National ID

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35071-2004Dec29.html

Single Government ID Moves Closer to Reality
High-Tech Cards Are Designed to Bolster Security

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page A25

Federal officials are developing government-wide identification card standards for federal employees and contractors to prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems.

The effort, known as the Personal Identity Verification Project, stems from a homeland security-related presidential directive and is being managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a Commerce Department agency with offices in Gaithersburg.

In his Aug. 27 directive, President Bush said that "wide variations in the quality and security of forms of identification used to gain access to secure federal and other facilities where there is potential for terrorist attacks need to be eliminated." Bush called for the development of "secure and reliable forms of identification" for federal workers and contract employees.

To that end, federal officials want to replace the existing piecemeal system of agency-level ID cards with "smart cards" that are hard to counterfeit, resistant to tampering and difficult to use by anyone other than the rightful card-holder if lost or stolen.

The new generation of ID cards must be able to digitally store biometric data such as facial photographs and fingerprint images, bear contact and contactless interfaces, and allow the encryption of data that can be used to electronically verify the user's identity, according to NIST draft standards.

Such cards will be required for all federal employees, including members of the military, as well as for employees of private organizations and state and local governments who regularly require access to federally controlled facilities and computer systems. That is a universe of more than 2 million people, said W. Curt Barker, the project manager at NIST.

Barker said the new standards will include tougher background check requirements before many recipients can get their agency ID card. Access to particularly sensitive offices or systems still will require higher clearance, he said.

"There's wide variations in the quality and security of the forms of identification that people use to get access to federal facilities," he said. ". . . To be completely foolproof will be extraordinarily difficult, but we can raise the risk for the terrorist or other person who wants to fraudulently enter a facility and make it a little bit more difficult for them to get in."

The common standard also will enable many employees who shuttle between departments to enter different buildings with one card. NIST, which has spent about $1 million on the project so far, expects to complete the new standards by late February. Employees could start using the new cards as early as fall 2005, Barker said.

Several departments, notably defense, transportation and interior, began developing more secure, high-tech ID cards long before Bush issued the directive, he said. The trend ultimately could affect private sector workers, as well. Experts say the federal government's adoption of tighter ID card standards could spur more private businesses to follow suit.

Some federal employees have concerns about the new cards.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 federal workers in 30 agencies, said the proposed standard would permit agencies to print employees' pay grade and rank on the new cards, which many workers would consider an invasion of privacy.

"For example, an agency might seize upon this technology as a means to track employees as they move throughout a building," Kelley said in written comments to NIST last week. "That is troubling, standing alone. It would be particularly objectionable if the agency tried to track visits to particular sites such as the union office, Employee Assistance Program offices and the inspector general's office."

NIST has gathered comments on the draft standard from more than 500 entities and individuals but has not made them public.

On Jan. 19, the agency will hold a public meeting at the Potomac Center Plaza in downtown Washington to discuss policy, privacy and security concerns associated with the development of the new ID card standard. Anyone who wants to attend must preregister by Jan. 11 by e-mailing Sara Caswell, a NIST official, at sara@nist.gov, according to a notice in yesterday's Federal Register. Questions regarding registration can be directed to Caswell at (301) 975-4634.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Any opinions?

[Footmobile]

I think it's a good idea.

Anything that looks at improving our internal security, I'm all for it. If some emloyees of our government can't stand the thought of someone knowing where they are in the office, then they need to get another job.

[ktek01]

I think its a great idea, long overdue. Some of the objections are a little ridiculous in my opinion, YMMV.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 federal workers in 30 agencies, said the proposed standard would permit agencies to print employees' pay grade and rank on the new cards, which many workers would consider an invasion of privacy.

Govt Employees salaries are public knowledge, the taxpayers have a legal right to know what they are paying you. No right to privacy when it comes to that as is, the grade on a card will only make it easier for fellow employees to see your paygrade. Unless he has been lying to the girls at the water cooler all these years about his GS level. Then I could see an issue.


"For example, an agency might seize upon this technology as a means to track employees as they move throughout a building," Kelley said in written comments to NIST last week. "That is troubling, standing alone. It would be particularly objectionable if the agency tried to track visits to particular sites such as the union office, Employee Assistance Program offices and the inspector general's office."

