Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II
On 12/15/97 11:13 PM, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com) passed this wisdom:
But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United States for ageneral form of identification. Non-drivers need not have any form of I.D. And as we have seen in court cases, a la Lawson v. Kolender (where a blackman in dreadlocks used to like to walk the streets of San Diego...the copsstopped him many times and jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the court ruled that people don't have to present credentials issued by the state to walk the public streets).
In New Jersey there is a criminal offense called "failure to properly identify" ... I don't know if its ever been tested, or if it is still on the books, but as of ten years ago it was there. I think it was a misdemeanor (in NJ the term is "petty disorderly persons offense) I cannot imagine it as a felony.
There's an important distinction between a requirement that you identify yourself accurately, and a requirement that you carry a particular form of identification. It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if you lie. It is not, however, constitutional to require that you keep or carry identity cards or documents. (Modulo, of course, participation in activities like carrying a concealed weapon or driving. There are some people who believe that carrying special credentials should not be required when undertaking those activities, but very few or none of those people sit as judges, so their beliefs are comforting or pleasing but also insufficient to prevent conviction.)
I guess I am curious about being required to identify yourself ... if the cops have no probable cause to arrest you then what right do they have to know who you are? ... and should they have probable cause, why should you have to help them know who you are. I could see circumstances where forcing you to identify yourself would come under self-incrimination. I am sure they have ways of dealing with this ... what legal precedents are there concerning this? Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "One of the deep mysteries to me is our logo, the symbol of lust and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with in the colors of the rainbow in the wrong order. You couldn't dream of a more appropriate logo: lust, knowledge, hope, and anarchy." -- Gassee - Apple Logo
[Tim posted his article on identity, etc. to cypherpunks and nym; the discussion I'm replying to is primarily on cypherpunks.]
There's an important distinction between a requirement that you identify yourself accurately, and a requirement that you carry a particular form of identification.
A third category of requirement is displaying the particular form of identification if you're carrying it - for instance, if you're driving, and carrying a driver's license, you're obligated to display it, but if you're walking or a passenger, you're not generally required to, but some states (in particular California) require that if you're carrying a driver's license you're obligated to show it to any cop who asks. I don't know if the requirements include handing it over or just displaying.
It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if you lie.
But lying and refusing to cooperate are different; "You can call me John Doe if you'd like" is not a lie, and Supreme Court cases like Brown vs. Texas have determined that you don't have to tell the police who you are even if they're booking you. On the other hand, the Supremes let police hold you for up to 48 hours for no particularly good reason (they have a more formal definition than that :-) so exercising your rights may have a cost. Tim brings up the issue of identity papers for jury duty - even if you feel like confusing the poor court bureaucrats by not bringing the PhotoID with SSN, Thumbprint, and DNA sample, there's probably a requirement to bring the jury duty summons. (Depending on your motives, your FIJA membership card is a good backup ID, or your ACLU card if you've got one - don't leave home without it.) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 5:42 PM -0700 12/19/97, Bill Stewart wrote:
Tim brings up the issue of identity papers for jury duty - even if you feel like confusing the poor court bureaucrats by not bringing the PhotoID with SSN, Thumbprint, and DNA sample, there's probably a requirement to bring the jury duty summons. (Depending on your motives, your FIJA membership card is a good backup ID, or your ACLU card if you've got one - don't leave home without it.)
I'd guess that either an FIJA or ACLU card is a pretty good "Get Out of Jury Duty" card, if the jury consultants (if any) learn about it. (In small, local cases, they won't. Other means of evading that $5 a day wonderjob are advised.) On a loosely related note, I've wondered about the constitutionality of some of the exhaustive "jury questionairres" which potential jurors in famous cases are expected to spend several hours carefully filling out.
From what I've heard of some of the questions used in the OJ trials, the questions seem incredibly invasive and personal.
And the questionairres are hardly kept confidential enough (not that I would trust the court not to forward to the local justice officials some of the _honest_ answers I would be tempted to provide). In several high profile cases (OJ, McVeigh, Menendez, Wm. Kennedy Smith, etc.), it was possible to deduce that "Juror #7" was the one who said she was a drug-experimenting lesbian single mother of three who has religious objections to the death penalty and whose father raped her. And "Juror #19" is the recovering alcoholic who wets the bed and can't keep a job. The reporters were able to put the clues together easily enough. (And of course those who are in the courtroom can (usually) see the jurors and their numbers and deduce who is who.) I can't understand how a person can be compelled to answer questions about their personal views on abortion, on the death penalty, on blowing up Federal buildings, and so on. Seems to me one ought to be able to take the Fifth, or to say, "That's my private view." (Their claim will probably be that since one is not facing prosecution, taking the Fifth is not allowed. This is the logic used to compell testimony, even if it is later useful in a prosecution, criminal or civil, of the witness.) I last served on a jury in 1973. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
Brian B. Riley -
Tim May