Third Party & Independents: Archives

I want to thank Ruff for bringing this shadowy method of passing the Real ID bill to my attention.

Oh no, Andrew. We can’t vote against funding the war. That would be unpatriotic. And don’t you even care about those poor tsunami victims? Are you a monster? :/

My representative

Ummm, I really do not see the problem with insisting upon some standards when it comes to state issued drivers licenses; in the end we all win, don’t we? The government already knows your name, age, gender, SSN, your address, phone number, place of employment, and if you are in government employ, they have your fingerprints on file. What is the big deal?

You have a right to privacy, but in a society governed by the rule of law, you should not have a right to be completely anonymous. Why then live in a society at all, why not declare our houses, or apartments little states unto themselves? We are already so steeped in our individualist ethos that it is hurting the nation as a whole; we cannot seem to come to a conscience on anything. I, for one, am willing, and able, to produce four forms of I.D. is order to be granted the privilege of driving in my state and country. It is the least I can do to ensure the safety of my family and fellow Americans.

Stupid laptop touchpad. Disregard that last part. :)

VEM-

Well, we certainly disagree on a most basic level here.

1) standards for Identification are OK, but not these standards. They give entirely too much power to the DHS, who are not elected representatives.

2) Yes, the government knows personal information about me, but if they red-flag me for some reason, (perhaps I say something bad about His Royal Highness) they would be able to detect me where ever I go, and that is an incredible breech of my personal liberty.

3) Certain amounts of anonymity are necessary; the mere possibility of anonymity is required to maintain our freedom. What would happen to the social/civil reformers from our history books if they had no possbility of anonymity? What if they were caught and jailed before their cause caught the attention of society? This is the possible future of America with these reforms. Persons who fight for change may be found and restrained much more quickly under these regulations. Their causes may die in their early stages, and the government can continue chugging along unchallenged because those rare individuals with the vision and conviction to lead a revolution will be quickly identified and removed.

Biometrics offers SO many benefits over current forms of IDentification.
And it’s not a new idea or philosophy, it’s just a much better way to do what we’re already trying to do through other forms of IDentification.

Biometrics would greatly reduce IDentity theft that is
currently becoming a large problem to us all.
I respect people’s right to privacy; especially
in the privacy of their own homes, etc.

If government abuses the information (and the
government already has a lot of information
about us already, anyway), that’s a separate
issue, in which someone should be severely punished.
______________________________________________
Another serious issue related to this topic is
the that: bills contain TOO many items.
Often consisting of thousands of pages.
Often with conflicting objectives.
Often not carefully read or scrutinized.
Often abused to sneak in pork-barrel, over-spending, and general abuse of the tax-payers.

So, we can’t know why anyone votes for, or against a bill.
Consequently, we can’t know what is really happening.
But, the politicians like it that way, since they don’t want
the people to know what’s really going on.

There’s one easy solution, that we should all demand government to do immediately:

______Allow ONLY ONE item per bill______

This will cut out the pork-barrel and conflicts-of interest, and special-interests,
that are currently hidden in huge bills consisting of tens of thousands of
pages that no one reads or scrutinizes.
This will finally allow Voters to easily see how each politician voted on a single-item-bill,
revealing their true motives. And, lets also widely publicize voting records of
politicians so that we can see the voting records of all
Congress persons on each individual single-item bill.

This will create transparency (similar to a usefulness of surveillance system that
discourages illegal or irresponsible behavior due to risk of being seen and held accountable,

Transparency will effectively discourage abuse and corruption,
and make it easier to identify those Accountable.

OSITA…-

If government abuses the information (and the government already has a lot of information about us already, anyway), that’s a separate issue, in which someone should be severely punished.

Are you kidding me? How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice…? The government as it stands is not to be trusted. Haven’t we all learned that yet? Absolute power corrupts absolutely…? So why do we go along with the concentration of power into the federal government?

Specifically, there is no reason for law-abiding citizens to submit biometric ID info to the government. Our laws are based on punishment of crime, and not prevention. Anything less encroaches on the freedom which our founders intended. (As a side note: they also did not intend to have such a powerful national government giving demands to states, rather vice versa, from the bottom up)

As for the rest of your post:

I agree, transparency in government is necessary to have a government which is for the people by the people. But you’ve presented your arguments time and again. Please don’t derail discussion of the topic I’ve presented by steering the thread off-topic.

