(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

[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. :-)