National ID cards, good or bad?

[s0meguy]

On a related note, did you guys know that many western governments can retract your passport at will? It says it right there on the passport: the passport is owned by whatever your government is. I don't know of any recent passport retractions, but it happened a few times during the cold war, against people that were protesting against the US imperialism. One of them was a US chess champion, that didn't honor the US boycot, and attended a USSR chess competition. He eventually ended up in Iceland, political asylum.

That's right, the ruling class owns your identity. However these days, something like this would create a large scandal, so it is unlikely to happen.

 

[Syzygys]

It's a non-issue for you, but obviously not for most Americans.

It is really a non-issue for them too, you (they) just don't understand. Here you have 2 choices:

1. No ID, bad democracy.
2. National ID + good democracy...

So?

P.S.: String you are usually more reasonable...Tell me how a national ID limits more your freedom compared to a must have driving licence?

 

[Syzygys]

Also I agree with Syzgyz, the government is the government. What does it matter if they know stuff about you? That's their job, to govern.

Actually, I didn't say I agreed with it, I just described the situation. And people who bitch about the ID, you need an ID anyway for driving or banking or drinking or anything else, so why does it matter that which part of the government issues it? The DMV is just as much part of the government...

 

[Syzygys]

We are talking about national ID cards in the UK.

Or not. String clearly talking about the US....

If it add nothing, why do the govt want to intriduce them?

Because it IS the government. Not exactly the example of efficiency...

Perhaps you should refrain from posting an opinion until you have educated yourself.

So educate me: Unless more technology used (biometrics etc.) and it carries more responsibilities what is the difference between
a national ID and a driving licence??

 

[phlogistician]

Or not. String clearly talking about the US....

OP was clearly talking about the UK and you didn't quote string.

Because it IS the government. Not exactly the example of efficiency...

Another reason to refuse the card. It's an expense and it achieves nothing.

So educate me: Unless more technology used (biometrics etc.) and it carries more responsibilities what is the difference between
a national ID and a driving licence??

Can a Police officer demand to see your driving license, when you are minding your own business, abiding by the law, and walking down the street? Are you compelled to carry your driving license at all times?

 

[superstring01]

It is really a non-issue for them too, you (they) just don't understand. Here you have 2 choices:

1. No ID, bad democracy.
2. National ID + good democracy...

Your syllogism doesn't mesh. The two are unrelated. The "good" democracies of the world don't owe their good fortune to the presence of national ID cards. Likewise, not having them does not, in any apparent way, make this democracy less. (the UK doesn't even have them)

Second, I'm a libertarian and think that the United States Federal government has no business issuing ID cards to citizens of the country. As was intended (and, while I don't buy that being the only argument) the individual states are supposed to be the entity that "manages" the citizens with the federal government managing the states. This is just one more step to the federal government keeping tabs on every citizen. It's one step towards making those cards mandatory. It's one step towards making those cards "carry" your personal and banking information on them. It's one step closer to controlling the populous.

As for the government now having "access" to the information it needs, well, on some level, yes, the resources of the federal government are great and if they "wanted" you they'd "get" you. But as it stands now, they have to go through reasonable hoops to get that information.

I don't buy into the notion that a federal ID card would improve my life. In fact, there's no real evidence to support this. What I do believe is that it will put the federal government just a bit more into my life when I really do want it out.

~String

 

[Syzygys]

Your syllogism doesn't mesh.

it doesn't matter. My point was that I would rather have a real democracy with ID than a fake one without ID....

 

[Syzygys]

Can a Police officer demand to see your driving license, when you are minding your own business, abiding by the law, and walking down the street? Are you compelled to carry your driving license at all times?

OK, so if they take away that necessity and you are not expected to care it around all the time, then you don't have a problem with it??

By the way the police can ask you for identification right now for various reasons. There might be a crime comitted nearby etc.

