Am I wrong to be disturbed about this?

[The Watcher]

Faramond, I am not picking on you, but go back and read the original article Prim linked to.

Bar codes would be required. Every citizen would be required to have one, although the article does not address what we do about the millions of minors in the country. It would all be linked up into one vast federal database, even Chertoff acknowledged this. One stop shopping for the Feds, if you do not mind the bad analogy. How could any American be in favor of this?

[Faramond]

Well, go back and read my posts and point out where I was defending the RealID. I'm suggesting that not every federal ID would necessarily be evil. Pointing to one bad proposed federal ID doesn't mean they're all bad.

[Griffon64]

My South African identity document has had a bar code for years. In fact, I believe it has had one since 1995, when I first got my "grown up" ID. This bar code got scanned when I voted or did official business with the state. It saved the official punching in my ID number in order to get access to my record on whatever database they have.

Maybe I'm understanding the significance of the bar code wrongly, though. It just encodes the info that's already in plain text on my ID document, and presumably would do the same for this ID card. It makes it possible for any official to process you slightly faster ( who likes standing in a line? We all complain quickly if there's a line, right, especially at any kind of official place ). Faster processing could probably save you some tax money or something, and a few dozen officials some carpal tunnel.

OK, so maybe a bar code may make it easier to "harvest" this information. I don't see the article clearly stating what information it would be, though? Where's the harm in an ID number, a status ( Citizen, LPR ) and a mug shot? What other stuff will be put on this card? ( I have to confess now that I don't like in-store credit or loyalty cards. Having your shopping habits tracked or trackable is rather disconcerting, isn't it? )

I checked my California driver's license and it has a bar code on the back anyway. ( Never noticed it before! ). My green card has a bar code and a really hi-tech looking magnetic strip. But since I'm an evil forrinner I guess I should be glad it is not embedded under my skin

I guess it is just weird to a non-USA citizen to see the fear being generated by this concept. I've had a state-issued ID in South Africa and I suppose a lot of other countries also have something similar. The distrust of "the Feds" that I detect ( wrongly or not ) is something I find strange since where I come from the state is to be trusted as more competent and less corrupt, and the provincial governments are viewed with suspicion! I guess I'd better start reading up on why the Feds have such potential for evil and what bad things they've done in the past so I can understand this country better

[Frelga]

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.

Indeed. And, me too.

While I don't think it can or will LEAD to a totalitarian government. I do think that it can be exploited to very unpleasant results by any government.

And I did see you say that you do not support the idea.

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

Precisely! I agree entirely. It's not the possibility of a federal ID that worries me. It is the idea that such an ID would be a one-stop shop for a broad range of purposes, from national security to credit.

And if it's terrorism we are worried about, how does a national ID protect us from bad guys who are not US citizens?

[Griffon64]

And if it's terrorism we are worried about, how does a national ID protect us from bad guys who are not US citizens?

I guess they're trying to protect themselves from bad guys pretending to be US citizens and therefore gaining access to sensitive locations. For instance, I cannot go and watch the space shuttle land at Edwards Air Force base, which is close to here and where it gets diverted to if Florida's weather is acting up, because I'm not a US citizen. Only US citizens allowed on such hallowed and military ground.

It does say that this national ID thing will require only "proof of residency" so I'll assume that LPRs would be able to get one too. Probably with "LPR only" in big fat letters on it somewhere.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I guess they're trying to protect themselves from bad guys pretending to be US citizens

As well as bad guys who ARE U.S. citizens. There are some of those, too. Look at Jose Padilla, who was just convicted of supporting terrorism. That case really defines the dividing line for me. For years Padilla was held in confinement with no access to an attorney, no charges filed against, and no due process. From the beginning I thought "if there is evidence against him, use the legal system, rather than blatently violating the constitution." It wasn't until the courts gave the Bush administration that message in no uncertain terms (and I'm fairly sure that even the U.S. Supreme Court would have agreed, had the administration not backed down first) that he was charged and then convicted.

To the extent that this ID card could be used within the confines of the constituational protections that have been established, I probably could support it. To the extent that (like many of the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act) it would be used to circumvent those protections, I oppose it.

[Inanna]

But these violations are happening right now anyway, aren't they? I mean, people, Feds, government will use things for horrid uses - whether you do or you don't have a RealID.

