February 28, 2005
Why Do You Need to See My ID?
The difficulty of privacy is that it can be leeched away slowly enough that we don’t recognize its absence. With the recent talks of a national ID card, there has been a (relatively) heightened awareness of privacy in America. I just read this article about John Gilmore’s quest to find and fight the secret security laws which require IDs to board flights within the US.
This topic is one which concerns all american citizens, regardless of political position. As it stands right now, if the government doesn't like what you have to say, all they need to do is put your name on the no-fly list to prevent you from getting to your next seminar/rally/whatever. It may not be a problem now, but we cannot be assured that no one in the government will ever use this power to harass or limit the free speech of citizens with a message they desire to quash. Even now, there are laws governing our movement within our own country that we are not even allowed to read; and until recently, the government denied that they even existed.
There is a fine line between privacy and security. Some argue "If you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?" This short-sighted mentality sells out our future voice against the government and more. Sure, speaking against government policy is not a problem now, but when we begin to let the government regulate avenues of communication, they can definitely interfere with the free speech of anyone they choose. In this case, Mr. Gilmore, in an effort to air his grievances with the national government, was prevented from doing so. And even though this is one instance, it is one too many.
The problem arises when we begin to focus on preventing crime, like we have been doing since 9-11. We cannot permit government interference against persons who have performed no illegal act. Laws and law enforcement are there to punish and deter illegal behaviour, not prevent it. When we allow the thought of terror to sap our freedoms, we may be more secure, but we undermine the constitutional freedoms we've been founded on, and that is too high of a price to pay for 'may be' security.
To read more and take action, I suggest visiting Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Finally, what post about national security would be complete without the following quote:
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
-Ben Franklin
From a pragmatic point of view, I have no problem with a citizen ID card, provided that we have a transparent government which is accountable to the people. Since, we do not have a transparent government, and since the people are extremely uninformed about that government and have not the time, energy, or willingness to exercise oversight of their government, I have no choice but to vehemently oppose a national citizen ID of anykind, not already in use.
Posted by: David R Remer at February 28, 2005 01:11 PMExactly. It is a faint dream to hope for a transparent government. But did you read the article? What do you think of these ‘un-knowable’ laws?
Posted by: AParker at February 28, 2005 01:21 PM“First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.”
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Very apropos’ Rocky. That is the way our Bill of Rights is being turned into meaningless double speak straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 28, 2005 01:33 PMA Parker, the article made Gilmore a hero of mine. Like I said, we no longer have a transparent government. Nor do we have a government that has any respect for precedent laws or Constitutional limitations, or treaties which stand in their way. See the GOP’s Nuke option on judicial nominations, or the House Ethics Committees purported treatment of the rules in regard to DeLay.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 28, 2005 01:38 PMDavid,
You and I both know that just because it didn’t happen in 1984, doesn’t mean that it won’t happen.
The right has constantly talked about the “slippery slope”.
I find it funny they may bring it on themselves.
I think that it’s just about time to get out the skis.
Great article.
This is why the “Patriot Act” should never have been rushed to a vote - and why what they were attempting to do regarding homeland safety and security should have been discussed exhaustively by all the members of Congress before anything close to implementation occurred.
While it is clear we need to protect ourselves against the threats that terrorism brings, the unconstitutional provisions of “Patriot” should and must be removed if we wish to preserve the meaning of American Liberty.
GREAT post Andrew. This was going to be my first topic if I had been ok’d as an editor. Since I was not, I’m glad you put this out there.
The ramifications of this will be irreversible and the majority of Americans will know nothing about it until it becomes law.
Rocky
“The right has constantly talked about the “slippery slope”.
I find it funny they may bring it on themselves.”
I too find it funny. To bad they won’t wake up and start paying attention until it’s not THEIR guy in office, it may be too late by then.
“I think that it’s just about time to get out the skis.”
I’ve had my ski’s on since the 90’s and don’t plan on being able to take them off for a long, long time.
Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2005 02:12 PMA big problem with some legislation is that it calls for regulations to be made by the department who will oversee those regulations. The congress essentially writes a blank check to those departments, which is precisely the case we see here.
From the article:
When Congress passes a law, it is as often as not up to some agency to decide what that law means and how to enforce it. Usually, those regulations are available for people to examine, even challenge if they conflict with the Constitution.
Except in this case, the regulations passed were “protected” from the public by the category of Sensitive Security Information, created by the FAA in 1974. So we have regulations, not specifically endorsed by any branch of the government, which we citizens do not know about and cannot find out about until those hidden regulations prevent us from pursuing life and liberty.
Posted by: AParker at February 28, 2005 02:14 PMAdrienne
Amen! And I will stand with you all 100% in fighting for our rights.
I hope you will be there for me during the next democratic presidents reign of terror also.
We can’t stay divided as the dems during clinton and the reps during bush were and are. We must stand together in the fight for our rights.
