| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > I could come up with a number of reasons that a person might not want their
> > > parentage or maritl status broadcast. And you might just say those reasons
> > > don't apply to you. But what about others? I don't think this is just about
> > > you. I don't care if anyone knows who my parents are either...at least not • off
> > > hand. But some people might and I don't see it as my right to prevent their
> > > privacy.
> >
> > Ok, please point some reasons to me. I may even write a memo to the ID
> > bureau here (no kidding!) if they are irrefutable.
>
> You might not want your parentage known under any circumstance where parentage
> matters. If you are a mix of ethnicities, one or more of which are
> discriminated against, you might not want it obvious.
Maybe... but then again, it is highly unlikely that any portuguese hasn't
had ancestors of different races/ethnicites, thus noone can pick on me for
that. Besides, names here are all alike, for all ethnicites.
> If your parent is
> (in)famous, you might not want to be hassled about being their kid.
Ah, fame... I can count famous criminals in Portugal by the fingers of my
right hand. And some fingers may not need to be used... :-)
And fame doesn't usually hit stars' children - there are laws to prevent
that from happening.
> If your
> parentage is unsure the entry might look funny.
?
> If your parent has any kind of
> enemies, you might not want it brought to attention that you are kin.
See, that would be a good point. But if my father had enemies, it would be
likely they would know me even without the ID...
> You might not want your marital status scrutinized when you are in the process
> of changing said status (e.g. getting a divorce). Or when you are considering
> or attempting to attract someone sexually who might be put off by your
> marriage. Or in situations where one status is valued above another.
I won't even bother to answer to that. And if you are married, I'd suggest
you never even tell your wife about this paragraph.
> > > None. Must is bad. I can demonstrate my ID through people that know me,
> > > dental records, mail, etc. depending on the situation.
> >
> > a) I can demonstrate my identity through a couple of friends WITH ID if I
> > don't have mine.
>
> How does that identify you? You mean, only people with IDs are trustworthy?
Technically, yes. The demonstration is based on oath, the same kind you do
in court. If I am not the person those two claimed I was, both me and them
can be prosecuted - and the cop knows who *they* are. It is a risk not worth
taking for law abiding citizens.
> > b) You keep *dental records*?! How practical is that on the street? :-P
>
> Why must you be prepared at the drop of a hat to identify yourself? Maybe it
> would be easier if you just had a chip-beacon implanted for law enforcement.
I can identify at will. I can go around and scream my name (before 10pm...
:-). I am proud to be myself. So why would I not wish to be prepared to
prove who I am?
> > c) How do you use *mail* to demonstrate identity?
>
> I have had to show mail to demonstrate state residence. It's not exactly ID,
> but it's related.
Not even close. You demonstrate residence, not ID. You could be Mr. A, claim
to be Mr. B, and all the mail demonstrates is that you live in a particular
adress.
Ah, and isn't that unreasonable? At least our house is not on our ID for
others to see!
> > > I leave my debit card number with them.
> >
> > And what they can do with that!... :-(
>
> It's my choice to do so or not. And I think it's pretty safe. So far there's
> been no trouble.
According to a recent news in Portugal, it takes about 20 seconds to copy a
card. There have been demontrations of that. A guy in France who warned the
banks about the same was arrested (!), to silence the voices of those who
want better card security.
Be aware. Honest.
> > > I might choose to do that. But I can just do that with my drivers license.
> >
> > What about those who DON'T drive??
>
> In the US there are lots of _optional_ forms of ID available. As a tool, ID is
> fine. As a requirement it's not.
What if the requirement acted like the universally apliable tool? Kind of
"standard" equipment? Isn't that practical (again, I miss the correct word)?
> > > Here in the US that is not the
> > > case. It seems to me, that those who are required to interact with them on a
> > > regular basis
> >
> > Who? And why?
>
> Those who live in poor neighborhoods, criminals, cops, mobsters, etc.
Criminals and mobsters are the reason for the ID. They are the ones that
should be identified. I don't see why you'd want to protect THEM.
> > > Which is not to say that they have no purpose or reason. I have been • assisted
> > > by police and I have been needlessly hassled by police. I have seen people
> > > brutalized by police for "talking back." I have little respect for the
> > > profession.
> >
> > I have only experienced the part of being assisted. And searched on the
> > entrance of a College festival, but that is something required by law - so
> > it is not a "hassle".
>
> Gosh! I think lots of things that are required by law are hassles, but I know
> that's not what you mean.
And you are right. This case was something that was done for my safety, so I
agreed and submitted to it. I could have just missed the "Xutos" concert
(oh, no I couldn't! :-).
> > You can talk back to officers here, as long as you
> > don't play violent - THAT would be very, very bad.
>
> The former part is different, but the latter is the same here.
>
> > > > If there is a Police force, legitimated by the society, it is VERY
> > > > reasonable they can ask for proof of identity!
> > >
> > > If they have probable cause to suspect me of commission of a crime, then I
> > > agree.
> >
> > What about confusion? It may be of interest to make light over
> > misunderstandings. There are lots of guys looking like me that can not
> > behave so neatly, and I sure won't like to be taken for one of them.
>
> Probable cause doesn't mean that I'm guilty. It means that they have a
> plausible reason to suspect that I _might_ have done something illegal. So
> they check it out. That's what we all agree to. I also have the option of not
> providing ID and seeing what the cop wants to do about it.
Here, probably you would just be taken to precinct (no cuffs) and asked to
phone someone that could prove your identity. If all were right, you could
leave. Notice that you wouldn't be "arrested".
I understand thins may be different in the States, it appears you follow
procedures much more closely. The police here are given more freedom to
improvise, and they can decide exactly who they want to trust (and how far).
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) about (...) their (...) parentage (...) Even if people come from other nations? And racism is unheard of in Portugul? That rocks! So basically, instead of being concerned about those who might wish to keep their parentage private, what you are (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) off (...) You might not want your parentage known under any circumstance where parentage matters. If you are a mix of ethnicities, one or more of which are discriminated against, you might not want it obvious. If your parent is (in)famous, you (...) (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
|
|
|
|
