|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 48
We
asked:
Should we have a national ID card?
Some argue that we need it to identify terrorists and other criminals; that driver's licenses amount
to a de facto ID card, that all we need to do is make them tamper-proof; and that other democracies
have such IDs. Critics compare them to Soviet domestic passports; argue that they further curtail our
basic rights to privacy and anonymity; and say that they will provide ready-made data banks for any future
Joe McCarthy or totalitarian government.
Here are
all the responses we received.
It would seem that there is a middle ground. You could have a counterfeit-proof Social Security card that
could be used to verify that a person was legally in the country but not have it required to be produced
for the police or other law enforcement authority. It would be required to get a job in the United States,
or to open up a bank account, and available to use as an ID at an airlines counter, but you could specifically
write it into the law that it didn't have to be carried at all times and that law enforcement couldn't demand
it, as is possible with a national ID. I don't want police "carding" people but do support a system to verify
that people are legally in the U.S.
Richard D. Lamm
University of Denver
Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues.
There was huge debate in Australia some years ago when the Liberal party (Right-wing conservative equivalent
to your Republicans - right now our Liberal Prime Minister [John W Howard] is acting like George W. Bush's
glove puppet, but that's another story) floated the idea of requiring citizens to carry and produce a
personal identity card. All hell broke loose from the people and they backed off the idea. Australians were
strongly opposed to the notion of having to carry and produce proof of identity. They took the view that
having to carry and produce a driver's license was okay because driving on the roads was a privilege and not
a right, and they don't mind having to provide conclusive proof of identity when opening a bank account because
they have an aversion to people who dodge taxes or use bank accounts to engage in criminal activity. However,
the thought of a domestic passport smacked too much of a police state, especially for many migrants to this
country who had lived in such states.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the
creed of slaves." William Pitt (1759 - 1806) Speech, House of Commons, November 18, 1783.
John Annison, PhD
Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
I have always had difficulty grasping the frenzied, tortuous defenses of privacy. What is privacy, anyway?
We are social animals, not monads, and the face we wear outside our homes is a public face. What possible
difference could it make if the world knows our blood type (actually, I can't remember what mine is anyway!).
Our truly private self is interior, not external, and has nothing to do with our blood type or our bank
account; it is the privacy of our minds, our personalities, our souls if you will, and that privacy can
never be violated short of being tortured. We share that privacy, or at least a part of it, with close
friends and significant others. Although I am not advocating that we all make public the contents of our
bank accounts, I am questioning what such information even has to do with privacy.
As you say, most of us already have a state driver's license or ID and a Social Security card. Most of us
also have some forms of membership card in organizations we have chosen to join, from the AARP to the
Republican Party to the National Nazi Society (or whatever). Does this mean that opponents of a national ID
card do not choose to belong to the organization called America? I truly cannot understand the rationale
behind such opposition.
Jim Flechtner
Findlay, OH
The question at hand (do we need/should we have a national ID card?) requires reframing. The issues which
the question broaches are too complex to be addressed by a single question, and therefore require a more
detailed breakdown. For instance:
What are the arguments in favor/in opposition to a national ID card, and what are their respective orderings
of importance?
Assuming that the national consensus comes down in favor of such a card, what information should it contain?
(Should everyone be required to submit a DNA sample?)
Under what conditions should access to a national ID database be permitted?
What redress, if any, should be provided for violations of National ID policy?
Playing devil's advocate in favor of a national ID card and database, I can see definite benefits, not just
limited to national security issues, arising from its existence, providing it can be created with sufficient
safeguards to avoid infringement of civil rights and abuses by governmental authorities. Should every citizen,
resident alien (legal or otherwise), foreign visitor, and diplomatic representative (there's a can of worms)
be required to provide a picture ID, set of fingerprints and DNA sample under conditions guaranteeing that
the same cannot be falsified, the forensic side of law enforcement will become considerably simplified.
Further, encoding the data in a manner sufficient to simplify and shorten the time required for any sort of
checkpoint verification would certainly improve our ability to police our borders and provide security at
sensitive installations.
On the other hand, concern for civil liberties should require sufficient safeguards so that we do not create
the equivalent of a Soviet-style internal passport, and require our citizenry to pass through screening
checkpoints without the equivalent of a legal showing of good cause.
There is probably no constitutional impediment to creating and mandating a form of national ID. As a direct
and proximate consequence, the issues of the form which it will take, and information it will contain, and
the uses to which it will be put ought to be addressed.
Jansen Robt
I am a member of ACLU and am almost 100% in agreement with the arguments it makes, including the arguments
it has given opposing the national driver's license ID. Yet I think their conclusion is wrong. To put it
simply, we live in a society of checks and balances. I am in favor of using the Social Security number as
a national identifier AND imposing very rigid controls for its use. I am mindful of the fact that, for
example in the health field, incredible breaches of confidentiality have been facilitated by the health
insurance industry and the laxness of the medical profession in protecting patients' privacy. Clearly we
need strict controls for the use of any national identifier - but in contrast to the claims that a national
motor vehicle driver's ID would cost a great deal to implement, using the SS number would probably be a
saving, efficient, and, I think, more protective of privacy, surely of misuse, hacking into, and selling of
IDs.
Arnold Simmel
Cummington MA
I am writing to respond on the issue of national identity cards. Let me first thank you for inviting this
comment.
The problem, as I see it, is not with the cards themselves, but rather, the real issue is *who* is
collecting and processing the information. Who are these people who are leading us? What sort of outlook
do they have? What is their mind-set? How intelligent are they? What about compassion? Character? Dedication
to service? Do any of these people display such finer qualities?
