National identity card for US

[Micro Dot]

What would be harmed by admitting the fait accompli of having a national identity system, the social security number, and issuing national identity cards like most other developed (and undeveloped) countries?
What are we saving or "preserving" by pretending that the feds don't know these things about us?
If you work, pay taxes, are a dependent on someone else's taxes, have any bank accounts or credit accounts, or collect any social services or retirement income, then there is a filing every April with your name, age and address on it.
So, they know pretty much everyone who has any other kind of identity card.

[Micro Dot]

And for the paranoid, I'm only talking about voluntary cards.
Same as for a driver's license or state non-driver ID card.
You sign up and then you have something to use to cash checks, apply for jobs, apply for bank accounts.

[MacTech]

Once again, Douglas Adams was ahead of his time (http://epeus.blogspot.com/2002/12/douglas-adams-on-digital-id.html)

[chappachula]

What would be harmed by admitting the fait accompli of having a national identity system, the social security number, and issuing national identity cards like most other developed countries?.
the bolded words answer your question.
Because, if American did what other nations do, it wouldn't be America, right?

It's slippery slope that leads to disaster--
"First they came for the people who wanted an ID card for everyone, and I didn't speak up......
"Then they came for the people who wanted decent health care for everyone....
"Then they came for the people who wanted gun control....

see---it's the first step in destroying America's freedoms!

Americans simply can't get their heads around anything that smells of "socialism".
The concept of government control brings out dark fears in people.
I dunno why--but fear of Big Brother is a deep, deep part of the American psyche.

The public honestly and genuinely does not want the government to issue a national ID card, like so many other democracies. Just like they don't want the government to require employers to give maternity leave, or 2 weeks vacation a year.

Americans don't mind private organizations tracking every moment of their lives.Credit agencies are allowed to spy on everybody and compile secret records.

But letting the democratically elected government do it scares people.

[Justin_Bailey]

The public honestly and genuinely does not want the government to issue a national ID card, like so many other democracies. Just like they don't want the government to require employers to give maternity leave, or 2 weeks vacation a year.

Speak for yourself. I have never had a problem with a national ID. How is it functionally any different than a driver's license?

I also don't think there's really been a thorough polling of the American people on the issue because it's never been close enough to a reality to worry about. I think more people are unopposed to the national ID than are opposed to it.

[GorillaMan]

You sign up and then you have something to use to cash checks, apply for jobs, apply for bank accounts.
The perfect item for identity theft?

[netsplit]

But letting the democratically elected government do it scares people.


If Bush ran your government wouldn't you be wary of it too?:p


We have state ID and driver's license cards. Why do we need national ID cards? What function would they serve that my driver license\state ID doesn't?

Not only that but by doing it state by state each IDs can be customized to the needs of the region. Some places need cheaper IDs, some places have trouble with forgery and need better security on their IDs, some places want their IDs all pretty, some places want their IDs all spartan,

Then there's infrastructure. Who dispenses these IDs? Getting a replacement Driver's license is a 45 minute (plus wait time) round trip to one of many conveniently placed secretary of states in Michigan. In Rhode Island there was DMV less then a mile away. (different states have different agencies that handle that kind of thing)

I have no clue where to get a social security card in Rhode Island and the one Michigan is something you have to clear your day for.


Socialized medicine is something that could do alot of good, and it's a shame we don't have that.

However gun control resistance is something you'll never understand unless you understand how sacred our Constitution is to many, and to write us off screwballs without undersanding that is extremely ignorant/dumb.

[Mr. Moto]

What would be harmed by admitting the fait accompli of having a national identity system, the social security number, and issuing national identity cards like most other developed (and undeveloped) countries?

You might want to look up the Real ID Act, which effectively accomplishes this by imposing standards on state issued ID cards and linking their databases.

[Ravenman]

And for the paranoid, I'm only talking about voluntary cards.
Same as for a driver's license or state non-driver ID card.
You sign up and then you have something to use to cash checks, apply for jobs, apply for bank accounts.I have a passport. Does that fill the bill?

[elucidator]

I was originally dead-set against this, but I'm starting to rethink it. Lot to be said for it, with certain very strict safeguards, it could be a positive thing. But its the safeguards I worry about.

[pool]

I think it would be a waste of taxpayer money, with little benefit.

[Shagnasty]

Passports already serve this purpose and they are voluntary. You don't have to actually travel to get one and they trump driver's licenses and everything else except for some military ID's when authoritative proof of ID is required such as starting a new job or opening financial accounts.

[Duckster]

The old adage, "putting all one's eggs in one basket" should be a warning to all.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Passports already serve this purpose and they are voluntary. You don't have to actually travel to get one and they trump driver's licenses and everything else except for some military ID's when authoritative proof of ID is required such as starting a new job or opening financial accounts.

Or, suprisingly, if you're trying to buy a beer in Texas...

[Monty]

Passports already serve this purpose and they are voluntary. You don't have to actually travel to get one and they trump driver's licenses and everything else except for some military ID's when authoritative proof of ID is required such as starting a new job or opening financial accounts.
Passports trump military identification cards because the IDs aren't proof of US citizenship.

[MEBuckner]

And for the paranoid, I'm only talking about voluntary cards.
Same as for a driver's license or state non-driver ID card.
You sign up and then you have something to use to cash checks, apply for jobs, apply for bank accounts.
But as you say, we already have voluntary cards--they're just issued by state governments instead of the federal government.

The issue that really bothers me about ID cards isn't so much which level of government issues them as it is that whole "voluntary" thing. Granted, it's all but impossible in our society to exist without some form of state-issued plastic with your name, address, and photograph on it; nonetheless, some of us wish to cling to that last shred of voluntary-ness. Personally, I don't think you should have to have a license from the government to just walk around in public.