I've been thinking about this thread, and I started wondering whether being there is something I have done which I would not want known to well, lots of people. I thought of the last few years and didn't come up with anything. Then I thought of my years in undergrad college. And I realized there is information there, which I consider harmless, but could be used against me. It reminded me of the article I read some time back that some small-time criminals who were told their records would be cleaned are having problems finding jobs because private firms have accessed that information and sold it. Its like you do one wrong thing, and you are finished for life. Its horrific. And thats when I realized that the notion of being tracked allllll the time is awful and disconcerting - which is why the embedded chip idea (though cool) sucks and I don't think will ever happen. However, having one card to replace the gazillion I have right now makes sense to me. Yes, it will make it easier to track my shopping, well, big deal.

[Holbytla]

I look at this whole thing in the light that the type of id is only the vehicle being used by some people in the government to achieve a certain controlling aspect towards the people.

Boy what a poorly constructed sentence.
Prim please edit for clarity. Am currently more brain dead than usual.

Power corrupts.
Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

The blood from the farmer armed with a pitchfork in the 1700's flows too strongly in my veins at times.

"...for the people, by the people, of the people..."
Not for a small percent that thinks they know what is best for others.

[truehobbit]

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've got that right, Faramond, sorry about the mix-up. I looked it up, and it's true that you need a travel passport for the US.
(LOL, lucky I looked that up now, I'd have assumed that was one bother I'd not need to take to travel there. All I'd read before was that you need a 'machine-readable document' - well, our ID-card is certainly machine-readable, that's the whole point of it.)
ID-card only is for all EU countries, plus some non-EU countries, where, however, you may need a formless visum in addition to the ID-card.
For other countries you need a travel passport.

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

Ath, exactly! And before our ID-card became a machine-readable plastic card, it used to be a little booklet.
In fact, I used to call our ID-card a 'passport' until it was pointed out to me that a passport is something quite different, legally speaking. (Not sure what, though. )
We now have the ID-card and something that's called "travel passport", but no document that we call a 'passport'.

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?

Well, you have to go and apply for one, but it's obligatory that you do so.
As I said earlier, I think the main reason for this is that the state wants to know who its citizens are, and I think it definitely has a right to know that.

(Nothing to do with 'combating terrorism' or so, and I'd agree that giving this as a reason for introducing the card would make me suspicious.)

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.

Does that mean you need third person's signatures, someone to vouch for you? I don't think it's that complicated here, but I couldn't find any info on what you have to produce to the office where you apply if you've not had a passport or ID before.


Re, driving licences: I think there are a very few circumstances over here where a driving license can take the place of an ID-card, and in general I'm finding it hard to understand that in the US (and Canada, it seems) a driving license is often sufficient as identification.

All a driving license says is that X is allowed to drive a car. It does not say that X is indeed X, i.e. it's not legally acceptable identification of a person.

And as you say, you need an ID to cash a cheque or get on a flight - but not everybody can afford the couple of thousand dollars it takes (at least over here) to get yourself a driving license, so it just seems a very good idea to me that the status of citizenship should go along with the possession of a document that testifies you are indeed citizen X, and which you then can use for all sorts of other purposes, like cashing a cheque.

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.

It's not bothering anyone because there's absolutely no reason why it should bother anyone.

Like Griff, I find this mistrust against the Federal Government that seems so 'typically American' rather beyond my comprehension.

I've never been asked to produce my ID card yet, either here or in any other European country. I think that would only happen if you behaved suspiciously or found yourself in a suspicious environment. It's not like police patrol the street and ask random people for their IDs.

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

Same here.
And I wonder where the assumptions and fears come from, i.e. what reason do people have to assume such things.

[Inanna]

All a driving license says is that X is allowed to drive a car. It does not say that X is indeed X, i.e. it's not legally acceptable identification of a person.

Not in US - a DL actually does say that X is X (with pic, of course) and lives in Y location. And before I got a DL, I had a state issued ID, which was identical to my current DL, just had "ID" at the bottom, instead of "DL".

I was asked once to produce identification in Germany, inside the Airbus Hamburg plant - and had to walk back all the way to my office to get it since I'd kept it in the drawer there.

