Your Papers, Sir?

Schneier's take on the matter:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/m...

"The problem is that the potential downsides are far more dangerous than the benefits are helpful." I respect your position, but disagree (though believe that we must always remain vigilant).

PS There was a great episode of Penn and Teller's Bull**** recently on the subject of patriotism. It's a must see. (The title was about Mount Rushmore, but it was a story about patriotism.)

I will say, Carl, that I actually like the idea of a National ID card...in an organizational sort of way. I agree with how much benefit it can offer us. I don't like varying driver's licenses, etc. And I actually sort of like some of the European trends toward centralized systems where this kind of stuff is already in place.

In other words, I think in an ideal world this type of thing is what we should want and need. The problem is that we don't live in a world like that. We live instead in a world where government is often a major threat to humanity, and our country was founded on this very principal.

Many of my acquaintances in Europe are staring dreamy-eyed over at America as if it's the last bastion of hope for personal freedom. They've already been forced down the path of big-brother mandatory information programs, and they realize how dangerous this is.

So basically I agree with you that this stuff is, on the face of it, all logical and positive. The problem is that the potential downsides are far more dangerous than the benefits are helpful.

Carl,

The answer to your question is that there are clear trends that cannot be ignored, and that my opinions are based on my own estimated models of how things would progress in each scenario. So,

1. For gun ownership the fact of the matter is relatively *FEW* people would ever end up getting weapons even when it was legal to do so. So while I agree with you that if you were to mandate that everyone get a handgun this would lead to FAR more accidental and spontaneous tragedy then it would prevent, that's not how it would unfold.

What would happen instead is a very small percentage would get handguns, but criminals would never know who those people are. Again, look at existing data and extrapolate that out. Currently, crime is falling in states with open carry laws. This is a fact. My argument is that this will continue and even magnify as time goes on and never cross the line regarding accidental deaths because not enough people will have them for it to become a factor.

2. For government abuse it's actually the opposite. First of all, it IS being mandated which means the extreme case is open for discussion. Second, there is a clear history of the government abusing the data it has about us. Not to mention that as technology increases, more and more data will become available. Slippery slope is indeed a good term for this.

So in other words, the trend is ALREADY negative, and adding cross-state liquidity, bio-information, and God knows what else to these IDs will only exponentially magnify the extent of the damage that can be done with the information.

--

To summarize, one trend is positive for crime rates (gun ownership) and adding more responsible gun owners will magnify that in a positive way. The other trend is negative (government information abuse) and will get *worse* when they have more comprehensive and liquid access to our information.

Carl, there is nothing perfectly clear about your fascination with the identities of your fellow Americans. If you so choose to identify yourself to the federal government than that is your prerogative and yours alone. The slippery slope that you seem to snicker at has been set at a dangerous grade already. Why should my driver's license be used for any function other than driving? For that matter why should it have anything other than my signature on its face? I ask this because that's exactly the limit it once had. Name, address, and signature. The same sort of information that is on record at the county elections office.

The center of this argument, that we seem to be ignoring, is the question of why the government needs to know who I am. Responding to this question with yet another question such as, "Do you have something to hide?" doesn't get at the heart of why its necessary. Frankly, it speaks to the same sort of paranoia that self-described conservatives level at true libertarians.

By its very nature, the federal government is addicted to intelligence gathering and has been since the Civil War. It is absolutely involved in spying on its own citizens for nothing more than mere difference of opinion. It should be remembered that dissent is the physical exercise that keeps government taut and lean. A government for the people, by the people, and of the people would naturally respect hearty dissent and recognize the condition as germane to a healthy democracy. We do not have that because we have slowly nurtured a state of distrust from the top down that is wholeheartedly reciprocated from below.

We HAVE passports. We have STATE driver's licenses that are used as ID nationwide (so someone residing in New Jersey can rent a car or buy a beer when vacationing in Florida). Not everyone who has been given the responsibility to check IDs (when selling beer for example) has been properly trained to recognize all of the varous IDs from the various states. It doesn't take a genius to think "gosh, wouldn't it make sense to use a uniform format and standard for these IDs?" Could the government abuse the information that is in the ID databases? Well, of course. Could they do this already? Well, of course. (SECRET: Don't tell anyone, but the government has access to an enormous amount of information already.) (((SUPER SECRET: So do all of us.)))

