National ID Cards - Coming Soon to Your Wallet

Don't ruin it -this is fun ;)

Seriously, if a database expert like Transio can convince me that all of this information can be archived safely and accurately, I'm all for it.
As odd as it is given my recent statements, I am a proponent of big government -some people just can't govern themselves. You'll find no ACLU card in my wallet.

As for standardized features on IDs, it's been a long time coming. Since I'm back in school, I've been forced to take on an old standby job -I'm a bouncer in a BIG bar/nightclub. Because of our proximity to a major sports venue, I see at least 12 different state drivers' licenses each night, all of them sporting a myriad of security features, but with no continuity between them. By standardizing the security features from state to state, the possiblity of a false ID being passed is decreased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbeach

By standardizing the security features from state to state, the possiblity of a false ID being passed is decreased.

---

That assertation is 100% false.

Ok only 99% false.

That 1% of correctness applies to the first 6 months or so during which all the ID forgers in the entire country are still spinning up on the now nationwide standard.

Once you have 50x the people focused on forging the single, standardized set of IDs, the quality level will go through the roof. The end result will be forgeries of the highest quality for prices lower then ever before. Economics applies to criminal enterprise just as much as it does to any other kind.

Meanwhile, most people aren't even asking the really important questions -

Why do we need identity cards?
How did we go from a license to drive to a license to travel?
What compelling interest is there for the government to force a national identity system on law-abiding citizens?
What happened to the fourth amendment - right of the people to be secure in their ... papers ... against unreasonable searches ?

When real criminals are just going to use cheap, ultra-high quality forgeries,
what possible benefit is there to law-abiding citizens in such a system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpaske

The documents being archived are all documents that were issued by some government agency or another at some point and time, in many cases before electronic archiving was a practical possibility.

---

That is a key point.

The majority of the documents that have been issued and the laws that enabled the government to create these documents in the first place pre-date electronic storage and retrieval.

In other words, that's the not what we signed up for when we allowed the government to have such records in the first place. Easy searchability and cross-referencing on a national scale was not part of the bargain.

Circumstances have been changed by technology and no one has asked us, the citizenry, if the new powers that technology has enabled for the government are OK by us. The government just went off and assumed that the data is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it. That's not the original bargain we agreed to.

The data about me that government holds is MINE, not theirs, and their use of it is
suppossed to be subject to my agreement. If you want proof of that, just read the 10th amendment - 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by transio

I've been a database programmer with specialization in personal information directories for many years.

---

With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.

I'm sure more than a few of us here have worked on databases of personal records, at least one person here that I know of even had a substantial part in building the FBI's IAFIS database. But it is quite rare that those doing the engineering work have any experience in studying the social policy that leads to and results from that engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by transio

You have not presented one negative about the technology.
Only made blank assertions like "it infringes on our rights" and "it takes away our freedom."

---

So far no one has made a supportable statement that the Real ID act will do anything positive. Nebulous assertions about stopping terrorists and illegal aliens have been easily disproven. It is simply yet another unfunded federal mandate with no practical benefit to the average citizen that could not be better served by private industry that at the same time increases the risk of government and criminal abuse of identity information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

That assertation is 100% false.

Ok only 99% false.

That 1% of correctness applies to the first 6 months or so during which all the ID forgers in the entire country are still spinning up on the now nationwide standard.

Once you have 50x the people focused on forging the single, standardized set of IDs, the quality level will go through the roof. The end result will be forgeries of the highest quality for prices lower then ever before. Economics applies to criminal enterprise just as much as it does to any other kind.

---

I disagree. Most forgers go for the easiest targets - the state drivers licenses that have minimal security features - because they don't have the budget or expertise or equipment to reproduce the highest quality cards.
What I do agree with is there is probably no technology that will be impossible to forge, but there are technologies that make it extremely difficult and expensive, which will put the majority of forgery operations out of business. This will raise the cost of a forged card and decrease the number of cards produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

Meanwhile, most people aren't even asking the really important questions -

Why do we need identity cards?
How did we go from a license to drive to a license to travel?
What compelling interest is there for the government to force a national identity system on law-abiding citizens?
What happened to the fourth amendment - right of the people to be secure in their ... papers ... against unreasonable searches ?