Cant they do that with cameras already? Havent they tried this same argument against cameras for years, and lost every time. As an employer I dont have a right to know who is in my building and where? Especially in high security govt buildings shouldnt I be doing this already? I could of course probably use it to figure out how much time he spends at that water cooler telling BS stories to those same girls in the office. I really just dont see an issue here. These are things we should have been doing years ago, and those that protest the most are probably not afraid of losing privacy. Probably afraid they wont be able to get away with screwing off anymore and will have to actually earn their paychecks for a change.

[Goggles Pizano]

The Government has been mulling this over for too long. People who complain about invasions of privacy should take a moment to understand just how little "privacy" they have. At the push of a few buttons any agency can find out your address, type of vehicles you own (or owned in the past), telephone numbers (even the unlisted ones), spouse information, previous alias(s), fingerprint info, past criminal history, etc. The net is just as invasive.

You provide information and a picture for a drivers license but you'll bitch when it's a security measure? Nope, that is a huge bucket of BS! With the AFIS system in place over the last ten or twelve years everyone is already in the FBI database if you have been fingerprinted. It is easy to set up an entry point for a fingerprint ID check and swipe of the ID card prior to entering sensitive areas. This has been a glaring lack of security for so long and I'm glad it is finally being addressed.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Any opinions?

Vehr ah your paaapers?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Good idea, but I see some problems with folks that work covered assignments and use registered aliases. The biometrics won't change but that data will not match with the other open information when the alias or other "covered" aspects of the individual is presented.

Jack Moroney

[Doc]

I like it.

Add in fingerprinting and full retinal scans too.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Good idea, but I see some problems with folks that work covered assignments and use registered aliases. The biometrics won't change but that data will not match with the other open information when the alias or other "covered" aspects of the individual is presented.

Jack Moroney


I would think with it being national, it would facilitate "changes".

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

I like it; however. have some reservactions about the security of the data collected and who would have access to it. I would also hope that it would speed things through TSA checks at the airports. :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html?tag=nefd.top
-----------------------------
National ID cards on the way?
Published: February 14, 2005, 4:00 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

A recent vote in Congress endorsing standardized, electronically readable driver's licenses has raised fears about whether the proposal would usher in what amounts to a national ID card.

In a vote that largely divided along party lines, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a Republican-backed measure that would compel states to design their driver's licenses by 2008 to comply with federal antiterrorist standards. Federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to everything from airplanes to national parks and some courthouses.

The congressional maneuvering takes place as governments are growing more interested in implanting technology in ID cards to make them smarter and more secure. The U.S. State Department soon will begin issuing passports with radio frequency identification, or RFID, chips embedded in them, and Virginia may become the first state to glue RFID tags into all its driver's licenses.

"Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary," Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the eight Republicans to object to the measure, said during the floor debate this week. "However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens. They will not be able to fly or to take a train."

Paul warned that the legislation, called the Real ID Act, gives unfettered authority to the Department of Homeland Security to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking technology.

Proponents of the Real ID Act say it adheres to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and is needed to frustrate both terrorists and illegal immigrants. Only a portion of the legislation regulates ID cards; the rest deals with immigration law and asylum requests. "American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias," F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., said last week.

"If these commonsense reforms had been in place in 2001, they would have hindered the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists, and they will go a long way toward helping us prevent another tragedy like 9/11," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Now the Real ID Act heads to the Senate, where its future is less certain. Senate rules make it easier for politicians to derail legislation, and an aide said Friday that Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, was concerned about portions of the bill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on a terrorism subcommittee, said "I basically support the thrust of the bill" in an e-mail to CNET News.com on Friday. "The federal government should have the ability to issue standards that all driver's licenses and identification documents should meet."

"Spy-D" cards?
National ID cards are nothing new, of course. Many European, Asian and South American countries require their citizens to carry such documents at all times, with legal punishments in place for people caught without them. Other nations that share the English common law tradition, including Australia and New Zealand, have rejected such schemes.

A host of political, cultural and even religious concerns has prevented a national ID from being adopted in the United States, even during the tumultuous days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that ushered in the Patriot Act.

