National ID Card?

[MichaelB]

I think your first sentence is incorrect

Lets see.

Training is simpler for ID review and approval, and more difficult to produce a fraudulent ID.

There are many different ID possibilities now, beginning with 50 distinct state drivers licenses. It is far easier to train people to review one single type of identification than it is to train them to review 100’s. By reducing the number of ID alternatives it becomes more difficult for most people to forge one. We’re not talking about master forger – think forged check cashing.

The second sentence is one of the reasons many people are against it. Having LE have easy access to much of your information, puts a lot of power in the hands of the government.

It doesn’t give anyone any new power or authority, or even new information. We are all identified already. Our current identification system is confusing and leads to errors and costly overhead. It also lacks clear and common national standards.

If the national ID is required then by all rights the government should have to provide it "free". That would mean increases in costs somewhere else. If the national ID is voluntary then I don't think many people would get one unless there is a huge carrot offered.

IMHO there should be no cost to people, paid for by federal gov’t. Mandatory.

 

[lets-retire]

Lets see. There are many different ID possibilities now, beginning with 50 distinct state drivers licenses. It is far easier to train people to review one single type of identification than it is to train them to review 100’s. By reducing the number of ID alternatives it becomes more difficult for most people to forge one. We’re not talking about master forger – think forged check cashing.

As it was explained when I attended a fraudulent documents course. Look at quality printing and fine line detail. ALL documents have these, it doesn't matter where they are from. So if they all have them a person can identify a fraud quickly no matter who issued it.

It doesn’t give anyone any new power or authority, or even new information. We are all identified already. Our current identification system is confusing and leads to errors and costly overhead. It also lacks clear and common national standards.

If it would be easier to collect analyze or share data with LE then it does give more power to the government. Knowledge is power. Granted much of our data is shared, but that is shared from state to state, not collected at the federal level. State to state is where the data should be kept, not the federal level.

IMHO there should be no cost to people, paid for by federal gov’t. Mandatory.

It doesn't matter if the government provides it "free". The government takes money from the population, so it would have to result in increase expenditures for the government and an increase in taxes collected at the federal level. Currently there is no requirement for US citizens to have any type of ID, period. That is the way it should be. Why should I have to give my information to the government if I don't want to? I shouldn't. I have a Constitutional right to not share any of my information with the government. I don't need to have a driver's license, if I don't drive an automobile. I don't need to have any ID if I don't do things that require ID. In my current position the only time I use any ID is to get to and from work. If I did not work there I would not need a government ID for anything. I have access to public transportation and don't need my DL. I haven't had a pay check since 1991, it has all been direct deposit. I didn't need ID when I opened my bank accounts. I did need my social security card and birth certificate, but that is it. Many people don't really need their social security number either, but I wouldn't want to live that type of life.

 

[Texas Proud]

As it was explained when I attended a fraudulent documents course. Look at quality printing and fine line detail. ALL documents have these, it doesn't matter where they are from. So if they all have them a person can identify a fraud quickly no matter who issued it.



If it would be easier to collect analyze or share data with LE then it does give more power to the government. Knowledge is power. Granted much of our data is shared, but that is shared from state to state, not collected at the federal level. State to state is where the data should be kept, not the federal level.



It doesn't matter if the government provides it "free". The government takes money from the population, so it would have to result in increase expenditures for the government and an increase in taxes collected at the federal level. Currently there is no requirement for US citizens to have any type of ID, period. That is the way it should be. Why should I have to give my information to the government if I don't want to? I shouldn't. I have a Constitutional right to not share any of my information with the government. I don't need to have a driver's license, if I don't drive an automobile. I don't need to have any ID if I don't do things that require ID. In my current position the only time I use any ID is to get to and from work. If I did not work there I would not need a government ID for anything. I have access to public transportation and don't need my DL. I haven't had a pay check since 1991, it has all been direct deposit. I didn't need ID when I opened my bank accounts. I did need my social security card and birth certificate, but that is it. Many people don't really need their social security number either, but I wouldn't want to live that type of life.

I guess you have not opend up a new banking account recently....

