Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason.tv: Smiles Outlawed: DMV Makes Life Even More Miserable
This week the Virginia DMV announced that it's going to outlaw smiling in driver's license photos. Thought life at the DMV couldn't get any worse? Wrong again, America.
Reason.tv video written and produced by Dan Hayes.
For related videos and articles, go to Reason.tv.
To embed this video on your site and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel, go here.
|5.29.09 @ 8:20PM|#
Virginia DMV announced that it's going to outlaw smiling in driver's license photos.
Funny, years ago the State Department told people not to smile for
their passport photos. The some genius came up with the idea that
America needed to project an image of happy, friendly people to the
world. And an order was issued that, henceforth, you were to
smile for your passport photo.
Of course, the police in VA don't need a friendly smiling face.
They know, when they pull you over for a traffic stop or break down
your door for an early hours no-knock raid, that you are a
"civilian" and hence "the enemy".
Round up the usual suspects.
|5.29.09 @ 8:25PM|#
I'd say that the government has gone too far this time, except
I'm surely several thousand "times" too late. Really, when the
bully keeps stepping over the line in the sand, at some point, you
have to slap him down.
I'd like to think we just did a bit of that in California,
recently. I hope the spirit burns brighter in the weeks, months,
and elections to come.
PbP|5.29.09 @ 9:49PM|#
Before you go to the DMV to get your picture taken get really
really drunk.
That way when the police pull you over and compare your face to the
photo you will look fine.
Syd|5.29.09 @ 10:21PM|#
You're better off with a look of screaming terror. That way, if you drive your car off a cliff, it's easier to identify you.
|5.29.09 @ 10:46PM|#
Of all the things to get up in arms about... who cares? When issuing ID cards, telling people not to smile makes it easier to ID them... and this is some terrible violation of your rights? Get a life.
Richard Stands|5.30.09 @ 12:44AM|#
Joe,
It would also be convenient for them if we all got the same
haircut. It'd make it easier for the face recognition program. And
get rid of those sideburns!
If the progression is already to facial expression, it's
hard to imagine where further intrusions become too absurd to be
feasible.
Remember: THEY work for YOU, not
the other way around.
jk|5.30.09 @ 12:56AM|#
I'm ambivalent about this. Nancy Pelosi would not be able to get driver's license if the CA DMV had the same regulation.
IceTrey|5.30.09 @ 1:23AM|#
I've gotten drivers licenses in half a dozen states and they all said not to smile. What's the big deal?
|5.30.09 @ 1:35AM|#
So, how about if I forgo smiling, but I wear a false nose, ears,
and cheekbones to fuck up their biometric scan software? I know
some very good makeup artists who could make me look like anyone at
all.
-jcr
|5.30.09 @ 1:38AM|#
I'll also mention that if face recognition software can't
identify someone who's smiling, then we're screwed if Al Queda ever
learns to lighten up and be cheerful when they attack.
-jcr
|5.30.09 @ 6:01AM|#
This is silly on all sides. It is definitely easier to identify
(obviously unsmiling) suspects if their ID pics are unsmiling. In
my first (NY) driver's license pic in 1987 they told me not to
smile for that reason. When I got a VA license in 1992, they didn't
say one way or the other. Then when I got another NY license in
1997, they once again didn't say.
Look, either we think it's important to be able to ID people from
their drivers licenses or we think that's a problem. If the latter,
then the LICENSE ITSELF is a problem. If the former, it only makes
sense to tell people not to smile.
|5.30.09 @ 6:02AM|#
I should add that, if they're actually refusing to issue licenses to people who won't stop smiling, then I have a problem with this policy. If it just amounts to telling people not to smile and shrugging if they do so anyway, then who cares?
ed|5.30.09 @ 7:12AM|#
I live in Florida and was instructed by the counter drone to smile. I complied, happily.
|5.30.09 @ 7:22AM|#
Two day ago I went to DC DMV to get a new non-drivers id. I was all in all a pleasant experience and I was out in less than an hour. I've been told by more than one person that the picture looks good. Maybe sometimes some part of government can work.
|5.30.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Wow, leave it to DMV to ruin the day. I am not surprised. Have
you ever seen a "happy" DMV employee?