The answer I'm afraid is no. We have unfortunately allowed muddled-headed individuals to attain positions
of power. Positions that allow them to force the rest of us into submitting to this kind of scrutiny. IF
these were enlightened, compassionate, and, most importantly, peaceful individuals who truly did hold the
welfare of human society dear to them; IF these folks were CLEAR THINKERS, wise men and women who could
fathom the deeper aspects of life and existence; IF they were real leaders, and not just flag-waving,
jingoistic phonies, with juvenile, let's-get-them-before-they-get-us attitudes, then we would all
*voluntarily* submit to identity cards. We would gladly comply, if for no other reason than to show our
respect and support for the leaders themselves. It all comes back to force. Everything the government does
is forceful. Even at the local level, in grass-roots communities like mine, your friendly neighborhood cop
is unapproachable, because he's always armed with lethal weaponry. He or she is trained to react swiftly
and violently if you so much as scratch your nose in a threatening way.
We live in fearful, forceful times. And truthfully, we have created this environment for ourselves. The
grand, American "rugged Individualism" that people keep shouting about really amounts to nothing more
than every man for himself ... I'm off to make my fortune, and good luck to you.
Requiring identity cards is not going to eliminate the isolation and anonymity of the modern Western
lifestyle. Cards and security sweeps are not going to solve the problem of terrorism. Forcing people to
carry and produce these documents is not going to foster respect for the government. It will just bring
up more resentment, more distrust.
Alexander Gabis
The Westchester Watch
Camp Springs, Maryland
I think that between social security numbers, driver's licenses, and passports, there is enough identification
in place already. Having one card will help encode too much data in one place and this will be too easy to
abuse to limit constitutional freedom and privacy when a citizen may want to object to, or legally protest,
government actions or activities. Already we have seen a form of government profiling occur in the USA which
has been less than fair, plus our government has used audits politically to send fear into those who would
object to its actions/positions re:HIV/AIDS. That the government which governs least governs best is a phrase
that I tend to agree with...
John P.Rider
Massachusetts
I believe we are facing serious threats to the safety of our citizens from certain groups who use
violence and terror to promote political ends. I also believe that anonymity and privacy, which are
desirable, can be protected even with ID cards. Furthermore, the U.S.'s history with respect to human
rights abuses of its citizens, while not perfect, is one that I am happy to live with.
Charles Freifeld
AlphaMetrics Capital Management, LLC
Boston, MA
Tamper-proof driver's licenses are needed. In Maryland, you can prevent access to the rest of the record,
somewhat protecting privacy. Society needs some means to verify identity without making unnecessary
disclosures. Far too much is currently available, and that won't be corrected for a long while. However,
the real protections arise from establishing community enclaves, though hopefully not all in gated
communities. We need better intimate bonds and boundaries, but not more exclusion. This will require
cultural transformation over time, and improved education, worldview, etc. That may or may not happen,
because popular ignorance, superstition, and prejudice still reign supreme.
But, in the realm of the feasible, tamper-proof driver's licenses do make sense. National ID cards do
not. I served years ago on an immigration reform study group. The technology is feasible, but we should
never trust government to always be good. I know. I work for government. As much as I trust myself, I
also know what I'm up against every day. Too many cowards and too much power-mongering can corrupt
Keep it functional and limited. Use the genius of America's original design with limited powers and
separation of authorities. The danger now is the Bush imperial design and serious erosion of rights
and freedoms too easily surrendered by those who know little about their history and are naive about
the real dangers of government authority.
Conspiracy is not a myth, but open society keeps it in check. The government shouldn't keep secrets.
Individuals should. That's part of what liberty entails. A right to privacy, though not explicit, was
clearly an implicit intent that we must be vigilant about in a society that makes it possible to
photograph right through clothing or peer through the walls of buildings using easily available thermal
imaging technology. Even stripped naked, however, you have the right to your secrets.
Ric Moore
My name is Caroline Quinn. I am married and am a working Mother. I live in San Antonio Texas. I consider
myself fairly conservative. I am also a Christian, which strongly influences my opinions.
I do not think we need a national id card for citizens of the US. However, I do think it would be a
good idea to have non-citizen visitors and residents carry some sort of identification on their persons
at all times.
At this time, I am unconvinced of the need for a national id card for our own citizens.
Caroline Quinn
We should have a world ID card.
David Triantos
Leonardtown, MD (St Mary's County)
The "we" in your question appears to refer to Americans. In case you want input from foreigners, I think
we should all have them.
Nik Gardner
London, England
We do have ID cards, they are driver's licenses...unfortunately, they aren't effective because states like
Virginia make them too easy to achieve or tamper with...the terrorists and what they accomplished were proof
of that!
Brenda Hughes
I have recently started an apprenticeship in NYC as my final project for grad school. It seems like many
people there already have a photo ID to get into their job site, but the IDs are often only checked (at
least by the outside personnel I have observed) with a flick of the badge in the security personnel's
direction. (Teams inside the buildings tend to be much more careful, but by then it could be too late!)
Perhaps the time has come that we all need some kind of proof as to who we are and some basic vital info,
including driver's license; how much easier it would be to write checks, too! Security teams need to
recognize that they are largely responsible for making the system work and helping all to be safe! It may
slow things down a bit, but they need to take the time to actually look at the ID, both inside and outside
the building.
My only question is how we prevent the underhanded from falsifying the cards, documents or whatever system
is implemented?
Karen Daughtrey
Saugerties, NY
I think that a national ID card is a very good idea. This form of ID is very common in other countries,
even those that protect civil liberties to an extreme. I live in two different states, California and
Texas, and often I find that my drivers license from California is not accepted in banks in Texas. I am
sure that there are other similar situations.
Irma Gigli
|
