Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Katherine Mangu-Ward says we're already well on our way to a national ID card, so why worry?
Comments to "New at Reason":
fat is flavor | July 3, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Another in a long line of reasons to love livin in NHTLB | July 3, 2007, 1:06pm | #
If this site - and the indirectly-linked-to the MexicanGovernment ACLU - wanted to actually prevent a national ID card, they'd fight against - rather than in effect support - IllegalImmigration. By in effect supporting IllegalImmigration, both trigger a backlash they can't control, which inevitably will lead to a NationalID.Perhaps both groups aren't really what they pretend to be.
serious question: would putting one of these in one of those faraday cage wallets prevent remote malfeasance?
Probably not - the spacing between the bars has to be on much lower than order of the wavelength I believe -> the mesh has to have gaps considerably less than a millimeter wide.
SugarFree | July 3, 2007, 1:16pm | #
dhex,I've heard a few seconds in a microwave does the trick. I was planning on just lightly pounding mine under a tea towel with a hammer to crush the chip.
Oh, sorry, I'll translate that for you:
I've heard a FewSeconds in AMicrowave does TheTrick. I was planning on just lightly PoundingMine under a TeaTowel with a hammer to CrushTheChip.
By the way: Libertarians working for the Mexican Government = HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. We won't even work for our own!
Of course it has been 15 years since I cracked a physics book. So I defer to Doctor T.
Trey | July 3, 2007, 1:20pm | #
I hear the same dismissal of privacy concerns in reference to supermarket discount cards. "They already have your info."There is really no comparison. Krogers does not kick in people's doors at 4 in the morning, and Google can't keep me from boarding a plane or taking a job. Bottom line, they can't shoot me with impunity.
So, TLB, we should support tamper-proof federal ID, but only for immigrants? How will that work again?
thoreau | July 3, 2007, 1:25pm | #
I believe tarran is right.Jennifer | July 3, 2007, 1:30pm | #
the reason it's hard to fret too much about the Real ID Act and its mandatory identity brethren is because the world is passing this debate by.Since you could make pretty much the same argument about socialized medicine, does this mean Reason will stop talking about what a bad idea it is? Just go with the flow, Katherine! Liberty only matters when the majority agrees it does.
I can't wait for my own mark of the beast. I prefer the card over the hand or head tattoo.
Stu E | July 3, 2007, 1:45pm | #
This article sounds like the old "well, your house is already on fire, so why worry about putting out the rest of it"? Unless the article was designed explicitly to provoke a response, I'm kind of surprised to see that writing here. I am not a libertarian, and am used to people being on my right. But this "why bother" attitude is ridiculous. There is a huge difference between what individuals are willing to do personally and what the government is trying to force you to do. They'll legally force me to pay taxes even if I don't own a REAL ID, but then make me have a REAL ID in order to get the social security I have paid for? And if you want to fight this in the Supreme Court, get ready for a long drive unless you live in DC. You won't be able to fly there, and once you get there, you won't be able to get into the federal building where your case will be heard. They say passports are an alternative, but if you can't use a non REAL ID license "for any federal purpose", how exactly are you supposed to get a passport without a REAL ID? Last I knew, passports are still a "federal document", even if you have to wait 4 months to get one (can't wait to see how much longer it will take after REAL ID)Dan T. | July 3, 2007, 1:47pm | #
Maybe I missed something, but doesn't the strange tale of Hasan Elahi make the argument for a national ID card? Wouldn't Elahi's life be signifcantly easier if he had such a card that would prove who he was instead of feeling like he constantly had to do it via more convoluted means?I'm really not trying to troll here, but I don't understand why an ID card would be a bad idea. I have one for the state I live in and it doesn't seem to cause me any problems here.
I'm waiting for 'the jack'. Joining the collective will be the uncoerced free choice of just about everyone. Resistance may not be futile, but it's one hell of a radical lifestyle choice.
Biometrics - mostly removes the forgery concern and reduces governmental tracking concerns. But that of course requires one to be serious about security.
Jennifer | July 3, 2007, 2:06pm | #
doesn't the strange tale of Hasan Elahi make the argument for a national ID card?For a voluntary one, maybe. Though I think it makes more of a case for "reign in the goddamned government so an innocent man doesn't have to go to such convoluted lengths for fear of being sent to Gitmo."
JasonL | July 3, 2007, 2:08pm | #
To be fair, the world passing it by has more to do with technological development and the choices consumers have made than anything explicitly populist.I don't think strong privacy is sustainable now, and will be less so in the future.