So, I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to a federally issued ID program on the same lines as existing voluntary state-issued non-driver ID cards, but I'm not sure what the advantages are, either, and I don't want to take that last step to having to have "papers" just to step outside your own home.
Americans don't mind private organizations tracking every moment of their lives.Credit agencies are allowed to spy on everybody and compile secret records.

But letting the democratically elected government do it scares people.
I would love to see some laws putting some tougher restrictions on private companies compiling information on us without our fully informed knowledge and consent.

[chowder]

They've been trying for yonks to introduce a National ID card in the UK.

It will come I feel and it's gonna cost each UK citizen around £28 at the last estimate

[GorillaMan]

It will come I feel and it's gonna cost each UK citizen around £28 at the last estimate
Which is only a small proportion of what it's costing in total - £5bn (£100 per head) in official figures, two or three times that in independent studies.

[tagos]

They've been trying for yonks to introduce a National ID card in the UK.

It will come I feel and it's gonna cost each UK citizen around £28 at the last estimate

Yes - and it is often said to be 'voluntary'. And it will be. Unless you want to do any of the zillion of activities from opening a bank account, getting a passport and seeing a doctor to accessing a public service that will require it.

'Voluntary' cards quickly become compulsory, to all intents and purposes.

And I'll lay any odds the whole scheme will cost five times the initial estimate and cost the public triple figures.

And the 'unbreakable' encryption will be broken in 72 hours of release by some Scandinavian geek.

[Dunderman]

'Voluntary' cards quickly become compulsory, to all intents and purposes.We've had voluntary ID cards in Sweden for decades. Not compulsory yet, formally or practically.

[tagos]

We've had voluntary ID cards in Sweden for decades. Not compulsory yet, formally or practically.

Sweden has more respect for civil liberties than the UK. In discussions of the UK scheme the govt has been trying to sell it as an 'entitlement' card. When a voluntary card is needed to access the mundane things of life it is compulsory.

But if you can live your life without needed medical care, a bank account, a mortgage, passport or any social service or benefit etc you're golden. Unless the police with their unlimited ability to 'stop and search' anyone for anything want you to produce it.

[GorillaMan]

Yes - and it is often said to be 'voluntary'. And it will be. Unless you want to do any of the zillion of activities from opening a bank account, getting a passport and seeing a doctor to accessing a public service that will require it.

'Voluntary' cards quickly become compulsory, to all intents and purposes.
It'll be included as part of a passport application, and that immediately includes 90% of the population within a decade.

[Dunderman]

Sweden has more respect for civil liberties than the UK.So yours wasn't a blanket statement but referred specifically to the UK?

[tagos]

So yours wasn't a blanket statement but referred specifically to the UK?

As it was a reply to a poster discussing the UK, quoting the UK - yes - obviously.

[Dunderman]

As it was a reply to a poster discussing the UK, quoting the UK - yes - obviously.Well, I apologize, but "'Voluntary' cards quickly become compulsory, to all intents and purposes" does sound like a blanket statement to me, especially in a thread on this topic, which tends to cause blanket statements to be liberally slung about while I confoundedly look around in a country that is generally considered very Big Brothery and where we've had ID cards since forever, and yet not a one of the nightmare scenarios has come to fruition.

[GorillaMan]

As tagos was talking about the UK scheme, I fully side with the argument that they've voluntary in name only. The system is far more complex and covers far more aspects of identity and of everyday life than any other country's ID cards.

[Digital Stimulus]

We've had voluntary ID cards in Sweden for decades. Not compulsory yet, formally or practically.
What benefits does one receive from an ID card (in Sweden)? That is, if it is totally voluntary, why would someone opt in? Also, what information is kept?

[BrainGlutton]

I'm all for it -- so long as the card is issued for free.

[netsplit]

I'm all for it -- so long as the card is issued for free.


And the offices to acquire one are all in a reasonable travel time.

[gazpacho]

I'm all for it -- so long as the card is issued for free.The cards cannot possibly be free. They may not take money from you specifically to get the card but they will be using money that they already took from you that could be used to provide useful services.

[Sunrazor]

I hope I wasn't lied to when I was in third grade and the teacher told us kids, in no uncertain terms, that if she was walking down the street minding her own business and a policeman demanded to know who she was and what she was doing there, he had no real right to know. In the United States, she said, freedom means being free to do whatever you want to as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and no one has any right to prevent you from doing that or even know who you are.

My father, who was a policeman throughout my childhood and teen years, actually agreed with her. He did admit that there were practical and public safety reasons for occasionally getting a closer look at this person or that person, just to make sure that there was, in fact, no real reason to confront them. Being a cop, however, he did urge me to always carry some form of identification, "In case you should need it." It took me years to realize that he meant in case the authorities needed it to identify my lifeless body.

I figure if a third grade teacher and a career policeman agreed that a national ID card was not just unnecessary but undesirable in the U.S.A., that was good enough for me.

[BrainGlutton]

The cards cannot possibly be free. They may not take money from you specifically to get the card but they will be using money that they already took from you that could be used to provide useful services.

But requiring the individual cardholder to pay a fee would have a differential effect WRT who does or does not get one; paying for it out of general revenue would not.

[Mr. Moto]

I figure if a third grade teacher and a career policeman agreed that a national ID card was not just unnecessary but undesirable in the U.S.A., that was good enough for me.

Not good enough for me. Sorry. And I think the circumstances of today may make both your teacher and dad rethink their stance were they asked.

After all, your dad and teacher could not have known that some of the hijackers of 9/11 exploited various loopholes to obtain valid Virginia drivers licenses at a DMV Express in Springfield and at the DMV in Arlington. The last one was right across the street from an apartment building I had lived in until a few months earlier.

Of course, they used these IDs to board commercial aircraft, and the rest is sad familiar history.

Nobody says that when this act goes into effect, you should carry your ID even when jogging, or in the tub. But I think it stands to reason that if we have an ID scheme for the legitimate reasons one needs ID, that system ought to be as secure as possible.

