As part of the ongoing coverage about the NY/DC attacks (and my most heartfelt sympathies to all who lave lost or suffered as a result), a television commentator remarked about the need to establish national personal identification cards for all citizens.
How is this a bad thing? Why is it bad for the gubbamint to know you exist? In general terms, “they” already know where, when and to whom you were born, where you work and how much you earn, and just about all personal information tied to your Social Security Number. If it hasn’t already been done, I don’t suppose it would be too hard for “someone,” whether under official sanction or not, to relate this varying data into a single profile.
Another commentator said that this was a major thorn in Clinton’s medical plan: a national medical card with statistical information.
I do take exception to the use of SSNs for matters not related to taxpayer identification, but I think this view goes beyond that. I presume this is similar to the case of people who fear/mistrust the census. Is there also a government conspiracy presumed to exist in the passport system?
Please fill me in on the argument against a personal identification system.
El Mariachi, heard about the pass laws in S. Africa? The most insiduous part of the apartheid regime, if a Black person didn’t have the ID, he was subjected to being assauted or killed by the police. Also, the pass totally restricts the Black people’s movement in the country, and what jobs they can take.
Thanks bagkitty and El Mariachi Loco. I used to work in the privacy thinktank arena, and I am now an attorney who dabbles in privacy work (just been a little tired these weeks and didn’t feel like adding my two cents, particularly where the link sums up all two of them perfectly).
And thanks Little Bird, it’s something the SO and I call each other. How embarassing.
I am curious about the concept of “function creep” in the link. It is clearly a problem, but couldn’t that be avoided (at least in the U.S.) by limiting the cards’ function from the outset?
In the example stated by capacitor, apartheid South Africa had some issues regarding “black people” independent of porting the cards. But in the States, wouldn’t a card having only some identifying information, perhaps even impersonal be less ominous? I mean, not stating your national/ethnic origin, personal profile or other potentially discriminatory data. Just something along the lines of, “This inviolable identity document pertains to Mr. Such-and-such. It may be demanded only by duly commissioned officers in the exercise of public safety. It may be demanded for purposes of boarding commercial transportation, acquiring weaponry, being processed for incarceration, etc. It may not be demanded for purposes of renting a car, securing employment, traveling from place to place in private transportation modes, etc.” In general terms, being so specific in the enumeration of uses so as to pre-empt any function creep.
It seems that the alternative is to treat every single individual as a potential terrorist, making “law-abiding citizens” subject themselves to the type of scrutiny that should be reserved for people with “records” or “reasonable suspicion.” Especially disconcerting is the apparent tendency for people to suspect those with certain ethnic profiles. I would prefer that the Illinois state police be called because “Card No. 06854 boarded an Amtrak train in Peoria the same day he flew from Bangor to San Diego,” than “A guy wearing a turban was spotted in a Ford van.”
And I can just hear our own home-grown Christian fundies screaming about the Universal ID being the “Mark of the Beast.” You better add “obtaining credit, depositing/withdrawing/transferring up to $(XYZ) in cash, cashing cheques, buying and selling securities and real or personal property” to the exclusion list; and forbid the IRS from access to that database w/o a court order while at it.
Limiting the card’s function may hinder but will never eliminate mission creep – after all, the law says clearly the Social Security card is not to be used as an ID, but you are asked for your Social Security NUMBER by everyone and his brother. Example: The UID may not be “required for employment” but since as it is, you already have to prove you’re a citizen or legal resident to be employed, and the UID would be a quick, official and standard way of knowing you are, surely people WOULD be given the “option” to “voluntarily” use the UID for that purpose and eventually it would get to the point that it’s expected and it’s “suspicious” to do otherwise.
Today, you have every right to refuse to submit to a urinalysis when applying for a job. You just won’t get the job. I guarantee you that soon, given the current economic slouch, urinalysis–originally sanctioned only for high-security types of jobs–will be used as a form of discrimination to weed out applicants. No pun intended. Within five years of the Supreme Court decision on urinalisys, I was required to take one before my application was considered–an application as a stock boy in a department store.
You don’t have to give your SSN out, either, except that you can’t easily write a check, get a credit card, or open a bank account without one. SSNs, in certain cases, are not protected from Freedom Of Information Act requests, and I have personally seen a number of cases where SSNs are accidentally not redacted from requested documents. Think about it: SSNs are only necessary for you, your employer, and the federal government. How many times have you given out your SSN this week? It is being used, in contravention of its original stated purpose, to track you.
