middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What is an SIN?People already have a SIN card
I assume that you are drawing comparisons to the Big Brother aspect of the novel 1984.The only thing the national ID will accomplish is let the Fed track even more of your activities,
Yes.What's the point? To block illegals?
That only counts if you expect to track their bank records, which private entities are already doing.you can't anyway because most are paid with cash.
But, you only need the passport for international travel, which makes it quite unreliable as a universal method of identification.There's no reason for a national ID card. If you want something Federal, then get a passport.
If you mean, SSN, as in, social security number, then yes, I am well aware of that. However, it has no picture, which makes the forging of the document (or the using of a legitimate one on the Internet or over the telephone) extremely easy.
I assume that you are drawing comparisons to the Big Brother aspect of the novel 1984.
I beg to differ. Big Brother went way, WAY over the edge. Big Brother had GPS devices surgically implanted in your bodies so that the government could watch you take a piss!
How, exactly, does a CARD do that?
That only counts if you expect to track their bank records, which private entities are already doing.
But, you only need the passport for international travel, which makes it quite unreliable as a universal method of identification.
No, we don't have to do that.This is the argument that is always put forth as the reason to create some kind of new government registry. People will always be able to forge ID unless we use biometrics or bodily implants,
And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"and even then your data is still in vulnerable databases.
Really?And the fact is, identity theft is not at epidemic levels like we are being scared into believing.
By including a physical description of the person who owns it.How exactly would a new card prevent forgeries?
Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.Why is a federal registry necessary when state ID cards are just fine?
What?Great, then a federal ID isn't necessary.
And, how do you feel that security and safety are not valid reasons?"Security" and "safety" are not valid reasons for this kind of ID.
There is.If there's a problem then the states should increase the security features of their cards. That's no excuse to make a federal ID.
Which one are you siding with? Orion, or me?Yeah, I'm with you on this one.
I live in Washington State and like vacationing up to BC. For the longest time you could get up with just a Birth Certificate and your ID. Then there was some big controversy about them requiring Passports. Low and behold look what ends up happening but now you can use your ID again but only if you apply for the ENHANCED ID CARD! Containing reference numbers to a central database including biometric stats used to confirm your identity.
But look at how CONVENIENT it is!
And, how do you figure that it will simply be "more government," rather than making the existing government's jobs easier?It is nothing less than more government in our lives.
Centralizing it. It will reduce it all to one form of identification that anyone will take.What purpose does this serve?
No, we don't have to do that.
As long as the documents are supposed to have either photos, or physical descriptions, then said physical likenesses can be stored in federal archives, so, if someone gets suspicious about the legitimacy of an ID, they can look it up and compare the description that's supposed to go there, to the one that is there.
Forged documents would not stand up to close inspection.
And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"
Really?
I don't suppose you could provide some citation to back up that claim.
Duh.
Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.
There's a LOT of confusion, there!
Forged documents would not stand up to close inspection.
And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"
I don't suppose you could provide some citation to back up that claim.
By including a physical description of the person who owns it.
Duh.
Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.
And, how do you feel that security and safety are not valid reasons?
State cards are sufficient, as long as you don't go down to Florida, get pulled over, and some cop thinks "Is this Oregon driver's license legitimate?"
If the national ID can make the feds' jobs easier, then they have to do less work. If they do less work, that's less government in our lives!
Centralizing it. It will reduce it all to one form of identification that anyone will take.
Go to a medicare-taking doctor, they can simply look up your national ID number, and verify that you do, indeed, participate in Medicare.
A cop pulls you over. You give him your national ID. The cop verifies that this national ID was, indeed, given license to drive a motor vehicle, and credits you as having a valid drivers' license.
Now, you won't have to keep a wallet full of identification documents for each little itty bitty purpose.
It's not intrusion. It's the same thing we're used it; just centralized.
Because it's centralized.How is a federal ID any more secure than other forms of ID?