Conservatives and libertarians typically argue that a national ID card will increase the power of the government, and they fear the dehumanizing effects of laws enacted as a result. Civil liberties groups tend to worry about the administrative problems, the opportunities for criminal mischief, and the potential irreversibility of such a system.

Some evangelical Christians have likened such a proposal to language in the Bible warning "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." That mark is the sign of the "end times," according to evangelical thinking, which predicts that anyone who accepts the mark will be doomed to eternal torment.

Those long-standing concerns have become more pointed recently, thanks to the opportunity for greater tracking--as well as potentially greater security for ID documents--that technologies such as RFID provide. Though the Real ID act does not specify RFID or biometric technology, it requires that the Department of Homeland Security adopt "machine-readable technology" standards and provides broad discretion in how to do it.

An ad hoc alliance of privacy groups and technologists recently has been fighting proposals from the International Civil Aviation Organization to require that passports and other travel documents be outfitted with biometrics and remotely readable RFID-type "contact-less integrated circuits."

The ICAO, a United Nations organization, argues the measures are necessary to reduce fraud, combat terrorism and improve airline security. But its critics have raised questions about how the technology could be misused by identity thieves with RFID readers, and they say it would "promote irresponsible national behavior."

In the United States, the federal government is planning to embed RFID chips in all U.S. passports and some foreign visitor's documents. The U.S. State Department is now evaluating so-called e-passport technology from eight different companies. The agency plans to select a supplier and issue the first e-passports this spring, starting in Los Angeles, and predicts that all U.S. passport agencies will be issuing them within a year.

The high-tech passports are supposed to deter theft and forgeries, as well as accelerate immigration checks at airports and borders. They'll contain within their covers a miniscule microchip that stores basic data, including the passport holder's name, date of birth and place of birth. The chip, which can transmit information through a tiny included antenna, also has enough room to store biometric data such as digitized fingerprints, photographs and iris scans.

Border officials can compare the information on the chip to that on the rest of the passport and to the person actually carrying it. Discrepancies could signal foul play.

In a separate program, the Department of Homeland Security plans to issue RFID devices to foreign visitors that enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

The idea is to aid immigration officials in tracking visitors' arrivals and departures and snare those who overstay their visas. Similar to e-passports, the new system should speed up inspection procedures. It's part of the US-VISIT program, a federal initiative designed to capture and share data such as fingerprints and photographs of foreign visitors.

A "Trojan horse"
The legislation approved by the House last Thursday follows a related measure President Bush signed into law in December. That law gives the Transportation Department two years to devise standard rules for state licenses, requires information to be stored in "machine-readable" format, and says noncompliant ID cards won't be accepted by federal agencies.

But critics fret that the new bill goes even further. It shifts authority to the Department of Homeland Security, imposes more requirements for identity documents on states, and gives the department carte blanche to do nearly anything else "to protect the national security interests of the United States."

"In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse," said Paul, the Republican congressman. "It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty."

Unlike last year's measure, the Real ID Act "doesn't even mention the word 'privacy,'" said Marv Johnson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What I think the House is planning on doing is attaching this bill to tsunami relief or money to the troops," Johnson says. "When they send it to the Senate, the Senate will have to either fish or cut bait. They can approve it or ask for a conference committee, at which point the House can say 'they're playing games with national security.'"

In response to a question about a national ID card, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday that "the president supports the legislation that just passed the House." McClellan pointed to a statement from the White House earlier in the week that endorsed it.

Another section of the Real ID Act that has raised alarms is the linking of state Department of Motor Vehicles databases, which was not part of last year's law. Among the information that must be shared: "All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards" and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.

Some senators have indicated they may rewrite part of the measure once they begin deliberations.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., chairman of a terrorism subcommittee, is readying his own bill that will be introduced within a few weeks, spokesman Andrew Wilder said on Friday. "He has been at work on his own version of things," Wilder said. "Senator Kyl does support biometric identifiers."

CNET News.com's Alorie Gilbert contributed to this report.

[Pete]

Any opinions?

I have tons of opinions on many angles of this 1) I like it and think everybody should have one 2) It stinks and somebody is going to abuse it.