A lot information about you contained on a national ID card will, whether you want it to or not, fall into the hands of people who will use it to exploit you, whether it is to better target the spam sent to your e-mail account or other, less benign uses. I don’t even have to say, “wait and see.” It’s already happened before.
As an idle daydream, it would be fun to establish a national ID card just to toy with the fundies, but as a civil libertarian, I absolutely oppose any sort of federal identification system.
Well from a perspective of this “fundie”, I don’t think the id cards will be the mark of the beast. It will however let peoples guard down to when it will come. In otherwords, it will make them more exceptable to the idea. The cards of course will be found useless because they will be forged by the crazy muslim fanatics. Then the govt will come come up with an id that can be put under the skin(such as the one the _____ Angel(can’t think of their first name right now) is coming out with) to take its place. That is the one that I will refuse to get if the post rapture theory is correct.
I am somewhat ambivalent on this subject. In some ways you could argue that a national ID would avoid problems like ethnic profiling at the borders. Right now they will randomly stop hispanic looking people driving near the border. It would seem fairer to me to have everyone show their national ID card when they cross the border.
Already when you apply for a job you need to show a birth certificate or proof or immigration status. Problem is that fake birth certificates are easily obtained.
You also need to show a driver’s license or eqivalent when buying alcohol (I once had a friend who didn’t drive have her passport turned down when she tried to buy beer).
Why not just have a single purpose ID that could be used for proof of age and citizenship.
As DanBlather, I am ambivalent. Like many I am leery of a government (or consumer profiling firm) that can track your moves and correlate them to non-essential information (such as tying your private purchasing habits to your home telephone number). Hell, it’s spooky to get ads in Spanish at English-language websites, on the basis of “someone” tagging my IP. But does identification=tracking? Isn’t it like saying, the insurance industry is tracking me every time I use medical services? Obviously records are kept that “follow me around,” but is it instrusive or conspiratorial that such records exist?
I remember being uncomfortable that my university ID number was in effect my social security number; however, if I were stopped by a local police officer, would he have unwarranted access to my birth record, school transcripts, tax returns, etc., to “profile” me? I presume a law enforcement agency would be able to tie that information together regardless of how diversely my identity is established for varying purposes.
In any case, isn’t the fact that SSNs are used for identification purposes by organizations other than the Social Security Administration or IRS a matter outside the scope of public policy? I believe general public access to motor vehicle records, civil registry records and the like is another issue.
Stopping everyone would just cover-up their profiling. Everyone is hassled, delayed and wants to get going. Less attention will be paid to when they pull people aside.
Or how about this: (Highway patrolman, near a toll booth)
“So son, the computer here says you’ve driven into Kentucky three times in the last two months. You thinking about moving in? Where are you going to be staying?”
And no, it’s not paranoia when you’re dealing with the government.
We’re ALREADY able to require people crossing the border to identify themselves to the satisfaction of the Customs/INS officers. No need for a national ID to stop ethnic profiling, just stop it … and request proper compliance from EVERYONE. Treat the little ol’ lady flying in from Ireland as the equal of the long-haired bearded young male driving up from Mexico.
Besides, do we really think that Buffy-Lou Taylor-Huffwell’s Universal ID will be looked at as carefully by the Customs guy as Setareh Pishdad’s or Anacaona Guadalupe de la Caridad Alonso’s ?
**
That would be fine and dandy – it need contain only the information on the passport (Name, DOB, Nationality, Passport Number).
BUT, as a way for tracking down who “doesn’t belong where he is” – which seems to be what the commentator Mariachi Loco was listening to wants – I don’t see how THAT would do much good for serious criminals.
As *Bill mentioned, for the right price such a document would be counterfeited as effectively as any already-extant identity document, driver’s license, credit card, and even currency.
Here’s a few more cents for you. If you work for that big plane company that starts with a ‘B’, your SSN is your employee number. If you have a bank account at the company credit union, guess what your account number is? Yup, SSN. How 'bout that Safeway club card? Tracks all your purchases, right? And your debit card? And credit cards with your picture or thumbprint on it? Tie it all in with your SSN, and voila, instant ID number. It’s coming along nicely, isn’t it?
I dunno about Safeway, but none of the grocery store discount cards I’ve had have had any connection to anything bearing my SSN. (I generally refuse to give a bank account when applying for one of those as I never write checks for groceries anyway.)