What evil can come of ID cards?

I know it’s a cliché, but I am firmly of the opinion that “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about”.

Who cares about function creep? OK, stupid question - clearly lots of people do… But I don’t. So the government wants to know what brand of toilet paper I use? Let them! A car rental firm wants to know how often I pick my nose? No problem! The bank wants to know if my bodily gases smell like roses? That’s OK with me! (The answer is “no” to the last one, by the way).

Joking aside, I have no worry about the government accumulating any info they want. If they want any personal details, hell, the Queen herself can ring me up and ask me if she wants, and I’ll be happy to tell all. And if some info from my past sets off a warning flag, I am assuming that I can explain it if needs be.

And from the point of view that such systems have a minimal impact on crime, I would say that “minimal” is better than “none”.

And as regards other suspect uses such as info being misused to better target spam - well, I can cope with that.

Mind you, just to confuse the issue, if we had a referendum on the issue of ID cards, I’d vote “no” - but only because the benefits are exaggerated by governments keen to impose them, and because, as numerous people have mentioned, the government is also cagey about what exactly ID cards would be used for. I’m all for open and honesty, which and ID card would rely on, but only if the government are open and honest too.

Things can change. Having “nothing to hide” can quickly become “having political opinions to hide” if a government is allowed to move into tyranny.

SenorBeef said:
“Things can change. Having “nothing to hide” can quickly
become “having political opinions to hide” if a
government is allowed to move into tyranny.”
(Sorry, I don’t know how to do those fancy quote things…!)

True, but this seems a little flawed: surely if a government is allowed to move into tyranny, then it would not be too timid to introduce its own ID card system if there was not already one in place?

You must be a straight white Christian male with no “unusual” interests, then. I’m sure there are plenty of things in your past that you’d prefer not to be generally known.

I worry about people finding out things about myself, not because they’re wrong or illegal, but because there are a lot of people with irrational prejudices out there who will hold those prejudices against me, harming me for no rational reason. People die because of these prejudices, and I really have no wish to die.

I think it should be a personal decision, and not the government’s, how much of your life you choose to share with others.

And this ignores the issue of suppression of minority political opinion in a tyrannical government. Or have we forgotten about Mr. McCarthy already?

sirjamesp said:

Function creep is exactly what you ought to be worried about. Has the US got a national DNA database? (I don’t know, I assume it’s got something). Even if it hasn’t, it will. It will start with keeping the DNA of convicted criminals. No-one has a problem with that, right?. Next, it will seek to retain the DNA of anyone involved in a criminal investigation, including (perforce) a lot of innocent people. (That’s where we are in the UK right now). Next, this will include DNA of anyone who has undergone a DNA test for medical reasons. Any objections will be countered with the argument that (a) if you’ve got nothing to hide, etc, and (b) we aim to save X billion dollars in police investigative time by having this national resource - we’ll be able to cut your taxes by Y%.

Then, of course, they’ve got you. And you probably don’t even realise you’ve been got. The big insurance industry lobby will raise the stakes and lo and behold they’ll have access to your DNA profile. God help you if you don’t have a healthy one.

Now what did you go and do that for, KellyM - bringing up the McCarthy point was mean. I hadn’t thought about that, and now I’ve had to rethink. I like to debate, sure, but I don’t like people threatening to change my views… Damn… [pretend there is one of those smiley face things here].

Luckily, I think I can claw my way back to the black-and-white world so heavily populated by the “straight white Christian male” set. I like it there, although I opt out of the Christian bit (don’t tell anyone!).

I’m talking now from the point of view of someone leaving in a (theoretically) free non-oppressive democracy, since for anyone else an ID card is probably the least of their worries.

Let’s assume that we are all given ID cards. As you say, there are certainly a lot of people out there with irrational prejudices. But how will an ID card aid them? If we are talking about a racial issue, then a bigot doesn’t need your ID card to confirm the evidence of his own eyes. If we are talking about a sexual orientation, political leaning or religious leaning issue, then I don’t think anyone is proposing putting information like THAT on a card. And if they wanted to at a later date, well luckily we have people like you who will argue against it loudly til the cows come home, and so the government couldn’t slip it in quietly without anyone noticing. And if we did get some truly tyrannical government in the future who would stretch the ID laws to get the info they want, well, like I say, whether they ease existing laws or introduce an ID card from scratch, it would be all the same to them.

