who were well run and didn't need bailouts weren't penalized?
Unfortunately, ID cards by their nature cannot be produced in a central, well guarded, press.
Actually they can be. Unlike some states that make and give people their ID or driver's license where they go to get it, Minnesota mails them from a central location. The federal government does, or can do, the same with Passports.
The old fashioned ink-on-paper method with a few holograms added is very effective. There's no way for someone to read that ID as long as you keep it on your wallet, out of view.
Until you're mugged or robbed. They are still forgeable. I prefer that over RFIDs though.
So no, I would not believe it's better to let ten guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. (In fact I'm quite sure the false positive rate is much, much smaller. Try not to misrepresent it as 1 in 11, ok?)
You may not but I do, I don't believe in your superstitious beliefs of an afterlife. I'm sure China will accept you though, then when you're executed the government will even bill your family the cost of the bullet.
I am willing to allow a tiny false positive rate rather than allow a large false negative rate - and if the event arises that I am falsely convicted, I will maintain that stance.
Fine, move to China, just don't force me to live in your world.
You benefit from not having gangs of teenagers running free on the streets; thanks to compulsory, paid by tax education.
I don't know how education is paid for where you live but everywhere I've lived it was paid for by the property and sales taxes levied by local and state governments, not the federal government which has no Constitutional authority over education. Heck I lived in Florida most of my life and the state doesn't even have an income tax.
You benefit from again from compulsory education when children from families with little money get education
Surprise, surprise, I support education funded by tax payers. At the local and state levels. Local politics is more responsive to local demands. I also support school choice, parents and children should be able to apply for any school the children can go to. Even private schools, I just don't support taxes paying for religious education except as a part of understanding religion and religious man.
Your economy depends to fairly large degree on the military industrial complex.
The military industrial complex is not needed for a vigorous economy. If and the taxpayer money needed to support it is an inefficient use of money, money isn't used where it will be used most efficiently.
Your food is cheaper because your farmers are very, very heavily subsidised.
Not quite. Archer Daniels Midland, a corporate welfare queen, and Cargill receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies while small farmers struggle to stay solvent. It used to be that they, ADM, Cargill, and others, could buy, ship, and sell food to the Third World cheaper than Third World farmers paid to farm. This put a bunch of farmers out of business and eliminated food sovereignty. But now those businesses instead collect subsidies for biofuels. Now that those Third World farmers are out of business food is no longer being shipped to the Third World. Or haven't you heard the howls from the population of the Third World? Now that produce isn't being shipped so much anymore third World farming can pick up again, but delivery of food isn't instantaneous.
Subsidies have distorted the markets so people are starveling when there is no need for them to, there would be plenty of food without subsidies.
Enjoy your drive home on state and other-taxpayer funded road.
Those roads should be paid for by those who use them, drivers. Fuel taxes and a mileage charge should pay all of the costs of the roads. Every year when license plate tags are renewed the odometer is read then the mileage charge is added to tag renewal charges, the more you drive the more you pay. I am more than willing to pay for my driving on the roads. Or not pay if I don't drive, in 1999 I bought a brand new car with 6 miles on the odometer. Ten years later I don't have 50,000 miles on it.
It just makes things easier when they do have to verify your identity.
Why should they have to verify your ID? To make it easier to be tracked? If you're just walking alone there is no reason for you to identify yourself, it's only when you're suspected of committing a crime when you should id yourself. Any other tyme there is no reason to while out in public. The only other tyme you should have to ID yourself to a government servant is when you're in a government building or asking for something from the government.
Showing the ID to an officer (even if you don't have to) makes his job easier. Isn't that a good thing?
Why stop there? Why not just require RFID implants? That way they don't have to stop you and ask, they can just scan you. Apparently you are willing to give up liberty to feel safe but not me. Governments are the greatest threats to liberty, nothing beats the government in denying life and liberty.
