National ID cards? Maybe....

Great Debates
1

I put some of this up on the racial profiling thread, but I think it calls for its own. I’m having some serious second thoughts as to the whole national ID card issue. I am loath to hand over any more power to the Grey Men. But there are other concerns.

Consider this: a “smart” card that relates directly to a databank. It can provide identification details that simply cannot be forged, fingerprints, retinal scan, etc. If you say you’re John Jones you can entirely prove that you are. It is ID that is accepted in every state.

Now, let’s say Mr. Jones is “clean”, no “wants or warrants”, and is stopped by the police. They must scan his ID, and record that they stopped Mr. Jones, and for what reason. Without probable cause, he must be excused forthwith.

If the ID holder permits, racial/ethnic heritage can be included as the data. Then, if a policeman stops an inordinate number of black men, it will show by a simple scan of arrest records. Especially if the people he stops are seldom arrested.

The cop can stop you, and ask to “swipe” your ID. If the light flashes green, and there is no probable cause to believe that you have committed any crime, he must turn you loose immediately. Elapsed time, as little as fifteen seconds. A wanted criminal, however, can’t cover himself by merely forging new ID, if he doesn’t have The Card, he is at risk no matter where he goes.

This, of course, would apply to people of various ethnic derivations, and would be protective of their rights if they should become the bad flavor of the month, as is currently the case with persons of middle-eastern descent. Naturally, before the card is issued, Mr. Jones has been checked out. The card is prima facie evidence that Mr. Achmed Jones is legit.

(How many of the what, 700? 1000? people that we have locked up right now having nothing whatsoever to do with any terrorism? I’d guess better than 95%.)

This could be of enormous help and comfort to these ethnic types, past and future. Who knows, it might be Eskimo’s next.

Developing the technology and the equipment will be something of a stimulus. The cards themselves will be government property, of course, but the equipment for reading and reporting would be entirely a commercial enterprise, and highly exportable, as this kind of technology will be in more demand, not less, as time goes on.

One group that we must consider the impact of The Card on is those illegal immigrants who are not here for any malefic intent, but merely trying to scrounge a living in America’s shadow. An amnesty program, that would permit them to remain and to “build points” for possible permanent residence or citizenship, would be the incentive for them to comply. This will involve considerable outreach, but word of mouth will carry most of the information load.

Persons in compliance who are not otherwise deportable will be assured that their positions in America would be legitimized . Once you pass the check, if you don’t screw up, you’re in.

Now, as I said, this is not my usual cup of political tea, I am very very reluctant to put too much power in the hands of Authority. Too much? Hell, any!

But, if this is done right, it might be a worthy trade off, for others, if not for myself. Now, I’m speaking as an utterly normal white guy, who hasn’t been a target of police scrutiny for many years. To me, it will most likely be little more than a slight inconvenience and an occasional convenience to balance. And, hell, everybody carries ID, damn near.

But it could be of enormous importance in protecting the rights of those people who are more likely to meet up with an objection to their complexion. If Officer Smith detains an inordinate number of Hispanics (who have identified themselves as such, voluntarily), it would take about 5 minutes to prove it. “Officer Smith, you “stopped and swiped” 0ne hundred Hispanics last month, but didn’t arrest any. Can you explain that?”

Let me be the first to say that the 1984 aspects of this creep me out! But I think this issue must be explored. I’m not saying the benefits outweigh the risks, I am putting that question up for debate. I am saying they very well might. (Besides, as long as weak minds are susceptible to the Force, I’ll be ok)

Thoughts?

2

There are a couple of other threads dealing with this subject, also:
National ID card won’t stop terrorists, but will infringe on Americans’ liberty
Ellison right? Time for National ID cards?

The technology exists now, it’s just a matter of design and implementation. However, the system would have to be huge, distributed, replicated up-to-the-minute, and extremely fault tolerant. I suspect design and implementation of such a system would be amazingly expensive, not to mention the maintenance.

