Looking over this thread and the linked FAQ it seems that the objection to ID cards is that they could be abused by government or individuals that get ahold of the info.
Is this the only argument against them?
( As opposed to arguments that they won’t fulfill the function(s) claimed by their opponents? )
Just my 2sense
2Sense, I’ll go out on a limb and say: They will be abused. I draw this conclusion from the evidence of current abuses and constitutional violations. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an expert in constitutional law, and these are my interperetation. You may disagree as you like. Here are a few examples:
[ul]
Social Security Numbers being used for identification purposes, which is a violation of the Privacy Act.
Public buildings in which the carrying of firearms is prohibited, being a violation of the second ammendment.
Police roadblocks, being a violation of the 4th ammendment.
The requirement to submit to a sobriety test or lose your (government granted) license to drive, being a violation of the 4th and 5th ammendments.
The existence of sodomy / drinking age / etc laws, being a violation of the 9th and 10th ammendments.
[/ul]
All abuses are, of course, potential until they actually happen. Instead of creating a new bright-n-shiny “potential for abuse” in National ID’s, which have little or no actual value, why not just come out and say it’s not a good idea?
I find it interesting that Ellison said
Ellison essentially says “There is no privacy, and that’s OK. Instead of taking steps to ensure others privacy, let’s just strip it away altogether.” I don’t know about you, but I disagree with this sentiment.
Regarding your question about whether “they won’t fulfill the function(s) claimed by their opponents?” I assume you mean proponents. Ellison fails to tell us what he hopes to acheive, other than confirming identity. What other functions or benefits are claimed? So far the only person who’s made any claim to benefit in this thread was Attrayant:
As you can see, he(she?) apparently either does not know what benefits there are, or thinks the potential benefit so miniscule that the average citizen wouln’t support these cards, so must make up crap to generate public support. He(She?) doesn’t even care if it actually does anything to begin with!! “Who cares what it does or how it works, let’s just tell the suckers it’s good for 'em!!”
And apparently since that post, he(she?) has rethought that decision. In short, I see a lot of reasons not to implement this system, and few (if any) to support it.
Hi Beelzebubba,
I don’t favor ID cards. I will certainly agree that no one here has posted any strong reason to do so. I am interested in the objections because there is a compelling reason for a comprehensive list of citizens. This is the essential first step to accurate elections.
Just my 2sense
I’ll also assume you mean “proponents.”
Well, exactly what ARE those functions? A National ID that is nothing more than proof-of-identity would do nothing to stop serious organized illegal activity. Oh, you’d ocassionally catch some low-stakes illegal inmigrants, and some common crooks or deadbeat parents who already have outstanding warrants. But for more serious purposes you’d have to incorporate some sort of mechanism by which it serves as a way for a central authority to track down where you are and what are you doing. And this would not faze major organized criminals (political and common), who will have access to excellent counterfeits, already encoded with “virtual identities” previously inserted in the database, for a fee, by corrupt records-clerks.
As Attrayant points out, the way to give it some sort of “value” would be to turn it into a service-access card, and even then you’d have to work it up gradually, as there would always be the dread of being frozen out of your own life by a bug in the system, an arbitrary act by someone in power, or a mistake (“Sorry, Sir, the computer says you died last Friday, you may NOT access your bank accounts until you have a hearing, and your Driver’s License, passport and voter registration will stay void until then, too.”)
Just thought you might want to know what the Supreme Court thinks.
Except for the roadblock business, they don’t agree with you.
On the roadblock issue: if a roadblock is set up merely as a general checkpoint to stop all crime, then it’s a violation of the Constitution. If a roadblock is set up for a limited purpose - for example, checking license decals or insurance compliance - and if there is no discretion on the part of the officers (ie, they check every car, every third car, decided in advance) then the roadblock passes Constitutional muster.
I know. This is what I mean about abuses. They become acceptable. I think Thomas Jefferson would have been outraged that one is required to submit to a field sobriety test or lose his license (to say nothing of the fact that one must be licensed to begin with).
Or just fascinated by automobiles.
[joke hijack]
Warsaw, 1939. Little Jewish man walking down the street with a chicken in a bag. (The chicken in the bag has nothing to do with the joke, but there it is.) He comes to a Gestapo checkpoint. The officer looks at him with disgust.
“Your papers,” he says, holding out his hand. The little Jewish man takes his papers out of his inside coat pocket and hands them out to the officer, who snatches them out of his hand. He looks them over, and with the same look of disdain, hands them back to the little Jewish man. “Schweinhund,” says the officer with a sneer on his face.
The little Jewish man tips his hat and says, “Cohen, pleased to meet you.”
[/joke hijack]
Esprix
Well, Bricker, I think that your observation just underscores how dangerous this proposal is. We Americans decide what we will tolerate as far as the erosion of our rights go, and the Supreme Court takes it, seemingly, to the furthest extremes. Urinalysis is, of course, an obvious example, but it is certainly not unique.
Well, now we have the opportunity to open our private lives still further, with all the exploitation and mission creep which we know from experience will come with it. Exploitation and mission creep should by now be considered an integral part of any legislation which intrudes on our civil liberties, whatever its original intent.
Do we want this? If yes, let it happen and take all the bullshit that will come with it, eyes open, on the chin. If not, then squash this idea like we’ve already squashed it a hundred times before.
Sorry, even if Larry’s motives are completely altrustic I don’t want to allow the terrorists to strip away our freedom and tear up the constitution
**JRDelirious **,
Yes, I did mean “proponent” rather than “opponent”. I am neither. The benefit I see to a national ID is convenience. I have no wish to stack convenience against the downside of the ID. I want to explore that downside because I believe these arguments are much the same as those against creating and maintaing a list of voters. It seems to me that a collection of information can’t harm anyone by itself. It is merely a tool that may be used in undesirable ways. If we assume that it will be exploited then the problem isn’t with the information but rather with its caretaker.
Just my 2sense
If they get the card or not, the real question should be, "how will citizens get hold of pills that will quickly and pleasantly do them in incase of dire emergency of wanting the citizens to be worst off than the jews were??