To be honest, there are indeed downsides: You always have to remember carrying your ID, and if you are caught without it by a commonsenseless cop you'll be in trouble, but it is the same if you are caught driving without a driver's or vehicle document
A driver's license is needed to drive, but an ID is not needed to ride a bike, walk, run, or rollerblade. And I do all 4 without my ID. I only carry ID when I have to, occasionally I even mistakenly leave my license at home when I drive. The one tyme I was pulled over and didn't have my license I gave the officer my name and license number. He was able to use his radio and verify the info, he then let me go, with a warning to make sure I had my license.
He had every right to bitch about his unjust treatment
First, thanking the woman isn't backing down, it's showing you appreciate a neighbor watching your home. Also he may of had the right to bitch but there's a difference between that and becoming belligerent. Instead of yelling at the officer he could have asked for his name and badge number then said he was going to file a complaint. Whatever you do you don't yell at an officer.
If I were in Gates shoes, I'd be hiring a lawyer and prosecuting the cop to the full extent of the law.
If I were in Gates shoes, I'd try to find out why the officer acted the way he did before going off half cocked. And that's exactly what I have done, I've been pulled over while driving not knowing the reason, and each tyme I asked why. I remained calm and polite then was left alone. If I thought I was harassed or pulled over for a fishing expedition I would have filed a complaint.
and what does that have to do with eyewitness testimony?
Ernest Sonnier, one of those I cited that was cleared, was convicted partly because of eyewitness testimony. But I guess you didn't read any of the links I provided, that was said on the very first page I provided a link to.
I still get carded at some places. What's funny is when I was 30 I never got carded. I can't believe how times have changed!
A long tyme ago I used to go out with friends and though I'd be the oldest I'd be the only one carded. Where I live now there are 2 places that asked for and scanned my ID when I bought alcohol, in both cases I never bought alcohol from them again. I don't like being carded but will accept it, what I will not accept is having my ID scanned electronically.
I have no problem showing my ID if asked (I'm 41, and was never asked to show it, except while driving through police "blocks", maybe 10 times or so). I'm Ok with exchanging this bit of "freedom" or "privacy" for better security.
I don't have a problem showing my driver's license if I'm driving but I have a problem showing ID otherwise, and I'm 47. I am not willing to give up any liberty for the illusion of feeling safer either.
What is the downside?
Giving government more power over you. Police are supposed to serve and protect not demand ID whenever they feel like it.
If you don't see a problem with being tracked, you would have loved living in NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union. If you don't see a problem with having to prove you're innocent and not the the police having to prove you're guilty then perhaps you'd like to have lived in Spain during the Spanish Civil War and General Francisco Franco's dictatorship.
"They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Slashdot Mirror
If you rely on something that is entirely under the control of the public, someone will find a way to tamper with it, it is only a question of how long it will take.
If you rely on public, private, or secret data it's only a matter of tyme before it's cracked or an insider is paid off. Oh yea, there was no Cambridge Five paid off by the Soviet Union.
Falcon
I would not be able to clone your card, then change the biometrics to my height etc. and pass myself off as you.
The difference is that with all the data on a server all it takes is one corrupt employee to create fake IDs or change data on people's cards. Oh yea, that's right there hasn't been any Anthony Blunts, Guy Burgesses or other Cambridge Five spies never mind any working for organized crime.
Facon
I dare you to prove they are needed.
Falcon
Yes, photo and fingerprint. But the old card had the FP printed on it. Now it's inside the chip, not readable from the outside
And what happens if you lose your fingerprints? Tough luck? More than once I almost had mine compleatly sanded off on more than one finger.
Falcon
In the state of Illinois its already illegal to walk around without an id. They can actually fine you for not having some sort of state or federal id on your person when you step outside your house.
That's illegal in the US. In the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada case the US Supreme Court has ruled that persons are required to identify themselves to law enforcement, however all they required was the person giving their name. "All nine Justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification."
Falcon
note that no one criticising the scheme seems to have a problem with plastic cards or the concept of ID in general.
I care, I don't want to be required to carry any ID, whether a card or an implanted RFID. It is nobody's business who I am other than those I choose to interact with. And then I agree to what information I will share. If we don't agree we either compromise or we go our separate ways.
Falcon
Papers please
What do you use to identify yourself?
