Real ID

[Reaper]

Anybody heard of Real ID. Pretty much, this is another proposition by the US government to give it 1 more excuse to strip away and intrude on someones privacy. It is intended to be required to go in any facility ranging from government buildings to national parks. In addition, the information is required to be kept in massive data banks. Needless to say, many states are already revolting against this.

 

Here is some info on it right here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/real.id/index.html

 

So, what do you Americans think?

 

 

Coming soon in 2013, Big Brother I mean, if we really are that paranoid about terrorists, why not just start bar-coding our citizens or something....

[ecoli]

I understand the application, but I think privacy rights trump this. I expect to see a huge public backlash against this, if they try to move it forward.

 

Not to mention, it's going to be a large expense... another way the government is forcing citizens to give up their own rights at their own expense... for the sake of national security? Please... who actually believes that? There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I seriously call into question the need for a RealID.

[Pangloss]

I share the concern, but don't you think that at least part of the reason there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 is because of increased security? I don't think most of the larger, more intrusive measures have had much impact, but I think the increased awareness alone has had an obvious impact. Richard Reid was captured by passengers after getting through screening for example -- a great example of increased awareness leading to a victory over terrorism. Too bad it was the passengers and not actual security practices! But in fairness there have also been numerous incidents of early foilings and exposures and actual captures, and it's pretty hard to say there's been NO impact from increased security measures.

 

I think people need to pay more attention to what's happening in this area, but if we're going to have IDs anyway (e.g. driver's licenses) then the information ought to be available nationally under certain circumstances. As to whether we should brandish an ID before entering a national park, I'm not so keen on that.

[john5746]

I have no problem with this if it makes identification more efficient. I have several shopping cards, etc. Walmart can probably track their customers better than the US can track their agents.

[ecoli]

I share the concern, but don't you think that at least part of the reason there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 is because of increased security?

 

Yes, which is partly the reason I think the realID cards aren't necessary. They seem to be doing fine without it.

I think our efforts would be better spent on boarder security.

 

I don't think most of the larger, more intrusive measures have had much impact, but I think the increased awareness alone has had an obvious impact. Richard Reid was captured by passengers after getting through screening for example -- a great example of increased awareness leading to a victory over terrorism. Too bad it was the passengers and not actual security practices! But in fairness there have also been numerous incidents of early foilings and exposures and actual captures, and it's pretty hard to say there's been NO impact from increased security measures.

Yep... unless it leads to unnecessary racial profiling, people should have heighten awareness about their security threats. But I think everyone if pretty well aware about terrorism - the Bush administration has seen to that.

 

But does this mean we should have a national ID? I point to Israel as a country who deals with terrorism on a very real level. Much more than us... yet they don't have a national ID card. As far as I know, the idea has not even been proposed. They would have much more reason than us to have such a thing... not to mention a much smaller population.

 

I think people need to pay more attention to what's happening in this area, but if we're going to have IDs anyway (e.g. driver's licenses) then the information ought to be available nationally under certain circumstances. As to whether we should brandish an ID before entering a national park, I'm not so keen on that.

 

The whole point of decentralizing information is so that the federal government can't take advantage of it. I hate to tout the slippery slope, but I don't think I need to draw out what could happen if some corrupt politician got their hands on everybody's information... he'd sell it to the telemarketers! Nobody will be able to enjoy a peaceful meal ever again.

 

No... but there are serious privacy concerns, and I'm not sure how well the argument of 'national security' works here. <insert quote from founding fathers here>

 

If I were to even consider it, the government would have to show, beyond a doubt, that there were legitimate security concerns that only a national ID card could possibly solve. Also, that my privacy was completely secure from anyone who could use the information. In addition, I'd probably want an annual analysis of the card, and the immediate dismantle of the program, should it be decided [by congress?] that it is no longer necessary, and assurances that all information would be completely erased at the national level once the program was suspended.

