Decius wrote:
] ] This Tuesday, the US Senate is scheduled to vote on the
] ] implementation of a national ID card system. The Real ID
] ] Act is nothing less than a Real National ID Act.
]
] Fresh from his somewhat kinda victory in the RFID passport
] debacle Bill Scannell is at it again on the national ID card.
]
]
] Now, the interesting thing about this proposal is that it is
] not vulnerable to the one security related objection I've
] heard for this, which is that if there is only one ID card you
] have to fake then all of the resources in the country devoted
] to faking IDs will be devoted to faking THAT id, and so
] everyone will be able to fake it very well, where as today
] people tend to fake a multitude of state IDs poorly. As each
] state will still have its own ID under this system, it won't
] create a single focal point for forgers.
]
] As all the state databases will be linked, the first thing
] that will occur is annoyances. People attempting to drink
] underage or dodge traffic tickets will find life more
] difficult. People with out of order paperwork may find
] themselves in jail, as a friend of mine did recently because
] his social security card has a different name then his drivers
] license. (Yes it was their mistake, and no they didn't really
] think twice about booking him anyway.)
]
] It is inevitable that all the data the government has about
] you is going to be connected, tied to your banking and medical
] records, and biometrically identified. Objections of the ACLU
] and the Conservative Christians aside, we are going to do
] this. It is only a matter of time. We do not understand why we
] shouldn't as we expect perfect law compliance. This is a step
] in that direction.
]
] This will be coupled with increasingly cheap and automated
] surveillance of public space. Ultimately, the IDs WILL go
] wireless so that they can easily be scanned by the government
] without having to approach a suspect. You already have a
] license plate, right? Ultimately the Supreme Court will
] concede that its not unconstitutional to require every person
] to carry such a card. That will be the last straw. I put it 40
] years out unless there is another major terrorist attack. I'd
] be willing to make a long bet on this.
]
] Its easy, its cheap, and it will make you safe. As law
] enforcement becomes perfect, the fairness of laws becomes
] vital. Our Mass Media driven government does not produce fair
] or reasonable law. It produces reactionary, fad and interest
] driven law.
]
] This is simply going to cause a lot of people a lot of pain,
] and I feel like complaining about it is pissing against the
] wind. I really think we're going to learn this the ha... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

] This will be coupled with increasingly cheap and automated
] surveillance of public space. Ultimately, the IDs WILL go
] wireless so that they can easily be scanned by the government
] without having to approach a suspect. You already have a
] license plate, right? Ultimately the Supreme Court will
] concede that its not unconstitutional to require every person
] to carry such a card. That will be the last straw. I put it 40
] years out unless there is another major terrorist attack. I'd
] be willing to make a long bet on this.

Hmm, in 40 years, you're saying that you'd bet that every citizen will be required to carry ID on them at all times, even if they're traveling on foot, on private property? Or that every citizen will be required to carry something that lets them be identified without their knowledge? Either way, I think I'd be willing to take that bet. Especially with Republicans in power, who I think are *less* likely than Democrats to want to promote anything like a mandatory national ID.

Elonka wrote:
] Hmm, in 40 years, you're saying that you'd bet that every
] citizen will be required to carry ID on them at all times,
] even if they're traveling on foot, on private property? Or
] that every citizen will be required to carry something that
] lets them be identified without their knowledge?

What I'm saying is that Brown vs. Texas will be overturned. Hiibel basically already does this as reasonable suspicion is a very weak standard, but I think they'll completely reverse that decision. In 40 years it will no longer be uncontitutional for a government in this country to pass a law which provides for the arrest of people simply because they cannot be identified in the absense of any other reasonable suspicion.

In retrospect, carrying ID might be a bit of a mis-statement. All the police will actually need to do is take a biometric. If they require that all citizens over a certain age have ID, and that those IDs have biometrics, and that you be willing to let an officer who stops you perform a biometric reading, we'll have satisfied this requirement. Its a short hop from Hiibel to requiring that you let a police officer scan your finger.

However, if the police are allowed to cross reference information from video cameras with the (soon to be national) ID database using face recognition software then there you have it. Ubiquitous remotely readable indentification and personal details without reasonable suspicion. Your only way to "opt out" is to not have an ID. To NEVER drive or drink or smoke or travel outside the US or write checks or pay with a credit card. This will be with us a long time, and then a law will be passed that requires the handful of people who've managed to stay outside of this system to join in, and it will be held constitutional.

It will take 40 years because 99% of the population will be in the system before the law will need to be changed...

] Either way, I think I'd be willing to take that bet. Especially
] with Republicans in power, who I think are *less* likely than
] Democrats to want to promote anything like a mandatory
] national ID.

A Republican Congressperson (Sensenbrenner) sponsored the RealID act. All of the "Conservative" Supreme Court justices sided against Hiibel. Frankly, my experience has been that Republicans talk a lot of smack about liberty and personal responsibility but in practice are no better then the Democrats. I'd love an example of why I should hold a different view. I like Thomas's opinion in the case over anonymous pamphletting, but its the exception rather then the rule.

Decius wrote:
] This is simply going to cause a lot of people a lot of pain,
] and I feel like complaining about it is pissing against the
] wind. I really think we're going to learn this the hard way.
] We ought to know better but we're gunna run right into this
] wall at full speed.

/me looks around at MemeStreams reputation tracking and graphing functionality.

Ramming speed!

I think there's another issue here as well. Privacy and copyright are both largely fucked for the same reason. The grander the scale we communicate and understand things on, the more information will coalesce. The more a person will want to know something, the higher chance they will be able to find it without having to obtain the property rights. Its a fair assumption, that if a law enforcement agency at a high scale needs to know something, the information will be easily available. It's inevitable. In addition to requiring fair laws (as far as what the law enforcement agents are watching for) there should be a difference between what can be prosecuted based on this information, and what is an invasion. If you're seeking a terrorist, but you find a drug dealer, you should not be able to prosecute because the suspicion which led you to investigate was void and therefore an invasion. Should you still be able to confiscate the drugs? sure... But legally, there should be a conceptual barrier here.