 

[Norsefire]

no it does not root out illegal immagration, it has been prooven that the illegas who did the london bombings would still be here with or wihtout a card

That's because they aren't checked often enough. ID card checks can choke out the illegals.

The govt need to know as little about me as possible, just enough to do their job and not one iota more.

The government is the government. Root word: govern. The government needs information in order to govern.

If I am law abiding, and going about my legal business, they have no right to interfere, ask for ID, or know where I am going, nor where I have been.

As long as they don't force you to do something against your will, they have every right to check all of what you have described.

That is freedom, maybe what you you have been sold as freedom fools you, but it doesn't fool others.

That is freedom. The government knowing about you doesn't make you any less free.

What if you don't like the government ? and you purchased the Anarchist's cookbook ?.

What if? What if?
Nothing. You have freedom of speech.

 

[s0meguy]

That's because they aren't checked often enough. ID card checks can choke out the illegals.

Sorry but here it starts to look like fascism a bit. What's next, a curfew, and 'fingermen' patrolling the streets "FOR YOUR PROTECTION"? After all, who doesn't want security, right???

Yes people want security, but not when it goes this far.

I have a hunch that this ID thing is just the beginning. And it is not used to root out illegals, but rather to gradually become big brother of the citizens, recording people's every move. And we would be forced to comply with this system, at some point. And people will accept it, as long as the transition is gradual enough.

 

[Orleander]

Is the ID card thing the beginning or are the cameras everywhere the beginning?

 

[s0meguy]

Is the ID card thing the beginning or are the cameras everywhere the beginning?

they are both part of the beginning. (i updated the post that you replied to btw)

Check this out for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

 

[Diode-Man]

It would require massive spending. I voted no.

I'll let God handle the situation here.

 

[Norsefire]

Sorry but here it starts to look like fascism a bit. What's next, a curfew, and 'fingermen' patrolling the streets "FOR YOUR PROTECTION"? After all, who doesn't want security, right???

Nothing wrong with any of those. A curfew in high crime areas is a good idea.

Or, we could have it so that people have some sort of card, and if they have no crime record or something of that nature, they have no curfew, whereas past offenders do have a curfew.

Yes people want security, but not when it goes this far.

No such thing as too far. It isn't limiting your freedom, what's the problem?

I have a hunch that this ID thing is just the beginning. And it is not used to root out illegals, but rather to gradually become big brother of the citizens, recording people's every move. And we would be forced to comply with this system, at some point. And people will accept it, as long as the transition is gradual enough.

I'd love to know that the government is always there to protect me.

I have nothing wrong with big brother as long as it doesn't limit freedom itself. Bring on big brother already. ID cards, cameras, curfews, tracking devices

All for your safety

 

[superstring01]

By the way the police can ask you for identification right now for various reasons. There might be a crime committed nearby etc.

In the USA it's illegal unless they have probable cause. If they do find something incriminating on you, and then the "probable cause" the officer used is, later in court, found to have been wrong or fraudulent, the entire case is thrown out.

I'm deeply suspicious of any police system that has officers asking free citizens to see their papers.

"Pay-paahhhhhs! Let me zee you pay-paahhhhs!"

Sorry, no fascism for me. Europe has already shown how it's not such a good thing.

~String

 

[Norsefire]

That's because in Europe they didn't have freedom.


You can have freedom and big brother at the same time. What's wrong with police asking to see your papers? they are police they don't hurt you

 

[Syzygys]

Sorry, no fascism for me. Europe has already shown how it's not such a good thing.

Let me see if I get it right:

1. Your president can detain you INDEFINITELY without a courthearing if he says you are a terrorist.
2. All your money movement over 10K is recorded by the government. Probably below too.
3. The government can read your email, probably listen to your phone.
4. You don't have a choice when it comes to presidential election.
5. Your government is engaging in illegal wars.
6. The government knows what you read, where you shop, what you buy.
etc.etc.etc.

