The possibility of instituting a national identity card has been widely discussed and is considered highly controversial. I'll begin by rehearsing the basic arguments pro and con:
Pro:
1. It would go a long way towards reducing the problems of illegal immigration,
3. It would make it harder for convicted felons to obtain illegal guns.
4. It would make financial scams less likely to succeed.
5. We already require numerous forms of identification: passport, driver's license, SS card. Why not consolidate them?
Con:
1. It would compromise our right to privacy.
2. It could be abused by the government to assault our civil liberties.
3. It would be difficult and expensive to administer
4. A criminal who found a way around the system would be free to commit all manner of crimes.
5. Errors in the database could make life hell for the innocent victim.
In considering the "con" arguments, I am struck by their vagueness. Exactly what do we mean by privacy? I can certainly appreciate the notion that what we do in the privacy of our own homes is not the business of the government -- but possession of a national identity card does not intrude upon such privacy. Indeed, when I ask myself "What privacy that we now possess would be lost by the imposition of a national identity card program?", my answer is "none". I ask the readership to offer any examples of such lost privacy.
Let's take a big jump here: let's jump all the way to the natural endpoint that our society is headed toward. Let's suppose that we establish a national database of biometric information (fingerprints, iris scans, and so forth). You don't have to carry any ID, but you do have to register with the database. Whenever you need to identify yourself, you simply look at the camera or put your fingers on the scanner. This data would be encrypted and sent to a national database, which would use it to identify the individual and issue a specific response. In other words, the cop who pulls you over for speeding and gets your fingerprints does not get access to your file; his hand-held device sends the information to the national computer and asks, "Is this person wanted for any crimes?" The national computer responds with either a "no" or a short description of the action that the cop should take (arrest, provide further information, etc).
Let me point out that such a system could be used for all sorts of beneficial purposes. You wouldn't need to carry cash or credit cards: you just put look at the camera for an iris scan and the sales clerk has the information needed to charge your account.
Providing a national database on people would insure that there's just one location at which information on the individual is stored. That information would always be accessible to the individual and would always be subject to legal challenge, and procedures could be established for rapid resolution of disputes. Anybody who has ever been the victim of identity theft can testify to the clumsiness and slowness of such procedures now -- and these procedures are clumsy because there are so many unconnected bureaucracies that don't talk to each other well.
The "Big Brother" arguments against such a system can be addressed with a set of laws defining rights to access the data. In other words, the computer is programmed to release information only under legally defined circumstances. The CIA cannot obtain information on your lingerie purchases unless they get the proper authorization -- presumably in the form of a warrant. Let me point out that in such circumstances, it's easier to write precise warrants. Right now a search warrant is necessarily rather loosely written, and is easily circumvented. Investigators who enter one's home may have a search warrant that specifies what they're looking for, but there are plenty of loopholes regarding items in plain sight and so forth. That can't happen with a database warrant: it specifies the exact information to be made accessible to the agency. We can also impose severe penalties for submission of fraudulent information to the database, illegal retention of the data, and so forth. For example, a government investigator could be granted access to the database for specific information, but would not be allowed to make a copy.
The biggest argument against such a system, as I see it, is the fallibility of programmers. I happen to know a bit about programming, and one of my rules for software development is, "When in doubt, shoot the programmer." Programmers screw up all the time. However, it is possible to write secure software, as is demonstrated by the many uses of software in military and financial applications. Those programs deal with high-security issues and have a good track record.
There is much more to add, but I have written too long a post already. Let's open up the discussion for comments.
you miss the point.
with such a biometric database all the government would need to know where each and every citizen is at all times would be a camera/scanner
thankyou but NO-thankyou
I used to be in favor, because of the pros, but the current administration has shown how real the potential abuse can be.
Laws as protection? This administration has ignored many laws - and we only know of the infractions they were caught at!
Now I'm not so sure...
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
It has many strong points, but it would definitely be a no-no to have the system connected with public companies. I.E. a fingerprint for a credit card. It opens up way too many possibilities for violations and scams, etc...
As it stands I'm still not sure.
No, no, no a thousand times no. Privacy is important to many God fearing, American loving, good honest decent people. Some times we have to just leave people alone. Amecian citizens do not need to be watched. Our government needs to be watched.