Throughout your entire post, you make references to the cop stopping you and letting you go if he doesn’t have probable cause. The message I’m getting is that, under your proposed system, the cop does not need a reason to stop you. He can do so at his discretion, with the sole intent of asking to see some ID. Would this not be considered a violation of the fourth ammendment?

That’s not true. it contains some magentic data, relating to some other magnetic data somewhere else. Unless the cop is physically checking your fingerprints, retina, etc, it can be forged by manipulating a few bits. If Jonny Walker decides to say he’s Jack Daniels, then as long as he can manipulate the right bits, he is.

You’re saying the cop can stop you and ask for ID at ANY TIME, regardless of whether or not he had probable cause to stop you to begin with. Then if the light goes green AND he didn’t stop you for any good reason to begin with, you get to go free. Man, am I tempted to trigger Godwins Law.

Unless the system is down. Or my card has become demagnetized. Or I’ve {shudder} forgotten my wallet.

And if you’ve forgotten your card, you’re at risk of becoming a wanted criminal, such as if you’ve forgotten you’re driving license, or hunting license, or fishing license. Except now that the cop doesn’t need a reason to stop you in the first place (he can do it just to ask for ID, per above), you’re violation is essentially existing without a license.

The creation of a new potential for abuse is always a mistake, in my mind. Power corrupts, as they say. I fear the corruption and abuse that may stem from such a system.

3

Well, Beelzebubba beat me to most of the objections, ‘lucid’, but I agree particularly with his last comment:

I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to imply police power to stop citizens for a “document check” (shades of Deutschland, ca. 1938), but such a national i.d. system would certainly give ammunition to those in the legislative branch who’d like to see that authority given to the police.

Also, I understand the benefit to be gained by a system which keeps statistical information on individual officer performance (and on detainees, etc.), but the kind of second guessing of our police which you appear to be advocating offers its own particular dangers. I can imagine likely scenarios where a cop of any particular ethnicity could have an assigned area which is populated by a high percentage of a different ethnicity. The cop could quite easily be portrayed as “biased” by incompetent management, by unscrupulous members of the press, or by defense attorneys looking for any advantage for their clients.

The id’s themselves sure are an attractive idea for law enforcement, though. Perhaps the rapid improvement in database interfacing will make such a system less relevant?

4

I’m not strongly in favor of national ID cards, but I fail to see why such a system would automatically constitute a civil rights violation. The Fourth Amendment would still apply.

We all already have state issued ID cards and none of us bats an eye. What’s the diff? It’s just that keeping information compartmentalized can cause problems when terrorists or, say, black market guns move from state to state. And if info gathering or enforcement in a particular state is lax, it becomes the “weak link”.

5

First off, state IDs are not manditory. They are useful, yes, but it is possible to live the life of a normal US citizen without one. For example, you can get a US passport even if you don’t have a state-issued ID. State issued IDs are nowhere near the same as a national manditory ID.

I just can’t help but seeing this laying down infrastructure that some future, bad regime can use for great evil. I just read an article about South Africa’s passbook system, and it was pretty scary. A million new ways to use beuracracy to harass people, put them in jail and general make them miserable. I’d rather not have that as an option in my country.

As far as elucidator’s theory that they might stop racially motivated police harassment, you forget that the police are perfectly capable of harassing and simply not scanning the ID. Do you think they would have asked Rodney King for his card? Was Rodney King is any posistion to demand that they scan his card?

And can you imagine the logistics (and expenses) of doing a complete background check of everyone in the United States. Heck, something as simple as a census is a logistical nightmare (and faces a lot of critism). I can’t even imagine trying to impliment said program.

All things said and done, South Africa has scared me off mandatory government identification.

6

Nope, someone hopped up on drugs and fleeing the police generally don’t have time to ask someone to check their ID.