RT
www.online-privacy.vze.com
|5.30.09 @ 10:12AM|#
"It would also be convenient for them if we all got the same
haircut."
Not everything is a slippery slope.
|5.30.09 @ 10:22AM|#
9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
Why does Dan Hayes hate America?
To all the folks blathering about ease of facial recognition - When
a friend or spouse smiles, how often do you have to ask "Do I know
you?"
This will enhance safety and police work almost as much as limiting
shampoo on the airplane to 3 ounces.
MNG|5.30.09 @ 11:07AM|#
I can't imagine smiling makes much of a difference for ID purposes, certainly not as much as other things we would not want DMV to mandate (haircuts, muttonchops, etc). This is stupid.
MNG|5.30.09 @ 11:54AM|#
"To all the folks blathering about ease of facial recognition -
When a friend or spouse smiles, how often do you have to ask "Do I
know you?""
Tru dat, double true J sud D.
I mean, even better than that, look at a picture of some stranger.
Now, if that stranger smiled or hell even stuck his tongue out
would you, looking at a photo of the latter, be like "holy shit who
IS this second person?"
endpoint|5.30.09 @ 12:24PM|#
The new internet czar, will have a much easier time of identifying rogue computer users with the smile being nixed. Who smiles in a cube farm all day?
Douglas Willinger|5.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Virginia is a criminal entity with an anti people name as it implies a state without people.
|5.30.09 @ 1:49PM|#
I saw a documentary about the casinos in Vegas and the facial recogition tech that they use to catch card counters and the like and kick them out before they can do their thing. The system would measure the distance between the eyes, as apparantly this is very unique and allows security to make an ID much faster, since they don't have to sift through as many photos of known cheats. Once again private industry shows better results without agitating their customers.
|5.30.09 @ 1:50PM|#
And btw here in WA state (at least west of the Sound) the DMV is actually not that bad. I hardly ever have to wait in line. And I only need to go there every five years.
24AheadDotCom|5.30.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Cute video! There are many more videos just like it here.
Meanwhile, if there are any adults out there, here's
David Shuster trying to shush up Tancredo when Tancredo discussed
an NCLR award recipient who'd earlier proposed genocide.
P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad
homs, as libertarians concede my points and show the childish,
anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.
Liberty Lover|5.30.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Can't somebody just fire this f-ing' governmental bureaucrat who made this 'rule'?
|5.30.09 @ 4:09PM|#
That's nothing.
In California, they are going to have to shut down the DMV and fire
all the workers. Henceforth, there will be no drivers' licenses;
anyone, (including IllegalMexicans!!) will be able to drive with
impunity. At InsaneSpeeds. With no insurance. While getting blown
by fourteen year old twins!
And then, they will fire all the prison guards and release all the
murderers!
Next week, they're going to auction off all the stuff from the
Lawrence Livermore Labs to the Iranians and the North Koreans. The
Cali Cartel has just about finalized their bid for the California
National Guard fleet of FA-18s.
It's the only possible solution to the
BudgetArmageddonApocalypse!!!!1
Mad Max|5.30.09 @ 4:10PM|#
[====DMVchats.cOm====] which is the biggest club in world for singles from the Department of Motor Vehicles to meet and date motorists who are willing to put out in exchange for more expedited service. In exchange for being permitted to smile on their license photos, these hot drivers will be willing to let you have a quick grope. And if you're willing to take points off their license, they will be happy to do you right there in the DMV office. Be the envy of all your colleagues - go to DMVchat.com today!
|5.30.09 @ 4:11PM|#
the childish, anti-intellectual nature of
libertarians.
Bruce Bartlett, is that you?
|5.30.09 @ 6:29PM|#
LoneWacko smirked all the way to the liquor store. He knew that
when he got back with his Goldschlager and Zima (he loved that
combo), his all-powerful disclaimer that he now put on his posts at
that awful libertarian blog would have prevented anyone from
mocking him or insulting him.