[gazpacho]

Nobody says that when this act goes into effect, you should carry your ID even when jogging, or in the tub. But I think it stands to reason that if we have an ID scheme for the legitimate reasons one needs ID, that system ought to be as secure as possible.Yeah but when they issued social security numbers they told everybody that it would only be used for social security. Now it is a number you must provide to get a variety of essential services is the US.

[Mr. Moto]

Yeah but when they issued social security numbers they told everybody that it would only be used for social security. Now it is a number you must provide to get a variety of essential services is the US.

Right. That actually makes things less secure, as anyone with half a brain should understand. And I am painfully aware that requiring this credential will make this credential desirable to obtain and counterfeit.

No argument there, all the way around.

However, the drivers license or the equivalent state issued ID already is the de facto national ID card, and since it is, we ought to secure it as much as we can - and that means paying attention to the databases and punishing kids who forge them to buy beer at age 18 with a much stiffer penalty than they used to get. That part is unfortunate, but a fake ID can be used to blow up an airliner as well as buy Everclear for the dorm, so I don't see any way around that.

[BobLibDem]

After all, your dad and teacher could not have known that some of the hijackers of 9/11 exploited various loopholes to obtain valid Virginia drivers licenses at a DMV Express in Springfield and at the DMV in Arlington. The last one was right across the street from an apartment building I had lived in until a few months earlier.

Of course, they used these IDs to board commercial aircraft, and the rest is sad familiar history.

Invoking September 11 does not automatically win the argument. The attacks could have been easily avoided had the airlines done then what they do now, namely lock and reinforce the cockpit doors.

[Lemur866]

The stupidity of current polices around social security numbers appalls me.

The idea that your social security number should be secret information is simply nonsense. But it is treated by all sorts of entities as secret information, as if knowing your social security number proves that you are you. This is absolutely wrong. Your social security number cannot be used as a password, since it is a number that follows you around for your entire life, and normally cannot be changed. Your social security number is simply a username, the exact logical equivalent of our user names here on the dope. Imagine if I could log in and post as BobLibDem simply by being able to provide the ultra-secret string of characters: BobLibDem.

[MEBuckner]

I figure if a third grade teacher and a career policeman agreed that a national ID card was not just unnecessary but undesirable in the U.S.A., that was good enough for me.

Not good enough for me. Sorry. And I think the circumstances of today may make both your teacher and dad rethink their stance were they asked.

The first statement you're responding to comes right after this:
I hope I wasn't lied to when I was in third grade and the teacher told us kids, in no uncertain terms, that if she was walking down the street minding her own business and a policeman demanded to know who she was and what she was doing there, he had no real right to know. In the United States, she said, freedom means being free to do whatever you want to as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and no one has any right to prevent you from doing that or even know who you are.
You go on to say:
Nobody says that when this act goes into effect, you should carry your ID even when jogging, or in the tub.
So I take it you actually agree with Sunrazor's third grade teacher and dad? That in the United States you should have the right to walk down the street, minding your own business, without a license from the government to do so.

[Amok]

Granted, it's all but impossible in our society to exist without some form of state-issued plastic with your name, address, and photograph on it;

I went for about 4 years without one relatively recently. I didn't find it difficult most of the time. I lost my driver's license* and I didn't have a car so I didn't bother to get it reinstated or get a state ID card. I did have a work ID card with my photo on it, but I almost never used it for non-work purposes (I figured that most likely it wouldn't be accepted anyway in situations where you're asked for photo ID). Now, I already had a job and a bank account, and I didn't change either, so I didn't need one for those circumstances, and it rarely came up otherwise. Finally, about a year and a half ago, I decided I wanted to get a car so I finally had to get my license back.

* Not the full story, but I don't feel like going into particulars

[asterion]

I agree that the way SSNs are handled is absolutely stupid. If we think of it as public-key, private-key technology, the SSN should be your public key. It doesn't matter if everyone knows it because it's like knowing your name. What there needs to be is a very strong private-key that you have to use in order to actually do anything, in conjunction with your public-key.

[Algher]

If we create this national ID card for the US - will it supplant our Driver's License, Passport and Social Secuiryt card?

Can we require that it be shown to be allowed to vote?

Will it tie into a national database of thugs and loonies (the two groups that are supposedly tracked for a variety of purposes)?

[BobLibDem]

The stupidity of current polices around social security numbers appalls me.

The idea that your social security number should be secret information is simply nonsense. But it is treated by all sorts of entities as secret information, as if knowing your social security number proves that you are you. This is absolutely wrong. Your social security number cannot be used as a password, since it is a number that follows you around for your entire life, and normally cannot be changed. Your social security number is simply a username, the exact logical equivalent of our user names here on the dope. Imagine if I could log in and post as BobLibDem simply by being able to provide the ultra-secret string of characters: BobLibDem.

The trouble is that it has become like the skeleton key to access all of your financial assets. Rattle off a good SSN and you can get a credit card in 5 minutes. I like the notion of public key/private key that was mentioned earlier. I don't understand it, but I like the idea of not having SSN be so all-powerful.

[Mr. Moto]

The first statement you're responding to comes right after this:

You go on to say:

So I take it you actually agree with Sunrazor's third grade teacher and dad? That in the United States you should have the right to walk down the street, minding your own business, without a license from the government to do so.

No.

Sunrazor was saying that because his teacher and cop father said they didn't need ID for the sole purpose of walking down the street, we didn't need a national ID card. I was pointing out where that analogy fell apart - there are times when ID is demanded - and those times depend on ID security to be effective.

And please note - I am not advocating a national ID card, really, though the Real ID act is seen as a step in that direction by some. What I think is needed is ID that is more secure, which I think most of us can agree with.

Especially in light of the events of August 2001, which I do not mention to win an argument, but because they actually happened, and ought to be dealt with.

[elucidator]

I'm assuming you mean the events of September, 2001?