***What would happen to the social/civil reformers from our history books if they had no possbility of anonymity? What if they were caught and jailed before their cause caught the attention of society?***

What an excellent point; this is just another rung up the ladder towards US totalitarianism. A lot of repubs hover over the second amendment to preserve it’s function in deterring the government from opressing it’s own people; ironically, this republican-born initiative seems to fit hand-in-glove with democrat-based initiatives of disabling the 2nd amendment. The once distictive lines between the two major parties are becoming ever more convoluted.

It is not so bad a thing to give the government control of the people as long as that is accompanied by the government being able to control itself. These ID cards don’t have to be a bad thing. They will become what we make them to be.

AP,
Glad to see this issue receiving notice. It goest to the heart of the conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of society (if a society can have rights).

“I… am willing… to produce four forms of I.D. is order to be granted the privilege of driving in my state and country. It is the least I can do to ensure the safety of my family and fellow Americans.”

I’m not. I have a right to walk. I have a right to run. I have a right to ride a bicycle, or use whatever means of transport I desire. It is not a privilege granted by government.

I have a right to privacy. I have a right to remain anonymous, if I wish.

One could extend the same arguments to “the right to bear arms.”

Now, as a society, as a purely practical matter, we can agree to curtail various rights. Such curtailments should be absolutely minimal, for mutual safety and protection. For example, ‘free speech’ does not mean a person can should ‘theater’ in a firehouse, as Steve Martin quipped. Licensing for driver safety is desirable. Excluding certain types of arms, such as tactical nuclear weapons, from individual ownership is a practical limitation on freedom.

Creating a national database is undesirable and unnecessary. Yes, it’s bad enough already, the amount of information already out there.

And having been victimized by identity theft (a relatively minor case, considering…), I’m not obliviious to the issue.

But creating a national database is bound to lead to abuses. Another small piece of our liberty is about to be sacrificed for ‘safety.’ Sadly, it’s going almost unnoticed.

Aparker,

We have to get control of government first.
And that’s the first thing we can and should do ASAP.
It only requires one simple idea… . . . .

OK, I agree that an IDentification card, or biometrics system,
or anything for that matter, can NOT work, if government is corrupt.

I understand the mistrust of government.
Government earned that mistrust.

The need for IDentification is important.
We don’t want unauthorized persons writing checks or
charging to our accounts do we ?
Biometrics could make that much more difficult.
I don’t think any ordinary IDentification card will
accomplish much, because they are too easy to forge.
We are already required to provide IDentification
(e.g. airport, drivers’ license, Social Security Number,
address, E-Mail address, etc.) for so many things? All of those are easy to forge.

Biometrics (e.g. Iris scan, finger-prints, retina scan,
hand-print scan, DNA, etc.) are very difficult to fake.
So, lets first, make government trustworthy,
Transparent, and Accountable.

If government abuses it, they should be prosecuted.
That’s a separate issue and needs a separate solution,
without scraping all things and systems.

We can NOT have one without the other.
We must have a:
(1) government that we can trust, and
(2) an IDentification system (for obvious reasons,
e.g. access your bank, charge purchases, board an airline, etc.), that is very reliable.

In all things, at some point, some level of
trust is required to get past step # 1.
And, enforcement of the law must apply to both:
the people and the government.
If government can not be trusted, then we must fix it first, and quickly; before things deteriorate further.

And, personally, I think government, very often
can NOT be trusted, and it’s about time that we,
the voters got off our lazy apathetic butts, and
do what is required to remedy that problem.
Just do the simple things first.
Government has no power, except that which the
voters give to them, and that power, for a very
good reason, is temporary. Voters can remove
politicians if they really want to.

The key to controlling government is for voters
to NOT just demand, but FORCE government
to implement some basic reforms. The voters can
accomplish it quite easily and quickly if they really
want it bad enough.

AParker,
I don’t mean to derail people’s threads, but too often, debates get bogged down in the details, and petty bickering, without addressing the underlying root cause of the problem.

There are many posts I have not posted on, because it’s bickering, whining, and griping,
and petty partisan politics, that goes no where.