I just remember when DNA sampling became big in the Army. It got to the point that you had to have a sample taken before you could go on a deployment. Many were afraid that the system would be abused. We were assured that it would only be used to ID bodies returned to the states. The Army said "Trust me" and we got the test.

Not too many years later the system was used to help ID (IIRC) a rape/assult suspect somewhere around Texas. Some type of court order was involved about the information, it was at hand and should be used. You lawyers, update please.

As with any system the person with access has the ability to abuse it. Think how many orders with SSNs on them are floating around a military base. A private at main post or the trash man can use that information to mess some people up.

All things considered - I like it.

Pete

[NousDefionsDoc]

Not too many years later the system was used to help ID (IIRC) a rape/assult suspect somewhere around Texas.

And this is bad how?

[Pete]

And this is bad how?

I had no problem with the case. The point was that the information was used for something it was not intended. With slick lawyers, the freedom of information act and government poges/REMF types, many of whom are political appointees I am concerned about the amount or information that is floating around and available to somebody with access.

I'm not dodging any black helicopters flying over my house but I am concerned.

Pete
Who is dodging the green ones, but I like the sound they make.

[504PIR]

To be blunt I don't really like the idea. Primarly because it will be abused by bureacrats and such.

I think we can increase our level of national security by being more competent and interjecting some common sense. I'm tremedously UNIMPRESSED by TSA security...I think its mostly window-dressing. Being a gringo with more freaking ID cards than you can shake a stick at, I'm ALWAYS BEING SEARCHED at airports for example. Honestly how many white, brown-haired, middle-aged males with 4 ID cards( one being US Embassy, 1 military, 1 contractor) have hijacked a plane???
My girlfriend a blonde-haired, green-eyed gal with big tits IS ALWAYS SEARCHED by some goober who makes her take her sandles off. Guess they have a foot fetish.

Also the more I'm around Federal agents in general...I sometimes wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning.

The good ones I have worked with mostly seem kinda tired of beating their head against the wall. And they tell me horror stories of stupidity by their respective agencies.

Even in the current security sitituation I truely believe the last thing we need is a national ID card. More common sense is the answer.

Back to lurking

[NousDefionsDoc]

by being more competent and interjecting some common sense

Do you know how many people voted for John Kerry in the last election?

[GreenSalsa]

I am in favor of a National ID that can somehow be tied into the Drivers License. We are probably the only country in the world that has some sort of "phobia" of defending its national borders.

We need to be able to stop the influx of people coming north of the border (and south from Canada)…we need to stop the next 19 people who will conduct terrorism in this country. There isn't a single SF guy here that KNOWS that he could with minimal funding and scant training create an absolute nightmare for Law Enforcement Agencies with nothing but a handful of people. A national ID Card will not alone stop the next 9-11, BUT it will go a long way to intercepting a lot of those that would do us harm.

[longrange1947]

I am for it and do not have a jaundiced view of gov't agents. It would make it dam difficult to allow voter fraud, slow the illegal alien problem, and help identify potential bad guys. Every time I hear someone talk about the problems of a National ID in terms of "big brother knowing everything" I seem to wonder "what are you doing that has you worried?"

My question would be will the gov't be willing to change the ID card every so many years to prevent mass counterfieting? I believe that should be done with the paper money as well. OK eeryone, your money is n o good in 2 months, turn it in for a one for one exchange at the nearest bank. Think of hte problems that would creat for drug dealers, none tax payers, etc.

See how that goes witht he National ID? :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

I am for it and do not have a jaundiced view of gov't agents. It would make it dam difficult to allow voter fraud, slow the illegal alien problem, and help identify potential bad guys. Every time I hear someone talk about the problems of a National ID in terms of "big brother knowing everything" I seem to wonder "what are you doing that has you worried?"

My question would be will the gov't be willing to change the ID card every so many years to prevent mass counterfieting? I believe that should be done with the paper money as well. OK eeryone, your money is n o good in 2 months, turn it in for a one for one exchange at the nearest bank. Think of hte problems that would creat for drug dealers, none tax payers, etc.

See how that goes witht he National ID? :munchin

I don't know why, but for some reason, I am a little surprised.

[The Reaper]

I don't know why, but for some reason, I am a little surprised.

Me too.