The terrorists didn't succeed because they had fake ID, they succeeded because, after almost fifty years of having planes hijacked, we were too fucking stupid to lock that goddam cockpit doors! And, of course, being foreigners, such an issue would never have arisen anyway.

[dropzone]

If the government were to tattoo the number on your forehead or right hand most of the objections would go away.

What?

[Mr. Moto]

I'm assuming you mean the events of September, 2001?

Don't assume. These guys were prowling around the DMV a month earlier. And they were assisted by illegal immigrants, a secretary in an Arlington attorney's office, and others in a well-documented network that existed to provide ID to illegal immigrants in the Northern Virginia area.

This network was exploited by these guys for their purposes. Also well documented.

And just because we are doing some things to beef up security doesn't mean we shouldn't do other things, especially if those things are reasonable on the face of it. Virginia after this incident was forced to police the process of obtaining IDs and restrict certain practices. Given what happened, that was a reasonable response. I'm sure you won't fault it.

The problem is that these practices are replicated across the country, and the drivers license is the de facto national ID, as I stated. If it is to be used in this manner, it has to be run in a better fashion. Otherwise it shouldn't be used in this way, so as to allow people to find the weak links in the chain.

What specific objections do you have to anything I have said in this thread?

[Duckster]

As I posted earlier, putting all of your eggs into one basket has some critical issues attached to it.

With a multitude of official databases (driver's license, bank account info, passport, SSN, etc.) you have a systems of checks and balances to help ensure the data retained by each is accurate and honest, despite the multiple opportunities for each database to have information entered incorrectly. Assuming the Reasonable Man Hypothesis for the moment, one would still have to jump through a few hoops if an error was found in one and you had to challenge it to get it corrected. The clerk/guard/security agent stopping you had some level of authority to realize the information was not accurate, provided you with an opportunity to get it corrected as soon as possible, but you were not often denied from proceeding on your way.

A single national ID predisposes a certain level of FUD in the society (effectively perpetrated by the government). That requires everyone to be in the same basket together. With no checks and balances among several trusted databases, what recourse does one person have in correcting the information in a fair and timely manner, when most often, the error is found at a critical moment when access is needed right then and there (at an airport security checkpoint, stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation, etc.)? Sorry but the database says the name is on the terrorist watch list and you cannot board. But, officer, my child is only a month old. You really believe she's a terrorist?

We already have mindless TSA people refusing to board well-known people, despite their other IDs, well known status and commonsense. Sorry but your name is in our database you you must be a suspect person. WTF?

Besides, what does a national ID protect us from now? Even before computers came along kids were making fake IDs. As IDs became more sophisticated, the tools necessary to create fake IDs came along as well. Now we have the implementation of RFID chips into passports. Yet, it has already been determined the base code for the chips is a UN requirement and details of the requirements are widely known. It has already been demonstrated several times that passports being issued right now can easily be faked and/or cloned using off the shelf hardware, using the already-published UN standards for the RFID chips.

Sure, many kids may not have the resources to make the newer IDs, but we are not talking about a national ID to stop kids from buying beer and tobacco. But is is an unintended consequence of a single national ID. Assuming for the moment that a terrorist group has the time, money and other resources to create fake IDs to meet the RealID Act, they only need to be successful once to accomplish their intended goal. OTOH, the rest of us ordinary innocent folks will have to prove who we are, time and time again, and endure how many stops when the ID information doesn't add up? Who then is regarded as a potential threat according to the government?

[Dunderman]

What benefits does one receive from an ID card (in Sweden)? That is, if it is totally voluntary, why would someone opt in?As MEBuckner said above, in our society you need some form of plastic proving your identity. I don't drive, so I have an ID card. Few people who do drive keep one; they use their driver's licenses instead. Passports are big and clumsy to carry around and until fairly recently (some time between 1996, when I got my last passport, and 2006, when I got my current one) they weren't fully acceptable as identification.Also, what information is kept?Let's check... Full name, ID number including date of birth, expiry date, card number, signature and a photograph.

[Pushkin]

It'll be included as part of a passport application, and that immediately includes 90% of the population within a decade.

Makes me wonder, being Northern Irish I can plump for either type of passport (I'm getting an Irish one, Dad's thinking of taking us out of the country for once and he got all funny when I suggested a British passport), but will that cause trouble for an ID scheme?

[Arnold Winkelried]

I think that having a national identity card is a good idea.

Having fifty (or more) different kinds of identification in the USA (each state having a different format for the driver's license) makes it harder for a person to identify fakes - someone using it to confirm your age, for example, would have to know what a Rhode Island driver's license is supposed to look like.

The advantage it would have over a passport would be its size - it would be the size of a current state ID card or driver's license, or credit card, so easy to carry in your wallet.

The identification number displayed on it would not have to be a social security number. It could be something new.

This is one of the cases where I disagree with the ACLU's position (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/14898res20030908.html) even though I am a longtime member of the ACLU.

In Switzerland you have a passport (http://www.schweizerpass.admin.ch/pass/fr/home/ausweise/pass_06.html) (a booklet), a national ID card (http://www.schweizerpass.admin.ch/pass/fr/home/ausweise/identitaetskarte.html) (size and shape of a credit card), and a driver's license (http://www.san.vd.ch/permis/rose.htm) (size and shape of a credit card I guess? I haven't seen one in real life [ the driver's license I keep back at my dad's house is still an old blue paper one with my photo on it). The driver's license purpose should be to show that you are allowed to operate a vehicle, I don't see the need to conflate its purpose with that of an identification card. The swiss national ID card is handy to have because you can use it to travel in the European Community (EC), the passport is only needed for travel to foreign countries outside the EC. I could see something similar in North America. for example Mexico and Canada and the USA having an agreement where automobile or boat travel between those countries is allowed with an ID card instead of requiring a passport.

