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."
Ok, if this is already true then the point is moot. National ID Card is a spurious waste of money and manpower, if I am to believe your own statements.
The government can not find illegal aliens,
Sure they could. They just don't want to.
terrorists,
Ditto. The government knew about the terrorist connections of many of the 9/11 perpretrators, but they weren't deported or anything for some reason.
people driving drunk without a license or insurance
Say what? People are cited for DUI and/or driving without a license and/or driving without insurance all the time. How would a National ID Card help this, by the way? What if the unlicensed uninsured drunk driver also refuses to get a National ID Card (and presumably, he would)? What exactly has been gained?
Yes, I would give up a little privacy -- empower government a little more
Thanks for the autobiographical information. I'm still gonna say "no". And just because you'd be willing to "give up a little privacy" to "empower government a little more" doesn't give you the right to force me to do the same.
to enable them to address some of these problems, ~especially~ the flood of illegals.
It won't address that problem, because like I said, the people in government don't want to stop the flood of illegals. If they did, they would have already.
Reminds me of a quote from G.K. Chesterton:
This just about says all we need to know, in order to assess (and reject) Alan Dipshitwitz's advocacy for a "national ID card." He can tatoo it on his Dumocrat ass, for all I care.
You know, you can easily buy a green card or a drivers' license illegally. The FBI can track you via credit card. And pick you up.
Once they know who you are and where you are, the next step is control.
Because Alan Dershowitz likes 'em. That's enough reason to cause me concern.
With the National ID card as a means of identifying citizens, will come the time honored totalitarian tradition of "your papers please".
Vhat... no papers? Onto zee truck.
If you don't believe this, then you haven't been paying attention to the functional characteristics of repressive totalitarian states over the last hundred years. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the rest of the gang were great fans of the national ID card.
The United States of America was attacked by terrorists. It's response should not be further penalty on the liberty of it's own citizens.
I was thinking along the same lines. You would think that of all people, those with a Jewish heritage would be particularly atune to the dangers of this kind of governmental power.
sheesh
Sad.
If the concept gets as much as 15% support here, then you know that the liberal left are just loving the idea.
Restriction of American liberty. Another terrorist victory.
I have already written my representatives and told them I will resist a national ID system.
Oh bull, old friend. It's been answered a dozen times.
The gathering of the necessary proof means of fingerprints, biometrics and other info is a violation,
and the SS has the virtue of its use being restricted under law and serious penalty.
I agree, and it bears repeating.
Under the current "ID cards" we have, one is not required to carry one with them everywhere they go.
Presumably this would be the case with any functional National ID Card scheme - thus taking away a specific liberty (the liberty to walk outside without carrying a plastic card).
What's that you say? "No silly, you wouldn't be required to carry National ID Card wherever you go" ? Really? Then what's the point of having them? I mean, if I'm not required to carry it wherever I go, then neither are the evil bad terrorists - so how will the police catch them using this great new technology?
Either National ID Cards will violate liberty, or they will not have the benefit which its proponents foresee in the first place. Either, or. Fair enough?
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.