He couldn't wait for that first sip; it, like Goldschlager/Zima
combos always did, would taste like...victory.
T. H. Readjacker|5.30.09 @ 7:45PM|#
"It's not about you," declares Reverend Rick Warren, the
celebrity minister and hair-blown invocationer of Barack Obama's
inauguration, in his best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Life. It's
about God's purpose for you. Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and Gar
Alperovitz and Lew Daly's Unjust Deserts also declare that "it's
not about you." For that matter, it's also not about Bill Gates,
Warren Buffett, Beyoncé, Gordie Howe, or any other wildly
successful individual; it's about the circumstances you and they
were lucky enough to fall into.
The first lesson Gladwell delivers is that luck explains at least
part of success. To a startling degree, the year and month someone
was born predicts how well he or she will do. Sports provides some
clear evidence. It is the arena of achievement in which native
talent should most determine who gets ahead. Yet, month of birth is
critical. Would-be athletes born just after the cut-off dates for
youth sports leagues are much likelier to end up, years later, as
successful players and even professionals than those born near the
end of the twelve-month period.
The other fateful accident Gladwell dwells on is of a different
nature: the fortune of being born into the right culture. Drawing
on superb scholars as varied as historian David Hackett Fischer,
sociologist Annette Lareau, and psychologist Richard Nisbett,
Gladwell argues that families inherit and pass on distinctive
habits. Those habits may be rooted in the exigencies of life
centuries earlier-herding in the borderlands of Britain, toiling in
the rice paddies of southern China-but, according to this
controversial theory, they influence descendants to this day. To be
born in the American South or to Chinese-American parents is to
inherit the habits, respectively, of reacting violently to any
implied insult and of persisting intensively in the face of any
problem. The former culture raises the child's chances of failure
in life, the latter of success.
Gladwell tells stories about extreme successes, about "outliers,"
but he means to convey a broader message. He aims to demonstrate
"that extraordinary achievement is less about talent than it is
about opportunity." He concludes that the "patchwork of lucky
breaks and arbitrary advantages that today determine [sic] success"
ought to be replaced "with a society that provides opportunity to
all."
Mike|5.30.09 @ 9:27PM|#
T. H. Readjacker: cute name
Given that most personality traits are about 50% hertiable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits
and that adult intelligence is about 80% heritable
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275961036/reasonmagazineA/
Gladwell's thesis that "that extraordinary achievement is less
about talent than it is about opportunity." is simply wrong. Bill
Gates might have had more opportunities than most, but most people
with his opportunities would not have gotten as far as he did. The
same goes for the hockey players, ect.
Oh yeah, I hate the DMV.
|5.30.09 @ 10:02PM|#
# Brian24 | May 30, 2009, 6:01am | #
# Look, either we think it's important to be
# able to ID people from their drivers licenses
# or we think that's a problem. If the latter,
# then the LICENSE ITSELF is a problem.
# If the former, it only makes sense to
# tell people not to smile.
The original driver licenses were simply cards that said somebody
had pass the State's test for driving proficiency and had filed all
necessary papers and paid all appropriate fees. It took decades
before the first photos were added to DLs, and longer still before
thumbprints or other biometric info was included/required. With
each "upgrade" of the license document, more and more people
started to offer and accept it as "official ID," which was not the
original intention of the card.
The original DL was a CREDENTIAL, which slowly evolved into an
IDENTIFICATION. Very rarely in life do we need to substantiate our
actual identities. More often, we need to demonstrate
qualification, proficiency, or right to access. The methods and
mechanisms for this can be arranged between the individual and
those who need to establish the qualities or rights in question.
But because the government has forced us to carry the
credential-cum-identification, the need is lessened to explore
alternative approaches in the private sector.
I don't like the idea of saying that someone must have a license
from the government for traveling along a public road, regardless
of the conveyance. I understand that many believe this position to
be extreme. So, fine. If the State wants to require a license, JoeD
is right, it's a small inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.
