| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 complainig against what is on ID's for others to see.
We use most of these ID's as proof of identity or as keys to have a quicker
access to services: the National Healthcare Service Card has a clinical
history that can be useful if we are unconscious (spelling?) and need quick
medical response.
> > 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?
Why wouldn't I want him to see who my parents are, or if I'm single or
married? That is supposed to be of public knowledge - that is why people
wear those gold rings, and have last names... :-P
> > 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.
What other ways do you have to prove your identity AND that all citizens
*must* have?
> > 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.
Yes, I have a Passport too, I used it for some countries as well: Cuba,
China, Jamaica, Tunisia... follow the pattern? I also travelled troughout
Europe, and never had to show my ID or Passport on borders, only on airports
*before* boarding (and to prove I'm the guy with the name on the ticket,
there is no curbside check-in in Portugal). But if cops abroad ask me for
proof of identity, well...
I remembered a funny use for it: when I rent skis it is required to leave
the ID as a deposit. this way they can prosecute me if I steal the skis.
Again, reasonable: if I don't behave, they can bill me. Fair enough.
> > 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?
Date of issuance (spelling?), and date of renewal (every ten years, or if
some characteristic changes).
> > 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.
Not the constitution - ours says something about that sharing thing.
Besides, I personally don't bother *state* agencies crossing my data, if my
life becomes easier - I have nothing to hide. I *would bother* if it leaked
to private companies... but no government would risk that, they would most
likely be violently judged by an angry mob on the streets. :-/
> > 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?
Why not? Like all thing it has advantages and disadvanatges, even though I
can't recall any disadvantage coming from my own card.
> > 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?
For instance, it is practical to find criminals on the run AND you can prove
you are not one, by simply showing the card if you are confused by a less
clever officer.
And why would you honor an officer's request??? Why grant him authority in
the first place? Better still, why have Police? Why not return to the good
old days of the Far West? Or the law of the jungle?
If there is a Police force, legitimated by the society, it is VERY
reasonable they can ask for proof of identity! Or would you issue
competences and not grant the means to exercise them?
It is not as if the copper would be asking you to strip your clothes off...
THAT would be unreasonable search! :-P
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Actually, me too. It is possible in the US to divorce oneself from their SSN, and I have not done that. They make sure it's a gigantic hassle. (...) I could come up with a number of reasons that a person might not want their parentage or (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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. (...) Why should a test proctor be required to see your parents' names or your marital (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