[PaulParkhead]

Makes me wonder, being Northern Irish I can plump for either type of passport (I'm getting an Irish one, Dad's thinking of taking us out of the country for once and he got all funny when I suggested a British passport), but will that cause trouble for an ID scheme?

Shouldn't do, and I speak as a fundamental opponent of the ID/NIR scheme.

If you identify yourself as Irish (as is your right) then you would probably be treated as an Irish citizen resident in the UK - and you would need to get a standalone ID cards when the system becomes compulsory.

You could probably hold both passports if you wanted to, but why bother with the hassle?

[GorillaMan]

Shouldn't do, and I speak as a fundamental opponent of the ID/NIR scheme.

If you identify yourself as Irish (as is your right) then you would probably be treated as an Irish citizen resident in the UK - and you would need to get a standalone ID cards when the system becomes compulsory.
There's a problem with the scheme here which hasn't been confronted properly yet. It's certainly not as simple as requiring Irish citizens to have a separate card:


1) There would be many objections from Irish people, especially in Northern Ireland, and I suspect it may also run contrary to the Good Friday Agreement

2) All EU nationals are entitled to equal treatment. You cannot single out the Irish as needing a card to access services when others can identify themselves by other means - it's all EU citizens living here, or none.

3) Assuming one of the purposes of the card is proving one's identity when voting (or registering to vote), there's issues with recipricol agreements between the two countries over full voting rights. If Irish people suddenly have to acquire a card just to vote, the Irish government will take issue with it, and possibly will find a way to retaliate.

4) Quite aside from point (2), I can see the idea of singling out one nationality as being challenged on basic discrimination grounds.


You could probably hold both passports if you wanted to, but why bother with the hassle?
It doesn't just apply to Northern Ireland. There's two millions Irish in England, Scotland & Wales. Many British-born people are recognised as citizens by both countries - me for one. I've only ever had an Irish passport, for reasons I don't see I need to explain, but it's nothing to do with 'hassle'.

[PaulParkhead]

Well, my understanding of the law (as proposed) is that everyone resident in the UK for more than three months will eventually need a card. That applies to EU, non-EU and Irish (who are EU, of course, but treated more leniently than other EU citizens).

So I don't see why discrimination will be a problem - if a person is an Irish citizen resident in the UK, or a dual-citizen who holds only an Irish passport, they will need a card. The same is true of people from France, Singapore, the USA or wherever.

Irish citizens only vote in UK elections if they are residents of the UK - so they will presumably have cards.

People applying for UK passports will generally get an ID card when they renew their passport (after 2009/2010), but there is a standalone card for resident non-citizens, or dual citizens who don't hold British passports.

But having said all that, the whole project strikes me as an illiberal, useless and expensive farce.

[GorillaMan]

Well, my understanding of the law (as proposed) is that everyone resident in the UK for more than three months will eventually need a card. That applies to EU, non-EU and Irish (who are EU, of course, but treated more leniently than other EU citizens).

So I don't see why discrimination will be a problem - if a person is an Irish citizen resident in the UK, or a dual-citizen who holds only an Irish passport, they will need a card.
OK, sorry, I slightly misread your earlier answer.


Irish citizens only vote in UK elections if they are residents of the UK - so they will presumably have cards.
I still suspect there's going to be a problem with the principle of reciprocal voting rights.

[netsplit]

would have to know what a Rhode Island driver's license is supposed to look like.



Trust me if you see a real Rhode Island ID you'd know it.

Same for a Michigan Mass, or Indiana one. They have holograms on them. I suspect all states do, and if they don't they should.

[Steve MB]

The advantage it would have over a passport would be its size - it would be the size of a current state ID card or driver's license, or credit card, so easy to carry in your wallet.
Actually, that's a disadvantage. Making it bulky so as to assure that it will be carried only on special occasions where there is a legitimate cause for the government to demand proof of your identity (e.g. voting, border crossing) serves to prevent mission creep, which is one of the fundamental objections to the whole concept.

[Steve MB]

I'm assuming you mean the events of September, 2001?

The terrorists didn't succeed because they had fake ID, they succeeded because, after almost fifty years of having planes hijacked, we were too fucking stupid to lock that goddam cockpit doors! And, of course, being foreigners, such an issue would never have arisen anyway.
And the terrorists won't succeed with the same trick again because everybody now knows that the safest response to a hijacking is no longer "sit tight while the clowns get their free ride to Cuba and face time on teevee".

[Steve MB]

But requiring the individual cardholder to pay a fee would have a differential effect WRT who does or does not get one; paying for it out of general revenue would not.
If the ID is required as proof of identity when voting (and there's no good reason it shouldn't be; that's one of the few occasions when the government has a legitimate reason to insist on proof that you are who you say you are), charging a fee for it would be unconstitutional.

[Honesty]

I am against National ID cards for a more practical purpose: I already have a dreadful memory and I don't want to be responsible to carry yet another piece of unnecessary information. Because I keep my driver's license in my car and normally pay in cash, I usually have nothing in my pockets except my keys and cell phone. Frankly, I see being forced to carry additional information on my person as an inconvenience.


I am curious as to what the penalties will be. I've been pulled over without a driver's license and gave the cop my Student ID card and told him that I forgot my license at home. He looked me up on a database, gave me a $65 dollar ticket, and let me go. What exactly do you purpose as a penalty for those who don't carry a National ID card on their person? Will the cops handcuff the individual on the street and take them to local precinct?

- Honesty

[netsplit]

My guess is the punishment you'd get would be you'd be denied access to whatever they wanted an ID for.

[Mr. Moto]

And the terrorists won't succeed with the same trick again because everybody now knows that the safest response to a hijacking is no longer "sit tight while the clowns get their free ride to Cuba and face time on teevee".

Uh huh. What other things might they try, and which of these might require use of a drivers license?

The worst terrorist incident before 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, and the clowns that planned that used fake IDs to buy the ammonium nitrate.