The 'know your customer' laws has each bank as the local cop...

 

[Nodak]

I was unaware that opening a bank account required social security card and birth certificate. I opened my account 50 years ago when I was 13 and there was no ID of any kind needed; I just gave a copy of my signature. That bank is over 120 years old and still operates under their territorial charter; they have no branches and only about 4 employees.

 

[Westernskies]

Why should I have to give my information to the government if I don't want to? I shouldn't.

Because the government is providing you with essential services-national defense, social services, representation in the three branches of government, schooling, infrastructure,etc-the costs of which you of which you cannot just opt out of.

If I understand your argument, Why should I have to pay taxes for schools? I don't have any kids. Why should my taxes pay for roads on Guam? I'll never drive on them... etc. etc etc.

 

[lets-retire]

I guess you have not opend up a new banking account recently....

The 'know your customer' laws has each bank as the local cop...

The one I have now I opened in 2006.

 

[lets-retire]

Because the government is providing you with essential services-national defense, social services, representation in the three branches of government, schooling, infrastructure,etc-the costs of which you of which you cannot just opt out of.

If I understand your argument, Why should I have to pay taxes for schools? I don't have any kids. Why should my taxes pay for roads on Guam? I'll never drive on them... etc. etc etc.

You are misunderstanding my point. Government involvement in my life should be at a minimum. Anything above that is voluntary. If I wish to go live on a mountain somewhere and not have a job, the government will not have any involvement with me or my life. I choose not to live on a mountain, so I choose to let the government have some involvement in my life. I choose to have a job, so I choose to pay taxes. I choose to own property, so I choose to pay school tax. If I squatted in the back woods somewhere, then I would pay none of those. Requiring everyone to have a national ID simply for living in the US takes away my ability to choose to not have the government involved with my life. That I can not support. As a law enforcement officer, I understand how simple everything becomes if everyone must have an ID, but I can not and will not support mandating everyone have a national ID.

 

[MichaelB]

Requiring everyone to have a national ID simply for living in the US takes away my ability to choose to not have the government involved with my life. That I can not support.

This is the part I don’t get. You have a birth certificate and a social security number. You are already recorded and identified. In what way does a national ID card change that, make it worse or increase gov’t involvement in your life?

 

[smjsl]

lets-retire, think of national ID card as a 21-century social-security card. It's just harder to forge and might get you some perks like the online advantages mentioned by Trek - I certainly would rather vote online than stand in line for hours.

Also, you are saying you would not be paying taxes if you lived on a mountain? Well, you would be breaking the law, would not you (assuming you have income requiring you to pay taxes)? In the same way you can live on a mountain and not have national ID card if it's required... you'd be breaking the law the same way.

P.S. A local branch of US Bank requires social security card for some reason to open and to close accounts...

 

[RonBoyd]

P.S. A local branch of US Bank requires social security card for some reason to open and to close accounts...

That completes the circuit of you, the bank, and the IRS.

 

[Texas Proud]

The one I have now I opened in 2006.

Surprising then...

 

[Westernskies]

If I wish to go live on a mountain somewhere and not have a job, the government will not have any involvement with me or my life.

Not true. If you are living on private property you would have to pay property taxes. If you are living on public property, ie National Forest or BLM you are squatting. If you are living off game taken out of season, you are poaching - thereby breaking the law. Your doing so invites government involvement in your idyllic backwoods life.

Requiring everyone to have a national ID simply for living in the US takes away my ability to choose to not have the government involved with my life.

Not true. By "simply living in the USA" you are entitled to live under the mantle of essential government services, ie national defense, infrastructure, schools, civil rights, etc. - rights, services, and programs afforded to all citizens, of every color and stripe. As a citizen, you don't get to opt out of the programs you don't like and enjoy the ones you do. Doesn't work that way.

As a law enforcement officer, I understand how simple everything becomes if everyone must have an ID, but I can not and will not support mandating everyone have a national ID.

