http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/more_on_real_id.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/more_on_real_id.html

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

1. 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.

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.

1. 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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.htm

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.htm

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.

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.