So we should just leave this loophole wide open, just because the terrorists won't use the same trick again? And again, I'm not advocating a national ID, just better use of the ID we already use.

Again, do you have a specific objection to the points I have raised, or are you just being contentious for the hell of it?

[PaulParkhead]

I still suspect there's going to be a problem with the principle of reciprocal voting rights.

A possibility, to be sure. For the moment, the Irish government seems to be saying that they do not have plans to issue ID cards, and the British government is saying (correctly, IMO) that it's a matter for the Irish to decide.

I suppose the real issue could be Brits voting in Ireland - they couldn't really demand ID from Brits and not Irish citizens. Well, they could try, but I'm not sure the ECHR would look favourably on this, and any such action by either government could (possibly) be seen as a violation of the various treaties between the two countries.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Actually, that's a disadvantage. Making it bulky so as to assure that it will be carried only on special occasions where there is a legitimate cause for the government to demand proof of your identity (e.g. voting, border crossing) serves to prevent mission creep, which is one of the fundamental objections to the whole concept.I totally disagree. Should driver's licenses be chained to cinder blocks to prevent a policeman on the beat from asking you for identification now? I've been asked for identification in the street (once walking home in the early hours of the morning) before. I asked people I know living in Switzerland if they thought that a national ID card was infringing on their civil liberties and it was even hard for me to get them to understand what I was driving at.

Preventing abuse of a national ID card should be a concern. But a national ID card, the way I envision it, would have many benefits.

[Arnold Winkelried]

I am against National ID cards for a more practical purpose: I already have a dreadful memory and I don't want to be responsible to carry yet another piece of unnecessary information. Because I keep my driver's license in my car and normally pay in cash, I usually have nothing in my pockets except my keys and cell phone.If you have no need to prove your identity in your daily life, then you wouldn't need to carry your national ID card with you anywhere. But in cases when you do, don't you have to carry a card with you now? I think it would make more sense to show an ID card rather than a driver's license. In your case you would just leave the driver's license in the car all the time.

In my case, I have a California driver's licens AND a California ID card. I can leave the driver's license in the car when I'm going out (e.g. concert, bar) and take the ID card with me. I like having two cards for two different purposes. If I'm in a bar and pass out after my third Shirley Temple, the person rifling my pockets won't have my driver's license so I can still drive home afterwards.

[Steve MB]

I totally disagree. Should driver's licenses be chained to cinder blocks to prevent a policeman on the beat from asking you for identification now?
Driver's licenses legitimately need to be with you whenever you're driving. A centralized ID would be legitimately needed on special occasions (e.g. voting, border crossings), and thus should be bulkier (an added benefit is that this allows it to be more secure).

If I'm in a bar and pass out after my third Shirley Temple, the person rifling my pockets won't have my driver's license so I can still drive home afterwards.
You're going to drive right after waking up from an alcohol binge?? :eek:

[Justin_Bailey]

I am curious as to what the penalties will be. I've been pulled over without a driver's license and gave the cop my Student ID card and told him that I forgot my license at home. He looked me up on a database, gave me a $65 dollar ticket, and let me go. What exactly do you purpose as a penalty for those who don't carry a National ID card on their person? Will the cops handcuff the individual on the street and take them to local precinct?

But you were punished for driving without a license, which is a criminal offense.

My grandmother doesn't have a driver's license, but she does have a state ID. No one has ever demanded to see her ID (or punished her in any way for not carrying it) because she doesn't do anything that requires ID. And even if she did, as someone else, the worst that would happen is that she would be barred entrance to whatever she was trying to do.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Driver's licenses legitimately need to be with you whenever you're driving.How would making it bulkier prevent that?
A centralized ID would be legitimately needed on special occasions (e.g. voting, border crossings),agreed in principle, though I'm not so sure I'm on board with the needing to show ID for voting part
and thus should be bulkier I don't see the how the word "thus" comes into play here. Are you saying that something that is rarely shown should, by logical conclusion, be bulky? When the social security administration sent me my social security card many years ago (something I have put in a safety box and almost never touched since), I would have seen no benefit to it being printed on the cover of a book.
You're going to drive right after waking up from an alcohol binge??Shirley Temple (from wikipedia): "A Shirley Temple is a non-alcoholic cocktail (or mocktail) made with ginger ale, grenadine syrup, and orange juice garnished with the maraschino cherry and slice of lemon."

[MEBuckner]

IShould driver's licenses be chained to cinder blocks to prevent a policeman on the beat from asking you for identification now? I've been asked for identification in the street (once walking home in the early hours of the morning) before. I asked people I know living in Switzerland if they thought that a national ID card was infringing on their civil liberties and it was even hard for me to get them to understand what I was driving at.
The thing is, should policemen be able to "ask you for identification" simply for walking about in a public place? If the answer is "yes", then this contradicts the notion that the national ID card would be something you could just leave at home (or in your safe deposit box) if you didn't anticipate the need to provide ID (i.e., you weren't planning on opening any new bank accounts or popping down to Mexico that day). If a police officer can demand "identification" because, e.g., he finds it odd that you are walking down the sidewalk in the wee hours of the morning, perhaps on pain of jail if you can't produce "identification", then in effect the national ID card becomes a government-mandated "walking around in public license", or at least a quasi-curfew for adults--if you're out and about after some (maybe vaguely specified) hour, the government has the right to ask you what you're doing and who you're doing it with and when you'll be home, just like when you were 16.

(Interestingly enough, according to Wikipedia Swiss ID cards are among those which are voluntary, not compulsory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ID#Non-compulsory_identity_cards). This imples to me that Swiss cops can't really take you to jail merely for failing to produce "identification". Or perhaps Wikipedia is mistaken.)