---

The answer to these questions is simple. You need an ID to use certain select modern conveniences, i.e. credit cards, driving a personally owned vehicle, travelling on an airplane. These aren't constitutionally guaranteed rights, these are conveniences. If you want to live "under the radar" you can pay for everything with cash and ride the bus or walk everywhere you go. This is fine if you are a recluse, but makes your life much more difficult if you're a terrorist. Nothing in the bill says you have to have an ID card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

The majority of the documents that have been issued and the laws that enabled the government to create these documents in the first place pre-date electronic storage and retrieval.

In other words, that's the not what we signed up for when we allowed the government to have such records in the first place. Easy searchability and cross-referencing on a national scale was not part of the bargain.

Circumstances have been changed by technology and no one has asked us, the citizenry, if the new powers that technology has enabled for the government are OK by us. The government just went off and assumed that the data is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it. That's not the original bargain we agreed to.

The data about me that government holds is MINE, not theirs, and their use of it is suppossed to be subject to my agreement. If you want proof of that, just read the 10th amendment - 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.

---

Actually, we really did grant the government these permissions when we agreed to pay federal taxes. They need to identify us in order to collect taxes from us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.

---

And the architect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpaske

This will raise the cost of a forged card and decrease the number of cards produced.

---

The more important having a card is, the more people will pay for a forgery. It is an arms race between the government vs the free market. Free market always wins.

Quote:

---

The answer to these questions is simple. You need an ID to use certain select modern conveniences, i.e. credit cards, driving a personally owned vehicle, travelling on an airplane.

---

That is not anything like a reason. That's simply saying, "it is that way because that's the way it is." There is nothing about any of those activities that mandates an ID, especially a centralized, digitzed one. In fact, your first example of using a credit card is completely backwards. The standard merchant agreement actually PREVENTS them from requiring the customer to show ID unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Quote:

---

These aren't constitutionally guaranteed rights, these are conveniences. If you want to live "under the radar" you can pay for everything with cash and ride the bus or walk everywhere you go.

---

As a law-abiding citizen why should I even be ON the radar in the first place? As for actually traveling beyond your local town, ID is now mandatory. As I've already pointed out - you can't board a bus, train or plane without an ID. You can't drive without an ID either. The best you can do is to hire a car and driver which is prohibitively expensive. If you have to be rich to travel anonymously, then there is no fourth ammendment.

The worst part about all these requirements for ID? They don't do a damn thing to make us safer. Not one damn thing. Anyone intent on committing a serious crime is going to use false id anyway and always will no matter how much technology we wrap around id cards. All they do is put the rest of us "on the radar" so that if someone with malicious intent can abuse the system to hurt law-abiding citizens. These procedures and systems only reduce security while superficially making it seem like, "the government is doing something to protect us." The government is doing something alright - increasing its size and influence, but that does not protect anyone but the goverment itself.

Quote:

---

This is fine if you are a recluse, but makes your life much more difficult if you're a terrorist. Nothing in the bill says you have to have an ID card.

---

As I said before, you can't travel without one., that means it is effectively mandatory to have an ID. Meanwhile the terrorist, or the child pronographer, or the drug-dealer, pick your evil-doer-dujour, is out a couple of hundred dollars for a fake id and, ironically, that makes him more secure than the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by transio

> With all due respect, being the best brick layer does not
> make one expert at deciding to build a wall in the first place.

And the architect?

---

Brick-layer, architect - neither of them are responsible for deciding if a wall is a net good or bad for the community that it divides. They only get called in once the decision to build has already been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpaske

Actually, we really did grant the government these permissions when we agreed to pay federal taxes.
They need to identify us in order to collect taxes from us.

---

It is like you missed my entire point.

Tax collection is one extremely limited requirement. The need for photo id, residence, etc all that is not required to do that job. A simple taxpayer number is all that is needed and certainly all that was even used for many decades. These systems are an undemocractic expansion of power by the government, far beyond what is necessary for their original purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

The more important having a card is, the more people will pay for a forgery.

