Living the outlaw life:National ID — Our Line in the Sand

If you hold either of those views about national ID, for the sake of your own future I hope you’ll reconsider.

“Sure it’s obnoxious. But get real; we already have a national ID system. It’s called our driver’s license. Or Social Security. What they’re talking about now is just a technical refinement.”

If you hold that view, you’re right -- as far as it goes. But things are going to go a lot farther.

If we accept national ID, we’ll all have a problem. We won’t be one bit safer from violence. And we will have crossed a crucial line that forever divides the free from the unfree.

National ID isn’t a new idea. American politicians and bureaucrats have been proposing it since the Great Depression. “Infallible” national ID has been proposed over the years as a means of fighting communism, illegal immigration, crime, census undercounting, terrorism, welfare fraud, and a variety of other disasters du jour.

Until now, Americans have always said no to being forced to show “Your papers, please!” on demand. But since the catastrophe of September 11, polls say as many as 87 percent of us may be willing to submit to a nationwide, biometric ID system.

Larry Ellison, CEO of the giant database company Oracle, has been the chief cheerleader for the proposed system, which would require us to carry a card containing a scannable “smart chip,” and would identify us through a combination of our Social Security number, fingerprint, and retinal pattern or facial-recognition scan (this is called biometrics -- measuring of our biological characteristics). Ellison admits that from its inception the accompanying federal ID database would give government agencies, and anyone else with access, instant information on our “places of work, amounts and sources of income, assets, purchases, travel destinations, and more.”[1]

President Bush is reported as not favoring national ID. But statements coming out of the White House have been non-committal -- of the “we‘re keeping all options open“ variety. Dozens of high-level government officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Attorney General John Ashcroft, do favor the scheme.

At first the cards wouldn’t be mandatory -- at least not in Ellison‘s plan. But even in the “voluntary” system, anyone who “chose” not to present a national ID card and submit to biometric scans on demand would be subject to invasive body searches at airports and extensive, humiliating, time-consuming questioning at checkpoints about his identity, plans, motives, and activities. Everyone without approved ID would, in short, be treated as a criminal suspect.

If the system became legally mandatory, those refusing to cooperate could also be arrested, jailed and fined.

There‘s an alternative plan in the works. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has been striving for years to get biometric national ID implemented by stealth -- by having states, under federal mandate, convert their own IDs and drivers licenses to biometric form, then linking all 50 state databases into a nationwide system. They have partially succeeded by getting congressional leaders to plant small, hidden “land-mines” in large bills passed by Congress since 1996.

The AAMVA announced in November 2001 that it was “working closely” with the new Office of Homeland Security to implement a mandatory biometric system through state licensing agencies. And this system would be mandatory.

Well, so what? The United States isn’t Nazi Germany -- which used a computerized national ID system to round up Jews and other “undesirables” and send them to slave labor and death. (This “civilized” bureaucratic process behind the Nazi slaughter is icily documented in Edwin Black’s 2000 book, IBM and the Holocaust.) So what’s the big deal?

The very big deal is “mission creep.” When Social Security numbers were introduced in the 1930s, the system was “voluntary.” Citizens who worried about the biblical number of the Beast (Rev. 13: 16-18) or more mundane forms of tyranny were assured that, by law, the number would never -- ever -- be used for ID.

In the tradition of nearly every limited, temporary, or voluntary government program our Social Security number eventually became our universal identifier. No law requires you to get a Social Security number, even today. But try functioning in the everyday world of work, banking, credit, schooling, home-buying, or even video rental without one.

If national ID becomes U.S. law, five years from now you won’t be able to do any of these things without submitting to various biometric scans. But that’s barely the beginning.

The new, more high-tech national ID system would enable the federal government and its contractors to follow and electronically analyze your activities in real-time -- to pinpoint your location, check your purchases, view records of your medical condition, and monitor your bank deposits and withdrawals as you make them, for instance. Worse yet, it ultimately gives government the ability to control your activities -- to (accidentally or deliberately) freeze your bank account, shut down your credit cards, deny you access to public transportation, forbid you entry into such public places as county courthouses, deny you health care, even deny you entrance to your job once your employer has (in the name of standardization, and possibly with the spur of federal subsidies or regulations) adopted the federal system. All at the click of a computer key, somewhere in Washington, D.C.