Wow
Q: As an officer of the law, what is the first thing you ask for of someone whom you suspect of breaking a law?
A: ID
What would you do if you contacted me for suspicion of committing a criime, i.e. squatting on National Forest property and I refused to provide you with acceptable ID? I suppose that you would just let me go, because you support the notion that I should not be required to produce ID to allow you to ascertain that I should be treated as a fellow citiizen? Under your logic you should just leave me alone, since I opted out of society by living in the backwoods, thereby giving me the right to ignore you and not respect your laws. Identifying yourself as a law enforcement officer (Flash that badge and ID...) means nothing to me; since I, too have embraced your personal "No-ID" concept. And, good luck cashing your civil service paycheck (financed by your fellow citizens who did provide ID and SSN to get a job, pay taxes, etc.) without proper ID. How did you get the job in the first place, I bet you told them in the interview that you didn't believe in showing or carrying ID; they said "cool, you're hired!"

And, now for for the $64,000 Question-as a law enforcement officer, if a national ID is implemented, will you enforce the law? Or selectively choose the laws you aree with?

 

[lets-retire]

Michaelb--With an ID you would have to provide more than simply you SSN. Perhaps an address. Since it is a card everyone would have to have and everyone has to have insurance, maybe it could double as your insurance card, or even you social security card. With modern technology almost anything could be put on the card to make it easier for you to conduct your business. If I don't want the government to know anything about me as it stands right now all they have is my birth certificate, which is good for information for a very short period of time and my social security number. The latter is voluntary. Again if i go live on a mountain and don't have a job then there is no way to track using my social security number. As a Puerto Rican friend described it, his social security number wasn't used for anything until he moved to the mainland.

smjsl--As soon as something comes out on the net it is no longer secure, period. When a new security system is implemented it is obsolete about as fast as it goes on line. Someone is always attempting to hack or destroy security systems either for fun or for profit. In the scenario I was talking about living on a mountain would entail not having a job. It would essentially be living like the Indians lived several decades ago. They seemed to get along fine without income or stores. Not that I would want to live like that, but if I wanted to I could. No taxes would be due since there isn't any income to tax. You are getting my point, slowly. Currently I can decide to go live on the mountain and be fine without ever having to see civilization again. If I go live on the mountain and are required to have a national ID, I would have to come down periodically to renew the ID or be breaking the law because I am alive and don't have the required ID.

 

[smjsl]

smjsl--As soon as something comes out on the net it is no longer secure, period. When a new security system is implemented it is obsolete about as fast as it goes on line. Someone is always attempting to hack or destroy security systems either for fun or for profit. In the scenario I was talking about living on a mountain would entail not having a job. It would essentially be living like the Indians lived several decades ago. They seemed to get along fine without income or stores. Not that I would want to live like that, but if I wanted to I could. No taxes would be due since there isn't any income to tax. You are getting my point, slowly. Currently I can decide to go live on the mountain and be fine without ever having to see civilization again. If I go live on the mountain and are required to have a national ID, I would have to come down periodically to renew the ID or be breaking the law because I am alive and don't have the required ID.

You don't have to use your ID card online if you don't want to. My point is that requiring ID card is the same as requiring SSN card. If you lived on a mountain and had to have SSN card, same applies to this ID card instead of the SSN card - think of it as an updated version of it. I don't understand why "having to renew ID card" is any different then "having to renew SSN card" - same requirement and neither may have to exist.

I think Westernskies response has a lot of very good points too.

 

[MichaelB]

Michaelb--With an ID you would have to provide more than simply you SSN. Perhaps an address. Since it is a card everyone would have to have and everyone has to have insurance, maybe it could double as your insurance card, or even you social security card. With modern technology almost anything could be put on the card to make it easier for you to conduct your business. If I don't want the government to know anything about me as it stands right now all they have is my birth certificate, which is good for information for a very short period of time and my social security number. The latter is voluntary. Again if i go live on a mountain and don't have a job then there is no way to track using my social security number. As a Puerto Rican friend described it, his social security number wasn't used for anything until he moved to the mainland.

My experience with a national ID card is that it is that and nothing else. All those other institutions, like banks and insurance, don't use is as a substitute, they just use it to verify identity.

