ID Cards.

[Sayonara]

Because it's forced. Because it's insecure. Because it's extremely expensive. Because it's unnecessary.

That's not bad for me in any way that the existing methods aren't (although my objections actually refer to the "it's a breach of privacy" argument).

 

As for the cost of the cards, I think the .gov is deluding itself if it thinks people are going to volunteer the cash. But that's not really anything to do with the issue of whether or not the cards are a good idea in principle.

[JaKiri]

As for the cost of the cards, I think the .gov is deluding itself if it thinks people are going to volunteer the cash. But that's not really anything to do with the issue of whether or not the cards are a good idea in principle.

 

My main objection is that they are mandatory.

[Sayonara]

The argument from anti-authority?

 

BOOM BOOM

[swansont]

The only people who will be using the information on your ID card will be the ones you allow access to it.

 

Right. Because nobody could ever hack into the system and compromise information, nor would a government ever compile and use data for less-than-angelic purposes. Because they never have before...

[Douglas]

The electoral role is tied to the tax records. It's also cross checked across the records of Births and Deaths. What this means is that if you are alive' date=' over legal age and paying tax (or registered in the system), you can vote. It's far more sophisticated than it appears, the process appears simple to speed up the voting process. If the process of voting was presented as complex, less people would turn up.

 

What all this means is if you try to vote with a fictional name and adress, you will be prevented from voting. If your not confident in that, try voting twice under different names.[/quote']

I think you've got that wrong "atinymonkey",.... each state sets it's own requirements for elegibility to vote. From what I hear, California is very liberal, as pi of 9 says, you walk into the voting area fill out a form and you vote. That's why there's so much controversy about illegal aliens, convicts, former convicts and people voting more than once.....all the above voting.

[Sayonara]

Right. Because nobody could ever hack into the system and compromise information, nor would a government ever compile and use data for less-than-angelic purposes. Because they never have before...

Those aren't attributes of the ID card. You're talking about "hacking into the system" (pfft) and you don't even know what information will be stored, or in what state.

 

Those are, however, attributes of the existing systems.

[Sayonara]

I think you've got that wrong "atinymonkey",.... each state sets it's own requirements for elegibility to vote. From what I hear, California is very liberal, as pi of 9 says, you walk into the voting area fill out a form and you vote. That's why there's so much controversy about illegal aliens, convicts, former convicts and people voting more than once.....all the above voting.

He's maybe* talking about the UK system.

[atinymonkey]

I think you've got that wrong "atinymonkey",.... each state sets it's own requirements for elegibility to vote. From what I hear, California is very liberal, as pi of 9 says, you walk into the voting area fill out a form and you vote. That's why there's so much controversy about illegal aliens, convicts, former convicts and people voting more than once.....all the above voting.

 

If that's true, then it's not a vote. It's just a collection of people wasting time by filling in slips.

 

And you don't need to put peoples names in quotes.

 

He's talking about the UK system.

 

No, I was not.

[Douglas]

My point was that there is no requirement to show I.D. when entering the voting booth. All I have to do is walking into my precinct' date=' tell them my name and address and walk into the booth.

I could give any name and address, as long as it matches one on the list. [/quote']

The Republicans have been screaming that one should have to show I.D. before voting, then get checked off the list. The democrats have been fighting this tooth and nail, they want anyone to vote without I.D. It favors them.

[atinymonkey]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

 

 

Unless your accusing followers of one random politician are all frauds, and the republicans are all like Jesus.

[YT2095]

The Republicans have been screaming that one should have to show I.D. before voting, then get checked off the list. The democrats have been fighting this tooth and nail, they want anyone to vote without I.D. It favors them.

in the UK I get asked my name and addy then checked off the list, but my vote is still private, an ID Card will just confim that it`s the Holder and can`t be used twice, if Bio-metric data is included into the chip, it`ll not only confim the vote of the holder but confirm that it`s not a Stollen card but that it`s ME!!!! thats voting

 

how can that NOT be a good thing?

[JaKiri]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

 

 

Unless your accusing followers of one random politician are all frauds' date=' and the republicans are all like Jesus.[/quote']

 

There is the argument that the republicans are in favour of reform because it makes it much easier to illegally bar people from voting, but that can't be true of the fluffy elephant party.

[JaKiri]

in the UK I get asked my name and addy then checked off the list' date=' but my vote is still private, an ID Card will just confim that it`s the Holder and can`t be used twice, if Bio-metric data is included into the chip, it`ll not only confim the vote of the holder but confirm that it`s not a Stollen card but that it`s ME!!!! thats voting

 

how can that NOT be a good thing?[/quote']

 

How do they make sure that the biometric information on the card is the legitimate owner's?

 

By using existing forms of identification, the ability of which to be forged is the reason that the biometric ID is useful.

 

Notice the problem?