Does this sound too much like something out of the movie “Enemy of the State”?

But remember, you’re dealing with a federal government that already forbids professional licenses, drivers licenses, and even fishing licenses not to known terrorists, criminals, or illegals -- but to ordinary parents who get behind in child support. Just think what it could do to with the instant ability to monitor and cut off access to transportation or services for a variety of disobedient or “questionable“ people.

It could happen to you if you’re a “deadbeat dad,” if you’ve neglected some traffic tickets, if you fit the “profile” of a drug user or a gun owner, if you’ve stated too many controversial opinions on the Internet, if your activities appear “suspicious” by any mysterious standard, if you’ve made political enemies -- or even if there’s a glitch in the system. And have you ever tried to straighten out even a little glitch with a government agency? Good luck to you.

This is still only the beginning. Shortly (after too many people have misplaced their cards, and too many criminals continued to get useable ID), the card-borne “smart chip” would be replaced by an implanted chip -- one of which, Digital Angel, is already on the market. Periodic scanning could then be augmented by 24-hour-a-day, satellite-based tracking. People in the U.S. will be watched and controlled far more thoroughly than Winston Smith was controlled by Big Brother in 1984 -- and for the very same reasons; to impose some social manager’s ideal of order.

The second big deal is self-ownership. Maybe you don’t believe the scenario I just spelled out. You know the U.S. government is judicious and benevolent, and that it would only monitor, not control us.

Before you say, “It’s no problem if you have nothing to hide,” consider this:

If you catch your neighbor peeking through a knothole in the fence, you’re offended -- even if your neighbor merely sees you drinking a glass of iced tea. If you came home and found that same neighbor going through your bank statements, credit card records, school transcripts, medical records, and travel itineraries in your desk, you’d be livid, and you’d probably call the cops -- again, even if your financial and personal life was pure as new snow. Why? Because your neighbor has stepped over a line; he has violated the psychic and physical territory that belongs only to you.

Where did the government acquire the authority to freely inspect your life? What legitimate law enforcement or security purpose is served by surveiling the innocent?

The question isn’t what do you have to hide but why is the government so persistently determined to find out everything about you.

When you have to prove your identity to government agents on demand, you’re being treated as a criminal -- and your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are being trashed.

When you have to produce identity papers on demand, you’re being searched illegally. If you’re “detained” until you prove your identity, you’re being seized illegally. Both are violations of the Fourth Amendment.

If you must give information that could get you prosecuted (for instance, the information that you’re not carrying your national ID), you’re being forced to provide evidence against yourself -- a Fifth Amendment violation.

If your religion forbids universal numbering, your First Amendment rights are being broken by national ID.

And by extending its authority into areas forbidden to it by the Constitution, the federal government violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Is it worth it to you, to gain national ID and lose all these historic protections?

Random surveillance may help criminals and terrorists. Even before the September 11 attacks, commentators such as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum and former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht had warned that reliance on mass electronic surveillance and neglect of hard, culturally aware field work, was causing U.S. intelligence agencies to overlook years of extensive planning by terrorists.[2]

Mass surveillance catches the unwary -- ordinary people who may engage in unpopular political activities, have innocently “suspicious” patterns of behavior, or who accidentally violate obscure technical provisions of law. Mass surveillance might also catch petty larcenous (and not very bright) criminals. But serious criminals -- and that includes international terrorists -- take precautions against random spying. Thus, they get away with planning murder while the National Security Agency is overloaded, scanning your e-mails for “dangerous” words and while the FBI’s Carnivore gobbles up millions of useless records of worldwide Web surfing habits.

National ID -- with its on-the-spot links to vast databases of material covering your financial activities, skills, travels, and interests -- is simply more of the same, only with faster, more detailed, more widespread reporting. It targets YOU without protecting you from them.

Criminals, terrorists, and illegal immigrants will still get useable fake ID. We’re supposed to believe that when we present that card and subject ourselves to the accompanying biometric scans, we’re proving beyond all doubt that we’re who we say we are.