I only want to have to identify myself when I want to, such as writing a check, which I haven't done in years or cashing a check.
Social Security card?
I don't want to and don't carry my Social Security card. Read yours some tyme, it's illegal to require it as an ID card.
Driver's license?
Guess what? Driver's licenses are called that because they are licenses to drive, not ID cards. They used to identify people as being licensed to drive.
How hard it is to forge one of these?
I don't care how easy they are to forge, the only legitimate use for an ID card is for financial transactions, and maybe for driving. Social Security? I don't believe in it, I believe in personal responsibility. Nor do I believe in income tax, a person shouldn't have to pay taxes on what he or she works to earn.
Falcon
The best idea with keeping information secure is to not give it away
Only until security is broken. Just as with closed source vs open source software, closed security is only good until it's broken. With open source though thousands can read and improve the code. Security by obscurity doesn't work that well.
Not that I think ID cards should use open info, I don't agree these cards are needed at all.
Falcon
The power to require ID, "papers please", and to track citizens to start with.
How about you present an alternative to our current justice system which gets a smaller false positive rate while maintaining a low false negative rate.
Seeing as there's this thing called innocent until proven guilty the burden is on you not me to prove the justice system has to have more power. You're the one who wants to punish the guilty, I want the innocent free. And I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than falsely punish one innocent.
Falcon
Would you please point out where in the Constitution it says the federal government can build dams, fund road construction, and so forth?
Of these the Constitution only gives the federal government authority for some roads, the interstate commerce clause allows the interstate highways. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress also allows the Post Office and postal roads. Dams, which I support the removal of, are not an authorized function of the federal government. Neither is the Energy Department, Federal Communications Commission, or many other authorities, bureaus, departments, and offices. For years I've advocated for the abolishment of all of them.
If you want to limit the government in that way, we're going to have a very powerless government.
Which is what I want, a weak government. The more power the government has the more it can violate people's rights. And as I've repeatedly said I do not trust government. I'd be more likely to say "Swing heil" than "Sieg Heil".
Falcon
Which is a measure of the low /relative/ importance of these documents.
How is it a "measure of the low /relative/ importance of these documents"? IDs and driver's licenses are very important as are passport. I wish they weren't but they are.
If you cannot make any credit card purchases
If you can't make normal purchases without a credit card then you seriously need to sit down and evaluate your finances. Actually credit cards like Visa used to have a rule that people could not ask for ID, those accepting CCs had to compare the signature on the receipt with the one on the card. I didn't know this until someone told me, I wrote "check ID" where I was supposed to sign the card. The person told me they could not check ids, that Visa did not allow it. As for making purchases without an ID, Credit Card Finder as this to say about not having ID:
"While a sense of security may be invaluable to some, in the long run, whipping out your identification whenever you use your card will get tedious and frustrating. If you ever lose your credit card or get it stolen in the first place, all you need to do is simply contact your bank ASAP and under normal circumstances, you will not be held liable for fraudulent use/charges of your card."
Ah, here we go, the Rules for VISA Merchants pdf has the rules for Signature and Identification on page 28. It first says to check ID if the card is not signed. On page 29 what it says about checking ID is this:
When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance . Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID . Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures . Laws in several states also make it illegal for merchants to write a cardholder's personal information, such as an address or phone number, on a sales receipt."
Quite simply those who accept Visas do not need to check ID in most cases, they only need to compare the signature on the card to the one on the receipt.
Falcon
You know... I really think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is.
No I don't know. What I know is I don't trust government and want it as small and have as little power as possible.
Now what I think is that those like you refuse to acknowledge that historically it was governments that was the biggest violators of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The NAZI government killed millions and tried to exterminate a number of different groups. The Soviets, China, and yes the US did the same. You may not mind giving up some liberty but you want to require everyone else to give up liberty as well.
Let me put it this way, would you want the NAZIs, Mao, or Stalin to have the same powers? If not then you shouldn't want any government to have them. If you wouldn't mind them having those powers then I don't want you anywhere near me or my government.
Falcon
There is no such thing as a military which has the ability to protect everyone on a block except Steve Jones who refuses to pay - it either protects the block or it does not.