[JewelSong]

but not everybody can afford the couple of thousand dollars it takes (at least over here) to get yourself a driving license, so it just seems a very good idea to me that the status of citizenship should go along with the possession of a document that testifies you are indeed citizen X, and which you then can use for all sorts of other purposes, like cashing a cheque.

A couple of thousand dollars!

Hobby, in the US (at least, in the states where I have lived) it costs about $40 to get a driver's license. In order to get the license, you have to show your birth certificate and (I think) at least one other form of specific ID. (Of course, you also have to pass your driver's test!) There is a photo on the license, along with your birthdate, eye/hair color, height and your current address. A state driver's license OR a state-issued ID card (for people who don't drive) is accepted as ID for most transactions, proof of age and domestic air travel.

So it sounds like our driver's license serves a similar purpose to your EU ID card.

[Primula Baggins]

A driver's license in my state is about $55 and is good for eight years. And kids under 18 usually need some kind of driving class that costs a few hundred dollars.

The driver's license is the ID—it's got a photo and a signature. If you don't need or want to drive, you can get a state photo ID for $29 that's also good for eight years.

As for why many of us worry about granting this kind of capability to this government, it's because we don't trust them to respect our rights or to tell us the truth. Others have nothing against the present government but oppose the realID idea on principle. Still others do trust them and welcome what they see as enhanced security against terrorism.

[yovargas]

It may be worth noting that our country was founded in part on the notion that governments shouldn't be trusted and their powers should be limited. Though that notion has been somewhat degraded over the centuries, it makes me happy that that spirit is still alive in our society.

[Inanna]

I agree with that perspective, yov. We Indians actually find it amazing the extent of propaganda which goes on in certain news channels here in US. In India we have a very healthy distrust of the government and everything it does, so no channel actually wastes it's breath (so to speak) on any kind of propaganda.

Came across this article, and found it relevant:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/ ... 118075.php

[Holbytla]

...
Like Griff, I find this mistrust against the Federal Government that seems so 'typically American' rather beyond my comprehension.

...

Many of the very ideals this country was founded on, and many portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are directly related to events that transpired while America was under under British rule.

Any type of legislation that erodes any of those ideals in any way, causes quite a bit of consternation.

The lines have certainly been blurred over the years, and the forefathers could never see all inevitabilities in the future, but the basic premises remain.

One of the premier principles is that the ruling power should rest with the people as a whole and not with a small group of people.
Surely this is a representative government, but the idea is to limit power to any one branch or person.

The government is an inticately constructed series of checks and balances, and any disruption to that is frowned upon by many.

The government is a subject of the people, and not the other way around.

Many people of this country are leery at best in giving the government rights, and are extremely opposed to relinquishing any of the rights of the people.

To put the attitude more plainly and in my own words, we don't want to be told what to do by anyone.

Again much of this attitude stems from the time of British rule.

As you are having a difficult time comprehending, I too find it difficult to understand why people feel it is ok for the government to act as a watchdog over its people.

I was born on this planet, the same as everyone else, and nobody has more or less rights than I or anyone else has.

[truehobbit]

Re, costs, well, it costs 8 Euros (about five dollars) to get an ID-card (well, plus the expense for a photo).

And surely, to get a driving license you need to prove you can drive? You couldn't just get one in order to have an ID, could you? So, you need to pass a driving test, which I'm sure isn't free.
It's about a 150 Euros just in fees for the tests, here.

And how do you learn to drive? I guess it's all home-tought in the US, like in Britain. Still, the least you need is someone who lets you use their car and has the patience to teach you, all of which is worth money, too - additional costs for a licence, even if it doesn't sum up to a thousand.
Over here, nobody is allowed to drive without a driving licence, not even for learning purposes. So, if you want to learn to drive a car, you have to go to a driving school. Of course it's up to the student how many lessons they need (though I guess there's a minimum), but 35 practical lessons would be a good average and one ordinary lesson will be approx. 25-30 Euros. And that doesn't cover a number of other services the school has to provide (and charge for).

My driving licence also has a photo, my name and date of birth and address, as well as my signature - but it still isn't legal proof for anything, except that I am allowed to drive a car.