But any such license ought to be more like a library card and less
like an internal passport and key to one's "permanent record" --
one's life. Anyone who doesn't drive should be able to get along
perfectly well without either a DL or a State-issued ID card. And
those who DO drive ought to be able to leave their DL at home when
not driving, and encounter no inconvenience at all.
The DL is indeed the problem, but I personally can live with that
problem if it is not ever necessary to ID someone from the
DL.
As Libertarians, we would be wise to explore and promote solutions
to getting around and along in the world, which do not require ID,
especially of the type represented by the DL.
|5.30.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Seems a bit overblown to complain about the "no smiles" rule.
Many places have had such rules at one time or another, and it is
really rather inconsequential.
On the other hand, reforming the various DMVs so customers don't
have to devote a whole day to renewing a license? THAT would be a
reasonable reform. Another nice reform in North Carolina would be
making the licenses so that they don't wear out after a few months
of use. It makes it really difficult to rent a car out-of-state
when they can't read the number on the driver's license, even
though it has seen less than a year of use and has been treated
reasonably gently.
Syd|5.30.09 @ 10:27PM|#
On the other hand, reforming the various DMVs so customers
don't have to devote a whole day to renewing a license?
Where does that happen? It's never taken me more than half an
hour.
Brett Stevens|5.31.09 @ 9:04AM|#
Oh, the human drama...
They're just trying to get a clear facial imprint for their facial
recognition systems, which will soon be so cheap you'll see your
name and SSN popping up whenever you walk into a government
building -- or any participating business.
Good work on opposing the authoritarian state. Guess it found a
backdoor and beat all of you, and now you're posting about how
terrible it is the DMV won't let you smile because you can't face
the true issue which is that the bad guys won.
anarch|5.31.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Guy's speeding, gets pulled over by a cop. Cop approaches the
car, says to the guy, "Sir, do you know how fast you were
driving?"
"No, Officer," the guy replies.
"Well, you were doing 85 in a 30-mile zone. May I see your license,
please?"
"No, I don't have one."
"You don't have one?"
"Nope."
"Why not?"
"It was revoked."
"Your license was revoked? What for?"
"Drunk driving."
"Your license was revoked for drunk driving? Uh,
can I see your car registration, please?"
"Don't have it."
"You don't have your car registration? Why
not?"
"Cause it's not my car."
"It's not? Whose car is it?"
"I dunno. I just stole it."
"You just stole this car?"
"Yup. I saw a woman getting into the car, I grabbed her, raped and
killed her, stuffed her body in the trunk, and took off."
"You raped and killed a woman, stuffed her body
in the trunk and took off?"
Cop draws his gun, steps back, and says, "Sir, I need you to step
out of the car right now."
Driver steps out of the car.
Cop trains his gun on the guy, says, "Sir, put your hands against
the car, spread your feet, and don't move!"
With his other hand, cop radios his Chief, tells the story, asks
for back-up. Three squad-cars zoom up to the scene with squealing
brakes, five patrolmen scramble out, take cover behind their
vehicles, and train their guns on the guy. Police Chief gets out of
one of the squad-cars, hand on his gun, walks over, says to the
guy, "Sir, may I see your driver's license, please?"
Guy replies, "Sure, Officer. It's in my wallet, in my back pocket.
Just take it out."
Police Chief takes wallet out of guy's pocket, finds the license,
looks at it, looks at the guy, looks at the license again, says,
"Oh. Uh, can I see the car registration, please?"
Guy says, "Sure, Officer, it's in the glove-compartment. Help
yourself."
Police Chief walks over to the passenger side, opens the door,
opens the glove compartment, finds the car registration, looks at
it, looks at the car, says, puzzled, "Sir, I need the key to your
truck."
Guy says, "Sure, Officer, it's on the key-ring, in the ignition.
Help yourself."