I had RB pegged as a "Live Free or Die" kind of individual.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Not too many years later the system was used to help ID (IIRC) a rape/assult suspect somewhere around Texas. Some type of court order was involved about the information, it was at hand and should be used. You lawyers, update please.

Some people think that identifying rape suspects is a good thing. Personally, I think this is a little too much Big Brother and a step down a slippery slope we don't want to fall down.

Count me in the "Live Free or Die" group.

[CRad]

My question would be will the gov't be willing to change the ID card every so many years to prevent mass counterfieting?



Good question. A national ID seems like a cosmetic fix that would give people a false sense of security.

[longrange1947]

Me too.

I had RB pegged as a "Live Free or Die" kind of individual.

TR

Actually, on many things, I believe the gov't has no business sticking their noses into our lives.

However, the scare of invasion of privacy and other such BS is being used to prevent a tool that is already mostly in place. It would only standardize the driver's license, a form of national ID, and stop the use of the SSN from being used now as a National Form of ID. Try to fill out any state or national form and yo had better have a SSN. But right now it only causes the facilitation of ID theft. A regualr National ID would stop the over use of the SSN and standardize the ID requirements that is now using the driver's license. Hell soem states want the Illegal aliens to have a driver's license and that is the saem ID used to vote. The Dems are wanting to make it easier and easier to allow anyone to vote and vote multiple times. Hell, look at the stink over ballots cast in the wrong place. Count them anyway, no how many other wrong places did they vote and how do yo know they are even authorized to vote?

No, when common sense is beat down with paranoid fears then it is time to step back and see what is real and what is so much BS. WE have a National ID system but it is broke, lets fix it.


Another surprise? :D

[Doc]

I don't have anything to be afraid of. Come on over and search my house, car, computer emails, bank account transactions, etc. Only people with something to hide have anything to worry about with National ID Cards, seaches, etc.

People have rights. Give me a break about the slippery slope counselor. I have the right not to have some building over my head collapse on top of me when someone hijacks a plane and flys it into it too BTW.

You don't want to be searched and patted down? Don't fly a commercial airline.

Big brother eh? Right now he's the only thing protecting your ass and he's trying to do it with one hand tied behind his back.

Have a great day.

Doc

P.S.

Not angry, just calling it like I see it.

[Smokin Joe]

From and LEO stand point I see this as a step in the right direction. However, it needs to be backed up with information.

I.E. If I swipe a guys ID card I don't want the typical "confirmed with info" like his demographics. I want the hole deal height, weight, age, sex, eye color, hair color, corrective lenses or contacts, criminal history, scars, marks, tattoos, if he's on a watch list, if so which ones, last time they left the country, where they went, why did they go there, who their mother, father, and cousins are. etc etc.

I'm not going to say what our current NCIC or CJIS system will provide but lets just say that it leaves you wanting more.

I also agree with the thumb print AND retinal scan.

[lrd]

We have two types of IDs being discussed here: one for government employees and one for all US citizens.

I don't see anything asked for in the first article that they don't already have. I currently carry four government cards (not counting dependent ID). If I could combine them into one card that would be recognized at all bases and all government agencies, and would streamline travelling on orders, I'm all for it. I don't see the problem here. As soon as I know your rank/rate, I know what you make. I can't think of any government office I've worked in where everyone did not know everyone elses GS level. It's just not that big of a secret. If you are worried about your medical information being seen by the security guard, set levels of access for the information. I don't see how this ID would be any different from military IDs. If I have sworn the oath and signed on the dotted line, why should my ID be different from my husbands?

I have questions about the second type. The first one -- re: security -- has already been raised. I can see the temptation for this to be considered a panacea for security problems.

My second question concerns states rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your DL a state document? If the federal government sets the standards for the DL, then will the requirements to get that document have to be the same in all states?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I have no problem with it. Hell most of us have lived with ID cards for most of our lives. Unfortunately I think it will work like most of the other aspects of attempts at security. ID cards will be like locks-they work only for honest folks and can be bypassed by anyone with the right amount of training. It is still a passive method and will have to be combined with active actions that not only detect threats but are in position/place to interdict and neutralize them before they can carry out their designed purpose.

Jack Moroney

[Team Sergeant]

This sorta ties into this thread and its working now on our southern borders.