Social security is voluntary but only if your parents choose not to enroll (and tax deduct) you, and you subsequently opt to leave US society while remaining in the country or live in the US unlawfully. While this may be a possibility, it is anti-social. When you choose to live outside of society your opinion on the ID card is no longer valid because the ID card is a social record.

Note – I’m not saying your argument is not valid. I am saying it is an argument against society, not against an ID card.

 

[Westernskies]

Note – I’m not saying your argument is not valid. I am saying it is an argument against society, not against an ID card.

A law enforcement officer arguing so vehemently against the laws of society concerns me more than the possibility of a national ID card.
But, maybe that's just me.

 

[lets-retire]

I find it very interesting that people who buck the system by retireing early can't understand that a person does not have to live within society if they don't want to and try to find every excuse in the book to say it can't be done.

Not true. If you are living on private property you would have to pay property taxes. If you are living on public property, ie National Forest or BLM you are squatting. If you are living off game taken out of season, you are poaching - thereby breaking the law. Your doing so invites government involvement in your idyllic backwoods life.

Most national forests allow people to camp within the park for no more than 30 days at a time. There are many places where national forests and state forests border each other. What's to keep a person from camping in the national lands then moving on to state lands for a while, then maybe even private property (with the permission of the land owner)? No laws broken there. The only animals protected by hunting laws are game animals and fur animals. That means a person and catch kill and eat rats, mice, chipmunks, ground hogs, porcupines, 'possums, snakes, cats, dogs, armadillos, minnows, frogs, lizards, bugs, the list goes on and on. The law does not protect fruits and vegetables, so that leaves, apples, berries, onions, oranges, grapefruits, coconuts, dandelions and I'm sure many more that I forgot. The point is it is very possible to live outside society and not break the laws of the society.

Not true. By "simply living in the USA" you are entitled to live under the mantle of essential government services, ie national defense, infrastructure, schools, civil rights, etc. - rights, services, and programs afforded to all citizens, of every color and stripe. As a citizen, you don't get to opt out of the programs you don't like and enjoy the ones you do. Doesn't work that way. [/qoute]

Sorry, but as it stands now having the government in your life is very voluntary. Most people don't want to live without it, but it is possible. Just because you don't see or understand how to do it does not mean it is impossible. Many people don't see or understand how to retire early, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Wow
Q: As an officer of the law, what is the first thing you ask for of someone whom you suspect of breaking a law?
A: ID
What would you do if you contacted me for suspicion of committing a criime, i.e. squatting on National Forest property and I refused to provide you with acceptable ID? I suppose that you would just let me go, because you support the notion that I should not be required to produce ID to allow you to ascertain that I should be treated as a fellow citiizen? Under your logic you should just leave me alone, since I opted out of society by living in the backwoods, thereby giving me the right to ignore you and not respect your laws. Identifying yourself as a law enforcement officer (Flash that badge and ID...) means nothing to me; since I, too have embraced your personal "No-ID" concept. And, good luck cashing your civil service paycheck (financed by your fellow citizens who did provide ID and SSN to get a job, pay taxes, etc.) without proper ID. How did you get the job in the first place, I bet you told them in the interview that you didn't believe in showing or carrying ID; they said "cool, you're hired!"

And, now for for the $64,000 Question-as a law enforcement officer, if a national ID is implemented, will you enforce the law? Or selectively choose the laws you aree with?

We are not talking about how I cash my check, we are talking about a person deciding to live outside society. I have stated I chose not to live that type of life. To answer your question though each agency has procedures on how to handle someone who does not have an ID. It is not required to possess any type of identification at all if the person does not want one. I'm not going to get into how each of the agencies I have worked for handles the no ID issue, it can be a rather long discussion and can get a bit complicated, because often times it is left up to the officer to use judgment. The overall general guidance is no ID is required to be possessed. I don't have to worry about your 64k dollar question, because the law is very clear were I work that some form of proof of citizenship is required, but I work in a very different law enforcement position.