---

Yes, that is true. I agree that it doesn't stop the well funded professionals, but it does help to deter the small timers. Isn't that a positive benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

That is not anything like a reason. That's simply saying, "it is that way because that's the way it is." There is nothing about any of those activities that mandates an ID, especially a centralized, digitzed one. In fact, your first example of using a credit card is completely backwards. The standard merchant agreement actually PREVENTS them from requiring the customer to show ID unless there are exceptional circumstances.

---

Umm, I simply have to disagree with you here. I believe that these are all conveniences, or even privledges. I'm glad when someone checks my ID when I use my credit card. This protects me as a consumer. I don't feel violated in any way because someone wants to ensure I'm not a criminal. And if giving "the government" the right to track movements of a sex offender, murderer, or terrorist also means they could figure out I went to Northern California to visit some friends last November, so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

As a law-abiding citizen why should I even be ON the radar in the first place? As for actually traveling beyond your local town, ID is now mandatory. As I've already pointed out - you can't board a bus, train or plane without an ID. You can't drive without an ID either. The best you can do is to hire a car and driver which is prohibitively expensive. If you have to be rich to travel anonymously, then there is no fourth ammendment.

---

Why you need an ID to drive is obvious - you must be licensed. Why? For the safety of yourself and others. Travel by bus, train, or plane is monitored for the same reason. There are dangers that come along with modern conveniences that weren't considered when the constitution was written. The fourth ammendment guarantees you no rights to utilize modern conveniences anonymously. If you want to be "secure in your papers" you can walk. Or go by horseback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

Tax collection is one extremely limited requirement. The need for photo id, residence, etc all that is not required to do that job. A simple taxpayer number is all that is needed and certainly all that was even used for many decades. These systems are an undemocractic expansion of power by the government, far beyond what is necessary for their original purpose.

---

If you can't be identified, then how do you suggest the government should assess our net worth / income and collect the appropriate taxes from us? A taxpayer number? Riiight. If I'm a tax evader, I'd just make up a number or buy one from a homeless person so nobody would know how much money I make. Maybe using only an ID number works in a town of 30 where everybody knows everybody, but let's see how well that would work in New York City.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

The worst part about all these requirements for ID? They don't do a damn thing to make us safer. Not one damn thing. Anyone intent on committing a serious crime is going to use false id anyway and always will no matter how much technology we wrap around id cards. All they do is put the rest of us "on the radar" so that if someone with malicious intent can abuse the system to hurt law-abiding citizens. These procedures and systems only reduce security while superficially making it seem like, "the government is doing something to protect us." The government is doing something alright - increasing its size and influence, but that does not protect anyone but the goverment itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrreJ

It is like you missed my entire point.

---

Yeah, likewise. You obviously don't believe that "the government" ever uses technology to protect us, and that being required to identify yourself in any situation is a violation of your rights. How about when murderers are tracked down because of a paper trail they leave, or habitual drunk drivers are taken out from behind the wheel after several DUI's and not permitted to drive anymore? Even fake identification, no matter how perfect, leaves a trail that can eventually be followed. The more difficult or expensive it is to acquire, the fewer criminals will have access to it, and the less likely they will be to just abandon one identity and operate under another one. The ones that are well funded enough and disciplined enough to operate under false identities, commit serious crimes, then abandon those identities completely to start their crimes over again are very sophisticated and very rare, and are damn near impossible to catch almost no matter what we do. I'm not suggesting that stronger identification standards would eliminate 100% of the criminals out there, but it certainly would narrow them down.

Regardless of how you feel about the government being too large or too powerful, you have to agree that identification is a necessary part of existing in a modern, densely populated society. You can't possibly believe that it is possible for us all to coexist in an anonymous society and expect any level of safety from threats foreign or domestic. It is the ability to identify people, and trace down their actions and movements that actually allow us to catch criminals in many cases. Sure, it's an invasion of our privacy to some extent. But I'd really love to hear your idea of an alternative solution.