My only problem is that this kind of system only works on stupid people. If we design a biometric National ID someone will hack it as soon as its fielded.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002185289_border20.html

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

This sorta ties into this thread and its working now on our southern borders.

My only problem is that this kind of system only works on stupid people. If we design a biometric National ID someone will hack it as soon as its fielded.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002185289_border20.html

Interesting article, so now all they have to do is pass folks across the border without records or prints on file. Kinda shows the problem with treating terrorists as law enforcement problems and not military targets. I also have to chuckle about the fingerprint as the primary identifier. I have had to take my own prints at the local police station to update my clearance a couple of years ago because the local gendarmerie couldn't get a clear print. I realize that technology has advanced things greatly, but back in the days when I was little and EEFIS was one of the primary determinates of someone's identity, mistakes were often made just in training exercises where the conditions are a lot more conducive to success than in a hostile territory.

Jack Moroney

[longrange1947]

The old fingerprint to ink to paper method is disappearing and the scanned fingerprint is coming of age. Heck, my PDA has a fingerprint scanner so that only I can use the stupid thing. The initial outlay may seem great, but when you consider that no more ink, paper, or other "accessories are required it quickly pays for it self.

Yes, there are hackers and that is the reason why the card would need to be changed every so often, say every two years. As far as reading the card by an outsider, heck the ID card has all sorts f info on it now and can only be accessed by certain scanners. Security scannes access the secutrity data and medical scanners reads the medical. This does not mean that the airport security guy is going to see that I carry the gene for cancer and immediately, for a fee, report me to all the med insurance people Cripes, lets get a grip here. The "sllipery slope" is a long way off, or we have been o the down side of it for years, depending on the mind set. Privacy freaks and some of the lawyers, you know the union guys, :) , will tell you that we are sliding down it now. :boohoo

[Roguish Lawyer]

I don't have anything to be afraid of. Come on over and search my house, car, computer emails, bank account transactions, etc. Only people with something to hide have anything to worry about with National ID Cards, seaches, etc.

People have rights. Give me a break about the slippery slope counselor. I have the right not to have some building over my head collapse on top of me when someone hijacks a plane and flys it into it too BTW.

You don't want to be searched and patted down? Don't fly a commercial airline.

Big brother eh? Right now he's the only thing protecting your ass and he's trying to do it with one hand tied behind his back.

Have a great day.

Doc

P.S.

Not angry, just calling it like I see it.

I respect your opinions. Are you also in favor of gun registration? :munchin

[lrd]

I respect your opinions. Are you also in favor of gun registration? :munchinAre you equating a national ID with gun registration?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Are you equating a national ID with gun registration?

Yes.

[longrange1947]

RL - Come on now, they may pass a law outlawing my favorite weapon and use it the registration to confiscate the gun. I doubt seriously if they will pass a law outlawing me and confiscate my body. Hell it is hard enough to get my wife to take this old 57 yo body. :D

[Doc]

I would fill out the needed paperwork/procedures on the weapons I buy in the future and on the one or two ( :D ) I have in my house if it will assist the Law Enforcement Agencies of my Country in the performance of their duties. No problem.

Legal law abiding Sportsman are not the problem. Criminals are.

BTW, my neighbors like having me around. They said I make them feel safe. :D

[Roguish Lawyer]

I am not going to spend much time opposing a national ID, because it is not any more intrusive than driver's licenses. (For this reason, I am not sure how useful it is anyway.) But I do not like the idea of the government gathering too much information about U.S. citizens. As much as I am pro-law enforcement and anti-terrorist, I do not like the government and want to limit its power as much as reasonably possible. One of these days, the wrong people will be in power and I do not like the idea of making it easy for them to find me.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

One of these days, the wrong people will be in power and I do not like the idea of making it easy for them to find me.

Councilor you can run but you cannot hide, not from this group. :D

Jack Moroney

[SineParii]

I do not see the problem some have with a National ID, but do have my doubts about it making anything saver. One of the AQ Tangos could have been deported if he would not have had a valid DL (which expired long after his visa expired). Furthermore AQ Tangos whom where on a watch list where granted visas. In respect of travel security i.e. airports, a national ID is not going to tell us anything about Tangos OCONUS. Some have suggested an international readable ID (biometrics, fingerprints, etc.), but these would only function if; A) An updating, sharing and standardization of information would be established. B) International laws on terrorism would be emplaced (I.e. UN res. No. 21931 was only signed by 22 countries). C) Sponsored terrorism by certain counties stopped to exist.