Topics like this one, mistrust of the government, an IDentification system, and Border Control, Social Security, Taxation, and the Constitution are
closer to the core of so many problems.

Sorry you feel I’m disrailing your post, but
how can you debate an IDentification system, and the mistrust of Government to refuse an IDentifcation system, without ever addressing how to make Government more trustworthy? It begs the question: How do we make government trustworthy, before we let them create an IDentification system? For that matter, why do
we allow government to do a lot of things, if
we don’t trust them with something as seemingly benign as an IDentification System, much less
Social Security, Medicare, Taxes, the Military, etc.?

Hey, OSIFTAA, are you OSI or are you two different people? I just don’t want to have a mix-up…

I think passports are going to be the first to get RFID chips. Living SE Asia, that makes me a little nervous. Apparently you can scan them from 30 feet away, so even if my passport is in my pocket a guy with a scanner will know I’m an American (although bein’ a big ol’ cracker, I’m not foolin’ anyone over here anyhow).

My dog has two of those things implanted in her neck. When they start making people get RFID implants, I’m moving to Borneo or something.

Yes (same), Now: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability

RFID chips are not required, because
we can already be uniquely identified by:

Iris-Scan
Finger-Prints
Hand-Prints
Retina-Scan
DNA

Currently, drivers’ licenses often have height, weight, and eye-color. Unfortunetly, height
and weight are neither unique or constant.
Drivers’ licenses, passports, and similar forms
of ID are very easy to fake.

However, I would not even succumb to implanted
RFID chips. That’s not going to happen.
Many people would remove them, or implant fakes. So, that would not work.
Biometrics are very difficult to fake (not
impossible perhaps? But very difficult).
It requires you to carry nothing (i.e. no passport,
no driver’s license, no Social Security #, etc.)
You, yourself, are your unique ID card.

I don’t really see what the big problem with more securiety for drivers licenses.
The gov. already has the info on you, hell, private companys have access to far more info. on you than you ever dreamed they could.

Try googleing your name or your phone#, see what you get, with that info you can get everything else many are worried about someone knowing. If you are paying extra for an unlisted phone #, you’re wasteing your money unless you never use the phone.
Tip : Put your phone in your dogs name if your phone co. will allow it.
All the license thing will do is give a cop or airport a better idea that you are who you claim to be.
Anyone with a puter can already get info about you that would scare you to death, and no, I’m not going to explain how to do it.
Forget “Big Brother”, “Big World” already knows who and where you are!

Well, sort of. Provided, it’s really you?
Not even “Big Brother” or “Big World” can always be certain who’s who, with all current forms of IDentification. I’d really like it if biometrics was used for banking, checking, credit cards, and airlines. I haven’t been a victim of IDentity theft yet, but biometrics would make it close to impossible to fake.

OSIFTAA,

I completely agree with you; biometrics sounds much superior than identification cards that can be forged. If I wanted to steal your identity, It would be much easier for me to create a card with your name, photo and info than to change my fingerprints and retna to be exactly like yours. Also, it impossible to “lose” your genetical individuality like a card, which can be stolen/found and never returned.

Yes, unlike an ID card, with biometrics, you, literally, ARE your ID card,
and you can’t lose yourself (well, figuratively maybe; not physically).

Of course, this all depends on whether government can be trusted. I’m very cynical, and critical of government, but I think they can be
trusted to do this. I doubt they’ll get it completely right, but it will be much better than what
we have now, in which almost ANYONE’s IDentity can be stolen, purchases can be charged in our name, our bank accounts can be drained,
charge accounts can be opened & maxed-out, etc. It’s a very serious and rapidly growing problem.
And, all because we can not currently truly IDentify anyone, unless we use biometrics.
When the problem is discovered, it may take years, hundreds of hours of time, and thousand$ of dollar$ to undo the damage.

Some merchant stores here in Texas are asking people to put their thumb-print on checks they write. This is a effective deterent for criminals writing bad checks or using someone else’s checks, because the check will have the
criminal’s finger-print on the check. The police
are then able to identify and track checks by that
individual. And, if the finger-print is already
on file (e.g. due to a previous arrest), then
the police will know who it is. Many times, when
I make purchases, I am never asked for any form
of IDentification. Why? Because everyone already realizes how useless old forms of ID are.
My credit cards have my photo on them, they could
still be faked. Driver’s licenses have photos, but
they are also easy to fake.

