| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > Maybe the card itself is not a civil rights violations, but the many
> > activities for which they will use such a thing are. First, if I'm
> > required to disply my shiny new Federal ID, I consider it unreasonable
> > search. I think of the right to travel anonymously as a fundamental.
> > Further, I don't want the federal government tracking my consumer
> > habits through a requirement to use this card for some or all purchases.
> >
> > This whole idea makes me very edgy.
> Maybe the reason you are experiencing such a fear is the fact that ID card
> is supposed to be "High Tech"...
Well, the more they can do with it, the worse that will be done. But I'm
opposed to any required identification including our Social Security Number.
> I have had a National ID card for ten years, and I only had to show it for
> proof of identity on reasonable subjects: Tests (School, College admission),
> Licenses (Driver's and others), and as a login number (!) to know if I had
> been admitted to College.
Why should a test proctor be required to see your parents' names or your
marital status?
> Technically, if I get in trouble I can use it to prove my identity, but I
> was never asked by any cop to display it.
Having the ability to gain such a tool to use as a defense isn't problematic
unless it is the only way to prove your identity, because then it is
essentially required.
> The thing is our ID card acts a bit like a passport (in fact, it does so
> within the Schengen Space).
Well, we have passports and only need to show them when travelling between some
nations. I've been in four countries as an adult and was all over Europe as a
baby and I've never used my passport.
> There are no chips, and the sort of information
> is very superficial: Name, Birthday, Parents' names, Height, Marital Status,
> Number (the single most important thing), Emission and Validity.
What does emission and validity mean?
> Besides, our legislation FORBIDS the state agencies to cross data among
> themselves (for instance, Social security record and Tax record),
We have some laws like that too. And really, our Social Security
Administration is pretty good about not sharing. But not good enough. Laws to
prevent that aren't as good as it not being possible. Laws can change.
> My point is the ID card itself isn't that invasive unless legislation isn't
> created to prevent abuses.
Note above that I wrote "maybe the card itself is not a civil rights
violation..." But why have it at all?
> You fear the government will track your habits...
> so maybe the response is a less advanced ID card, or the law saying only an
> officer can ask you to display the card.
Or maybe not having the infernal card at all? And why would I honor an
officer's request? What right does he have to know who I am?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) That is something beyond my will to fight against. Here we have a whole bunch of cards, numbers, ID's, licenses (Hunters need some seven or so different papers)... None of them is *too* invasive to our privacy - I have not heard of anyone (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (snipped) (...) Hi Chris, Maybe the reason you are experiencing such a fear is the fact that ID card is supposed to be "High Tech"... I have had a National ID card for ten years, and I only (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
