(no subject)

[arib]

Am I the only person I know who doesn't really have much of a problem with a national ID card?

(for the record, I *do* have serious problems with some of the stuff they're considering including as the content on those cards, but a national ID card as a concept doesn't bother me.)

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

You already know that gnomi has no problem with it, but I do.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what he said. Kinda. I'm with you -- I don't mind the idea of a national ID card; it's what they want to tie into it that are unnerving me.

[rosefox]

Nope. We already have one, actually. It's called a passport.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Except that a passport isn't required, and doesn't carry half the information the proposed card would.

[rosefox]

That would fall under the bit about "proposed uses".

[ttocs.livejournal.com]

I think you are splitting hairs.

The passport is an ID for the express purpose of international documentation, and is recognized by multiple governments.

There is no requirement to carry a passport within your home country.

A "National ID Card" is not recognized by any government other than the issuing one, and is purposed purely for internal tracking and documentation.

[arib.livejournal.com]

There is no requirement to carry a passport within your home country.

You needed one to travel internally in the USSR.

Apparently, in Soviet Russia, passport stamps you!

[rosefox]

What I'm wondering is why not combine the two. I've never understood why people asking for photo ID would rather see my (nonexistent) driver's license than my passport. It's already a Federal document and contains my date of birth, photograph, and signature, as well as a record of where I've been. It seems like it would be much simpler to add a magstrip or smart card to encode whatever else is determined to be reasonable, relevant, and legal than to mandate the creation of a whole other document.

[arib.livejournal.com]

Passports are too large to easily carry around, driver's licenses are too small for visas and entry/exit stamps.

In this case, size matters. :-)

[thevortex.livejournal.com]

I am with you on that. An ID card is not a problem. Encoding stuff on it is.

Huzzah!

The Vortex

[hakamadare.livejournal.com]

so it’s ok to have an ID card as long as such a card doesn’t have your name, picture, or other identifying material on it?

not much of an ID card then, is it? :)

seriously, though - what information should be on such an ID card, and in what format?

-steve

[thevortex.livejournal.com]

I meant not encoding information on a chip. Name, picture, DOB, Address.

Oh, wait! We have those already...Shucks! Our government has reinvented the wheel again. =P

Huzzah!

The Vortex

[arib.livejournal.com]

Ah, there's the rub. Many states don't require you to put your address on your license for privacy concerns (cops working undercover, judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. may choose to have something like this, it's like unlisting your phone number). The proposed ID would require an address. Also, gender. Do you put your biological gender? What about people who are transgendered? Do they put their bio-gender, or their chosen gender? What if they want one and the government requires the other? There have been noises made about *requiring* HIV status on a national ID card. Useful as that might be for emergency medical personnel, I *really* think having that information be anything but voluntary is a horrible invasion of privacy.

See, I've got some concerns.

[jennkitty.livejournal.com]

well, such a card might have made Jesus Christ's move to West Virginia a little easier.

[ttocs.livejournal.com]

Are you kidding? You want to change information on your card? We'll have to get approval from the department of homeland security for that.

[hakamadare.livejournal.com]

i’d much rather see it implemented at the state or local level than at the federal.

i have no confidence in its actual utility as a security measure. as such, i see its use as twofold: it conveniently enables information collection and tracking for other purposes, whether political or commercial, and it provides a soothing security blanket for people afraid of terrorism. i believe that those individuals who want to have their information tracked should have the right to do so, and that those individuals who want to be soothed by a placebo should have the right to be so soothed; however, i don’t believe that people who don’t fall into one of these categories should be forced to comply. people who want to opt out of federal-level regulation have very few options to do so, whereas if such regulations are determined and enforced on a local level, it’s much more possible for people to influence the regulation or opt out by relocating.

-steve

[sethg]

What he said.

[rosefox]

But it will be implemented at the state level. The Federal government is so enthusiastic about the states doing this individually that it won't even fund their mandatory compliance!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I believe that the right to anonymity is at the root of much of freedom. Once the right to anonymity is removed -- and it mostly is already -- much other freedom erodes.

A requirement to have a national ID card is a requirement to give up anonymity. Admitedly, we've almost completely lost those freedoms already, but it's still bad.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I'm with you there for completely different reasons. Legally I have one name- for all purposes that aren't seriously official, I use another- I've done so since I learned to talk- or rather, since I learned to talk some but not enough to get out my full name. My drivers' license has the full name- if they actually want to know where I go and who I am- do I need both on there? Or should I just give in and change it legally?

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're not, but I have problems with it on both political and constitutional grounds.