The Wine Commonsewer® | July 3, 2007, 2:08pm | #
"In the 19th century, it was sufficient to ask who you are. In the 20th century, it was sufficient to show who you are. In the 21st century you will have to prove who you are."—Tate Preston, VP at Datacard GroupJennifer | July 3, 2007, 2:12pm | #
I don't think strong privacy is sustainable now, and will be less so in the future.Still no reason for the government to get involved. And the fact that I might be photographed while I'm walking down the street or videotaped whenever I go to a store doesn't lead inevitably to "therefore, let's say nothing while the government mandates an ID card all citizens will be required to carry."
Taktix® | July 3, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Lead Wallets!!!Get yer' lead wallets here!
Being bugged? Tracked? Never again!
Just send $50 to P.O. Box 32...
thoreau | July 3, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Saying no when asked "Do you have your discount card?" can cause you to spend a few extra bucks. Saying no when asked "Do you have ID to go with your credit card?" means you have to pay cash.Saying no when asked at the checkpoint "Your papers please?" means you go to prison.
There's the difference.
The Wine Commonsewer® | July 3, 2007, 2:21pm | #
Like public education, income tax, and zoning ordinances, the National ID card is inevitable and to acknowledge that and to try to put it into perspective is not tacit approval of Senator DiFi's wet dream of a retina scan on every driver license.There is, however, lightyears of difference between giving up your personal privacy for the convenience of instant credit and the federal government mandating identification (your papers pleeeeze).
OTOH, my state requires id on your person at all times and has for as long as I can remember. From a practical standpoint we denizens of Californicate have the functional equivalent of a national id card and it is a giant pain in the ass to evade that law (which I did for a while).
All that notwithstanding I am repulsed by the concept of a national id card (or a state id card) and forsee the creation of far more problems than any that will be resolved.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a national id card will not stop illegal immigration. I will predict that the national id card will be used to create the worker's database and you can't be hired until your cleared. I predict that will even apply to people and businesses that you contract with such as cleaning services, painters, and gardeners. I predict the feds will be wrong at least 10% of the time. If they do as well as IRS they'll be wrong 30% of the time.
JasonL | July 3, 2007, 2:28pm | #
I understand what Jennifer and others are saying, I'm just skeptical that opposition really matters in the face of the technology. Once someone has invented a way to open any lock, I don't know that it matters what we formally say the policy around opening inappropriate doors is.Take the idea of identity theft. There are private concerns such as credit transactions and access to secure accounts, and once you have those concerns to the level that there are laws about protecting identity, it seems like you are already saying the state has an interest in knowing who you really are.
I don't think it has to slippery slope into 'present me your papers, comrade,' but whatever mitigation measures we take probably will be procedural rather than physically preventing someone from finding out who we are.
I oppose all of the government actions I've seen on this front, but I share the feeling that the fight is already lost due to the technology of the way we live.
carrick | July 3, 2007, 2:31pm | #
A national ID card is only necessary for the national government to know who you are. The national government only needs to know who I am when I pay my national (income) taxes and when I cross the border.The national government has ways to verify the veracity of my tax return without directly verifying that I actually was the person that signed the document and mailed it in.
The national government asks for my passport when I enter the country, but not when I leave.
There is no other legitimate "national" justification for a national ID card. This is just another means for the knee-jerk, totalitarian, law-and-order types to control the population which they view to be inherently untrustworthy.
carrick | July 3, 2007, 2:45pm | #
I don't think it has to slippery slope into 'present me your papers, comrade,The Supreme Court has already rule that a private person can be arrested and charged with a crime for refusing to provide identification to a police officer when that officer demands it.
So we have already slipped down that slope. Now we are just arguing about what counts as identification.
Marcvs | July 3, 2007, 2:49pm | #
Here's an article on REAL ID written two years ago from someone who actually understands how to implement secure systems and explains why this isn't one of them:http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html
TLB | July 3, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Trey misunderstands my position; in fact, I've even discussed how RudddyGiuullianii's "ForeignersOnlyIDCard" is doomed to become one for all of us.carrick says: There is no other legitimate "national" justification for a national ID card. This is just another means for the knee-jerk, totalitarian, law-and-order types to control the population which they view to be inherently untrustworthy.
And, Reason helped! By promoting anarchy, they help the cause of those who would come in and restore order. It's a common trick; the only question is whether Reason is in on the game or are just dupes.
Tbone | July 3, 2007, 3:08pm | #
Carrick, it's not that simple.All levels of gov't have a need to know who I am if I am pose a threat to the citizenry. Conversely, I have a need to be able to prove who I am to claim my rights as a citizen.
As just one example, there is a national interest in all law enforcement agencies having a means to identify me if I am attempting to flee the jurisdiction (or country) where I have committed a crime.