Marc

7

So the next terrorist dresses himself up as a squeaky-clean white-collar manager from France, is not stopped by any law-enforcement officials (because they have no reason to do so, thus keeping the Fourth Amendment intact), and drives a truck bomb into Some Expensive American Landmark.

Costs a lot of money to implement, but doesn’t stop terrorists. Sorta like the NMD, actually…

I’m personally undecided on the National ID card issue myself, but unless I can be convinced that having one would be an effective deterrent, I think it may be best to stick to our current system, flawed as it may be.

8

ID cards for who everyone or 1st -> 3rd generation immigrants ? , ID card for everyone isn’t such a bad idea as long as its not like HK where you can be stopped and asked for ID all the time (HK however has a major immigrant problem) however if it is just issued to minorities or immigrants 1st-> 3rd generation then it kind of reminds me a bit of 1938 when Jewish people had to wear large pink stars , of course there will be ways round it ID card with a chip? go find a local hacker give him $100 and you can be whoever you want to be , and it will all have been a waste of money $270000000 (assuming its $1 per person) and for $100 you can beat it , feels like the NMD get your SSN a bit closer and use a low angle shot and its beaten.

9

** Elucidator**, I hate to be redundant, so I’ll suffice it to say that what everyone else has said so far are pretty much my reasons for being against the idea.

But one aspect you never clarified was if you favor the cards for everyone in the US, or just a certain segment of the population.
Because if it’s just going to be for a certain segment of the population, it won’t be very accurate for the statistic you mention. After all, if Officer Prejudice pulls over a disproportionate number of Hispanics, but most of them don’t fall into the category of “card carrier,” then that data would be excluded in the officer’s statistics.

The “drive thru” part of what you suggest seems very convenient (green, go, red, dead meat). But it’s safe to assume that any officer who goes through the trouble of pulling you over will want to check for outstanding warrants as well (and the usual smell test to see if they detect any alcohol odors present in the vehicle).

And as several people here pointed out (and as any good Systems Administrator will confirm) there is no such thing as a “hack proof” system. So it will only be a matter of time before “clean US smart cards” are a hot commodity on the black market.
I think the best bet for finding lunatics on the loose would be a centralization of the existing data. And not just the US, but worldwide. If Germany knows something about someone (or even an entire group), this is information which could potentially be used in France or England or the US to prevent an attack. I’m hoping that the coalition building that’s going on is addressing the concept of sharing as much data as possible.

10

But then you’re only furthering along the world government which will bring 7 years of peace of Israel and ultimately bring about the end of time. That’s a bad thing. (So what if I did spend 3 hours getting talked at by a superfundy friend over the phone tonight… that still sounds plausible, right?)

11

Well, the assumption of my thread would have to include its being technically “do-able”. Anti-counterfeiting tech has come a long way.

As to the question of who, no where do I imply that I’m suggesting only “suspicious” people will get cards. I am suggesting that they very well may want them, in fact, I would suggest that preference in issuance of the Card be towards persons who feel, for whatever reason, that they are especially at risk.

Secondly, there would be “zones”. No doubt, people residing in Mayberry would be way down on the list, they would likely respond more as a matter of convenience than anything else. But you would know that if you enter an area close to a “sensitive” site, you must expect that ID can be demanded at any time. So, a citizen of Mayberry might not apply for a Card unless he expects he will need it, say if he must travel to New York to represent Goober’s Fissionable Material’s Inc.

It’s a lead pipe cinch that the forces of Authority are going to making some moves, a golden opportunity like war is not going to be missed. What I hope to suggest is a plan with maximum benefit, with a special eye to those persons most likely to be unfairly impacted, i.e, persons who fit a suspicious profile.

Nietzche, it is precisely those persons who, for whatever reason, suspect that they are likely targets for police harrassment by Officer Bigot who will most benefit from the Card, and would be most likely to include thier ethnic data voluntarily. If he stops an inordinate number of Hispanics and arrests very few, it will become clear that he has an objection to thier complexion.