All of the pro arguements are little more than wishful thinking. Those engaged in illegal activities do not obey the laws by definition. Controlling criminals with new laws and regulations does not do a whole lot of good. The last pro agruement does have some validity. But it's kind of like saying, you've already got cancer, so what's a little malaria.
At some point we have to trust the voters.
How long before these, too, are forged?
This post makes me think that we already in big trouble. A true free man never has to give his identity for anything. You are discribing complete bondage to system that is completely out of your personal control.
Jim
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
That would be a no for me too. For many of the reasons already mentioned.
I would also state! That their really are no pros to such a so-called full proof I.D. card. Due to the fact nothing is full proof! There will always be individuals smart enough to get around such a system or card. Where there is a will and money to be made. There will always be a way.
Not to mention giving up our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Let me say that again, our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. For that flawed so called card or system. Is not a gamble I am willing to take. Especially with our governments current track record.
Peace!!! Love!!! Long live The Great Federal Republic of these United States and all those who are her citizens and legal residents.
Since everyone's answer is no, maybe the question needs revision.
Instead of asking about a National Identify Card, the question should be:
What method is needed to insure each person with a job is either a US citizen or has a work visa? Require a passport to get a job?
What method can we use to ensure that people receiving government services are here legally and/or have a right to receive those services?
So with a passport we have a "National Identity" Booklet instead of a card/.....hummm. Why not just start issuing birth certificates on digital cards at the state level but following a national standard format. The feds would just issue those cards to naturalized citizens. It only needs to establish one fact...citizenship, but it can be digitally enhanced to social security or driver's licence or even a passport status as the citizen would desire.
Bill"for what we are together"
Seal the border. Eventually there will be relatively few illegal immigrants here and it will not matter. We will be able to assume you are legal until proven not.
Sealing the borader is only one step in the immigration problem, however. Enforcement of hiring laws in place today, temp. worker program and somehow deal with those already here.
At some point we have to trust the voters.
I think it is a great thing. The 911 terrorist had fake drivers license. One day a terrorist group is going to destroy a whole US city and several US citizens are going to cry "how did this happen"? Like it or not, that sad day is coming. I think the pros far out weigh the cons here!
You can fake an identity card.
We as a nation will have to decide what freedom is worth. We will always be at risk - we just need to do everything possible to minimize our risk without throwing away our most precious liberty.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
I do not believe terrorists will nuke a U.S. city. They like Mecca NOT being a smoldering hole in the ground. Nor do state-sponsors(Iran, Syria, ect.) of terrorism want to have their countries becomming sheets of glass.
Why have an identity card when the Federal Govt. is letting everybody and his mother into the country; whether legal or illegal? It's pointless to require an identity card since the government and politicians have already giving away the store. This is just one more thing the government will screw up.
Now, if the laws of this nation were enforced as they should have been done long ago, then I can see the use of an identity card. For now, it will be a struggle in futility; particularly if people of the likes of Teddy Kennedy and John McCain get their way ....eventually.
Um, hate to contradict, but the card would NOT help to keep convicted felons from buying ILLEGAL guns because they would be doing so ILLEGALY and would have no need whatsoever for a National ID card. I think what you were trying to say was that the card would help prevent convicted felons from trying to LEGALLY purchase guns from a gun shop, where such an ID would actually be checked. If you're buying a gun illegally, you sure as hell ain't going to be buying it from a gun shop. Convicted felons could still get their hands on guns via other undocumented means...no form of gun control NOR a National ID card can prevent that from happening, unless you want to destroy all guns in the country and leave yourself totally defenseless from illegal weapons smuggled into the country, which is what happened in the UK when they banned civilian ownership of firearms (a ban that, to my knowledge, is still in effect).
The ban is stil in effect, and has been extended to certain knives in public. So basically, no walking down the street with a machete or a kitchen knife in your pants.
I'll just state my opinions of pros and cons here, since it's either good or bad depending on the specifics.
Pro:
one system instead of several (driver's license, SS, etc.)
potentially more secure and harder to fake
can help stop illegal immigrants from getting jobs
Cons:
identity theft
forgeries
cost
Database cons:
software problems
electronic identity theft
government abuse (warrant-less wiretapping happened, why not that?)
if the servers get fried, what happens to the data?