Anybody who wants it badly enough and is able to pay the price will still get fake ID -- even biometric national ID.

Want proof? When the AAMVA succeeded in getting its last round of “foolproof” ID imposed via state drivers licensing agencies in the mid-1990s, an entire industry developed in which employees of government licensing agencies sold “real” ID to illegal immigrants and criminals -- complete with scannable, verifiable database entries, real fingerprints, real digitized photos, and plausible but non-existent Social Security numbers.

Social Security employees have also been caught selling “real” SSNs, complete with “real” database entries, to illegal immigrants, including at least one terrorism suspect.

Exactly that same thing will happen with any ID system -- no matter how sophisticated or allegedly secure it is. (Naturally fake ID will always be available. How do you think the CIA, FBI, DEA, IRS, et al. manage to provide “cover” identities for their secret agents? Well-heeled criminals will simply imitate the methods originated by government intelligence agencies.)

Terrorists will still get genuine ID. Thousands of foreign agents (and potential suicide attackers) will continue to get real U.S. ID -- as at least 13 of the 19 September 11 hijackers did. A well-funded terrorist organization or foreign government with long-term plans to harm the U.S. would simply insert into this country, entirely “clean” agents -- idealistic students, legitimate contractors or diplomats, all with unobjectionable records -- who would be fully qualified to obtain genuine U.S. national ID. Once possessing “foolproof” biometric ID, such people would lay low, live their lives peaceably, and pass any ID scan -- until the day they set off their backpack nukes or released their smallpox infections upon the populace.

National ID? It won’t stop a determined enemy for a moment. But future failures of the “foolproof” national ID system will be the justification for the implanted subcutaneous chip and perpetual satellite tracking -- which in turn will be compromised by criminals, terrorists, and rogue governments.

Violence will actually increase. One day, Americans will wake up to discover that all their freedoms have been destroyed in the name of “saving freedom.” They’re going to be furious.

But by then national ID and all its noxious consequences will be firmly entrenched. No pragmatic Congress is going to repeal them. No chronically insecure security agency is going to give up its newfound centralized control. No giant corporation is going to say, “Oh, we’ll gladly dismantle our multi-billion-dollar money-making surveillance systems.”

After all, if we haven’t gotten rid of our National Tea Tasting Board 30 years after Richard Nixon singled it out as a prime example of stupid waste, who’s going to get rid of anything as “useful” to bureaucrats, enforcers, statisticians, and social managers as national ID -- even if it’s completely ineffective in making us safe?

Eventually, frustrated, fed-up, angry Americans will strike back -- violently and with the fury of people who have nothing left to lose. And they, too, can do that while bearing their nationalized identities -- real or fake -- when they are serious and desperate enough.

How do we stop this? There are too few influential people listening and too many actively on the other side.

In all probability, the ID system will be imposed gradually -- either one state at a time under quiet federal mandate, or nationally but “voluntarily.”

That way, Congresspeople can more easily say, “National ID? Don’t be silly; we don’t have national ID! We’re just ’enhancing identity protection’ to make America safe.”

There’s a broad, indefinite line that separates a free nation from a police state. On one side of that line, the people control the government. On the other, the government controls the people. We’ve been veering toward that line and into it for decades now. But with national ID we’ll have crossed it decisively.

Freedom lovers labor under a handicap. We are almost unfailingly burdened with a sense of civic responsibility that -- given the ruthlessness and machinations of our opponents -- is laughable. We practice the methods of American Government 101 -- polite letters to uncaring congresspeople, labors wasted on the campaigns of craven oath breakers -- while they vote at midnight for bills they haven’t read and trade our freedom for the momentary pleasure and power of the deal. Faceless bureaucrats write the laws, implement, interpret, and enforce them while elected officials posture, preen, and pretend to be the representatives they long ago ceased to be.

Believing we can politely influence such power seekers is rather like believing we can reason with men who fly airplanes into buildings.

Certainly, we must educate ourselves and anyone else who will listen that national ID is a problem, and potentially the most dangerous one Americans will ever face. We need numbers, informed brains, and determined spirits.