Long paragraph there. What I am trying to say is that ID cards are not meant to be tools of oppression, and shouldn’t contain info that could be used as such.

But I’m getting bogged down here, I am meant to be talking about McCarthy. The point is that all the info everyone is so scared about putting onto an ID card is there anywhere - and more info besides - for the government if they want to find it. McCarthy’s version of tyranny didn’t need ID cards. Admittedly he would have had far more fun if anyone with Communist sympathies had that written on their ID card, but this is a daft argument for two reasons:

Firstly, in such a climate, you’d be a fool to advertise your affiliation, so why volunteer information that you don’t want people to know? If you have a guilty secret now that you think nobody knows about, then don’t put it on the ID application! And if someone already knows about it, then it doesn’t matter whether you have an ID card or not; the government can find out if they want to.

Secondly, the purpose of ID cards is not to carry information like this - they are identification, not character profiles. “Function creep” may extend their role, but only with the express consent of the people unless we are talking about information that the government can already lay its grubby hands on.

James.

PS - I’m going to pop along to another forum to try and find out how you all do those swish smiley faces and quotes s that I don’t look like such an amateur.

Xerxes: now you too are guilty of making me challenge my firmly held beliefs.

The DNA database example is a good one of how function creep can be bad, but I would make two points:

  1. I don’t see information such as that being handed over to insurance companies - there would be an outcry. The police don’t share speeding information with car insurance firms, do they?

  2. Most importantly - the issue is totally different. The DNA database holds new information, so function creep is a worry. The ID card system would hold only EXISTING information that is known by different government departments anyway.

James.

I think the point about function creep is that it’s slow. Insidious. In the UK (again, I’m sorry I can’t talk with any knowledge of the US), car rental companies (for instance) are fitting their cars with GPS. They’ll be able to tell (and to shop you to the police) whether you’ve been speeding at any point in your journey.

Now, my point isn’t really whether that’s right or wrong. The point is that it’s causing some interest right now. I bet in a year it won’t even raise an eyebrow. ‘It is what it is’. (Not that that had anything to do with ID, I admit).

Mea Culpa. You’re right. The issues -are- totally different. It happens to be a bete noire of mine (well, ID cards and non-permissioned DNA profiling are).

Bottom line? I think it’s difficult to argue the position against ID cards, and yet it’s a position I hold very firmly. What arguments can I use? (I want to be free to go out and commit crime? I don’t want my whereabouts logged every 5 minutes I use my combined ID/ATM/xyz card?). No, they’re not great arguments.

I think it boils down to the fact that while I trust the idea[l] of government, that’s different from trusting an individual one. I don’t necessarily think that enabling a government - should it want to - to have even more information about me etc - is a healthy thing. I believe in the minimum government necessary, rather than the maximum government possible.

Yes, they do. If you get a speeding (or other traffic) ticket and either plead guilty or no contest, your insurance company will find out as a matter of course within a relatively short time.

If we give everyone an ID card and make carrying it at all times mandatory, we make it easier for police to harass the minority du jour. How? Police may selectively stop people to demand the ID card. Minorities the police (or any given police officer) don’t like will be stopped more often. Would you like having cops stop you and demand your ID card dozens of times a day just because you’re black? This will happen. (This is not theoretical: California used to have a law, since struck down by the Supreme Court, that allowed police to demand identification from anyone, and this law was in fact mainly used to harass minorities, mostly racial.)

The link posted earlier in this thread points out that several nations with ID card laws do in fact put religious or political identification on their national ID cards, so your claim that nobody is “proposing putting information like THAT on a card” is, plainly, false.

Because the government demanded you tell them on the form and if you lie about it you go to jail for ten years for perjury. The government can, and does, do that, you know.