 

[lets-retire]

You don't have to use your ID card online if you don't want to. My point is that requiring ID card is the same as requiring SSN card. If you lived on a mountain and had to have SSN card, same applies to this ID card instead of the SSN card - think of it as an updated version of it. I don't understand why "having to renew ID card" is any different then "having to renew SSN card" - same requirement and neither may have to exist.

I think Westernskies response has a lot of very good points too.

I think see your point and I think Michaelb is making the same point. You are essentially talking about having a Social Security Card with picture on it. I don't have a problem with that. The difference between the ID and a Social Security Card would be the fact that the ID would by nature contain more information on it, like date of birth, address, etc. As it is now your Social Security Card does not contain any of that information on it. There is no way to locate your address using the Social Security number without going through records of private companies. If you chose not to have any of those records (no credit, banks accounts, etc) then the number is just a number linked to your name.

 

[lets-retire]

A law enforcement officer arguing so vehemently against the laws of society concerns me more than the possibility of a national ID card.
But, maybe that's just me.

I'm not arguing against the laws of society, I'm arguing against the expansion of the federal government. The federal government is running trillion dollar deficits. Reports coming out about the budget neutral health insurance reform bill just passed seems to be a little less than budget neutral, which is going to lead to an even more unbalanced budget. The last thing we need is more legislation to expand the federal government when we can't even pay for the programs currently on the books.

Just for the record when performing my job my opinions of the laws mean little. I see no harm in smoking MJ in a private home if the people are adults, but I've made many arrests for doing just that. And no I've never smoked it and I have no desire to smoke it. I'm actually allergic to THC and it causes my skin, eyes, and mucus membranes to burn and turn a bright red. I'm almost as good as the dogs when it comes to finding it. My opinion of a law is irrelevant when I am performing my job. I do what I am told to do by the society through their elected leaders. You will find few officers who support every law out there, but they will still enforce every law like they are supposed to be enforced.

 

[Alan]

I think see your point and I think Michaelb is making the same point. You are essentially talking about having a Social Security Card with picture on it. I don't have a problem with that. The difference between the ID and a Social Security Card would be the fact that the ID would by nature contain more information on it, like date of birth, address, etc. As it is now your Social Security Card does not contain any of that information on it. There is no way to locate your address using the Social Security number without going through records of private companies. If you chose not to have any of those records (no credit, banks accounts, etc) then the number is just a number linked to your name.

This is my issue with an ID card. ID theft has come to be so problematic that the law was changed some years back that DL's should not show SS #'s (unless the recipient wanted it), businesses could not use SS #'s as your account # etc. (Blue Cross had to change our account #'s and issue new cards).

Medicare cards are still not in compliance and if you lose or have stolen your Medicare card then the thief has your name and SS #.

IF they could come up with an ID card that did not display vital info and was not readable by anyone I would have few reservations. When the UK began embedding microchips in their passports with much more info in them it didn't take long for thieves to come up with a reader that could get the information just by passing by close enough.

Steve Boggan and a computer expert crack the new hi-tech passport code | Politics | The Guardian

Three million Britons have been issued with the new hi-tech passport, designed to frustrate terrorists and fraudsters. So why did Steve Boggan and a friendly computer expert find it so easy to break the security codes?

 

[Independent]

Let's get back to the beginning. The ID proposal in the OP involves proving you're a legal worker. It has nothing to do with 80 year olds or hermits living on mountains.

I think it's a good idea for a country with millions of illegal workers.

I already carry an ID almost any time I leave the house, I don't see the a big problem with showing a "legal work status" ID when I change jobs.

I understand that nothing is counterfeit proof, but I think we can do a lot better than we're doing today.

 

[Alan]

Let's get back to the beginning. The ID proposal in the OP involves proving you're a legal worker. It has nothing to do with 80 year olds or hermits living on mountains.

I think it's a good idea for a country with millions of illegal workers.

I already carry an ID almost any time I leave the house, I don't see the a big problem with showing a "legal work status" ID when I change jobs.

I understand that nothing is counterfeit proof, but I think we can do a lot better than we're doing today.