[Stargazer]

I suppose my main issue would be the return on investment.

It may very well catch/discourage a few flies but have my doubts it would stop/detract the big threats. Add the element of abuse and cost to implement and maintain....

[aricbcool]

What bothers me about the National ID is the reasons that Congress is giving to pass it. They're saying that it'll help with illegal immigration. One person on this board already mentioned California wanting to give illegals drivers licences. Even if they don't have it, the illegals seem to have a pretty easy time getting around anyways. That kinda throws the whole illegals argument out the window right?

As far as the whole Big Brother aspect goes, I think it's just a continuation down the slippery slope we've been on, but in the right direction. Our SSN is our National ID card right now. The SSN, like the current gun laws, aren't going away. So, the step to a hi-tech, anti-forgery, super-duper special card would be welcome as I think it would curtail identity theft in a big way.
Do I agree with the concept of a National ID? Not really. I think every American has the right to privacy. The argument "You should have nothing to hide, so don't worry" is rhetoric typical of an intrusive government. (With all due respect to persons present.)

Of course, there's not much we can do about it, since most people prefer security to freedom anyway.

Ultimately, I don't think the card will do as much good as everyone would like. And, I think that there are some bigger problems we should be worrying about right now. Racial profiling anyone?

VR,
Aric

[Pete]

One of these days, the wrong people will be in power and I do not like the idea of making it easy for them to find me.


Like FBI files in the White House? :mad: Just who did hire Craig L.?

Hey RL I'm on your side in this. You can hide out in my neck of the woods anytime.

Pete

[SineParii]

The persons shouting the loudest about a there privacy are mostly the once that open there wallets at the shops counter with their DL behind a clear plastic window. I don’t know bout other states but here in NC it tells the name, address, etc. of the bearer. Very funny if you say hi Mr. or Mrs. so and so.

[longrange1947]

That kinda throws the whole illegals argument out the window right?

No, maybe it means they are going to get serious about it.

The argument "You should have nothing to hide, so don't worry" is rhetoric typical of an intrusive government.

Not really, also the rhetoric of people that have nothing to hide. :D

And, I think that there are some bigger problems we should be worrying about right now. Racial profiling anyone?

Not sure what you mean by that one. Like searching little old ladies when only middle eastern males between the age of 22 and 35 have hi jacked and flown planes into buildings. You are right, whay are we searching the little old ladies when they don't hi jack planes. Or are you complaining about driving while black?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Hey RL I'm on your side in this. You can hide out in my neck of the woods anytime.

I knew it! There is a safehouse here in LA for all of you too. Hopefully not all at the same time, though. ;)

[aricbcool]

No, maybe it means they are going to get serious about it.


We can always hope. But, I don't think anyone is willing to get serious about solving it for fear of alienating one group of voters or the other. It's been that way for a decade or more.
But enough hijacking. :D

Not really, also the rhetoric of people that have nothing to hide. :D

Roger that. :o

Not sure what you mean by that one. Like searching little old ladies when only middle eastern males between the age of 22 and 35 have hi jacked and flown planes into buildings.

Precisely. If the legislative body really wants to get serious about stopping terrorism, they've got more important things to worry about, racial profiling among the list.

--Aric

[Huey14]

I was under the impression that a passport is a National ID. Anything can be forged.

If this were to happen in NZ, I would be burying it in some bog somewhere in the wops.

[Detonics]

I’m primarily a respectfully quiet viewer in this forum, but find this a fascinating subject. I wanted to add a bit of “grist to the mill” and find out what you folks thought of this recent article. Total “B.S.” , “a likely scenario”, “funny he could concentrate enough to write this crap with those black helicopters hovering outside the house” What do you think?:

“We are no more than a generation from having a cashless society with a chipped and constantly tracked population. At some point we will be told that it is no longer feasible to support a cash exchange system, that counterfeiting, the potential for bio/chemical contamination of currency as well as the expense in handling cash has precluded it’s continued use.