I see a huge advantage to a uniform form of ID. I see NO _new_ disadvantages. I honestly just don't get the fuss.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We must always remain vigilant to ensure that our government (or anyone else) does not abuse its power. Trust but verify. We must also not erect artificial restraints because of the fear of POTENTIAL abuse.

Once again, I must say this: The Patriot Act (and some of the governmental actions that have gone BEYOND even what is provided for in the Patriot Act) has in a very real way lessened the liberties that make the US what it is (or was). A national standard for IDs (even with a big database) holds the POTENTIAL for abuse. But, it is NOT intrinsically bad. Just about EVERYTHING holds the potential for abuse. If we eliminated from our society everything that COULD be abused, we'd be left with very little.

Daniel, I know that you and I disagree about gun ownership. If I understand your previous posts, it seems that you believe that VERY widespread gun ownership would cut down on violent crime. I have serious doubts about this. My reason? It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who should not be trusted with the power of a handgun. It is impossible to keep a tight watch on EVERYONE, so it isn't clear what is in place to keep a nutcase from killing a few people in a murder-suicide. It happens too often already. If MORE people owned guns, it seems to me that it would happen more often. Maybe I'm wrong. I do acknowledge that there are arguments to be made on the other side that armed robbery would likely decrease if the expectation was that the victim would also be armed. I don't know the answer to the gun ownership issue. I have not argued for a ban, but I don't think that widespread ownership should be encouraged either (for reasons given in an earlier post). My point here is that you believe that the POTENTIAL ABUSE of gun ownership is outweighed by the benefits (and seems to raise no red flag). So, I'm puzzled why the POTENTIAL ABUSE of a uniform ID (even with a database) raises the enormous red flag it seems to raise for you (and others).

Interesting.

Ok, well the basic idea is simply this: unified databases containing an ever-increasing amount of information about every American citizen provide for a virtual guarantee of future abuse. This is the reason that they were/are discouraged by American government purists.

One of the central concepts of American government is that we shouldn't give it too much power -- that it should be small and relatively weak, providing only a certain number of services and nothing more. This is CENTRAL to our government paradigm:

The U.S. Constitution created a federal government with sufficient powers to both represent and unite the states, but did not supplant state governments. This federal arrangement, by which the central federal government exercises delegated power over some issues and the state governments exercise power over other issues, is one of the basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power. -- from Wikipedia

The issue is that government tends to grow more malevolent as it attains more power, and only has the right attitude when it fears its constituents. Our government no longer does, and is using "security" as a cover for becoming more and more like the type of place the forefathers designed the constitution to protect against.

Sorry, but after reading both of those articles, I see no reason for panic. What I see in them is (IMHO) alarmist propaganda. Nothing he said in either article addresses any of my points. (Not that he was writing in response to my points, but having read them, I am no closer to understanding why my arguments fall short of the mark.)

Carl,

I just realized that I should have been referring you to Ron Paul's explanations rather than giving my own. He's much more experienced in this area and also has inside knowledge of how the process is going to work. Here are a few links:

National ID Threatens Liberty
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3512

National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst050905...

Well, let's start with the drivers license. To be at all effective, it must include some way of linking the document to ME (like a photo and basic information like hair color, eye color, age, weight, so that someone can't just slap their photo on my card - in other words, it should include some biometric information) so I can't just use a friend's license if mine is taken away. I don't think that anyone REALLY argues with this (except for those with the slippery-slope fears). In any case, we've had such driver's licenses for longer than I've been driving (I've been driving for 30 years or so .. I have no idea how long we've had such licenses). Implicit in the need for certification of driving ability is the need for some sort of document (license), and as I said, having certain biometric information linked to the license so that someone else can't use it simply makes sense.

There are laws in every state that require that people be a certain age to purchase certain products (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). How is this age verified? We use driver's licenses to do this (though people can instead get a state ID card if they cannot get or do not wish to get a driver's license). These seem to me to be to be PERFECTLY reasonable uses of an ID. In fact, implicit in the existence of such laws is the need for some sort of way to document age. Of course, if the driver's license is to be used as an ID in this manner, it ought to be difficult to forge and immediately recognizable to those looking at it. I won't address the forging issue, but as I stated before, every state has its own format for driver's licenses. Why not make them uniform so that even an out-of-state card is immediately recognizable?

I still do not see how a uniform standard for licenses (this is what the National ID is by the way - a national standard for drivers licenses and state IDs) is a bad thing. We already have licenses. We already have passports. I honestly don't see how the use of a national standard is relinquishing ANY freedom (beyond those given up in accepting the need for a driver's license and passport). What is the new impingement on my freedom? I just don't see it.