Police Chief takes the key, puts it into the trunk-lock, and as the
other cops take a step back and brace themselves, he cautiously
turns the key and lifts the lid. In the trunk is a tire-iron and
one old boot.
Police Chief turn to the guy, says, "Sir, I don't understand. My
officer told me that you hijacked this car, raped and killed the
woman driving it and put her body in the trunk, that your license
was revoked for drunk driving. I don't understand it, Sir. I'm
sorry."
"Your officer said I hijacked this car, raped and
killed the woman driving it, and put her body in the
trunk? And that my license had been revoked for
drunk driving?
"Yes, Sir. I don't understand. I'm sorry."
"I bet that lying bastard told you I was speeding,
too!"
MNG|5.31.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Indeed, that was good, thought LoneWacko as he tipped his glass
and watched the flecks of gold mingle with the Zima. He walked over
to his computer and turned it on, smiling to himself at the thought
of the traitorous H&R posters stymied by his last post.
Suddenly what had been an annoying gurgle in his stomach felt in
the walk home from the liquor store became an irresistible urge, a
compulsion which he was forced to obey as he slammed down his
drink, ran into the bathroom, yanked his pants down and vacated his
bowls while standing over the toilet bowl. In relief he looked
down; thankfully most of the mess had gone into the bowl this time.
He began wiping off the toilet when he doubled over again in
abdominable pain and shot down onto the seat for the second bout of
explosive diarrhea.
Sitting there he hung his head in shame as he fully knew the
explanation for this event. His secret shame. Double enchiladas
with extra tabasco sauce from dinner at the Mexican restaraunt he
had began frequenting months ago in order to gather intelligence
about the the menace of BrownImmigrants ruining his fair land but
had since fallen in love with. His face had a look of steely
reserve: the posters at H&R must never know...
The pains redoubled as he clutched the sides of his porcelain
throne and pushed. He reached over to his makeshift magazine rack
for an issue of the Minutemen Project Newsletter. It was going to
be a long night for a patriot...
|5.31.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Where does that happen? It's never taken me more than half
an hour.
I know. For libertarians this is not exactly the low-hanging
fruit.
|5.31.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Hey, how does anyone feel about there being a law state or federal that prohibits the use of a drivers license for anything other than proving the ability to drive?
|5.31.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Frankly I fail to see that this could have any motive or reason other than that a nonsmiling face is needed to get good image recognition.
Warty|5.31.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Why is it necessary to use image recognition software on drivers' license photos?
anarch|5.31.09 @ 2:11PM|#
how does anyone feel about there being a law state or federal that prohibits the use of a drivers license for anything other than proving the ability to drive?
Dollars to doughnuts the result would be that some guy caught using
his license as a straight-edge to draw a line, dust a smudge off
his sweater, or scrape a bee-stinger out of his skin would incur a
SWAT team response. The cure to bad law is seldom more law.
|5.31.09 @ 2:22PM|#
MNG,
Yes, amongst other things.
Employers can't require it unless they are asking you to drive
ect.
|5.31.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Anarch,
I generally agree with that sentiment. But I am not sure that
requiring a license for people to drive is a bad thing, as a form
of proof of some proficiency and knowledge, given the inherent
danger of motor vehicles to others also in motor vehicles.
And I am really upset about all the other uses of the drivers
license, such as a way to catalogue you as a human being and
subject of the government.
I don't like having to show my license when I send money to
someone, I don't like having to show my license when I UPS or fedex
something to someone overseas, ect.
I don't like showing my license when I am applying to a job, or
checking into a motel. I am me, here is my money or my work, what
else do you really need?
MNG|5.31.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I don't know if I would support that. How would bar owners find
out if persons were of the requisite age to get in to drink for
example?
Don't get me wrong, I think I catch your drift. I thought the
liberal dissenters were right and the conservative majority were
wrong in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Meaning, I don't even think the law should be able to punish one
who does not provide ID to them.