We must still try to tell our soi dissant leaders that we forbid national ID. The way to do this is not to beg them or our freedom, but to warn them of the consequences of stealing our freedom. To whatever extent we communicate with our alleged representatives (and it’s best to do this in public forums and in the media, where others who care might hear), we should make it absolutely clear that this is a line-in-the-sand issue -- that we won’t tolerate the standard political trickery or typical dodges (“Oh, goodness, I had no idea that was hidden in that must-pass appropriations bill.”) First, we must warn them that any vote for national ID is a vote that could get them thrown out of office, regardless of anything else in their record. (Then we have to back that, which is the hard part.) We must make it clear -- in a responsible way -- that rebellion and resistance will follow if national ID is imposed. Don’t make specific threats to commit illegal activity and don’t recommend specific illegal activities to others unless you’re willing to bear the legal consequences; focus in the abstract on American‘s historic refusal to accept tyranny.

Prepare to resist -- and prepare for the consequences of resistance. It will be the job of truly patriotic -- not just flag-waving patriotic -- Americans to break any national ID system thrust upon us.

If national ID and tracking is imposed, people who value freedom will need to ensure that the databases are full of such garbage that the system can’t function usefully and that the scanners are constantly non-operative. The more flamboyant among us will need to stage public confrontations (anything from sit-down strikes to surround the scanners, to wearing of Groucho glasses and chemical defacing of fingerprints, to playful acts of public-protest theater, as many groups now perform in front of streetside facial-recognition cameras).

Ultimately, millions will need to refuse to accept the card -- even if it means loss of jobs, travel restrictions, jail, or worse. Right now, few have that will. If enough understand the long-term consequences of national ID, we might -- it’s our only hope -- develop the courage that comes from understanding.

It isn’t nice. It isn’t safe. But if you want to see something really ugly and really dangerous -- stand by and give the federal government the means to control your daily life.

[1] Ellison, Larry. “Smart Cards: Digital IDs Can Help Prevent Terrorism.” WSJ.com Opinion Journal, Oct 18, 2001. (Originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Octr 8, 2001) Found at www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001336.

[2] See Pipes, Daniel. “Mistakes Made the Catastrophe Possible.” Wall Street Journal, Sept 12, 2001. Found at www.interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1000270817760286077.htm. And Gerecht, Reuel Marc. “The Counterterrorist Myth.” The Atlantic, Jul/Aug 2001. Found at www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/gerecht.htm. </font size>

Re: post #5. Why?

Simple. It's because most of those who rule us were, and continue to be, fellow travelers to socialism.

The Soviets survived as long as they did because of "information", confiscation, and the fear instilled in the sheeple by the sight of frequent SWAT-equivalent violence against innocent civilians.

In his wildest dreams, Dzerzhinsky might not have imagined the current control of the serfs that is imposed by today's technology.

The main difference between fascism and communism is the location of "title of ownership" for industry/economy. Control of production, one way or another, is in government hands. Everything else, for these two forms of socialism, are more or less the same.

So, what we have here in the U.S. is a growing fascist form of socialism. This time around, the tyranny will last, as predicted in 1964, for at least a thousand years...not just 70 or 10.

Within a few years, when a few more of the sheeple wake up to the real terrorist threat, it will be too late.

WW1 (e.g. emergency war powers acts) and WW2 (e.g. payroll deduction of taxes) were used by those in power to impose "temporary" unConstitutional rules and regulations on the Nation or to simply throw out/sidestep "temporarily" Constitutional guarantees, all in the name of some "external threat". None of these "temporary" abrogations of the former Constitution were ever undone!

What can be done? Nothing. This past election was the last and only chance to restore the Republic and the freedom and liberty it used to protect.

For a while, it seemed, with perceived Constitutionalists like Ashcroft in place, that something might be done. It was similar to the hopes held when the Republcans re-gained control of congress.

However, we were rewarded, for 1994, at the hands of the Republocrats, with the greatest loss of Constitutional guarantees in our history. Now, once again, we see that it isn't known enemies (demoncruds) that we really have to fear. It is those we assume are our friends/allies.