12

So it sounds to me that rather than make the card mandatory, you’re suggesting that they become voluntary. Am I correct? Or is the voluntary portion just related to race/ethnicity data?
If the card itself is going ot be optional, then more than likely, even fewer members of the population will be card carriers (again, due to the fear of being tracked or monitored as many here have pointed out). Also, if they are not mandatory, lots of folks will treat the card much like a library card. That is, once they get it, it’s a distinct possibility that they’ll have it on them for a while and then it goes in the desk drawer and never comes back out.
If Officer Bigot becomes aware of the fact that this card can be used to document his illegal targeting practices (and since the card isn’t something everyone must carry), he’ll make sure to avoid scanning or running the card.
I understand the gist of your point. If people are concerned about being harassed by over zealous officers, they can get one of these cards which would in effect say to the officer “look… run this. If it’s clear, leave me the hell alone or else you’re going to get into trouble.”
But technically, such a thing already exists in the form of a driver’s license. The existing systems could incorporate the race statistics of people and now every time Officer Bigot pulls any shady stunts, it will show up.
I think tracking Officer Bigot’s illegal moves can probably be better served by informing his victims that they have ways of reporting abuse. As far as harassment by law enforcement goes, I doubt this is something any society can very effectively eliminate. At some point elucidator, a society has to tolerate the good aspects of something with the bad. There will always be good cops and bad cops.

Hey, if a world government would finally bring a little more peace to this world (and along with it, the end of time) I say BRING IT ON! :smiley:

13

I have lived in countries with mandatory ID cards for about 15 years (Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and Japan), and I really don’t see the big deal. It’s never been a problem for me. You show ID for hotels, some places in purchasing bus/plane/rail tickets, for working, for immigration, the police can ask for ID.

Someone point out where I’m mistaken, but you can’t legally get through life in the US without a birth certificate for elementary school; can’t work a real job without social security; can’t apply for credit without some form of ID, can’t drive without a driver’s license; can’t cash a check most places without at least one form of picture ID, can’t travel abroad without a passport.

Not sure if it would stop terrorists, although it would make it more difficult.

Worries for a facist police state to arise always requires the vigilance of the citizens, regardless of a national ID or not. I see a natinal ID collating information that the government or a determined private investigator can already get to.

14

If it had a chip that would get me through airport security faster, then I would be all for it. :wink:

15

With national ID what about tourists? since the alledged terrorists involved in the 911 thing (i say alledged since there is no real proof just circumstancial evidence of them being of arabic/middle eastern origin) were from the Middle east tourists even.But then terrorists that would be picked from the next big job would have spotless prior lives and nothing would be suspected.

16

Tourists need to have a passport with a valid US visa. So, they have a national ID (from a foreign country) and a US visa (from a US consulate, which is supposed to screen applications).

17

(emphasis added)

And therein lies the key; collate existing information. A national ID card does nothing to further that end.
A national ID card will do little to deter future terrorism, as you stated. But it will be an additional expense for US taxpayers. That amounts to nothing more than wasting resources (manpower, technology, taxpayer money) which could be used to actually deter terrorism. For example, those tax dollars could go to providing the INS with more investigators to see if “students” coming to the US from abroad are actually going to school. Or, maybe finding people who came to the US legally, but are not suppose to be in the US any longer (expired work, tourist, student visas).

Trying to pass National ID cards as an effective deterrent to terrorism (as some US politicians are currently suggesting) is a poor way of furthering previous agendas.

18

As far as I’m concerned, no National ID Cards. No fingerprints, no smart chips. It’s too risky. We already give too much power to police. I dunno, maybe it’s because of where I grew up, but I don’t trust police.

“1984”, anyone?

19

That doesen’t make the people in charge of the anti-counterfeiting tech more trustworthy. Considering the size of the operation false identities would probably be sold on the first day such a thing occurs. Someone has to make those ID’s and identities and they are no more trustworthy than anybody else. All it does is give them an unfair amount of power.