MNG|5.31.09 @ 3:11PM|#
kwais
I should have read your reply to anarch before replying. I like
your thinking here. I commend you for thinking outside of the box,
because many a doctrinairre libertarian would probably argue that
such a law inhibits the "freedom" of the employer or service
provider to make employment or service contingent on the employee
or consumer providing their license (freedom of contract). But I
think you've hit on one of those (in my mind) many areas in which
liberty gives ground either way (or at least privacy gives way, and
I think privacy is important in itself and ultimately linked to
liberty). In my humble opinion this is why I support a law
restricting the right of employers and other institutions to drug
test and otherwise use certain surveillance techniques on their
employees/customers.
I'd be for such a law, except that often employers and service
providers can be held responsible under certain laws for not IDing
employees (think immigration/hiring laws) or customers (think gun
sales). If we could find out some way of not getting those folks in
trouble, then I'm more sympathetic to what you are talking
about...
endpoint|5.31.09 @ 6:03PM|#
Face recognition, potentially paired with, this drone ought to make all uneasy.
|5.31.09 @ 6:09PM|#
In my humble opinion this is why I support a law restricting
the right of employers and other institutions to drug test and
otherwise use certain surveillance techniques on their
employees/customers.
Employers should be free to be dicks like that -- employees should
be free to decline to work for such employers.
Going to the legislature asking for a "solution" to your "problems"
rarely turns out well for anyone but a handful of
miscreants special interests.
Paul|5.31.09 @ 6:26PM|#
To all the folks blathering about ease of facial recognition
- When a friend or spouse smiles, how often do you have to ask "Do
I know you?"
Workable facial recognition through digital means doesn't exist.
Freaking chatbots do a better job.
Been there, done that|5.31.09 @ 6:27PM|#
kwais-
Hey, how does anyone feel about there being a law state or
federal that prohibits the use of a drivers license for anything
other than proving the ability to drive?
I remember when we had the same law for Socialist InSecurity
numbers.
Here in Ohio, it took until 2003 to get our SS numbers
off our driver's licenses- and the first question
the cops now ask when they pull you over is "SS number?"
anarch|5.31.09 @ 7:38PM|#
the first question the cops now ask when they pull you over is "SS number?"
What's a good (and lawful) way to avoid giving it?
|5.31.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Been There,
What if you decline to give them your SS?
I got pulled over in some state I forget which and the cop asked me
for my SS number, and like a tard I gave it to him.
But it didn't match what was in his data bank, and he told me. I
asked if he wanted me to make up a number.
He was confused and let me know.
To this day I regret giving him my SS number, I feel like I
shouldn't have given up that, the only thing he has a right to is
proof that I am have a license to drive.
|5.31.09 @ 7:49PM|#
MNG,
You make me feel like I have done wrong and gone to the socialist
side "for the better of all".
I don't want to forbid the using of drivers license for the benefit
of employers against business owners. I don't want to infringe on
business owners right of association, or their property rights to
run the business as they see fit.
I want to forbid the use of drivers licenses for such things in
order to protect both business owners and employees from
*government*
MNG|5.31.09 @ 7:51PM|#
"Going to the legislature asking for a "solution" to your
"problems" rarely turns out well for anyone"
I dunno prole, you may want to ask this group of people called
"black people" how that turned out for them!
Since the passage of civil rights legislation their lives have been
immeasurably improved...
You could say the same about disabled people...
MNG|5.31.09 @ 8:05PM|#
Oh c'mon kwais, the Dark Side is SOOOO much superior! Give in to the Dark Side...I can feel your anger when employers violate your privacy and compel you to give information you do not really want to give...
MNG|5.31.09 @ 8:10PM|#
Seriously though, kwais. Come on, screw "freedom of contract"
and the "rights" of employers to use their economic advantage to
compel people into giving up their privacy and freedom. For me, I
ask myself, what would really make people like me more free to do
as I please? That's liberty. Libertarianism as an American
political movemement is far too much the bitch of the wealthy and
powerful, constructing bizarre abstract arguments as to why many
policies that empirically restrain the choices of most folks are
actually protective of "liberty." Don't buy into that shit.
