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

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Wed Sep 26 19:05:01 PDT 2001


On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 12:09 AM, Randy wrote:
>> 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.

You are uninformed.

Read up on Terry stops, the Lawson case, and what it takes to have 
someone committed.

If you think it trivial to have someone committed to a mental 
institution, I have nothing further to talk to you about.


"Seeya."


--Tim May





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list