This administration is on the verge of finalizing Ronald Reagan's prophecy.

I would support the following type of national biometric ID system, if and when the technology is reliable:

1) Nobody can be required to carry anything--just ain't constitutional, and gazillions of people would refuse, not to mention that any card is forgeable, so verification would always rest with some sort of computer database anyway.

2) A database would serve to distinguish citizens from non-citizens, and would consist ONLY of some reliable lifelong biometric record (possibly DNA) and an ID# for ease in locating/arranging the records. No name, no date of birth, absolutely no way for someone to use the database to identify individuals.

3) A phone line-based system, like the one now used for verifying credit cards, would enable anyone -- employers, airline security personnel, sellers of bulk ammonium nitrate, police, aviation schools, etc. -- to ascertain whether an individual's biometric is or is not in the database; i.e. to ascertain whether or not the individual is a citizen.

4) Absolute prohibition (with huge criminal penalties) on database searchers using a system which is capable of recording the biometric data (as that would enable matching of biometric data to other identifying information such as name, in transactions such as employment, or purchases by credit card or check, and thus enable the compiling of a identifying database of some portion of the citizenry).

5) Duplicate records would be held at the state level (state of birth or residence at naturalization, and at the individual's option state(s) of subsequent residence, and/or county of residence). This provides a check on federal meddling or incompetence in which individuals might either deliberately or accidentally be "de-citizenized", as it would be provided that any conflict between state and federal records is automatically ruled in favor of the individual.

This system would enable near-instantaneous confirmation of whether a person is or is not a citizen, without identifying the individual in question either to the questioner or to the maintainers of the database. This in turn would enable authorities and sensitive businesses to treat citizens and non-citizens differently, which it is currently impossible to do on a routine basis. If a person's citizenship can be determined quickly and non-intrusively, this would enable citizens to bypass closer scrutiny while applying higher standards of scrutiny to non-citizens. This wouldn't catch the Timothy McVeighs, but it would catch foreign terrorists, foreign drug runners, and illegal immigrants. It could also be helpful to citizens who look and/or sound "foreign", by providing a quick way to establish citizenship in situations where they may be suspected of being illegal immigrants, causing employers to fear hiring them, etc.

I see little point in even maintaining the concept of citizenship, if there's no practical way to determine who is or isn't one.

Rather than respond to each post separately I decide to post to each of you in one response.

Would you do business with traitor John Walker?

Wake up! Stop playing by their rules.

But statements coming out of the White House have been non-committal -- of the “we‘re keeping all options open“ variety.

In a world of law abiding citizens -- people that don't initiate force -- they have nothing to hide. The parasitical elite -- the most destructive users of the initiation of force, fraud and coercion -- have that to hide. They have to hide their true parasitical colors. They do it by an array of illusions. But illusions are just that. All illusions eventually collapse when the the spotlight of honesty and wide-scope accounting is shinned on them.

While past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, it is a ten times more likely to be an accurate gauge for what a politician will do than a politician that merely proclaims what he or she will do.

Make it mandatory that every politician show their government ID when purchasing any good or service. After all, we are their employer and they our employees. The People are the master.

The ostracism matrix database. A database that gives an objective rating of each politicians past performance. How often did the congressperson vote in favor of a law that violates the constitution or bill of rights? How often did the politician violate his or her oath of office to the people and the constitution? Each politician has a value destruction rating.

Just think what it could do to with the instant ability to monitor and cut off access to transportation or services for a variety of disobedient or “questionable“ people.

Picture this. A politician or bureaucrat is at the check out counter and must show his government employee ID. The sales clerk checks it against the ostracism database and says, "Sir, you have a triple AAA value destruction rating. Get out of here now. We don't sell to parasites or value destroyers."

Just as consumers rely heavily on the track record of past performance when they buy a car or chose a contractor to build a house even more scrutiny of past performance should be applied to electing politicians. The best track records of past performance are that of the businessman. Either they deliver as their track record shows or they get out-competed.

Value Destroyers versus Value Producers

If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.

Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.

Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.

Wake up! We are the host. They are the parasites. We don't need them. They need us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.