If a law were passed that employers could not demand certain
information from you then boo-fucking-hoo for them and
yay-fucking-ay for all of us. There are a lot more people who would
have their choices, privacy, and such protected by such a law than
would have them constrained. Net gain, all good.
Gene|5.31.09 @ 9:01PM|#
Yup, they already do this in New Zealand. I virtually had to from when I was getting my passport photo a few years ago, it took several photos before I could get my expression "neutral" enough for it to pass. I guess it is more harmonising legislation from the UN..
Kim Jong-il|5.31.09 @ 9:55PM|#
For me, I ask myself, what would really make people like me more free to do as I please? That's liberty.
|5.31.09 @ 10:10PM|#
MNG,
I think of the successes of the civil rights movement are the
successes of getting the government out of the racism
business.
And the failures of the civil rights movement are the getting the
government into the attempt to end racism in the civilian
populace.
I think that latter helps racism to endure.
|5.31.09 @ 10:11PM|#
kwais-
What if you decline to give them your SS?
You go to jail.
Until you give them your SS#- so they can "identify" you!
|5.31.09 @ 10:14PM|#
I live in Nevada, which is quickly becoming a nanny state thanks
to a relentless influx of Californians which simply do not
understand that raising taxes all the time is bad (we just got a
21% tax hike of $1.1 billion the largest in state history...even
adjusting for inflation I believe). I'm happy to report that I
rebelled. I smiled for my ID.
Who knew being an outlaw in the "Wild West" could be such an
innocent affair.
|5.31.09 @ 10:21PM|#
""I ask myself, what would really make people like me more
free to do as I please""
Kim Jong Il made the point well, but really MNG?
Really?
So, if you feel free-er without gay porn.
without swasticas, or the things Meg said in the Islam
thread.
Without actresses that refuse to get naked for a movie,
It is ok to ban them.
Individual liberty as long as it is the liberties you approve
of?
I mean that is the way most of Europe is pretty much, and it is
said that Europe is the way we are headed.
But that aint liberty. It really aint liberty when the majority
gets all uppity and starts throwing people in the ovens.
Richard Stands|5.31.09 @ 10:26PM|#
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that there is a
difference between identifying yourself, and providing an ID. If a
police officer asks you to identify yourself - based on an
articulable suspicion a crime has/is/is about to be committed - you
would be required to provide minimal identifying information, like
name, address, and birth date. You are not required to carry or
display an ID document.
As far as social security number, I'm pretty sure they cannot
require you to give that. SSN is pretty heavily guarded in most
areas of the legal system. At least for the moment.
|5.31.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Patrick,
I also live in NV, am also dismayed by the stupidity of the CAians
that move here and then try to make the government in the image of
that which they are running away from.
Dismayed by the raising of taxes, and that people put up with
that.
|5.31.09 @ 10:55PM|#
""You go to jail.
Until you give them your SS#- so they can "identify"
you!""
How is that not a violation of the 5th?
(Hey funny thing here, you know that from tv and movies, in Spanish
court and other courts, you have people pleading the 5th and stuff.
I have a few friends in Europe that are lawyers, and this irritates
them, but humors me).
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 1:40AM|#
Libertarianism as an American political movemement is far too much the bitch of the wealthy and powerful, constructing bizarre abstract arguments as to why many policies that empirically restrain the choices of most folks are actually protective of "liberty."
Otherwise known as "principles", "freedom of ownership and
association", contracts and recognizing that all bargains are
unequal to an outside observer.
Only a "liberal" could think that it's not paternalistic to tell
grown adults "you cannot freely enter into that contract".
A T|6.1.09 @ 3:10AM|#
There's some room for abuse.
Anybody remember that scene from Full Metal Jacket, where the sarge
tells the fat kid to stop smiling? What if you always look like
you're smilying, and you can't "stop" it? They deny you the
license?
MNG|6.1.09 @ 7:55AM|#
"Only a "liberal" could think that it's not paternalistic to
tell grown adults "you cannot freely enter into that
contract"."