But, that is already the law - see the posts above above about the legal ID required when changing jobs and the requirement of the employer to examine it and complete form I-9. In most cases either a US Passport, a Resident Alien ID card (Green Card), or a Foreign Passport with a valid work visa is all that is required.

 

[MichaelB]

A law enforcement officer arguing so vehemently against the laws of society concerns me more than the possibility of a national ID card.
But, maybe that's just me.

I see this as a discussion based on a concern, not antisocial belief or behaviour. Actually, it is very sociable.

I find it very interesting that people who buck the system by retireing early can't understand that a person does not have to live within society if they don't want to and try to find every excuse in the book to say it can't be done.

I am not challenging wanting to live outside of society. That’s fine. It has nothing to do with an ID card, though.

I think see your point and I think Michaelb is making the same point. You are essentially talking about having a Social Security Card with picture on it. I don't have a problem with that. The difference between the ID and a Social Security Card would be the fact that the ID would by nature contain more information on it, like date of birth, address, etc. As it is now your Social Security Card does not contain any of that information on it. There is no way to locate your address using the Social Security number without going through records of private companies. If you chose not to have any of those records (no credit, banks accounts, etc) then the number is just a number linked to your name.

For me an ID card is just that. Name, ID, date of birth. Nothing else. I’m not saying they won’t try for more stuff but I would not support anything additional.

 

[Independent]

But, that is already the law - see the posts above above about the legal ID required when changing jobs and the requirement of the employer to examine it and complete form I-9. In most cases either a US Passport, a Resident Alien ID card (Green Card), or a Foreign Passport with a valid work visa is all that is required.

I was born in the US and haven't changed jobs in a long time. I always figured that I would use my birth certificate as an ID if I changed jobs. Doesn't that work anymore?

 

[Alan]

I was born in the US and haven't changed jobs in a long time. I always figured that I would use my birth certificate as an ID if I changed jobs. Doesn't that work anymore?

Yes, but you also need a picture ID with your birth certificate such as a driver's license.

Documentation
A variety of documents acceptable for I-9 purposes. The employee must supply either:

• One document that establishes both identity and employment eligibility (on List A on the I-9) OR
• One document that establishes identity (on List B), together with another document that establishes employment eligibility (on List C)
• All documentation must be unexpired as of April 3, 2009[2]

Documents that may be used under "List A" of the I-9 form to establish both identity and employment eligibility include:

• U.S. Passport
• U.S. Passport Card
• An unexpired foreign passport with an I-551 stamp, or with Form I-94 attached which indicates an unexpired employment authorization
• A Permanent Resident Card (often called a "green card") or Alien Registration Receipt Card with photograph
• An Unexpired Temporary Resident Card
• An Unexpired Employment Authorization Card
• An Unexpired Employment Authorization Document issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security that includes a photograph (Form I-766)

Documents that may be used under "List B" of the I-9 to establish identity include:

• Driver's license or I.D. card issued by a U.S. state or outlying possession of the U.S., provided it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address.
• Federal or state I.D. card provided it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address.
• School I.D. with photograph

* Voter's registration card no longer acceptable

• U.S. Armed Services identification card or draft record
• U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card
• Native American tribal document
• Driver's license issued by a Canadian government authority

For individuals under the age of 18 only, the following documents may be used to establish identity:

• School record or report card
• Clinic, doctor or hospital record
• Day-care or nursery school record

Employees who supply an item from List B must also supply an item from List C
Documents that may be used under "List C" of the I-9 to establish employment eligibility include:

• A U.S. Social Security card issued by the Social Security Administration (Note: cards that specify "not valid for employment" are not acceptable.)
• A birth certificate issued by the U.S. State Department (Form FS-545 or Form DS-1350) Original or certified copy of a birth certificate from the U.S. or an outlying possession of the U.S., bearing an official seal
• Native American tribal document
• U.S. Citizen I.D. Card (Form I-197)
• An I.D. Card for the use of a Resident Citizen in the United States (Form I-179)
• An unexpired employment authorization card issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security (other than those included on List A)

U.S. citizens who have lost their social security card can apply for a duplicate at the Social Security Administration.