Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, February 27, 2005 | Dennis Roddy

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I had never thought about BYOG (bring your own gun)airline....I like this idea....this airline might be big in the Middle East.

[zeugma]

I think you'd be suprised at how well an airline that allowed guns and cigarettes on board would do. But again, those are only possible in a free country.

[marktwain]

Wait a minute: so anyone who manages to evade border security and live in the same place for six months is presumed a citizen with the right to vote?

That is not what I said.

The equivalent would be for me to say that under your system, anybody who presents a fake I.D. can vote?

I am describing the system as it was, and it worked pretty well. I would add real penalties for fraudulent votes, or for anyone encouraging fraudulent votes. Under the current system, here in Arizona, people are prevented from investigating vote fraud by the Federal election police (Voting Rights Act).

National I.D. cards are no panacea for voting fraud. I do not believe they are worth the loss of freedom that they entail.

[mcg1969]

Well indeed, voting is a bit different because each state has some autonomy in the selection of their representatives and Electoral College electors. Still, the difference between "my" system and "yours" is, IMO, the feasibility of enforcement. Certainly ID cards are no panacea, but I'm just not seeing how it is feasible to verify citizenship without some sort of, well, record, whether that is of birth or naturalization. How can I prove that a vote is fraudulent if I cannot prove that a person is not a citizen? Perhaps the key is that there needn't be a single national ID card; each state can be responsible for its own.

[marktwain]

We used birth certificates before. If we had good safeguards in place, a fingerprint scanner would be useful.

The big problem is, how do you develop a system that will not be abused, or at least keeps abuse to a minimal level? How do you insure that the safe guards are in place?

Most people who want the system refuse to talk about drawbacks, which make the people who see dangers very suspicious.

If people in the government had shown themselves to be sticklers for enforcing their oath of office, I would have no problem with the biometric I.D. Unfortunately that is not the case, and we see blatant violations of the Constitution daily. Probably 2/3 of the government would be *gone* if our officeholders followed their oath of office.