And only a libertarian could think that there are workers out there
dying to work for less than minimum wage or in unsafe working
conditions etc. Sure, plenty of employers would like to be free to
bargain for that, but very few workers.
Unless the workers would be compelled by something...Now what would
that thing be TAO? Their relatively weaker bargaining position?
Hmmmm.
MNG|6.1.09 @ 7:59AM|#
kwais @10:21
I'm not sure how putting people in ovens or banning gay porn makes
me more free, or wtf Kim Il Jong has to do with any of that.
Restricting the freedom of the few (employers) in situations where
the freedom of the many (workers) would be expanded by that is what
I'm talking about.
As an empirical reality a government ban on employment drug testing
would restrict some employers and free up many more workers (from
having to undergo invasive drug tests). Rinse and repeat in other
areas to expand freedom.
Richard Stands|6.1.09 @ 8:49AM|#
So when I hire a kid to mow my lawn, do I enter that class of
people less worthy of retaining rights? When he sub-contracts to
his younger brother, does he?
Liberty is only for some classes of people? Who chooses?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 10:48AM|#
So, see, if an employer offered me 10,000 more a year just to
get regularly drug tested (because drug use costs him some amount
over 10,000), I couldn't enter into that contract cuz, you know,
MNG is here to save me from myself.
Thanks, MNG.
|6.1.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Restricting the freedom of the few (employers) in situations
where the freedom of the many (workers) would be expanded by that
is what I'm talking about.
MNG is arguing from a different definition of freedom than
libertarians are.
Libertarians define freedom as "freedom from coercion", and include
government action, backed as it is by the use of force or the
threat of force, as coercive.
MNG defines freedom as "ability to do what you want."
I'd like to earn a million dollars a year. Because the government
doesn't prohibit me from entering into a contract for that, to a
libertarian I am free to do so. Because no employer is willing to
enter into such a contract with me, per MNG I am not free to do
so.
|6.1.09 @ 12:40PM|#
"""To all the folks blathering about ease of facial recognition
- When a friend or spouse smiles, how often do you have to ask "Do
I know you?"
This will enhance safety and police work almost as much as limiting
shampoo on the airplane to 3 ounces."""
Facial recognition doesn't work worth a damn except in controlled
settings. Remeber the year they used it at the Superbowl? I didn't
find one criminal. VA Beach had them installed, by the waterfront I
think, found no criminals, VA Beach removed them and sued the
company.
"""Because no employer is willing to enter into such a contract
with me, per MNG I am not free to do so."""
"""You go to jail.
Until you give them your SS#- so they can "identify" you!"""
From the SSA website.
Your number is confidential
The Social Security Administration protects your Social Security
number and keeps your records confidential. We do not give your
number to anyone, except when authorized by law. You should be
careful about sharing your number, even when you are asked for it.
You should ask why your number is needed, how it will be used and
what will happen if you refuse. The answers to these questions can
help you decide if you want to give out your Social Security
number."
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10064.html
Of course you could tell the cop that it's a federal issued number
outside his jurisdiction. I'm sure that will get you back on the
road quickly. Probably not in your car though.
|6.1.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I never smile if I can help it. Showing one's teeth is a submission signal in primates. When someone smiles at me, all I see is a Chimpanzee begging for its life.
Happy WA|6.1.09 @ 6:34PM|#
This is my natural facial postion..please don't beat me for being happy..... ::Thump thump thump....::
Medic|6.1.09 @ 6:35PM|#
Funny Mark,
When I bare my teeths its for dominance, a threat and
challenge.
I only smile when I know the other person is Fucked.
hahahahahha
The French think we're all a little looney and a bunch of whores
because we smile so much.
|6.4.09 @ 10:13PM|#
The purpose behind not smiling is to make digitizing your facial features easier for the underlying digital recognition software. Smiling confuses the software's algorithms. In the future, when the state's cameras 'see' you they want to make sure they match the the face in the camera to the correct associated personnel data. Sleep tight Virginia.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245