Discussions about ID cards tend to fragment and become frustrating because there are multiple issues, which can lead to people talking past each other. The question of what level of government should issue ID cards, or what sort of security features they should have, is separate from the issue of when any level of government should be able to demand that a citizen produce identification. I'm less concerned about whether ID cards are issued by states or the federal government (or issued by states, with the federal government setting standards which all such ID's must meet) than I am about the second issue.

[Dunderman]

(Interestingly enough, according to Wikipedia Swiss ID cards are among those which are voluntary, not compulsory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ID#Non-compulsory_identity_cards). This imples to me that Swiss cops can't really take you to jail merely for failing to produce "identification". Or perhaps Wikipedia is mistaken.)That doesn't strike me as particularly strange. Swedish cops can't take me to jail solely for failing to produce identification; in fact they don't have the right to ask just for the hell of it, they have to have a good reason.

[DanBlather]

I would love to see a national ID card. The system we have now sucks. How is someone working at a bar in Maine supposed to know what a Wyoming license looks like? Hell, Wyoming only has 500,000 people, a policeman in Maine may only see one in their lifetime.

Showing that you are legal to work is a real pain. The last time I tried to find my birth certificate it took me hours to track down. We have a bunch of employees at our store and they all had to show me their birth certificates. How am I supposed to know if it's valid, or if it is valid if it is really theirs.

My proposal: one ID card with a chip on it that allows it to be authenticated electronically. Have a system in which inexpensive readers can validate the card and display a picture of the person that can be compared against the one on the card. The card could be used instead of a driver's license, birth certificate, library card, or any other ID except passport (though some countries might accept it). Limit what information the readers can display based on who is using them. For example: bars could just check your age, employers could just check your employment eligibility, police officers could see if you are licensed to drive or have outstanding warrants, a library could validate your identity but get no other info, etc.

The trick is to limit how and when the ID is required so that it is no more onerous than how driver's licenses, passports, birth certificates, and other IDs are used now.

[MEBuckner]

That doesn't strike me as particularly strange. Swedish cops can't take me to jail solely for failing to produce identification; in fact they don't have the right to ask just for the hell of it, they have to have a good reason.
Well, Sweden is also listed as one of the countries having non-compulsory identity documents. Basically, the U.S. has non-compulsory ID's as well, since most (all?) states issue "non-driver ID cards" for people who don't want or can't have driver's licenses (and most of us use our driver's license for ID). We just haven't nationalized or centralized our non-compulsory ID card.

However some countries do have compulsory ID cards--a police officer can demand to see your ID card, and you can be detained if you refuse.

[Dunderman]

Well, Sweden is also listed as one of the countries having non-compulsory identity documents.Yes, like Switzerland, the country you mentioned. You seemed to think this was strange enough to theorize that Wikipedia was mistaken, so I added my perspective, which is that it would be very strange to have cops that were able to drag you to jail for not carrying ID.

[MEBuckner]

It's just a Wikipedia thing. I don't feel like wading through the official government websites of assorted countries around the world, so I put in a disclaimer, in case some Swiss Doper were to come back and say "Actually, according to the 1998 Law on Identification Documents, the penalty for failing to produce your identity card upon request of any police officer is a 50 franc fine / 10 years hard labor / summary execution".

There are (again, if Wikipedia is to be believed) democratic countries (e.g., Spain) where citizens are required to produce their ID cards if asked by a police officer, and may be detained if they fail to do so. (Again, the Wikipedia disclaimer is just so some Spanish doper doesn't come along and so "Oh, that hasn't been the law since Franco died.")

[Arnold Winkelried]

The thing is, should policemen be able to "ask you for identification" simply for walking about in a public place? ... The question of what level of government should issue ID cards, or what sort of security features they should have, is separate from the issue of when any level of government should be able to demand that a citizen produce identification. I'm less concerned about whether ID cards are issued by states or the federal government (or issued by states, with the federal government setting standards which all such ID's must meet) than I am about the second issue.I agree with this 100%, they are two separate issues.
I think a national ID card is a good idea for the reasons I listed above (a person in charge of verifying identification in the USA only needs to be familiar with one type of ID, it could serve as a replacement of the passport for local travel, and it is easier to carry around than a passport.) I'm sure it would be possible for a government to abuse this system, but in this case I think the advantages outweigh the inconvenients. Especially since in this case there is already something existing at the state level. Having these state level IDs consolidated and maintained at the federal level would be appropriate.

I don't have any strong feelings either way about a policeman being able to ask me for identification in a public place. (In my case, the policeman justified it by saying "we have had reports of robbery in the neighbourhood" or some such.) Personally I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

[Spoons]

How is someone working at a bar in Maine supposed to know what a Wyoming license looks like?Quick question: how do car rental companies deal with this situation?

When I've rented cars across the US and Canada, my driver's licence has been accepted without question. The rental clerk doesn't have to look it up in a book or verify it in any other way on the spot. I've never been denied a car because the clerk says, "Well, I've never seen one of these Alberta licenses before, so I don't know what a real one looks like, so no car for you."

One thing to consider with a national ID card is that you have to be careful that you do not inadvertently use it to separate visitors to the country from goods and services they are legally entitled to purchase. If you make such a card the only ID allowable to, say, purchase alcohol in a bar or a store, and that state has adopted a "card everybody" policy, then by accepting only the National ID, you have effectively prevented foreign visitors from buying alcohol. You won't accept their passports, driver's licenses, etc. and being neither Americans nor residents, they cannot get the National ID. What effect will this have on your tourism industry? On business visitors?

A national ID might be a good idea for accessing government services only available to citizens: unemployment insurance, Social Security claims, and the like. But in terms of the private sector (bars, liquor stores, casinos, hotels, etc.) a national citizens' ID should be one of many acceptable IDs, so as not to exclude foreigners from things to which they are legally entitled to purchase or do.

