MSNBC is reporting that Congress is thinking of requiring all citizens and non-citizens in the United States to carry ID cards. It looks like the anti-privacy folks are going to do an end-run around the encryption issue, and first attack anonymity. An interesting strategy, and one which we should not let go unchallenged. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On 19 Sep 2001, at 13:08, Eric Cordian wrote:
MSNBC is reporting that Congress is thinking of requiring all citizens and non-citizens in the United States to carry ID cards.
Interesting article... http://www.msnbc.com/news/630118.asp for those interested.
It looks like the anti-privacy folks are going to do an end-run around the encryption issue, and first attack anonymity. An interesting strategy, and one which we should not let go unchallenged.
From the link above:
The attacks in New York and at the Pentagon have prompted Congress to begin considering requiring all citizens and non-citizens to carry identity cards. Those might be smart cards storing data such as fingerprints and travel records. Reviewing the questions that congressional leaders were raising last Thursday, House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt told Fox News, What kind of identity cards would we make citizens and others carry? Would they carry more information?
Hmmm.... travel records, eh? And notice Gephardt acting as though it were a fait acompli. Eric's right: anonymity will be the first to go. -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy@scytale.com
The conversation elsewhere is out of control...even "negative recognition" in addition to a National Biometric-ID. The fear is that its an "appearance measure." My response on another list was fairly long-winded, but it did include the following: (1) The pretexter. Mr. Terrorist -- he's a suspect or (hopes to be) a fugitive, or he wouldn't be pretexting an ID. (2) The patsy. Ann Murphy -- married and pregnant when her new husband tried to put her on a plane with 3 pounds of plastic explosive. She was recruited and set up over a year. (3) The inward spy. Colonel von Stauffenberg -- admitted to Hitler's Wolf Lair without question. (4) The priest. Father Terrorist -- he is who he is. The only thing he has to hide is his intent. In 2, 3, and 4 authentication is an exploit. If it leads to a false sense of security, it is an exploit. ''They'' will go for timing + circumstance + opportunity. (The focus has shifted away from airplanes.) Myself and several others have pointed out how this would agitate domestic dissident groups, further civil tension, and possibly provoke violence -- the terrorist objective straight out of "TERRORISM 101." I just haven't seen any compelling counter-terrorism studies FOCUSING on this (I'm looking, and I'm sure that I will...). Although document forgery is an immigration problem, it sounds like one that can be addressed at the border. While authentication is a first line defense, I question this measure in terms of "combating terrorism," and worry that it is over-rated. It's also something that goes with chokepoint-checkpoints. [*pause*...seen the latest ANSIR?] ~Aimee
I recall there being fairly high, if not supreme, court decisions in the past confirming that you never have to identify yourself to the police. Other than when driving a car, of course, as that's a "privilege" not a right. So how are they going to force these mandatory ID cards on people? -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Wednesday, September 19, 2001, at 07:00 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
I recall there being fairly high, if not supreme, court decisions in the past confirming that you never have to identify yourself to the police. Other than when driving a car, of course, as that's a "privilege" not a right. So how are they going to force these mandatory ID cards on people?
(When I say "will require" I mean that other legislation will require that the libraries, companies, rental agencies, etc. inspect them. Those who don't have them simply won't be able to rent cars, use libraries, get driver's licenses, cash checks, etc.) 1. Libraries will require the card before giving access to public terminals (or perhaps even to books...) 2. Hotels, airlines, car rental and storage locker companies will require them. 3. States will require driver's licenses to be cross-linked with these ID cards. 4. Gun purchases, ammunition purchases, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, etc. cross-linked. 5. Use the banking system or money order/check-cashing systems in any way. Including filing taxes. ...and so on. It's unlikely that these ID cards will be demanded on the street ("Papers, please!"). But the cards can be mandated for nearly every other aspect of economic life. The Supreme Court will not have to even rule on these cross-linkings. It should be fine for someone to _not_ have such an ID card, provided he does not want to rent or buy a car, get a driver's license, buy ammunition, check into a hotel, rent a mailbox, open a bank account, cash a check, or file tax forms. None of them are cases where the state, ostensibly, is requiring names to be attached to writings or pamphlets. Nor are they cases where internal movement requires a passport. (These are some of the reasons past courts have thrown out mandatory identification laws.) Properly done, a cop will never have to demand the ID card, so the issue of it being mandatory becomes untested in courts (I'm speculating a bit here...). I'm not endorsing these moves, of course, just speculating on how the courts may acquiesce to such an ID card. And, of course, another 911-like event could make the Supreme Court reverse itself. --Tim May
participants (6)
-
Aimee Farr -
David Honig -
Eric Cordian -
Harmon Seaver -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Tim May