Dan T. | July 3, 2007, 3:10pm | #
The Supreme Court has already rule that a private person can be arrested and charged with a crime for refusing to provide identification to a police officer when that officer demands it.What case was that? (Not doubting you, but I'm curious about it.)
carrick | July 3, 2007, 3:17pm | #
All levels of gov't have a need to know who I am if I am pose a threat to the citizenry.Unless the government has probable cause to believe otherwise, I am by definition not a threat to the citizenry.
Conversely, I have a need to be able to prove who I am to claim my rights as a citizen.
Bullshit, I have total claim to my rights without have to prove who I am.
If you mean that I have to identify myself to receive entitlements, then you may have an argument. However, entitlements are implemented at the state level, not the national level.
As just one example, there is a national interest in all law enforcement agencies having a means to identify me if I am attempting to flee the jurisdiction (or country) where I have committed a crime.
Unless the government intends to ask everyone single person leaving a jurisdiction for ID, this has no merit whatsoever.
carrick | July 3, 2007, 3:20pm | #
The Supreme Court has already rule that a private person can be arrested and charged with a crime for refusing to provide identification to a police officer when that officer demands it.What case was that? (Not doubting you, but I'm curious about it.)
I don't remember the name of the poor sap off the top of my head. But it was a big decision about a year or so ago.
Police responded to some complaint. They saw some guy sitting in a vehicle do nothing suspicious in particular, but demanded ID. He refused, was arrested, was convicted, and the conviction was upheld by the SC.
If I recall, the sap actually had done nothing resembling a crime, so his conviction was strictly based on the refusal to provide ID.
Randolph Carter | July 3, 2007, 3:26pm | #
The Hibel (spelling?) case from Nevadacarrick | July 3, 2007, 3:27pm | #
From FindLaw via CNN:Jue 24 2004
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel.
Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.
Hiibel -- who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity -- believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name.
But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated
carrick | July 3, 2007, 3:33pm | #
More from FindLaw:Civil libertarians may worry that in the wake of Hiibel, the government will require all persons to carry formal identification papers with them or risk arrest. However, as noted above, the Hiibel majority took care not to disturb precedents like Brown v. Texas. Accordingly, it is clear that even after Hiibel, the Supreme Court will protect the right to remain anonymous of persons who are not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing.
To be sure, the reasonable suspicion standard is not as protective as the probable cause standard. But it is hardly toothless. On any given day, the overwhelming majority of the population takes no action that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for the police to stop and frisk.
Moreover, the fear that the Terry stop power will be converted into a police power to identify people seems backwards. A stop and frisk -- in which the police physically accost and pat down a person -- is more intrusive than a request for identification.
So if, as Sucher and others claim, the reasonable suspicion standard is toothless, then for thirty-six years it has been causing more serious privacy invasions than anything authorized by the Hiibel decision.
Your privacy is dependent upon whatever a LEO decides is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. Of course, refusing to provide ID has been accepted by the courts as being suspicious behavior in other settings (if I recall correctly).
Seamus | July 3, 2007, 3:46pm | #
If I recall, the sap actually had done nothing resembling a crime, so his conviction was strictly based on the refusal to provide ID.Actually, one of the material facts in that case is that the cops had reasonable suspicion that the guy had committed a crime. The Court *didn't* hold that the cops could just pick people at random and demand to see their papers. (Of course, it turned out that the report that the guy had been beating his daughter was bogus, and the guy didn't even know that there had been such a report, so as far as he knew the cops *had* just picked him at random to demand his papers, but you get the idea.)
Tbone | July 3, 2007, 3:51pm | #
Unless the government has probable cause to believe otherwise, I am by definition not a threat to the citizenry.So is it preferable that the police arrest everyone matching a suspect's description or that you "prove" your identity and not be detained?
I have total claim to my rights without have to prove who I am.
Of course you do. But what if you are not who you claim to be? If you are unwilling to prove your identity then you should be OK with the gov't detaining you indefinitely for minor offenses until they are satisfied you are who you say you are. After all, they have no recourse if you have lied and then jump bail or fail to appear.
Unless the government intends to ask everyone single person leaving a jurisdiction for ID, this has no merit whatsoever.
Are you saying that law enforcement shouldn't be able to determine if I am wanted on an outstanding warrant if stopped for other reason? It is in these instances that DL's are a defacto national ID. Similarly this is a basis for requesting ID for all international flights lest I fly to a country without extradition.
carrick | July 3, 2007, 3:56pm | #
Actually, one of the material facts in that case is that the cops had reasonable suspicion that the guy had committed a crime.A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime.
Let's try a little thought experiment:
It is not hard to see how refusing to provide ID can be construed by an officer to be "interfering with official acts" which is a crime.
You can now be held temporarily under reasonable suspicion of committing a crime.
Now the second time you refuse to provide ID, you have definitely committed a crime -- so sayeth the Supreme Court.