In fact, just about any form of IDentification,
except biometrics, will be easy to fake.

And, if government can NOT be trusted, that
can be fixed too. And should be, since (in that case) nothing
will work, and there’s no use in trying to
implement new ID cards, or biometrics, or anything, until we make government trustworthy first. That should be at the top of the list.
After that is accomplished, many other things will naturally start to fall into place.

Sorry for my absence this weekend, there was no way I could post my comments.

I see a few main points in arguing why we should be okay with this bill.

1) The information is out there.

This is not the point. Yes, the information is out there, but it still takes substantial time to compile a profile of an individual. But the information existing and being available is very different than a system which can identify you wherever you go. The point is that you can easily be ‘red-flagged’ in this system to set off alarms whenever your ID is detected, which may be possible from up to 30 feet away. (Or more as technology advances…) Currently, if you walk into a store, you pass through those anti-theft scanners. They aren’t terribly different than an RFID scanner. They could easily be updated to scan the new IDs. Any time you went to the store, you could be found. With the digital photo stored in the ID, and retreived by the scanner, any security figure could readily identify you from a crowd and whisk you away. Look at how the current administration is squelching the voices of those who disagree with their actions and ideals. Is it terribly hard to imagine a government which begins profiling individuals, beginning with those who raise the most dissent, and flagging them? They could track these individuals using the new IDs, and arrest them virtually any time.

2) Biometrics are a great form of identification.

Biometrics are currently a terrible form of identification. You do not need to lose parts of your body for your biometric identification to be stolen, this is a terribly naive viewpoint. Any time you touch a glass at a restaurant, etc, you are leaving complete access to your life. Biometrics are currently rather easy to fool, especially those based on fingerprints. Other forms of biometric identification are still too expensive to be considered on a grand scale.

3) It is not so bad a thing to give the government control of the people as long as that is accompanied by the government being able to control itself.

Hence, it IS a bad thing to give the government control, by your own statement. Do you see the government with any desire to ‘control itself’? So, in current context, how could you make this argument?

These ID cards don’t have to be a bad thing. They will become what we make them to be.

I would argue that they will not become what “we” make them to be (what control do ‘we’ have over what they become?), they will become what the government wants them to be - a means for control.

AParker,

I understand your phobia of letting government,
credit card companies, banks, states, cities,
etc. have and store information about you.
If anything is inevitable, and beyond all
practical control, is the elimination of all
such information. Therefore, perhaps we should
focus on how to improve the system.

IDentification should never be solely based on finger-prints.
Especially, since some people may be missing fingers.
DNA would be best, but is too expensive. So DNA is years away from being practical.

So, a combination of iris-scan, retina-scan,
finger-prints, hand-prints, DNA eventually, etc.)
should be used.

So What?
So what if someone gets your finger-print off of a glass or window?
What does that matter? It won’t do them any good, unless it is
attached to their person, along with eyeballs, DNA, the same height, etc.

Therefore, even if someone can get your fingerprints off of
some glass or window, it in no way diminishes the
usefulness of IDentification by biometrics.

Biometrics makes it much more difficult to fake,
because YOU, yourself, are your ID card.
No credit cards to lose, no pass-ports to fake, etc.
Anyone who can fake an iris-scan, retina-scan, finger-print,
hand-print, height, weight, DNA, etc. is NOT possible.

The only way to fool this form of ID is to reprogram the computer to
selectively reroute an IDentification data to
the wrong data record.
Yes, this is a problem, but that is already a problem. That part is no
different than it is NOW, and that part may always be a problem.

Either, we abandon all forms of identification,
all systems that rely on it (e.g. drivers licenses,
pass ports, visas, border control, etc.),
Or, we improve IDentification.

I prefer to improve these systems, and all prerequisite systems.

Some degree of trust will inevitably be required,
and a trustworthy government will be required.
If government is NOT trustworthy, then we, all voters,
should do the One Simple thing required, which is a prerequisite
if we ever hope to have anything but dysfunction, which is to
force (peacefully) government to be trustworthy.