"Multipass."

[flexagon]

Hmm... people seem upset about the idea of a national ID card. To avoid terminal fatigue from eyeball-rolling, I found it best to get away from the links where I first learned about this and find a neutral source of information. Here, for example, is a FAQ on the topic by CNN, from which the italicized bits below are taken.

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

I already have to identify myself with state-issued, federally approved ID before I can travel on an airplane, open a bank account, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

What's on the card? At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes." So, like, exactly what's on my driver's license, except that my license has a signature and my height, too.

A more valid objection I've seen is that pretty much all businesses may be able to read the IDs. At the moment, state driver's licenses aren't easy for bars, banks, airlines and so on to swipe through card readers because they're not uniform. True, but most people don't go state-hopping all the time, which is why the liquor store in Central Square has no problem scanning the back of my license to check against the name and address on the front. Also, I haven't seen anything saying that all this information has to be at the same level of security, so it's not necessarily true that all businesses could get all the data (which I agree could be used in a negative way).

Someone stop me if I'm just being stupid, because there seems to be widespread resistance to this thing, but what's bad about a national ID card? I've been wondering for years why we don't have one, instead of the current inefficient state-based system. (Most European countries do, and it's no big deal.) Yes, it enables a seamless database not subdivided by state, which is a good thing when you're talking about criminals and deadbeat dads... could be a good thing for a lot of reasons, in fact. With any luck they'll see fit to get blood type and known allergies on it too, so that hospitals nationwide will be better equipped to treat patients injured in emergencies.

Keep in mind, of course, that this is coming from a person who, at the age of six and having never heard of World War II, recommended tattooing numbers on people so that they wouldn't have to worry about losing their licenses. I think I was born without the privacy gene. :)

Comments

[artana.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think it takes away a lot of state power. The States have a choice to follow the standard or not, but if they don't then Homeland Security will make sure that people from that state cannot use their driver's licenses as ID anymore. So, the States are forced to comply. This bothers me on several levels, though I will have to read up more before I can formulate my thoughts on it.

I also dislike the idea that the information stored on there can be extremely private. There is no set guideline for what information should be stored on it. Homeland Security gets to decide.

[flexagon]

Sure... but what makes state government any more trustworthy than the federal government? I don't really get that part.

[artana.livejournal.com]

It's not whether the state government is more trustworthy; it's the fact that the make up of the US is that the States retain some independence so that the Federal Government cannot have final say in everything; it's another check an balance.

If the Federal Government is worming in ways to take control of things that are owned by the State Government, especially by stating that the States would lose particular rights, not just monitary incentives, if they do not cede this power over...well, that's just heading in an ugly direction.

[flexagon]

Checks and balances... true, decent point. Of course, things go back and forth. A few years ago states got to set their own speed limits again, this year the ID goes to the national government. I'm really not sure which way it's trending.

Thanks for raising this point tough, as I hadn't thought of it. :)

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

I don't have time to fully read up on it, but in the first two sentences of the first article it mentions you have to give your permanent home address. For me, I wouldn't want a national database that tells people where I live. Although it's not an issue at the moment, if I went through stalking again, I'd like the option to make it a little harder for someone to find me...a national database replicated all over the place makes that a lot easier. That's my first objection...I'm sure I'll have more. Things like this are all fine and good if you assume no one will misuse the information, but I find that HIGHLY unlikely, and a national system will make it that much easier for those who are motivated to misuse it to get the information. I was definitely born with a privacy gene. ;-)

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

Another point I forgot to mention - people who want to break the law get fake ids. When has proper id REALLY been a roadblock for criminals?

[flexagon]

I think it becomes more so when it becomes machine readable (the scanner in the liquor store has apparently sent more than one person running... it's easier to fake the data on the front than on the back).

I do think different levels of access, so not just anyone can see your address, is a good thing. Stalkers suck. But I have to give my address almost anytime I have a business transaction anyway, and business transactions is what we're talking about using the ID for, so I'm just not sure this is a *difference* from the way it already is.

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

It may be easier to fake data on the front, but I sincerely doubt that people won't be able to fake the bar code if they are motivated. Theoretically this new id is part of the "war on terror" (how I hate that term), yet do they really think that the same parties they accuse of angling for nuclear power aren't sophisticated enough to fake a bar code? Additionally, some sites say the ultimate direction they'd like to go with the encoded data is an RFID chip, which is just HORRIFIYING. Bottom line? I do not trust our current federal govt to be honest and look out for my best interests, much less protect my personal data in a competent way.

[flexagon]

Ah, yeah, it is super annoying how they sneaked it in as part of a supposedly anti-terror thing. I forgot to mention my annoyance in my post.

But the mere fact that so many people have come out against the idea of an RFID chip makes that decision unlikely, methinks. They have until 2008 to finish designing the thing... that's time to think through some of the issues a little better. I hope. :)

[jg26.livejournal.com]

Why would you say it is more difficult to fake the electronic info. If you can fake a credit card... why is this any less difficult? Sure it may take a little more investment to fake the electronic... so we'll just put the ID faking out of reach of ameteurs. Not a complete enough solution to justify the violation of privacy (a gene I tested positive for).

[flexagon]

Er, well, it just is more difficult. A good color copier can go a long way toward faking the data on the front. So anything you can do to make it harder is a deterrent. Sure, some people will always be sophisticated enough to get around it. But fewer than before. Same as with any anti-counterfeit device, any lock, any ID. And I still haven't seen any invasion of privacy that I wasn't seeing before.

[apfelsingail.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, there is a license scanner in the later stages of development in NH that troopers will be able to swipe on the spot when they pull someone over. But that's a NH thing.

Overall, I don't like the idea of national IDs, for many of the reasons Miyyu expressed- I'm strongly in favor of States' rights. I see the utility and the reasons for them, but I don't trust the federal government, especially the current administration. While my state may do things I disagree with, I feel they are more in touch with local issues and that its constituents have more influence. At the federal level? Not so much. They already have too much say in what should be personal issues. I have no interest in giving them MORE personal information. I was born with the New England, stubbornly private, individual (almost paranoid) gene....

On another state v. federal question, what DOES make sense is to revamp our environmental policy, and regulate resources on an ecosystem-wide basis, rather than state by state. As it is, coordinating action, research, and policy development is a nightmare.

[flexagon]

While my state may do things I disagree with, I feel they are more in touch with local issues

Yeah, I can definitely agree with this one, especially wrt social issues. (Economic, not necessarily so much, for me). I'm waiting for 2008 just like everyone else.

I guess a lot of my noncomprehension is because the federal government already knows my address, and SS#, and stuff like that anyway. That's all right, seems like basic information they need to know about citizens so they can mail them things. All that information is out there already and yes, a lot of businesses have it too. I don't see why it matters so much who mails us the ID card.

what DOES make sense is to revamp our environmental policy, and regulate resources on an ecosystem-wide basis, rather than state by state

I agree, that too. :)