**I don’t see how “express consent” applies. I never expressly consented to having my SSN used as a universal identifier. Most of the people doing that aren’t even government agencies.

Your argument basically seems that we shouldn’t worry about ID cards because we can trust the government not to let them get out of control. I think that’s a hopelessly naive position to take. “We’re the government. You can trust us.” Yeah, right.

ID cards can be faked. Why not a norplant sized transponder in everyone’s arm? If you don’t have yours, then the cops could rightfully stop you and question. We could have them developed and implanted as part of the next census. Each transponder would correspond to a record in a comprehensive database that could be conveniently used to cut down on red tape. No more need to register for selective service; the government would know who is qualified. Done efficiently, this could be much cheaper than the current census/irs/selective service/social security databases out there.

Whoa, KellyM! :eek:
I’ll try and salvage some bits and pieces from the tatters of my arguments…

I would say that this is a problem of police attitudes, rather than an ID issue. Even without ID cards, a racist police force will stop more blacks than whites for acting “suspiciously”.

Hmmm, fair point. But wasn’t it in countries like Greece, which have had a fairly turbulent recent history, and so the declaring of religious convictions cannot automatically be extended to the USA or UK? Also, whilst the article does state that religious discrimination was a problem in Greece, the problem was identified and presumably measures have been put into place to stop it.

And again, this is a social education issue, not an ID card one. People were using religious prejudice to discriminate against others. Well, at the moment, bigots also discriminate against skin colour, but no-one would suggest that skin violates our civil rights.

Well, they can only send you to jail if they know you are lying, i.e. they already have the info or are likely to find it - in which case you have nothing to lose by declaring it.

Having an existing identifier used by different agencies is not the same as allowing new information to be added to an existing ID card.

Of course you didn’t need to give consent in this case. An existing tool was merely used by more people. Whether this is good or bad, I am not sure. On the other hand, for new categories of information to be added to an ID card, consent would have be sought, or people would shout extremely loudly. Or would you keep quiet and accept it?

What can I say? I am a monkey. Bad example from me, I think. Perhaps a better example would be that knowledge of speeding would probably be of use to health insurance companies - if I drive like a madman, I guess they’d like to know before I end up in hospital costing them a fortune. And yet they do not have access to these records.

And finally (phew)…

Certainly not - I think the government is full of jumped-up, self-opinionated, power-hungry fools.

My basic argument is not that we should trust the government, but that we should trust the people’s power and sense to limit the government.

That’s not naive - it’s democracy. And if they are not willing to speak up for their rights, well then they deserve everything the government throws at them.

James.

PS - I hope you are impressed with my new knowledge of quote boxes and other fancy tricks. I am!

Norplant transponders (!)

Well, as someone who’s adamantly against ID cards (even), you can guess where I stand on Norplant Transponders.

What about those people who, come the next election, refuse to have them?

What about enabling the transponders to automatically release a little mind-numbing substance if the wearee finds himself in a fracas with the police (who have a transmitter capable of triggering it)? The rationale is that both the suspect and the police are less likely to get hurt.

Howzabout the transponder can be triggered to cause the wearee some pain under certain circumstances? Rationale might be that it makes prisons much easier to police, for instance.

Or, on election day, everyone gets a dull ache in their arm until they’ve been to a government registered polling booth. 100% turnout, guaranteed.

I could go on, and on, and on. Not that any of these things would necessarily be there on day 1, or year 1, or even year 10, but we’ve proven time and time again that if a thing -can- be done, we’ll probably do it at some point.

Geez. Some of you worry me.

Well, if we don’t have to worry about function creep in ID cards, why worry about it in implants. Surely the people would not allow the government to misuse these any more than they would ID cards.

That’s not the point. The point is that a mandatory ID law makes it easier for the police to harass minorities. By giving the police a facially legitimate reason to randomly stop people (checking IDs), the police will be more free to harass without risk of punishment. Anyone who complains about such police conduct will be told that “they were just doing their jobs.” Giving the power to stop people to check IDs takes away the requirement of “suspicion” for harassment stops, so the cop no longer has to lie about having been “suspicious” in order to get away with harassment.

