Big Brother's national ID card

The Washington Times ^ | 10/5/2002 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

A national Identification card

[RipSawyer]

Now, you have said it! There are so many laws that we are all already criminals and it is simply a matter of when it is convenient and beneficial to the criminals who run the government to charge you with a crime. There are those who still live under the illusion of being law-abiding but it is simply not possible anymore and this is by design not by accident.

[RipSawyer]

"It would be a relatively simple matter to prevent illicit use of such a card with technology and tough, criminal consequences for those who abused it."


What is the view like from the top of your ivory tower as seen through those rose-colored glasses? Have you spent much time with Tinker Bell and the Easter Bunny lately? You probably need to take another cruise on the Good Ship Lollypop and let the sea breeze blow through you ears. Seriously, where in god's name have you been dwelling to allow you to make such a statement? I have seldom heard anything so absurd in my entire life.

[independentmind]

Biometrics may look all well and good in science-fiction movies, but they are fundamentally insecure because they cannot be kept secret and yet cannot be changed if compromised.

That is an excellent point, supercat, and one that I had not thought of before.

[deport]

Bush put this into effect in Texas a few years ago.

Goes back farther than Gov. Bush.....

Driver License

Thumbprint Capture for Driver Licenses and Identification Cards

The authority of the Department to collect thumbprints during the Driver License process is not a new one. DPS has long possessed the legislative authority, dating back to 1967 (HB 328, Act of the 60th Texas Legislature). Anyone who has completed an original license application since 1968 has released their thumbprints to the Department, although most people do not remember this.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If the police can create fake entries, so could a terrorist; so could a foreign agent, either hostile or friendly. Actually, so could a barely competent hacker. Fake entries would also be required for Witness Protection, etc.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Of course this could be easily secured from prying."

Actually, not. They feds have many ways of legally obtaining information that they want. One little bend in the rules deserves another.

[WRhine]

Heh,heh,heh. Rosanna Rosanna Danna Bump!

[PatrioticAmerican]

#42 - That would be a good rule, if teeth were included. The 1972 Privacy Act was close but no cigar.

[shrinkermd]

"What is the view like from the top of your ivory tower as seen through those rose-colored glasses? Have you spent much time with Tinker Bell and the Easter Bunny lately? You probably need to take another cruise on the Good Ship Lollypop and let the sea breeze blow through you ears. Seriously, where in god's name have you been dwelling to allow you to make such a statement? I have seldom heard anything so absurd in my entire life

Other than ad hominem attacks, rudeness and a lack of common sense you have not stated one reasonable, common sense arguement to support your position. Frankly, your position is much like the other critics on the board --a conviction the government is after them in some fashion and they need to hide someplace to avoid detection.

[joyful1]

Anyone with a clean copy of one of your fingerprints, a 600dpi scanner, and a few other reasonably-available materials can make a phony-finger with your fingerprints on it.

WRONG!~ Just last week, I found a company that checks fingerprints via "ultrasound" that defies the socalled 'jello' decoy. I suppose any method could be foiled, in time, but technology will make it darn difficult for crooks.

[supercat]

That is an excellent point, supercat, and one that I had not thought of before.

Just repeating what I've read elsewhere. Look here for more information. Another key point here, btw: proper password security requires using different passwords for different functions. With biometrics one's ability to do this is very limitted.

[supercat]

WRONG!~ Just last week, I found a company that checks fingerprints via "ultrasound" that defies the socalled 'jello' decoy. I suppose any method could be foiled, in time, but technology will make it darn difficult for crooks.

Yes, but how long before that method is compromised?

Proper passcode security requires using different passcodes for different applications, changing them occasionally, and changing them immediately if compromise is suspected so as to limit harm. Since fingerprints are unalterable, there is no way of limitting the harm if one gets compromised.

[Maximum Leader]

You're right of course. Anyone could tamper with the databases. In fact its probably going on right now. I'm not sure if a National ID would make it any more or less easier.

There is an interesting book that came out last year called "How To Disappear" by J.J. Luna. He talks about how there are only few legal ways to change your social security number (and with a new SSN, you can create new accounts in all the databases)... the first is for law enforcement purposes(and that included people in the Witness Security Program). Another is battered spouses and other people escaping stalkers. A third (if I remember correctly) is people who have suffered identity theft. And the last two categories require a court order.

My feeling is that a National ID for citizens is unnecessary if the government concentrated on tracking foreigners and felons.

[Maximum Leader]

This is a nice argument, but the Courts have held that if a law is passed for a legitimate public policy without an intent to discriminate against a religous or other group, then everyone has to obey it even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Now if a law is passed to pick on a particular group then it is unconstitutional. 80 years ago, Georgia passed a law that declared any residence containing more than 4 unrelated females a brothel and thus illegal. The legislative intent was anti-Catholic -- Governor Watson wanted to shut down convents. The law stayed on the books (as the story was related to me) until college sororities started to complain.

When you hear about Muslim women who demand a drivers license picture with their faces covered, they won't have a leg to stand on if the state fights it in court (though in our PC era, most states would rather cave than fight).

[fogarty]

Implausible straw-man? Look fifteen years from now, and you will see this is not the case. I imagine those families of the fifty years ago who were worried about the social security number becoming a ubiqitous, mandatory ID number for ALL transactions were dismissed by the federal bureaucrats. No doubt with equally dismissive arguments that it is was a ludicrous strawman they were raising. The government of course, would NEVER require every transaction to be verified by a social security number. Of course not.

[citizenx7]

"I am not sure I understand your arguement. The social security administration knows where you are paid from or where they send your check? Is this unconstitutional? "

My 'argument' has nothing to do with the S.S. Administration. That is entirely another subject.

My point, to reiterate, is this: In our governmental system, set up by We The People, we have seperated the three branches of the central government, and then put in place a State Government, which is seperate and distinct from the central government. Our Constitution further states that it (The state), is guaranteed to be a republican form of government. It is seperate, and distinct from the central government. This is important to the proper operation of the system, that there be autonomy in each of the governmental structures, with the People, as the creators, holding the ultimate power of soverignty. This was not appreciated by King George in 18th century, and it is not appreciated by the globalist crowd today, many of them being (unfortunately), in elected office, or working as functionaries in the Washington structure. But that is the way it is.

In the design, the State government has more latitude than does the central (federal) government, which has carefully delineated powers.

As I pointed out, this legislation violates this basic tenet of our governmental structure, by legislating that Washington can operate within the State, as if it WAS the State! It has no such right, and it is unconstitutional on its face.

[Misterioso]

Excuse my peeve, but does anyone ever use the word "hordes" when they are referring to lots of people? Between that and "boarder" instead of border, my gears clash as I read an otherwise erudite post. I try not to loose my temper.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[marktwain]

Biometrics may look all well and good in science-fiction movies, but they are fundamentally insecure because they cannot be kept secret and yet cannot be changed if compromised.

Brilliant observation. I wish I had thought of it. This needs to be repeated. Often.

[marktwain]

Other than ad hominem attacks, rudeness and a lack of common sense you have not stated one reasonable, common sense arguement to support your position. Frankly, your position is much like the other critics on the board --a conviction the government is after them in some fashion and they need to hide someplace to avoid detection.

When you put yourself in the position to define what common sense and reasonableness are, your argument can never be disproved. Given numerous examples of how governments have abused their powers in the past, why do you persist in your unreasonable, naive belief that "it can never happen here" . It sounds like denial to me. If we agree with your premise, that "it can never happen here" there is no need for limited government, no need for separation of powers, no need for any limitation on what government can do. After all, it will never abuse its power.

By its very nature, power invites abuse. It is seductive, that is why in needs to be limited and controled. You may call this an unreasonable assumption. I call it common sense.