Am I wrong to be disturbed about this?

[truehobbit]

I think every country in the world will ask for a passport from some subset of aliens entering the country! If I wanted to enter Germany, I would be required to show my US passport, certainly. I believe the same is true of visitors from the UK.

Is Germany hostile or unstable?

You would only be asked to produce a passport because you poor guys don't have an ID-card.
If you had an ID-card, that would be sufficient.

As to 'every country in the world', as I said, my ID-card functions as a passport. Only countries that have problems with people visiting want more, like a travel passport and visa. Within European countries it's actually the idea that you don't have to produce anything, but there are still checks at the borders and if you go by plane, your ID will be checked routinely.

True, if you don't have an ID-card, you'll need a passport. But that's the point here - with ID-cards, passports will be superfluous.
(There's still the 'immigration form' to fill in when you enter a country from outside the EU, though.)


And I hope very much that they require IDs even for flights within the country.

[Primula Baggins]

We'll still have to have passports if we want to go anywhere outside the U.S., even a day trip to Canada or Mexico.

And, yes, we do have to show state-issued picture ID to get on a domestic flight, but a plain state driver's license or ID card is sufficient.

One proposal for the RealID is that the data it holds will include images of everything we will have to present to obtain the card, including our Social Security card, a certified copy of our birth certificate, and our proof of residence (usually a copy of a utility bill showing our address). Identity theft could not possibly be made any easier.

Currently, state driver's licenses include none of these things, and the various proofs of birth and residence are not kept by the state; we show them, the clerk looks at them, and we get them back (copies aren't made).

It's hard to convey why this bothers Americans so much, but it does, many of us. It's never been anyone else's business where we go within the country or why, and we have never been expected to identify ourselves on demand while merely walking down the street.

[Faramond]

You would only be asked to produce a passport because you poor guys don't have an ID-card.

Do you really believe that if the US had a national ID card the German government would allow this to be presented instead of a US passport for entry into Germany?

You have drawn the wrong conclusion here. It's not that we "poor guys" don't have an ID card. It's that we aren't part of the EU!

As to 'every country in the world', as I said, my ID-card functions as a passport.

This can only possibly be true in the EU. I guarantee you if you want to travel outside of the EU you'd better have your passport, at least. This is the reality of international travel for everyone. You'd be laughed out of the airport if you thought your ID card was the same as a passport in the US or Canada or South Africa or India or Australia.

Only countries that have problems with people visiting want more, like a travel passport and visa.

You mean like Germany, which wants a passport from citizens of the US and the UK?

It's hard to convey why this bothers Americans so much, but it does, many of us. It's never been anyone else's business where we go within the country or why, and we have never been expected to identify ourselves on demand while merely walking down the street.

But where is there anything about having to identify oneself on demand while walking down the street? Is this a part of this RealID thing?

[Athrabeth]

You would only be asked to produce a passport because you poor guys don't have an ID-card.
If you had an ID-card, that would be sufficient

Well, isn't a passport essentially an ID-card.......with pages?

Personally, I think passports exist in their traditional form because Customs and Immigration Officers like to stamp things (and I must admit that all the exotic entry/exit stamps and visas that Mr. Ath and I collected on our two, well-worn passports long ago, make for some nice little trips down Memory Lane!). Ah well.

Hobby, are all German citizens automatically issued with an ID-card at the age of 16, or is it up to the individual to apply for one? My daughter doesn't have a driver's license (which essentially serves as a photo ID-card within Canada), but she carries a provincial photo ID-card that is quick, simple, and affordable to obtain from the government (unlike passports, which require far more in-depth information, guarantors' signatures, etc. etc.). My son has now applied for one as well. I know that if I didn't have a driver's license, I'd have the "other" provincial ID-card in my wallet at all times, just as a convenient official proof of my identity if I needed to cash a cheque or get on an flight to a destination within Canada. However, as I mentioned, applying for a passport requires far more rigorous checks, and I would assume (and hope) that an ID card for international travel would follow exactly the same procedures.

After spending innumerable hours standing in lines at American airports since 9/11, I'd support a reasonable system that allows for quicker processing. If it could mean "fast tracking" through an air travel network that seems hopelessly overstretched and undermanned, I'd seriously consider volunteering for thumb print or retina scans........but then I think of "Minority Report", and feel a little queasy about the whole thing.

It's hard to convey why this bothers Americans so much, but it does, many of us. It's never been anyone else's business where we go within the country or why, and we have never been expected to identify ourselves on demand while merely walking down the street.

Prim, I've travelled in many countries where this happens all the time to their citizens, and each time I've witnessed it, I've felt, at the very least, extremely uneasy. There's always an air of anxiety or fear that permeates the situation, and no matter how civil the request, it's obvious that there is a distinct divide between "official" and "ordinary citizen" that can feel tense to downright dangerous.

But where is there anything about having to identify oneself on demand while walking down the street? Is this a part of this RealID thing?