Have to say it's pretty darned weird for a self-identified libertarian forum to be deleting posts that aren't abusive in some fashion. (And even ones that are.)
bob mologna | July 3, 2007, 4:35pm | #
"The national government asks for my passport when I enter the country, but not when I leave."Not strictly true. The ticket agent asks for your passport before you leave the country and if you appear to be American and present a foreign passport you will find yourself answering to a federal LEO. Did you know that if you are legally entitled to a US passport it is illegal to travel either to or FROM the US? I tried leaving the US on my Irish passport once to save time on my arrival in Europe and it did not go over well. And that wasn't even the time I was fleeing the jurisdiction, thank god.
carrick | July 3, 2007, 5:00pm | #
"The national government asks for my passport when I enter the country, but not when I leave."Not strictly true.
Yes it is. You do not have to pass through immigration on the way out.
The ticket agent asks for your passport before you leave the country
The ticket agent is not an agent of the US. There are other reasons why the ticket agent asks for your passport. For example, Japan fines the airline every time a passenger walks off the airplane in Japan without a valid passport.
if you appear to be American and present a foreign passport you will find yourself answering to a federal LEO.
Suspicious behavior . . . hmmm.
TrickyVic | July 3, 2007, 6:45pm | #
So the Nazis had the right idea towards checking the citizenry? It's all about checking your papers to see who you are, or aren't.Could you imagine how much dangerous someone like Hitler could be with access to that much data on its citizens. One day we will find out. Hopefully, it will be an observation and not an experience.
M | July 3, 2007, 6:54pm | #
"In the 19th century, it was sufficient to ask who you are. In the 20th century, it was sufficient to show who you are. In the 21st century you will have to prove who you are."And in the 22nd century, or shortly before, who you are won't matter.
The Wine Commonsewer® | July 3, 2007, 7:37pm | #
Yes it is. You do not have to pass through immigration on the way out.When we went to Cabo in May 2006 we had to present passports to US Customs before we boarded the Mexicana flight in San Diego.
Which didn't impress me much.
Tom Blanton | July 4, 2007, 2:57am | #
The truth is that there was no debate over REAL ID as it was passed as a rider to a defense spending bill and once passed, there was little mention of it in the media.I also notice in the discussion here about the REAL ID, no mention is made of the linked databases aspect.
The article by Katherine Mangu-Ward is truly one of the worst pieces I had read at Reason in some time - and there are a few writers here with some pretty bad ideas.
The vast majority of Americans are politically inactive and have not taken to the streets to protest a number of injustices that are taking place. This is not a justification for a minority of Americans to shut up and go with the flow. The argument Katherine Mangu-Ward makes is that of defeatism against the collectivist will.
Her argument would have us roll over and openly accept the militarization of the police and the abuses of over zealous SWAT teams. Hell, only upstarts like Radley Balko seem to give a damn about this - not the vast majority of Americans.
Perhaps Katherine Mangu-Ward would like to be the first to have a convenient implanted RFID chip linked to a government database.
Johnny | July 4, 2007, 2:13pm | #
If life is a game of chess, one might ask why a "libertarian" magazine continually tells us that government creep is not a problem.Give me an incompetent unrestricted government or give me death?
Doesn't have the same ring to it.
Why, O why do libertarians keep telling us that the eternally expanding government is not something to worry about? (unless it's something like social security).
Why bother even being "libertarian" if every government expansion is "nothing" to worry about.
Why do Reason writers seem to be very comfortable with the thought of a continually expanding government?
Inquiring minds apparently do not want to know.
Johnny | July 4, 2007, 2:18pm | #
M,You've got it partially wrong. In the 22nd century they will tell us who we are, and it won't matter, because, as in communism, the government will "own" its citizens.
With the blessings of "libertarians" apparently.
Nothing clever to say. Just the worst article I've ever read on Reason.
TrickyVic | July 4, 2007, 5:03pm | #
In the 22nd century, who you are, will not be in question.Johnny libertarians are not for a government owned citizenry. A corporation owned citizenry, is a different story. But hey, you volunteered to work there.
Yep, we need a tamper-proof national ID because our tamper-proof state IDs work so well. I mean, it's both national and tamper-proof. Everybody knows that the individual states don't have the technology to make a truly tamper-proof ID due to their pathetic little economies. Seriously, I can't type tamper-proof without planning out my "I told you so, you freaking idiots" speech.
Number 6 | July 7, 2007, 10:58am | #
Even Ron Paul, a few years ago, called for all ssn's to be invalidated as all amerikans applied for new ssn's, ostensibly to stop all this identity theft (aided and abetted by gov policies in the first place). Ahhh, submission...ain't it cool?