They would be a lot MORE difficult if the "social security card" bore either a picture, of a physical description.You can get them. It's difficult, but cyberattacks do happen.
Then, here it is:I don't see how a federal card will make theft less likely.
By including a physical description of the person who owns it.
I agree.If a person can look at an ID, I'm sure that they can look at a picture.
You can update your national ID.Besides, what happens if you gain wight, get surgery, lose your hair
Still, it never hurts to streamline it even further.ID's aren't th most complicated thing in the world.
But, it would be a lot harder for forgers to convince people that they rightfully own this ID if the people looking at it had federal archives to compare it to.If they're standardized, then forgers will just switch to that.
Who said that I advocate increasing the number of random searches?Inspection is largely not that thorough unless random people are sampled (like in airport security) and happen to get caught. In order for it to be more thorough, more people would have to be hassled and scrutinized, and I'm not in favor of that.
Yeah... complete with months and months of court battles and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. In the meantime, personal lives must be set aside. Personal relationships must suffer.If someone has stolen your identity and you have proof, that is more than enough to make a case.
It would replace all the existing identification-based federal agencies.There's no need for another federal registry that can still be faked.
No, this is merely a new type of exercise of an existing power: The Necessary and Proper Clause.It's just giving the government further powers it doesn't need.
Perhaps, but, if the guys looking at the national IDs can see if it's fake or not, just by comparing it to the archives, it would stop a lot of ID thieves in the process of doing it.This was more of a side argument, but you should look at the means in which identities tend to be stolen: it's either because people have their cards directly stolen or third parties that are retaining the information (like banks, phone companies, etc.) get hacked and databases are lifted.
Even if the registry that we're creating would eliminate the need for various other registries?No, just simple observation. We live in the digital era and there will always be people who foolishly give up their info. to the wrong people. That shouldn't be my problem or an excuse to create another registry.
Because it will replace old ID cards.Why does the federal government need that information in the form of a new ID card
Who said anything about biometric information?Furthermore, why does ANY government body need my biometric information?
That would replace a lot of other piles of crap.The federal ID would just be one more to the pile of crap,
Huh? That doesn't even make sense!Only difference is that the Fed would have its own database instead of just your state.
Unless it stands less chance of standing up to close inspection.Because a Federal ID does not make anyone more secure or more safe.
While getting rid of all the other means of prying into your life.It just gives the Federal government one more means to pry into your life
And so, the federal ID cannot simply work with the states to make sure that the federal ID can serve their purpose?Each state has its own ID because each state has its own sovereignty, its own ID requirements, and its own laws.
I agree, but, imagine, trying to take out a loan online. The creditor that you're applying for lives in a different state, and requests that you xerox your driver's license and send that to them. You do so. How do they know that this state's driver's license is legitimate. If the state has a registry that can be used to verify your physical description, what if they don't KNOW about that registry, or they know about it, but don't know how to use it.Inconvenient, but hardly a crisis.
Unless that one registry/system/tracking method can do the jobs of five of them.There is no real reason why the fed needs another registry, another ID system, or another way to track your activities.
That would compromise federal supremecy.If you are suspected of something, then they need to deal with the state level and get your information that way.
The Federal Supremecy clause says the exact opposite.The fed should not be going above the individual states.
That won't stop them from making careless errors, nor will it stop private entities from thinking that other states' IDs are illegitimate.As far as I know, the full faith and credit clause requires each state to accept the IDs of all other states,
It's not just their problem. It's the people's problem!If different states are too incompletent to recognize the IDs of other states, then that is their problem.
I already told you: It's not an expansion. It's a centralization, streamlining, and condensing of power.The expansion of power is unnecessary.
Yes, but it's not centralized.Which they can do anyway by using your medicare file number.
That only works if it's intentional. It doesn't do much if it's out of negligence.Full faith and credit clause.
Let me put it this way:I don't think you understand the difference between state and federal power. You just view this as simplifying people's lives and making them more convenient, but you don't understand what it means for implied federal powers vs. state sovereignty.