 

Only if I could be assured the above, could I consider taking the ID card seriously.

[Pangloss]

Walmart can probably track their customers better than the US can track their agents.

 

You're probably right. I know Amazon.com knows FAR more about me than I'd care for any government to!

 

 

Yes, which is partly the reason I think the realID cards aren't necessary. They seem to be doing fine without it.

I think our efforts would be better spent on boarder security.

 

A reasonable and compelling argument, IMO.

 

 

I point to Israel as a country who deals with terrorism on a very real level. Much more than us... yet they don't have a national ID card. As far as I know, the idea has not even been proposed. They would have much more reason than us to have such a thing... not to mention a much smaller population.

 

I don't know much about it, and of course this is only the Wikipedia, so it my be completely wrong, but this article would seem to suggest otherwise:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teudat_Zehut

[Sisyphus]

The idea of a national ID isn't that offensive to me, but it does seem like a waste of effort. We already have social security numbers, drivers licenses, etc. What is this going to add?

[ecoli]

I don't know much about it, and of course this is only the Wikipedia, so it my be completely wrong, but this article would seem to suggest otherwise:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teudat_Zehut

 

Interesting... This is first I'm hearing about such a thing, and I actually lived in Israel for a month. I've been through guarded areas in all sorts of places and nobody has ever asked me to present idea, and I never observed anyone else to present ID either. I'll see if my Israeli friends know anything about this, or Mooeypooey if she sees this thread.

 

The idea of a national ID isn't that offensive to me, but it does seem like a waste of effort. We already have social security numbers, drivers licenses, etc. What is this going to add?

The problem is that these are easily forged.

[Sisyphus]

 

The problem is that these are easily forged.

 

Perhaps. But I don't see how a national ID would be much of an improvement. There are already nationally accessible databases for drivers' licenses used by law enforcement, so really you can't forge one that will stand up to more than a casual inspection.

[John Cuthber]

Not quite the same thing but I think it's important to remember that such data needs to be kept securely. If a government can't look after things they shouldnt (imho) collect them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7103566.stm

[ecoli]

Perhaps. But I don't see how a national ID would be much of an improvement. There are already nationally accessible databases for drivers' licenses used by law enforcement, so really you can't forge one that will stand up to more than a casual inspection.

I don't know enough about the new ID that would make it harder to forge... maybe because driver's licenses in a different state is easier to get away with, since enforcement officers don't have immediate access to the national data bank. But, like you said, is a new ID really necessary here?

 

Not quite the same thing but I think it's important to remember that such data needs to be kept securely. If a government can't look after things they shouldnt (imho) collect them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7103566.stm

The strongest argument against it... and that's assuming the federal government isn't planning on doing something sinister with the info directly... which there is no proof for, but with the Patriot act, who knows what they can do.

[Reaper]

The strongest argument against it... and that's assuming the federal government isn't planning on doing something sinister with the info directly... which there is no proof for, but with the Patriot act, who knows what they can do.

 

Well, they can already listen on to your conversations or search your property without warrents. And I've read up on several psychological studies that it is very easy to lead people to committing atrocious acts. Milgram's experiments anyone?

 

I do get a bit concerned with the actions of the Federal Government, but even more than that I get concerned with the apparent lack of interest among the general public.

[ecoli]

I do get a bit concerned with the actions of the Federal Government, but even more than that I get concerned with the apparent lack of interest among the general public.

 

I think that may be due to, at least in part, because people have the general allusion of safety, from the government. The people who get targeted by the Patriot act are considered (or so we're told) to be outside the mainstream. The only people who are affected are terrorists, so normal people have nothing to fear. In fact, people who actually complain outloud about the act are viewed suspiciously, because who would complain unless you have something to hide. Also, the federal government has groomed itself to be our caretakers, soo, even if you don't agree with what they're doing overseas, it's not like they'd ever hurt an average American citizen. The thought of privacy for privacy's sake is viewed as antiquated...