I think that this is often what happens in countries where citizens are required to carry ID at all times, at least from what I've experienced. I have no idea if such practices would, or could, actually evolve in a country like the United States.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's hard to convey why this bothers Americans so much, but it does, many of us. It's never been anyone else's business where we go within the country or why, and we have never been expected to identify ourselves on demand while merely walking down the street.

But where is there anything about having to identify oneself on demand while walking down the street? Is this a part of this RealID thing?

Good question, Faramond. I can't help but wonder how much people's fears are based on what they assume will happen.

[Faramond]

I don't support many of the provisions of this RealID thing, by the way. Especially this business of having copies of Social Security card etc on it.

I guess that makes sense, V. It's a fear based on extrapolation.

[Holbytla]

It's hard to convey why this bothers Americans so much, but it does, many of us. It's never been anyone else's business where we go within the country or why, and we have never been expected to identify ourselves on demand while merely walking down the street.

But where is there anything about having to identify oneself on demand while walking down the street? Is this a part of this RealID thing?

Good question, Faramond. I can't help but wonder how much people's fears are based on what they assume will happen.

I don't feel the word assume is apt here.
Suspect is more in line with how I feel anyway, and that is based on what I have experienced in my life.
Surely there is a history of inappropriate actions to justify suspicions.

And for what purpose?
Seriously this is all terror based, but I know full well that won't limit its use or abuse.

Too many people want too much control, and I am not willing to give up anything without a fight.


edit:spelling

[yovargas]

Two questions:

1 – do you believe that this will actually combat terrorism?

2 – do you believe that the people pushing for this are doing this primarily to combat terrorism?

(the you in both of those is a generic you)

[Holbytla]

1. Somewhat.
2. No.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't feel the word assume is apt here.
Suspect is more in line with how I feel anyway, and that is based on what I have experienced in my life.
Surely there is a history of inappropriate actions to justify suspicions.

Fair enough, Holby.

I don't support many of the provisions of this RealID thing, by the way

I don't know enough about it to support it or not support it. Generally speaking, I am opposed to most of the actions that have been taken in the name of the so-called war on terror, but I do want to avoid jumping to conclusions without sufficient information.

[Primula Baggins]

To clarify, my post about being asked to produce ID on demand was a response to hobby's saying that this is the case in Germany, apparently without bothering anyone. I was trying to say that a similar rule would bother many Americans a lot.

And, like Holby, I suspect certain things may happen because of the track records of the people proposing this. But I would be as worried if a Democratic administration were proposing it. In my opinion American citizens have conceded too much liberty and privacy already in the name of "the war on terror," and I suspect that many of those concessions will never be undone.

[Holbytla]

To clarify, my post about being asked to produce ID on demand was a response to hobby's saying that this is the case in Germany, apparently without bothering anyone. I was trying to say that a similar rule would bother many Americans a lot.

And, like Holby, I suspect certain things may happen because of the track records of the people proposing this. But I would be as worried if a Democratic administration were proposing it. In my opinion American citizens have conceded too much liberty and privacy already in the name of "the war on terror," and I suspect that many of those concessions will never be undone.

Which is exactly what the terrorists were aiming for.
Those very words (paraphrased really) came out of Bin Laden's mouth.

[The Watcher]

To sum up my apprehensions succinctly, why would I willingly give over a lifetime of otherwise personal information concerning who I am and what I look like and where I live to a nationalized federal database? I hate to state it, but that is like just giving away any vestige of personal privacy. And, once the federal government has such info, who is to say how they will choose to use it down the road? As for the microchips and such, I shudder to think of it, I truly do. While those advocating for such things are only seeing the altruistic good in all of this, I retain the skeptical "Well now you have handed over everything to a big noncaring government which might turn around some day and bite you" philosophy.

Only two things are needed - some sort of database that requires all states to issue driver's licenses or state ids with pictures and some sort of issuance clarifications that ensure that when I go for said driver's license, I need to prove who I am. Nuff said.

I am already shocked at how much information is available for those willing to pay a small fee for it over the internet - consumer credit profiles, phone numbers and logs of calls made to and from such numbers, the lists go on and on. If anyone thinks that some sort of "mastercard" of personal ID for federal purposes would not easily be used to advantage by those either within the federal government or by those who wish to exploit the information that such cards would contain, then you are all being fools.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I am on the side of bad, bad, bad, bad. The biggest problem with the national i.d. card (and it becoming mandatory to present when requested) is that it is a slippery slope into an American totalitarian government. Just like how banning guns doesn't stop criminals from illegally aquiring guns, a national i.d. card is not going to stop terrorists from aquiring the identification to do terrorist things, but with a national i.d. system (maybe with our credit info, ssn, etc. information in the same system) we could just be making it easier for terrorists or other criminals to steal people's identities en masse. If you only need to hack one system to aquire all the information on millions of people . . . at some point the fail safes will become vulnerable. But then this kind of theft may already be possible minus the national i.d. card. Microchips? I'll duff any doctor or government official in the noggin before letting anyone implant me.