The last tyme I can recall the US was invaded was the Battle of New Orleans. When I was in the Army I was stationed in one of the units that fought in the battle, the song The Battle of New Orleans" written by Johnny Horton was about my unit. Yes the territory of Hawai'i was attacked, the Roosevelt admin allowed it, however it was not invaded by Japan but by the US.
I don't see anything unconstitutional about bailing out banks
What part of the Constitution of the USA gives the federal government the power to bailout banks? You can't because it doesn't and the Constitution set limits on what government can do, if something's not in the Constitution the federal government can not do it. Heck the 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and Peoples, spells that out "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
One of the Founding Fathers even warned against banks, Thomas Jefferson, he said "that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
How, exactly, is it outside of the government's power to provide loans to banks so that they don't collapse and destroy the economy?
See above. The Constitution only created a government of limited power. And where's the prove the economy would have collapsed if the banks had not been bailed out? Never mind, you'll just say some economists said it and I'll reply others said otherwise.
These bailouts are not free cash handouts, despite what the media wants you to think.
They weren't? So a bunch of bank executives who created the problem for the banks didn't end up with millions of dollars? And banks who were well run and didn't need bailouts weren't penalized?
Fslcon
Unfortunately, ID cards by their nature cannot be produced in a central, well guarded, press.
Actually they can be. Unlike some states that make and give people their ID or driver's license where they go to get it, Minnesota mails them from a central location. The federal government does, or can do, the same with Passports.
Falcon
The old fashioned ink-on-paper method with a few holograms added is very effective. There's no way for someone to read that ID as long as you keep it on your wallet, out of view.
Until you're mugged or robbed. They are still forgeable. I prefer that over RFIDs though.
Falcon
Mitigating factor - I believe in an afterlife.
I don't, nor should I have to to have justice.
So no, I would not believe it's better to let ten guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. (In fact I'm quite sure the false positive rate is much, much smaller. Try not to misrepresent it as 1 in 11, ok?)
You may not but I do, I don't believe in your superstitious beliefs of an afterlife. I'm sure China will accept you though, then when you're executed the government will even bill your family the cost of the bullet.
I am willing to allow a tiny false positive rate rather than allow a large false negative rate - and if the event arises that I am falsely convicted, I will maintain that stance.
Fine, move to China, just don't force me to live in your world.
Falcon
I win :P
Okay, so what classes did you take in high school? How much science?
Falcon
You benefit from not having gangs of teenagers running free on the streets; thanks to compulsory, paid by tax education.
I don't know how education is paid for where you live but everywhere I've lived it was paid for by the property and sales taxes levied by local and state governments, not the federal government which has no Constitutional authority over education. Heck I lived in Florida most of my life and the state doesn't even have an income tax.
You benefit from again from compulsory education when children from families with little money get education
Surprise, surprise, I support education funded by tax payers. At the local and state levels. Local politics is more responsive to local demands. I also support school choice, parents and children should be able to apply for any school the children can go to. Even private schools, I just don't support taxes paying for religious education except as a part of understanding religion and religious man.
Your economy depends to fairly large degree on the military industrial complex.
The military industrial complex is not needed for a vigorous economy. If and the taxpayer money needed to support it is an inefficient use of money, money isn't used where it will be used most efficiently.
Your food is cheaper because your farmers are very, very heavily subsidised.
Not quite. Archer Daniels Midland, a corporate welfare queen, and Cargill receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies while small farmers struggle to stay solvent. It used to be that they, ADM, Cargill, and others, could buy, ship, and sell food to the Third World cheaper than Third World farmers paid to farm. This put a bunch of farmers out of business and eliminated food sovereignty. But now those businesses instead collect subsidies for biofuels. Now that those Third World farmers are out of business food is no longer being shipped to the Third World. Or haven't you heard the howls from the population of the Third World? Now that produce isn't being shipped so much anymore third World farming can pick up again, but delivery of food isn't instantaneous.
Subsidies have distorted the markets so people are starveling when there is no need for them to, there would be plenty of food without subsidies.