And again you miss the point. The reason why ID card proposals are dangerous is that they make such conduct easier and especially that they make preventing such inappropriate conduct harder.

And yet you seem quite willing to hand them powers that there really appears to be no reason for them to have and which they are likely to abuse. Color me confounded.

Giving the government increased power to keep track of the people seems like a great way to interfere with the people’s power to limit government.

Living in a country where there are IDs, I wanted to give some perspective.

My ID include the following informations :

Picture, Name, Surname, Date and place of birth, Size, Adress (at the time the ID was delivered…not the current address) and the ID number.

The ID is used to identification purposes. The issues of databases is a separate problem. There are no huge databases linked to the ID. Only a database which contains all the ID delivered and their numbers.

A government can create a huge database with everything you ever did, etc…without ID. It can use your name, or your SSN, or whatever else and store any information it wants in the database. Why some people think an ID would make it easier escapes me.

Here, you’re required to show an ID at any time if required by police officers. If you don’t have one at the moment, they can require you to brign it the police station within 24 hours, and even, I believe, retain you until your identity can be established. I believe that a driving license, a passport, the equivalent of a green card, etc…can be used to prove your identity instead of the ID.

ID checks don’t include entering any kind of informations in some database. Actually, it’s even forbiden. So, they can’t ask you questions like “you visited this place three times during the last month, do you intend do move here?” or such things a poster was affraid of. What they can do is checking the police database with your name in order to make sure you’re not researched, for instance. Once again, the existence of a database is a different issue.

Apart from that, the ID is used more or less in the same way the SSN seems to be in the US. When you open a bank account, or such situations, for instance. Also it’s often asked by the clerck when you write a check (though once again a driving license do the trick).

So, what’s the purpose of the ID? I don’t think it helps a lot when dealing with issues like terrorism. I suspect a terrorist would use a fake ID (not that easy to fake an ID or obtain one with false informations, here, so the ordinary citizen wouldn’t have one, but a terrorist or serious criminal probably could). It seems its mainly useful to find out illegal immigrants. So, not only it doesn’t prevent but it facilitates profiling. There are often ID checks in the subway, for instance. For some unknown reason 99% of the people checked are blacks, arabs, etc…Not even once I’ve been asked my ID by the police. Apart from that, I suppose it sometimes helps to identify some petty criminals who are researched by the police, but I don’t think it’s very useful for that purpose, except if the police officer is suspicious and very lucky.
By the way, I think this ID issue is mainly a cultural, not an objective issue. For instance, nobody would ever ask your SSN, here. And I’m quite sure that most people would be outraged if someone else than their doctor was to ask it. “Why do they want it?” “What kind of infos are they trying to find about me?”. They would probably suspect that someone is creating or feeding some secret database, including personnal and private informations, etc… Actually, liking the SSN number to other informations not directly related to SS, even in a private database, is forbidden by law. So, if say, your bank or local library was to enter your SSN in a database, they would be prosecuted. In my opinion, all this fuss about IDs mostly comes from the fact people tend to be very suspicious about things they aren’t accustomed to.

>>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.

Wildest Bill, you are thinking of Digital Angel

Please note the term “First Generation Products” - it…is…later…than…you…think !

Perhaps just a tatoo would be better. That would have none of the problems that you mention.

You’re right, of course. It would carry none of the ramifications of a more technical and invasive solution.

I just don’t want one.

I don’t want the law to allow any gov’t organisation to force me to reveal who I am. Paranoid? I don’t think so. Got something to hide? Nope. Just don’t like the idea.

I don’t think it should be a crime to walk down the street alone, without ID, just cause you want to.

I should not have to answer the question “what are you hiding?”

Perfectly law-abiding people don’t need their civil rights protected, that’s why our forefathers protected our civil rights.

I agree, however, that certain organizations have a contractual right to information about you if you want to use their services. Insurance companies, air carriers jump to mind immediately. There are others. An ID card is not the answer.

I will assure you that there will be dangerous people with ID cards. Some of them will not care much for their own lives.