It doesn't have height or eye-colour, though - that is reserved for the ID-card.
So, you have a point, Jewel, in that your driving licence is very much the same as our ID-card.
But, then, from my perspective, I'd ask why people's driving licences in the US contain more personal information than necessary? Why would the government make someone's driving licence as important a document as an ID-card, when all I want is to drive a car?
Isn't the state that way silently using them in place of ID-cards, then? And isn't that much worse than straightforward ID-cards?

As for why many of us worry about granting this kind of capability to this government, it's because we don't trust them to respect our rights or to tell us the truth.

What reason do you have to believe your government won't respect your rights?
(With respect to ID-cards I assume it's not just whether you trust this government, but 'government' in general?)

To put the attitude more plainly and in my own words, we don't want to be told what to do by anyone.

...

As you are having a difficult time comprehending, I too find it difficult to understand why people feel it is ok for the government to act as a watchdog over its people.

I was born on this planet, the same as everyone else, and nobody has more or less rights than I or anyone else has.

Holby, and yet, the US have as many laws as most other countries. The government DOES tell you what you can do and what you can't do.
Society wouldn't function if that weren't the case.

So (from my perspective) what you have are just as many duties towards the government, but the government can easily neglect its duties to you, as it's quite possible it doesn't even know you exist - and just as possible you don't want it to know you exist. You are nevertheless obliged to follow all the rules your government imposes.

This is making me wonder whether 'freedom from government' isn't mostly an illusion, a 'creation myth' so to speak. Fear of losing part of that would also go a long way to explain the intense reactions to something that doesn't seem all that different to the IDs already in use.
(Or maybe I'm missing some essential difference between the state IDs and a federal ID, apart from the latter being issued by the Federal, rather than the local government?)

Also, there is now no foreign rule to defend yourselves from.
A way of thinking that refers each new regulation back to such basic questions as to the power of the people seems doomed - surely, every law can be seen to limit the power of the people, and the only ideal would be to live in an anarchic state.
And what part of the 'rights of the people' do you give up when you are issued a card that says you are a citizen of the US?

[Erunáme]

What reason do you have to believe your government won't respect your rights?

Are you serious? Just watching the news gives a clear enough answer to that question.

.
.
.

Count me as part of the disturbed group...for reasons already listed by others like Prim, TED and Holby.

[Inanna]

But, then, from my perspective, I'd ask why people's driving licences in the US contain more personal information than necessary? Why would the government make someone's driving licence as important a document as an ID-card, when all I want is to drive a car?
Isn't the state that way silently using them in place of ID-cards, then? And isn't that much worse than straightforward ID-cards?

Huh? Instead of having two documents - an ID-card and a DL, you have just a DL. And as mentioned earlier, if you don't have a DL, you can simply have an ID. And taking driving tests is free. And learning how to drive etc. is really not a big problem in the US as the public transportation sucks. In Germany, I never felt the need for a car, in US I died the one month I didn't have it.

[Holbytla]

Hobby, the short answer to your questions is that the government is not supposed to be an entity in itself. The government is the people. The people are the government.

Any laws that are established should be because it is what the majority of the people want. Of course there are rules and laws to any society that wants to function.
However it is a belief in this country that those laws should never infringe on the rights of the people.
The rights come first. The laws come second.

The issue isn't the id in itself.
The id is a mere tool or smokescreen for the real purpose behind all of this.
Tighter control.
The ability to keep an eye on the public at large.
All in the name of safety.

While the motivation is a noble endeavor, most people that have been around the block know all too well by past experience, that the tool will be misused.

It is too much power residing in too few hands.
That could be a recipe for disaster.

The idea is to keep power dispersed so that no few people can control a country.

Would it be the end of the world to allow this id to be instituted?
No.

Yet it is another step closer to relinquishing the ideals this country was founded on.

The next policy that is introduced will be another step closer.

We keep inching in the wrong direction.

The policies of this administration have riled and splintered this country.
The fallout was evident is last year's elections.

Much of the country has had enough of this philosophy, so the id is a lightning rod bigger than its actual issue.

The philosophical pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction.

[JewelSong]

Isn't the state that way silently using them in place of ID-cards, then? And isn't that much worse than straightforward ID-cards?

Not silently. Everyone knows that their driving license is also an ID. Almost everyone gets a license; its like a rite of passage. And if you don't drive, you get an ID from the state, so you can cash checks and buy liquor and so on.

As for the rest of it, I think Holby has done a good job of explaining it, especially the political climate right now.