I think the current government position on airlines is ridiculous.
Right after 911 I called for an airline who would fly anyone on their “safe list”
they could screen for this list by using work records, police records, and any other profiling.
If you could go to the airport and straight to the plane, no body or package screening,
Ten, twenty minutes before your flight, would you like that?
No security problems. Why should grandma get patted down?
George,
The problem is who defines the “safe list”?
How do you enforce it?
How do you keep it from being abused?
Do you really feel safer?
I myself have stopped flying, not because of any percieved danger, but because it is all such a hassle.
Most of my travel is within 400-500 miles from where I live. I have to be at the airport 1 1/2 hours before my flight, it takes an hour to fly, it takes half an hour to get my luggage and half an hour to get a rental car.
Hell, I can drive it in 5-6 hours, with out all that hassle. And save myself a ton of money in the process.
This article opened my eyes. I had never questioned the need for ID, but the article makes it clear that of IDs is a useless exercise. I already think that about the body searches, because an airliner full of passengers are there to resist any attempt to take over a plane by any group less than 10-20 hijackers. Those that think about costs should tote up not only the costs of the checkers, but the American public’s lost time referred to by Rocky. Say you have 580M passengers and each spends 30 min each on security stuff and you value your free time at a modest average of $20/hour. That’s $5.8B, boys and girls, just for standing around in line. Got to be a trade-off.
The 9/11 hijackers could have been caught if intrepid police work would have been followed up on. I suspect that’s the only way such activity can be foiled. If they’re determined enough and no one’s paying attention, they can get through security once they get to the airport, ticket in hand.
By the way, I am struggling with the difference between “privacy” and “anonymity” for such discussions. If people know who I am - that is, my name - but don’t know anything about me I don’t want them to know and that isn’t public knowledge by law, then I have my privacy. So just verifying my identify doesn’t seem to be burdensome as long as it is quick and easy. On the other hand, if knowing my identify allows them to find out things about me I don’t want them to know, then anonymity becomes a surrogate for privacy. If we truly protect privacy, then anonymity will lose its appeal as a way of protectin privacy. I tried to explain to someone once who wanted not only to be left off our mailing list, but also wanted us to destroy all associated personal information, including name and address. I tried to explain that if we erased everything, we couldn’t prevent the person’s name from re-entering our system and receiving another mailing. Anonymity vs. privacy.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 28, 2005 06:44 PMAldous, your comment appeared to be facetious, however, calling others here names is not permitted by our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger Policy. Therefore your comment was deleted. Comply with our rule or lose comment priviliges.
WatchBlog Manager
Posted by: Aldous at February 28, 2005 09:08 PMHere is my two cents worth. I read the article and gives me pause, but not about the need for a national ID card. Our governmental laws are supposed to public and the government has no right to classify a law beyond public scrutiny just because it wants to. I support Mr. Gilmore’s efforts to uncork the law, but I do not agree that we have a right to remain anonymous. Interaction is modern society demands a certain familiarity with governmental officials in order to maintain order. I am not an advocate of anarchy no matter the reason or intent.
That being said, I have no problem with a national ID Card, because there is nothing the government could learn about me that they do not already know. And if it helps in this nation war against terror then it is a small sacrifice on my part.
Americans by-and-large have no qualms about handing over their personal information when it is to their benefit to do so. There is no hue and cry about the necessity for driver’s licensee, nor the information we must impart at the doctor’s officer, nor the information we must give to apply for credit to purchase a house or car. We have no problem splashing out personal information across the Internet, if it will benefit us personally. So what is the big deal about a National ID Card that stamps as an American in good standing; what is wrong with doing your peace for the country?
Yes, we should keep a skeptical eye, or eyes on the government, that is a given, but I am not given to paranoia even with Bush in office. Perhaps I should, but for now…The majority of Americans already carry some form of state sponsored identification, what is one more card in a wallet full of them if it serves the greater good?
“Yes, we should keep a skeptical eye, or eyes on the government”
It is way too late for that. Feeling such as yours and statements such as this:
“I have no problem with a national ID Card”
have already made so it is not WE THE PEOPLE who are keeping an eye on govt, but instead, it is the GOVERNMENT who is keeping an eye on WE THE PEOPLE.
Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2005 11:03 AMV-
The big problem I have with the national security card (which wasn’t my intent to address with this article) is that the current proposition includes an open ended clause which could be used to place radio frequency emitting devices in the card itself. This constitutes a large breach in my privacy, as it allows for the possibility of tracking my precise location.
As for most americans having no problem giving out personal information, that is their choice. I shouldn’t be required to do so because most people don’t care.
The whole point of posting a link to this article is to address the astonishing fact that our government has regulations that they expressly prohibit citizens from knowing about. Does it not seem alarming?
Posted by: AParker at March 1, 2005 11:03 AM