Falcon
Enjoy your drive home on state and other-taxpayer funded road.
Those roads should be paid for by those who use them, drivers. Fuel taxes and a mileage charge should pay all of the costs of the roads. Every year when license plate tags are renewed the odometer is read then the mileage charge is added to tag renewal charges, the more you drive the more you pay. I am more than willing to pay for my driving on the roads. Or not pay if I don't drive, in 1999 I bought a brand new car with 6 miles on the odometer. Ten years later I don't have 50,000 miles on it.
Falcon
They'd only get a lie in Case 1 if I had a reason to hide who I am.
"Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers"
"'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy".
It just makes things easier when they do have to verify your identity.
Why should they have to verify your ID? To make it easier to be tracked? If you're just walking alone there is no reason for you to identify yourself, it's only when you're suspected of committing a crime when you should id yourself. Any other tyme there is no reason to while out in public. The only other tyme you should have to ID yourself to a government servant is when you're in a government building or asking for something from the government.
Showing the ID to an officer (even if you don't have to) makes his job easier. Isn't that a good thing?
Why stop there? Why not just require RFID implants? That way they don't have to stop you and ask, they can just scan you. Apparently you are willing to give up liberty to feel safe but not me. Governments are the greatest threats to liberty, nothing beats the government in denying life and liberty.
To be honest, there are indeed downsides: You always have to remember carrying your ID, and if you are caught without it by a commonsenseless cop you'll be in trouble, but it is the same if you are caught driving without a driver's or vehicle document
A driver's license is needed to drive, but an ID is not needed to ride a bike, walk, run, or rollerblade. And I do all 4 without my ID. I only carry ID when I have to, occasionally I even mistakenly leave my license at home when I drive. The one tyme I was pulled over and didn't have my license I gave the officer my name and license number. He was able to use his radio and verify the info, he then let me go, with a warning to make sure I had my license.
Falcon
He had every right to bitch about his unjust treatment
First, thanking the woman isn't backing down, it's showing you appreciate a neighbor watching your home. Also he may of had the right to bitch but there's a difference between that and becoming belligerent. Instead of yelling at the officer he could have asked for his name and badge number then said he was going to file a complaint. Whatever you do you don't yell at an officer.
If I were in Gates shoes, I'd be hiring a lawyer and prosecuting the cop to the full extent of the law.
If I were in Gates shoes, I'd try to find out why the officer acted the way he did before going off half cocked. And that's exactly what I have done, I've been pulled over while driving not knowing the reason, and each tyme I asked why. I remained calm and polite then was left alone. If I thought I was harassed or pulled over for a fishing expedition I would have filed a complaint.
Hot heads don't solve anything.
Falcon
and what does that have to do with eyewitness testimony?
Ernest Sonnier, one of those I cited that was cleared, was convicted partly because of eyewitness testimony. But I guess you didn't read any of the links I provided, that was said on the very first page I provided a link to.
Troll
Falcon
I still get carded at some places. What's funny is when I was 30 I never got carded. I can't believe how times have changed!
A long tyme ago I used to go out with friends and though I'd be the oldest I'd be the only one carded. Where I live now there are 2 places that asked for and scanned my ID when I bought alcohol, in both cases I never bought alcohol from them again. I don't like being carded but will accept it, what I will not accept is having my ID scanned electronically.
Falcon
I have no problem showing my ID if asked (I'm 41, and was never asked to show it, except while driving through police "blocks", maybe 10 times or so). I'm Ok with exchanging this bit of "freedom" or "privacy" for better security.
I don't have a problem showing my driver's license if I'm driving but I have a problem showing ID otherwise, and I'm 47. I am not willing to give up any liberty for the illusion of feeling safer either.
What is the downside?
Giving government more power over you. Police are supposed to serve and protect not demand ID whenever they feel like it.
Falcon
If you don't see a problem with being tracked, you would have loved living in NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union. If you don't see a problem with having to prove you're innocent and not the the police having to prove you're guilty then perhaps you'd like to have lived in Spain during the Spanish Civil War and General Francisco Franco's dictatorship.
"They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Falcon