And you are bitching about a freaking piece of plastic what you would carry with yourself anyway....

 

[ashura]

I wasn't aware that the government already being a too powerful institution doing things I don't like automatically leads to resigning to them doing more things I don't like. I disagree with a national ID, and all of those things you listed.

 

[Syzygys]

Hey, for the British whiners, I have some good news: Except the fingerprint and iris scan, there is NO difference between national ID and driving licence:

Legal requirements of national ID:

Under the NIR UK Residents with an ID card will be required to fulful certain function to manage the card in much the same was as with a passport or driving licence:

1.Attend in person to be photographed, have their fingerprints taken and iris scanned.
2. Promptly inform the police or Home Office if a card is lost or damaged, as with a driving licence.
3. Promptly inform the National Identity Register of any change of address, as with a driving licence.
4. Promptly inform the National Identity Register of significant changes to their personal life, as with a driving licence.

I am not so sure about the UK, but in the USA you are expected to do the same with your driving licence. If you change your address you have to update your licence and you get a new one. You also have to report if you lose it and you get a new one.etc.

So what is the fucking big deal??? But hey, let's turn it around, let's say you are a landlord and a guy wants to rent an appartment without showing any ID. Of course you would let him do that, won't you?

Or try to open a bank account without any ID and report back how it went....

 

[superstring01]

1. Your president can detain you INDEFINITELY without a court hearing if he says you are a terrorist.

No. They can't. This is a common claim by people who have little understanding of how the law works and who also want to drum up support for what they believe. And while I'm not very supportive of the Patriot Act in its entirety, I implore you to provide proof of (a) any instance of a citizen of the USA being denied habeas corpus or (b) legal reference to the fact that the federal government has suspended habeas corpus. I highly doubt that any such act would pass muster in against the supreme court (which, supreme court, just happened to give the Gitmo detainees the right to a trial).

2. All you money movement over 10K is recorded by the government. Probably below too.

It is? I used to work for Western Union (after 9/11) and it only had to be logged and filed for government access if it was requested. Besides, acts of conducting business, especially concerning sums of 10 grand and over isn't too much to ask. I guess we all have an arbitrary line, and I think that giving the government access and monitoring of my day-to-day activities is a bit much. But, I guess I'd be annoyed if I needed to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars on a weekly basis.

Some acts, believe it or not, do warrant government supervision.

3. The government can read your email, probably listen to your phone.

Really? They can? As a citizen? Hmmm. Okay. Back that up. I know that they can access my emails and phone calls if they are connecting to a suspected terrorist who is located outside the USA. If it's inside the USA, then a warrant is needed. If I'm wrong, again, I'd like to see a case concerning citizens who were wrongfully monitored or where the law specifies that it's legal.

I don't know where you live, but if it's in France, Spain, the UK, Japan or Germany, government monitoring of daily activities is a daily business. The right to privacy in those countries is not protected as diligently as in the USA.

4. You don't have a choice when it comes to presidential election.

I have all the choice in the world. So do all Americans. They just make stupid choices. You are aware that most nations limit the number of people on ballots by placing annoying stipulations that have to be met, don't you?

5. Your government is engaging in illegal wars.

Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Not illegal here, and if you're going to quote me some international law, don't bother. I'm not a fan nor do I care one lick about what the UN says.

6. The government knows what you read, where you shop, what you buy.
etc.etc.etc.

Really? Proof? Or are we just supposed to take your blind speculation as fact?

And you are bitching about a freaking piece of plastic what you would carry with yourself anyway....

It's interesting in that when people are opposed to what you believe, and you don't like it, you call it "bitching." I mean, PERISH the thought that people are just having casual conversation on the internet and just happen to be writing that they are opposed to something and BAM! It becomes "bitching". It'll be "bitching" when/if it happens. Right now, Syz, it's merely an expression of my opinion and wishes.

Nothing like poorly placed hyperbole to NOT prove your point.

~String