[YT2095]

not really, I present my ID card, have a retinal scan,then I`m either ME or NOT? <consequence pending on outcome>

 

then I Vote if I`m ME, sorry but I fail to see the flaw in this?

 

Eleborate a little more please

[JaKiri]

not really' date=' I present my ID card, have a retinal scan,then I`m either ME or NOT? <consequence pending on outcome>

 

then I Vote if I`m ME, sorry but I fail to see the flaw in this?

 

Eleborate a little more please [/quote']

 

I was referring to getting the card in the first place, sorry if this wasn't the case.

[YT2095]

well I`de "Assume" that to get your 1`st card all manor of records (incl dental from childhood and optometric) would all be taken into account as well as legal docs like passports birt certs income support books electric and water bills and so on, as concrete proof before issuing a card.

 

I agree that we CANNOT!!!! issue these cards as legal without such info if not all I mentioned and more, Blood Group would cut forgery down by a good factor for instnace.

 

it`s all down to error reduction in the issuing.

 

but of course once you HAVE a legit card, it IS YOURS and ONLY yours

[LuTze]

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-63601

 

http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/campaigns.html

[Pangloss]

Well Republicans are hardly saints or angels when it comes to voting integrity, but Douglas is correct in pointing out that the Democrats have been trying to stop the use of identification when voting.

 

The way it works right now in Florida is that you no longer have to provide your voter registration card (as was the case in 2000). Any identification will do, such as a current driver's license or other picture ID.

 

The reason why this was changed is because of allegations of disenfranchisement in the 2000 election. Claims of "I wasn't allowed to vote even though I was registered!!!" clogged the airwaves. In the vast majority of such cases, the voter had simply misplaced their registration card. Really the change made a lot of sense -- who keeps their voter registration card handy for four years? So nobody objected to it, and it went into place.

 

But politics being what it is, it's now necessary for Democrats to push buttons and Republicans (who run the state) to respond to those buttons being pushed. As a result of that standard give-and-take, we saw an effort to have identification removed completely from the requirements. And of course, as atinymonkey points out, that makes no sense.

 

So the idea was discarded, but of course we have Jesse Jackson running around the state today (literally) racking up a list of problems, and of course identification will be high on his list. No doubt about it.

 

Never let it be said that common sense got in the way of anything Jesse Jackson wanted.

[Douglas]

Never let it be said that common sense got in the way of anything Jesse Jackson wanted.

Good one Pangloss.

Between Jackson, Sharpton and Kweisi Mfume, the word "disenfranchised" has been used 10,000 times.

I think the 3 of them do an incredible injustice to the black community.

But, the blacks will be voting 90% for Kerry.

[LucidDreamer]

Still waiting for one of the "it's an invasion of your privacy!!" crowd to tell me why.

If I knew exactly what these cards were then I could tell you. If they just combine all of your current ID cards into one then so be as far as I'm concerned. If they are a form of documentation to record who enters the country and then record their employment history then again I say this is a good idea.

 

If this card is going to be used to make a huge database of all of our personal information then I say its an invasion of privacy. If this card is to be used to track our locations at all times then again I say its an invasion of privacy. If citizens are going to be constantly called upon to produce their cards by the police then I say its an invasion of privacy as well. I can tell you why when I know what we are talking about.

[MolecularMan14]

I dont really know on this one. I kind of resent my ID card for school, but it is a REALLY good way of organizing people. Perhaps it should be more of a personal or industrial thing- where a business would require one, and the govt would keep track of those who had them. Its good for everyone who's "ligit" but for those who arent, well, its a way of keeping an eye on you.

[Pangloss]

Between Jackson, Sharpton and Kweisi Mfume, the word "disenfranchised" has been used 10,000 times.

 

Yes, although between those three men, I actually have respect for Mfume, who's an intelligent, reasoned speaker, and generally a voice of moderation. Unfortunately his voice is not the predominent one.

 

My lack of respect for Sharpton can be summed up in two words: Tawana Brawley. He's a rabble rouser and a demogogue of the worst sort -- a man who deliberately incites violence. Not a Malcom X, mind you -- not someone who believes in violence. Someone who believes in himself, first and foremost, and doesn't care who he runs over to achieve his goals. There are few more despicable characters in the public arena.

[atinymonkey]

How do they make sure that the biometric information on the card is the legitimate owner's?

 

 

Like, for instance, Vann Harls?

 

It probably has his name on it, and nobody would dream of using it to fool the finance system into giving out a credit card with no limit. Nobody.

[john5746]

The person in the article simply thinks it won't work. He is probably correct. I would be ok with it, but the devil is in the details. But, we shouldn't just give up.

[Mad Mardigan]

Hmm, post this topic, Im gone for a few days, come back to see it exploded. I think it is all apart for more control by the government. It wont help the illegals, because as Americans we demand I higher pay then what they do, and you dont want to pay 5 bucks for a head of lettuce. Now, why do you get asked who you are, and where you live every time you want to make a purchase any more?