Because it's centralized.
They would be a lot MORE difficult if the "social security card" bore either a picture, of a physical description.
Then, here it is:
Joe Shmoe goes into an RV dealership and buys an $80,000 RV, using Bob's name and credit.
However, the national ID's physical description calls for someone who is 5'8" tall, Caucasian, and brown eyes. Joe has the Caucasian part, but he's 6 feet tall and has blue eyes.
The dealership knows that something is amiss. Bob gets a telephone call; Joe gets arrested. End of story.
Comprende?
You can update your national ID.
This isn't streamlining. It's just adding another layer of bureaucracy.Still, it never hurts to streamline it even further.
But, it would be a lot harder for forgers to convince people that they rightfully own this ID if the people looking at it had federal archives to compare it to.
The concept of a national ID, similar to the driver's license at the state level, just at the federal level, has been met with lots of opposition from those who think that a national ID system is the hallmark of a totalitarian system.
However, the Passport Card - which allows you to travel to and from Canada and Mexico without tourist visas, and is $40 cheaper than a full-fledged passport - has been a lot better received, largely because it is voluntary. Don't want the Passport Card? Fine, just don't expect to go to Canada or Mexico without a tourist visa. Simple as that.
Ok, so, voluntary national IDs are a lot better received, eh? Well, let's take that approach.
You will need a national ID before you can participate in any optional government programs. Any at all.
You want to sue someone in federal court? Show your national ID along with your complaint.
Subject to federal criminal charges, and want a public defender? Flash your national ID.
Want welfare money? Show your national ID with the application.
You can file your taxes without a national ID, but, if you want to claim ANY deductions, even yourself as a dependent, you'll need a national ID.
Want to apply for any federal job? We're talking, just APPLYING for the job, even if you don't get a formal job offer. Guess what you'll need?
Thoughts?
Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?I will only support a national ID for the federal level when federal laws can be repealed by popular initiatives.
I'm very much against the national ID. It is nothing less than more government in our lives.
The Passport Card is more or less a Passport.
A national ID does nothing to make us anymore safe and secure so I see no justification in it's implementation. It's loss of privacy and bigger federal government.
I think we should have a national ID as a form of "stacking" other forms of ID on it.
IE: Everyone gets a card at birth but as you go through and get other official forms of ID and licensing, they get added digitally to the ID correlated to a DNA registry to verify the identity of the user.
Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?
Except the reason many votes are unpopular is because people dont understand themThe average politician is usually just as misinformed and ignorant, and they write laws based on what their campaign contributors tell them to think. Considering that, I think the people deserve a right to recall unpopular votes.
Except the reason many votes are unpopular is because people dont understand them
Which doesnt change the fact that PEOPLE are generally ignorant thus giving them veto over things like the function of our government is a BAD idea.Neither do the Congressmen and Senators most of the time.
Yes it does.That doesn't answer the question.
Then, what is the difference between that, and the national ID that you hate so much?Then have that bear a picture or description.
That's what I said.Or the guy looks at another ID and sees that Joe looks nothing like Bob. Guy gets arrested End of story. Comprende?
Who said anything about paying a fee?So I have to go to my courthouse and pay a fee if I get colored contacts or lose weight?
While getting rid of lots of other layers of bureaucracy.This isn't streamlining. It's just adding another layer of bureaucracy.
But, they are insufficient.Things like SS cards already are federally databased.
That's what I've been saying, all along.I think we should have a national ID as a form of "stacking" other forms of ID on it.
IE: Everyone gets a card at birth but as you go through and get other official forms of ID and licensing, they get added digitally to the ID correlated to a DNA registry to verify the identity of the user.
In a way, you can already do that.I will only support a national ID for the federal level when federal laws can be repealed by popular initiatives.
For the same reason that I think voter initiative is a good thing, even when it's abused in situations such as California.Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?
First of all, what CURRENT form of identification uses the person's DNA, you paranoid nut!Requiring everyone to put their DNA in a government database....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?