How ID Cards might be made de facto mandatory, but not de jure mandatory

[Randy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim May <tcmay at got.net>
To: cypherpunks at lne.com <cypherpunks at lne.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: How ID Cards might be made de facto mandatory, but not de jure
mandatory


>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?
>>
>

If a LEO thinks you've commited a crime, they can bust you, and ultimately
have to charge you with something, or let you go. If, OTOH, you're simply
regarded as a whacko, you can be institutionalized, perhaps forever. Try
convincing a LEO that a) you're not crazed, and b) you don't have to tell
him/her your name. Seeya.

>(When I say "will require" I mean that other legisla
tion 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.)

So the assholes simply move on to sleeping on the courthouse steps, paying
cash, buying throwaway cell phones from the local convenience store, and
stealing cars. They stole whole fucking airplanes full of humans; they'd
likely not have a moral problem stealing a car or paying a crack fiend to do
it in their stead. WTF, if you're going to DIE for the cause, who needs a
hotel room? If we are to believe the news-holes, alot of the folks behind
this used-to-be/are/will be sleeping in caves anyway.

>
>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.

Sort of sounds like the "final solution to the homeless question"....

>
>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...).


Well, yeah, "properly done", in the eyes of some, would probably allow the
cop to scan your smart-card from fifty yards. No "felony stop" tactics
req'd.

>
>I'm not endorsing these moves, of course, just speculating on how the
>courts may acquiesce to such an ID card.

Don't mistake this post as having disagreed with you in any way.....not at
all. Just adding my U$D.02

>
>And, of course, another 911-like event could make the Supreme Court
>reverse itself.\

There's no shortage of people that hate our guts and are willing to die for
the cause.........a long time after we're all dead and gone people will be
causing us the maximum grief that they can at home, abroad, and probably
low-earth-orbit and beyond, as technology allows. If all they could cause us
was nail-fungus or pre-mature greying of our hairs, that is what they would
do. Such is not the case.

>
>
>--Tim May
>

Randy