At some point an acknowledgement will be made that a majority of crimes can be eliminated or solved, that mass transit can be expedited, that tens of thousands of deaths can be avoided via low cost traffic enforcement tracking, that violent criminals and sexual offenders can be monitored by means of an unobtrusive traceable personal chip.

The implantation would be on a strictly voluntary basis, however those not accepting a traceable implant would be required to share an exponentially larger tax burden due to the added cost of funding traditional government and criminal justice functions. This tax would be ever increasing, as more of the current population would be implanted at birth with parental consent.

Another consideration in the acceptance of the chip would be the increased inconvenience experienced in being cleared for access into facilities such as airports, mass transit systems, government facilities or other areas where increased security is required for public safety.

At some point, people refusing implants might experience being ostracized socially due to the increased costs and effort required in simple daily transactions in businesses, educational facilities, financial institutions and polling places. Interpersonal relations could also suffer due to suspicions being raised by people questioning what the unimplanted have to hide. “

Seems pretty bizarre to me! :munchin

[lksteve]

“We are no more than a generation from having a cashless society with a chipped and constantly tracked population. At some point we will be told that it is no longer feasible to support a cash exchange system, that counterfeiting, the potential for bio/chemical contamination of currency as well as the expense in handling cash has precluded it’s continued use.

since retirement, i have worked as a land surveyor...for years the mantra regarding data and drawings (maps, plats, the like) was that we were evolving to a paperless office...ain't gonna happen...our attorneys recommend we keep a paper copy of every correspondance with a client or representative...for every electronic drawing we have the corresponding hard copy, usually in mylar...

the counterfeiting argument is likewise bogus...identity theft is as prevalent, if not more so, than counterfeiting and probably more potentially lucrative...

will we become a cashless society? probably, in the future, we will become a society that relies less on cash...

i'm not sure how this fits into a national ID scenario...i'm not a big supporter of a national ID beyond a passport...but when it comes to paperless offices, cashless societies or any seamless transition from system to system, regarding anything, i'm skeptical...

[TF Kilo]

I guess it's a good thing both the wife and I are handy with a scalpel, eh?

[Sten]

I

Agreed. Too damn creepy for my taste. The next thing will be chips implanted in the back of our necks that they can just scan and tell what flavor ice cream we like or our preferred brand of toilet paper. I'm all for safety as well, but where there's a system, there's a means to abuse the system. The wrong people will figure it out, they always do.

Too late, if you carry a slightly modern phone that chip is already on you. :D

[Monsoon65]

Like many things, this can be used for good or for bad (just like those superpowers Elvis has).

I have a .mil ID card, a driver's license, and a credit card. I could probably be tracked by all three. Since I don't have anything to hide, I don't worry about it too much.

I know a lot of people are freaking and geeking about RFID chips being inplanted. Could it be used for bad? Yeah, it could. But I also think that an SF team could use it to track my white Irish ass if I get shot down somewhere in the boondocks.

[Razor]

Don't worry, the technology to capture iris images from a distance is already in the works...you won't have to "voluntarily" submit a biometric for identification in the very near future. ;)

[SparseCandy]

National ID Card is in the new immigration bill:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100430/cm_huffpost/557721

Reasons why it is a bad idea from a privacy and cost standpoint:

http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/epic_realid_0508.pdf

Given the current prevalence of identity theft and the inability of our government to stop data lists from being lost or stolen, I'm uncomfortable with a national id card that also stores my biometric data. Currently if my id numbers are stolen I can go through the process to change or stop the use of those numbers. If my fingerprint information is stolen I can't change my fingerprints. While police may store fingerprint information in databases, those databases seem far more secure than something that would have to be used every time I apply for a job, fly on a plane, or even potentially buy an alcoholic beverage. The more people who have access to data, the less secure it is.

I'm also worried about how technology advances faster than policies and laws can keep up. I'm not sure we have the appropriate loophole free laws on the books yet to keep this data from being sold or used in ways I haven't thought of but that I may not like.

[Utah Bob]

I am no tinfoil hat type, .....


Nor am I, but I did pick up an extra roll at the grocery store yesterday...just in case.
:eek: