Posted on 10/12/2001 9:20:54 PM PDT by Pokey78
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
At many bridges and tunnels across the country, drivers avoid long delays at the toll booths with an unobtrusive device that fits on a car's dashboard. Instead of fumbling for change, they drive right through; the device sends a radio signal that records their passage. They are billed later. It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience: the toll-takers know more about you — when you entered and left Manhattan, for instance — but you save time and money.
An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.
As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms — especially racial and ethnic profiling — that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.
I can hear the objections: What about the specter of Big Brother? What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures? (The National Rifle Association, for example, worries that a government that registered people might also decide to register guns.) What about fears that such cards would lead to increased deportation of illegal immigrants?
First, we already require photo ID's for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking and check-cashing. And fingerprints differ from photographs only in that they are harder to fake. The vast majority of Americans routinely carry photo ID's in their wallets and pocketbooks. These ID's are issued by state motor vehicle bureaus and other public and private entities. A national card would be uniform and difficult to forge or alter. It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.
The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card. Even without a national card, people are always being asked to show identification. The existence of a national card need not change the rules about when ID can properly be demanded. It is true that the card would facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants. But President Bush has proposed giving legal status to many of the illegal immigrants now in this country. And legal immigrants would actually benefit from a national ID card that could demonstrate their status to government officials.
Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same. American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous — even to create a false identity — in this large and decentralized country. A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do.
A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping. There would be no excuse for hassling someone merely because he belongs to a particular racial or ethnic group if he presented a card that matched his print and that permitted his name to be checked instantly against the kind of computerized criminal-history retrieval systems that are already in use. (If there is too much personal information in the system, or if the information is being used improperly, that is a separate issue. The only information the card need contain is name, address, photo and print.)
From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few — especially since those few are usually from a racially or ethnically disfavored group. A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.Alan M. Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard, is author, most recently, of "Letters to a Young Lawyer."
We couldn't have that could we? That's the main reason why I think we need them.
On another note, I saw Dershowitz on a town hall type program (PBS?) after Bush's speech to congress. He was quite good. He surprised me--I thought he would be totally against any increased id security, etc. He mentioned that he was part of an advisory groupo that advised the Canadian government about the balancing between security and const. rights during the 1970's Quebecois terrorism campaign.
"Quote of the night" BUMPS to you!
Gee, why not the mark of the beast goverment on our foreheads.
You must have never seen the debate he had with Alan Keyes...to him the state is supreme, no God given rights, if the state wants you to do it you must.... odd think for a Jew to say, then again it is totally Dershowitz
He is a bought and paid for subsidary of the DemocRAT party.
Why would Dershowitz care, he is a JINO, Jewish in Name Only!
You read my mind. Remember Dershowitz saying, "I wish there WERE unalienable rights!" Then he went on to say that all governments have different versions of rights, and therefore, natural rights do not exist. By his logic, the women in Afghanistan are being treated in accordance with the rights they've been given by their government (the Taliban), and there's no basis on which they can complain about it.
Dershowitz believes all governments are equally good, and he doesn't believe in rights. Rights are a person’s claim against abuse, by government or individuals. If government determines our rights, we have no rights. That which gives can take away.
So Dershowitz believes that there is a Constitutional right to privacy (i.e. Roe v Wade), but not a right to anonymity? Is he splitting hairs, or is there an important distinction? I don't think there is much distinction between privacy and anonymity in practical terms in this day and age, and so I believe he is wrong. I think is he splitting hairs.
An optional ID card may be Constitutionally legal, but in practice it won't make much of a difference to your privaxy. Whenever you cross the bridge or enter & leave the airport, your car's license number is recorded. This can be easily cross referenced to your registration, your rental car agency, or to the friend who lent you the car. There is no practical difference between those who pay cash and those who are automatically debited, beyond the convenience of being automatically recorded vs. being manually recorded.
Actually, you would be a statist. Fascism is a form of statism. Alan Dershowitz is a moron, how many times does he have to prove it?.
---max
Great, Alan. Let's apply your thinking to some areas of society, such as the homosexuals. Since they have, in your esteemed mind, no right to anonymity, we'll require all homosexuals to wear a pink triangle on their clothes at all times. You know, kind of like the yellow Star of David that they Nazis made your ancestors wear.
Now...do you STILL want to maintain your stated view on this matter? Hmmm?
I didn't think so. Now maybe you can begin to understand why we ought not to have a national "identity card". (Besides, such a thing would only allow liberals like yourself to play identity politics to an even greater degree than your kind does now.)
We already have cards for that, they're called "visas". It's just that the people in your government, for various reasons, haven't wanted to go get the illegal immigrants they know are in this country, and deport them. The card won't help any. It will be used to control citizens, not to deport illegals.
Okay, then we don't need a National ID card in the first place. This is a silly argument.
National ID cards are basically just more efficient,
Of course, this is the very same government that can't manage elections satisfactorily. It can't even keep dead people and pets from voting.
Plus, they will help identify aliens for tracing purposes and deter illegal alien labor.
We could do that now - but the politicians simply don't want to. What makes you think they'll do it after a National ID Card is in place?
He surprised me--I thought he would be totally against any increased id security, etc.
Yeah, what a "surprise" that he's for increased government powers.
Give me a break.
Read above, and enjoy.
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.