[Frelga]

But as a visitor to the Soviet Union in 1980, I certainly had to have my bumagi in hand when traveling, and in the care of the hotelier when staying overnight.

Have to watch out for them imperialist spies, you know.

Actually, I believe it's standard practice in every European country. At least in France, Italy and Spain I remember having to register my passport number with the hotel.

And surrendering you passport to the hotelier? That's so you don't abscond without a payment.

But seriously, when the Americans start comparing their personal freedoms to those enjoyed by Soviet Union in 1980s, it's time to hit the panic button.

[Faramond]

I think "panic button" is an apt description. I'm saying that I don't think comparisons to 1980's Russia are valid.

I guess I'd like to be able to be against certain forms of invasiveness without having to call them slippery slopes to a totalitarian government. Of course it's possible to extrapolate from a national ID to some really bad things. It's also possible to extrapolate from legal euthanasia to some really evil things, just as an example. I don't think extrapolation type arguments are in very good ones in most cases.

Having a national ID with lots of information on it will make it easier for unscrupulous people ( including those in government ) to get their hands on information they have no business with.

If we've decided that a secure ID is needed in order to fly domestically, as a way of keeping dodgy people off of airplanes, then create an airplane passenger's license. It's important that every invasive measure meant to enhance security have as narrow a focus as possible. Of course no one wants to have to carry yet another card, or go through the hassle of getting another one. But honestly I think merely having to show a driver's license that could come from any of 50+ jurisdictions with varying standards is barely any safer than asking for no ID at all. I do get the rationale behind this RealID thing. I just think the focus is way too broad.

[Frelga]

I guess I'd like to be able to be against certain forms of invasiveness without having to call them slippery slopes to a totalitarian government.

As a rule, I am mistrustful of "slippery slope" arguments. It's like saying, oh, you are eating a hot dog today, it'll be cannibalism tomorrow!

However, I think it is only sensible to consider possible repercussions of an act that cannot be undone. Or, to paraphrase Robin Hobb's King, consider what we will not be able to do once we do this. Let's leave "evil totalitarian government" out of the picture for now, but even regular bureaucratic government is capable of doing sizable harm with a centralized database like that. There will be inevitable errors, people denied their rights because their information was mismatched with a bad guy, people denied credit because of glitches in the system; the process for correcting mistakes or updating information would be inevitably slow and painful.

Think of the identity theft, credit problems and difficulty in fixing simple errors with the major credit reporting agencies. If you ever had to struggle with identity theft, which I did, you will know what I'm talking about. And we are talking about a private enterprise that has a commercial interest in assuring a certain level of accuracy and that has competitors, and information that at least is used in a limited if influential area of your life.

And I'm speaking as someone who knows a thing or two of large databases full of confidential information.

[The Watcher]

Faramond - in all fairness, what is to prevent the federal ID for domestic air travel from being exploited, not to state what such silly rules would mean for families traveling with young children, etc.

What Chertoff means (read between the lines) is that he WANTS to have and feels perfectly justified in having a national database on every US citizen, no matter their age or any other criteria, and that such info would all be linked and regularly updated every time you moved, bought another car, changed jobs, got divorced or remarried, etc. Your life history would all be linked to that federal id, and if you doubt it, just wait until such a thing is implemented and all of a sudden it becomes required for EVERYTHING that you do, not just boarding a flight between LA and SF, or going off to visit Yosemite.

Is that truly the type of information that you think some sort of vast impersonal database needs to have on you? I can think of the nightmares already.

[Faramond]

Frelga: Well, you argued against this without saying it was leading to a totalitarian government. I find those arguments a lot more persuasive than the other kind.

Watcher: What's preventing a state driver's license from being exploited?

****************************

I think there really needs to be an effort made to discern what information is in play with each proposed ID card. What information is on the card, and what information is held in a central database that one could reach with the card? A hypothetical national airline passenger license ( which I'm just offering as something to think about, not as something I necessarily think is great ) need not lead to all the abuses that are being discussed here.

It appears to me that a lot of the arguments seem to boil down to "all forms of ID are bad". An ID may hold lots of extraneous and sensitive information, or be the pointer to a trail to that information, but it needn't be so. Safeguards are possible. I really think it is possible to narrow the focus of each ID. Look, passports are a form of national ID. They have a pretty narrow focus, concerned only with leaving or entering the country. They aren't evil, nor a sign of a unstable or hostile country.

It is possible to have a benign, useful national ID. But the focus has to be very narrow.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Extrapolation arguments aside, I flat out don't trust this government not to misuse a system like this. The USAPATRIOT Act gave some pretty broad powers to the government to combat terrorism, but the misuses are documented. They may not be endemic, but why give such a tempting toy to such an irresponsible child? The outcome (misuses) may not be disasterous. We may not descend into a 1984 totalitarian style government, but if this ID brings us down such a path, we may very well find ourselves down a path of no return (or at least one of a very bloody return). You can dismiss me as paranoid, but this is one area where I prefer to be paranoid and wrong, than sensible and right.