[Steve MB]

I don't have any strong feelings either way about a policeman being able to ask me for identification in a public place. (In my case, the policeman justified it by saying "we have had reports of robbery in the neighbourhood" or some such.)
WTF? Did the robber show his ID, thus giving the police some reason to check yours ("nope, you're not that guy; move along")? :rolleyes:

[DanBlather]

Quick question: how do car rental companies deal with this situation?

When I've rented cars across the US and Canada, my driver's licence has been accepted without question. The rental clerk doesn't have to look it up in a book or verify it in any other way on the spot. I've never been denied a car because the clerk says, "Well, I've never seen one of these Alberta licenses before, so I don't know what a real one looks like, so no car for you."But that goes to show what a crappy ID a driver's license is. Basically you are inconveniencing the law abiders and having little impact on the determined criminal.

As for foreign tourists, I'm not sure how things are handled now. I know that a friend of mine was not allowed to buy alchohol in Massachusetts with a valid US Passport; you had to show a driver's license.

Maybe tourists would get a temporary card when they arrive in the US. It would also serve as their visa.

[Pushkin]

WTF? Did the robber show his ID, thus giving the police some reason to check yours ("nope, you're not that guy; move along")? :rolleyes:

Maybe he dropped his own card at the crime scene? :)

[PaulParkhead]

Quick question: how do car rental companies deal with this situation?

In various ways. I've seen a rental company, at the DFW airport, who had a book of foreign licences - "This is what a British licence looks like", that sort of thing. My bank has an "acceptable ID book", that includes pictures of typical licences from all states, but not the UK. Luckily, I had a passport.

One thing to consider with a national ID card is that you have to be careful that you do not inadvertently use it to separate visitors to the country from goods and services they are legally entitled to purchase.

A good point. I keep seeing signs that read something like "Valid Pennsylvania ID required" in bars and such, and wonder if they really apply these rules. There are a lot of tourists in Philadelphia. One bartender insisted that there was a law stating I must have PA ID to drink in a bar there. Does that mean people from Texas can't legally drink in PA?

[GorillaMan]

As for foreign tourists, I'm not sure how things are handled now. I know that a friend of mine was not allowed to buy alchohol in Massachusetts with a valid US Passport; you had to show a driver's license.
That's brilliant! I suspect when faced with a foreign passport rather than a US one, they might realise that the rule doesn't quite work. (I always carry mine when drinking in America, even though it's a hassle and I always have my driving licence in my wallet.)

[chowder]

But that goes to show what a crappy ID a driver's license is. Basically you are inconveniencing the law abiders and having little impact on the determined criminal.

As for foreign tourists, I'm not sure how things are handled now. I know that a friend of mine was not allowed to buy alchohol in Massachusetts with a valid US Passport; you had to show a driver's license.

Maybe tourists would get a temporary card when they arrive in the US. It would also serve as their visa.
I rented a car in Boston and all I had to show was my British Licence and passport.

On the other side of the coin, I rented in Spain and didn't show anything!!

[Iknewit]

Birth certifictes started in the 19th century. Now you are required by law to file such an identification of a birth, birth being a fairly fundamental exercise of human existence.

Drivers license were implemented slowly, over time, begining as an option.

Social Security numbers were begun with the express condition of not being used for the purpose of identification. For those who claim it is not a password, just call Bellsouth and give them the last four digits of my SS and you can get all my phone records.

These things, as well as national IDs, issued under the guise of voluntary, almost always become a means to verify entitlement, restricting rights and services of those without. Can a person be restricted or impeded from walking down a street becuase he has no identification ? You betcha. Tune into a viewing of "COPS" and see how free a person who is guilty of nothing, except failure to produce ID, is. Failure to posses a valid ID may not be a crime but it is enough to warrant detention until ID can be made. Of course detaining a person isn't such a bad thing, considering that you have to be charged with something to remain in custody...wait....hmmmm.....detaining people without charge. Interesting idea.

[Oregon sunshine]

Maybe it's because I work in social services, but I can't even begin to describe what a hardship our (USA's) more recent ID requirements have put onto low-income people. In an attempt (ostensibly) to crack down on illegal immigrants, it is now required that people prove their citizenship to receive food stamps, Medicaid, and other minimal, basic safety-net benefits. Many people who are impoverished, especially homeless people (who routinely get ALL their belongings - including ID - stolen) have undergone severe hardship simply because they don't have the means to order their original birth certificate (sometimes upward of $20 and a 4-6 week wait) and/or replace lost/stolen state ID (in our state this costs between $29 for a state ID to ~$55 for a driver's license). If you've never known what it's like to have to scramble to come up with $5 or $10, you may not understand - but, believe me, for our poorest citizens, it's an extreme hardship to require the purchase of ID.

Also, even without a national ID, it's becoming more and more difficult (http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/) to simply exist without having to show someone your papers. (Link is to an article by a man who was arrested because he did not provide a driver's license, but only his name, to a policeman while NOT driving a car.)

[JohnBckWLD]

'Voluntary' cards quickly become compulsory, to all intents and purposes.Social Security Online (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html)Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary...you need a Social Security number to claim your child as a dependent on your income tax return...

[Micro Dot]

What's wrong with voluntary and rare becoming popular and compulory?
That's how all laws evolve. First auto drivers licences were voluntary, then with the obvious benefits of having them they became compulsary. Passports had the same pattern much earlier.

[MEBuckner]

Well, I think the question should be "What's wrong with voluntary and rare staying voluntary and rare?" For what purpose should we surrender this portion of our liberty?

[Iknewit]

Well, I think the question should be "What's wrong with voluntary and rare staying voluntary and rare?" For what purpose should we surrender this portion of our liberty?

Reminds of something I heard repeated:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


I would credit that to Ben Franklin but I'm not sure.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, I think the question should be "What's wrong with voluntary and rare staying voluntary and rare?" For what purpose should we surrender this portion of our liberty?

Don't confuse privacy with liberty. They are connected, of course, but distinct. And "You have zero privacy anyway; get over it."