"Multipass."
May. 11th, 2005 10:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexagonHmm... 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. :)
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. :)