Once again, I say that we must choose our battles wisely.

Carl, a better question to ask is why would you accept a national ID card. If the power to force you to accept such a card is not explicitly granted to the federal government, in the constitution, why would you acquiesce to allow such a thing?

The argument can be made that if you drive, some metric for measuring your ability to do so should be on file with the local DMV. Beyond a rubber stamp that attests to your driving ability no additional information should be kept by the DMV or the federal government. To believe otherwise is to relinquish your sovereign freedom one small measure at a time.

Arguments about what the Founding Fathers may or may not have wanted don't always work. They didn't have drivers licenses. We do. This is not a bad thing. If you believe (as you have confirmed) that illegal aliens should be handed to the INS, how do you tell if someone is or is not an illegal alien?

I am GLAD that when someone endangers lives in Florida by breaking traffic laws this information is shared with his or her home state and insurance company. In a perfect world, bad drivers would eventually lose their driving privileges (or at the very least would be forced to pay their fair share of the insurance premiums). This is enabled by the communication you talked about.

I will agree that the things that our current administration is doing in the name of security is WAY over the line and should be curtailed. I would also hope that a national ID / database would hold only relevant information (and would fight against abuses). I do understand that some future administration's definition of relevant may not match mine, so safeguards clearly need to be put into place. But, you've hinted at how a national ID / database could be abused .. not why it is intrinsically bad.

I posed the question earlier about how one determines if someone is an illegal alien (or even worse - a terrorist). Current IDs are reletively easy to forge, and the lack of national standards means that I could show you three (entirely different) IDs each of which purports to be a Wyoming drivers license and you might not have a clue which one (if any) was the real one. Of course it would be dangerous if we assumed that a standardized ID (even with high-tech security built in) couldn't be forged, but that's not an argument for not trying to improve on the current system. We already require a passport for re-entry into the US from anywhere outside the US. How exactly will a National ID be worse?

I just think that we as a citizenry need to pick our battles. The Patriot Act has stripped US citizens of REAL RIGHTS. I don't see how a National ID card / database (if used appropriately) does this.

Carl, thanks for asking this genuine, valid, and honest question. The reason it's negative is because of the *linking* of all this information through a mesh of centralized databases. That's the part that makes it un-American.

Privacy, individuality, and states-rights were stressed beyond measure by the founders of our country. They would absolutely get violent if they were to hear of a system that is REQUIRED that joins tons of personal data about someone across state lines. In their view of the country it would absolute insanity for someone to ask for a NATIONAL ID card from someone. They would be like, "Are you insane? Don't you realize that's what I left Europe for? Leave me alone. I am an individual and you have no power over me."

Think about this. You get pulled over in Florida for a speeding ticket. This fact is then propagated through numerous databases across the country's myriad of government organizations. This is not fiction. It's what they want to do. They want full knowledge of what every American is doing. And it's not too hard to imagine throwing in what political groups you're a part of, what kind of anti-government blogging you do, credit scores, etc. You may laugh but if you do then you're not paying enough attention to the news. The response of "doing it for security" is giving these people ungodly powers.

Again...one can make the argument that we need this, and I'd be willing to listen. All I'm saying is that it's so HIGHLY contrary to the way the country was set up that it should cause us to pause far more than it has. I personally agree with Ron Paul in that the whole thing is an illusion. Very little security is gained by these things relative to the amount of freedom that is lost. It's a power-play, pure and simple.

They claim it's about stopping immigration offenses too, but these are the same people trying to give amnesty and promoting drivers licenses, etc. for illegals. The solution to the immigration problem is very simple. Don't give illegal immigrants anything that American's get. No drivers license, no health care (except for emergency treatment, at which point you get handed to INS), no jobs -- nothing. Remove the incentives and the problem will simply disappear. So it's not about that. It's about control.

I don't mean to be ignorant here, but could you explain why this is a problem? The government already keeps track of all of this information (if you include driver's license info). Georgia has had a fingerprint encoded on the driver's license for years. Explain to me why having biometric information on IDs is a bad thing. Don't tell me how it could be abused. Tell me why it is intrinsically bad. How is this anti-American? We already need such ID to drive a car and to travel on an airplane. Are these the "ordinary activities" that are being pointed to in the quote? I honestly have an open mind on this if you can give a good argument that IDs are bad.