It's definitely easier to think of the downside than the upside.
For as much as I fear the whole, "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" thing, I think a national ID card is for the best.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
First off, it seems to me like almost every one carries some form of Gov'nt issued ID card(usually a drivers license) so why the big fuss? It really wouldn't be any easier to track you through a new card than from your drivers license or SSN. It may be that I'm missing some of the counter argument because I already carry a "National Identity Card" in the form of military ID.
Plus, at various times in my life Ive had to carry around and regularly present a photo id card, a passport and a birth certificate, if I could trade those in for one card ID do it happily.
As for forgery, military ID cards are worth well over six figures (depending on the country your in) because they are nigh impossible to forge. If we had National ID cards made to that standard it would actually make ID theft much harder. As I said before I might be missing something here so if I am let me know.
Michael B Aaronson
Akuai@aol.com
It would be a NO for me even though there are some good arguments on the PRO side. The big CON arguments - violation of privacy, the potential for abuse, and technological errors - simply outweigh the pros
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone." Justice Brandeis
I'm thinking abuse of power will happen whether there is/isn't a national id card.
I believe Mr GW Bush has demonstrated it. Congress left him & his cronies alone for 6 years.
PRESS RELEASE: The world changed at 11 p.m. pst last night...
Announcing wireless secure identification portals to create a secure wireless I.D. system for each citizen with photo and personal information. Now positive identification can be implemented without chips, identification cards and without additional cost as new wireless technology is all we were missing. The citizen will now memorize their social security number and nothing more! NO CARDS, NO CHIPS, NO MARK OF THE BEAST - AND NO RETNA SCANS! visit http://www.appyp.com for the commerical versions!
The problem with a single national identity card is that all your actions requiring an ID could be recorded in a single place. If you buy a car, a plane ticket, cash a check, go to a bar, apply for a job, buy a gun, open a bank account, buy a home, or make any credit card purchase, that information could be in a single data file. The state, or a resourceful criminal (much the same thing) would be able to track practically ALL your financial activity and, with modern statistical methods, be able to track your every move. With the ability to predict the citizens probable reaction, the state would be able to ride the line between what we would accept and what we would not, thereby allowing the state to become as tyrannical as possible without fomenting rebellion.
It would also encourage the state to do even more social engineering, since they would know how much everybody made, how much they had, how much they spent, and what they spent it on. The state is not nearly as good at social engineering as a free people are.
GraceSeaview: Don't forget to include the requirement to show your race and religion!
The idea that it would be easier for Uncle Sugar to know each American's business with a national ID card is academic at this point. If you know anything about modern business and the internet you would also know every time you make a transaction, any transaction, it is recorded somewhere. Did you ever wonder how the old pop ups on your computer were always something that may interest you? Forget big brother, Bill Gates is recording your every move. Data base mining and info collecting is a multibillion dolllar business. When it comes to data collection the government is still in diapers. The big companies can find out what you had for breakfast before the government learns how to turn on a computer. Auto insurance, life insurance, credit card transactions, check cashing, cellphone records, telephone records, marriage licenses, birth certificates, divorce papers etc. etc. etc. every move you make is recorded and catalogued. A national ID card will help more than hurt because it will bring all that other stuff together, make it easier to fight big brother and be able to control the riff raff that are trying to sneak around the system. I'm all for it.
I have no doubt what you say is true, however, I would prefer Mr. Gates have that information, rather than the Gestapo.
"Your papers please"
While I agree all this stuff is available from a myriad of sources, why should we make it easier for the government to keep tabs on us? As for being able to regulate the way that the government uses the data, I think they've already been shown to be completely untrustworthy on that account. The recent abuses of already-existing regulations by the NSA and the FBI in spying on private Americans under the guise of preventing terrorism are well-documented. How can anyone believe that abuses such as these would not be magnified 100-fold if they were given access to a single central database that they could query at will to find out where you are, where you've been and with whom you associate?
Instead of giving the government easier access to more information, we should be giving the government and private corporations less access to information. We should also be focusing on setting laws that provides private citizens complete and open access to all of the data being kept by private companies on them.