National ID Cards

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

If you didn't carry your ID Card in West Berlin before 1989, it was actually completey legal for the Allied 'friendly' forces to shoot you .
Maybe they just try to introduce something as simple as that in the US as well?

 

[nonconformist]

If you didn't carry your ID Card in West Berlin before 1989, it was actually completey legal for the Allied 'friendly' forces to shoot you .
Maybe they just try to introduce something as simple as that in the US as well?

You mean the Americans, Brits and French?
It didn't ever happen, did it?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

It didn't ever happen, did it?

No idea. Wouldn't be surprised if it did immediately after the war; but I never heard of such a case after founding of the FRG.

That issue is a bit mysterious; West Berlin wasn't part of Germany, but the citzens were Germans. Because of that, the Allied Military Laws technically had priority to the German Civil Laws. And those laws were no different from the ones currently used in Iraq...but that thing was a hot iron; it was imposible to get hold of the exact rulings.
However, it was common use for West Berliners and German visitors there to always carry the ID card with them. Not because they really feared to get shot, but because it wasn't clear what would happen in case you ran into a Allied control for some odd reasons.
Note you are otherwise NOT required to carry your ID card in Germany; you are only required to own one.

 

[GenMarshall]

Can someone explain to me why national ID cards are so bad? I dont have an opinion on the issue yet. Ive heard plenty of people saying that theyre bad, but never WHY theyre bad.

I dont see anything wrong with the National ID cards. Except if you lose it along with your wallet

 

[Flak]

Can someone explain to me why national ID cards are so bad? I dont have an opinion on the issue yet. Ive heard plenty of people saying that theyre bad, but never WHY theyre bad.

Can anyone explain why the government needs them? I've heard 'security' reasons. Ok then, are the countries that have ID's more 'secure' than countries without them? Does Germany have less of an immigratioin problem than the UK? Have IDs helped with crime in anywary or helped combat terrorism? If they have, why hasn't this been mentioned in a newspaper somewhere? Why hasn't that statistic been mentioned as proof that these things are supposedlly necessary?

Until I hear otherwise they are bad because:

1. They are an implicit violation of the privacy/guilt of an individual citizen. There's no reason for this information to be stored on a database unless that person is a convicted criminal.

2. They cost taxpayers even more money for no good reason. If they actually did help solve some social problem, atleast that's some sort of argument for their existence. I've heard this as a supposed use. I've not heard any support that this actually is effective (or even used in such a manner anywhere).

3. They are completely redundant anyway. Any kind of information that a government needs for most individuals probably already exists within their reach anyway. Passports, Drivers Licenses, National Insurance cards (Europe). What more does the government want and why?

4. My personal reason, it's just an excuse for more government pork bureaucracy. They'll probably use these things as an excuse to create an entire new bureau specially dedicated (oh joy). Does the bureau running these things for any country having these IDs actually do anything?

 

[stormbind]

National Insurance Cards display information only valid in the UK for benefits and tax, why did you put Europe?

 

[kronic]

I have no problems with the current German system. However, the prospect of having a ID card with biometrics and stuff would annoy me as well. Fortunately, our ID cards are so far free of all that crap. But I'm sure, we'll have to deal with it some day, too.

And paying 300 pounds for that is is just outrageous. How could you Brits possibly elect that government?

 

[Flak]

National Insurance Cards display information only valid in the UK for benefits and tax, why did you put Europe?

I meant National Insurance cards in general. You didn't think UK was the only socialized medical system in Europe did you? I still have my National Insurance Card from Austria in my wallet.

 

[luiz]

If the ID card was free, would there be less objection?

There is no free lunch, you know.

In Brazil the government goves them for "free", which just means that they tax us to make them.

And of course I agree with Mise that people shouldn't need a license to exist. The government is there to serve me, not the other way around.

 

[mdwh]

I use it almost everywhere. And I am glad it exists, because I don't have a driving license

There is an argument perhaps for a form of ID for those who don't have driving licences or passports - but this argument is pointless if the ID cards cost almost as much as passports anyway, and is compulsory (and hence cause of even more expense) for those people who already have alternative ID.

Plus, we already have a cheap alternative form of ID - Citizen cards ( http://www.citizencard.net/ ), costing just £9.

Almost always when people are in favour of ID cards, it is because they say it'd be good to have a "convenient" form of ID - but this makes no sense, as the ID cards that the UK Labour Government plan are far more inconvenient than existing forms of available ID.

 

[mdwh]

Can someone explain to me why national ID cards are so bad? I dont have an opinion on the issue yet. Ive heard plenty of people saying that theyre bad, but never WHY theyre bad.

Depends what sort - I'll answer for the ID card being planned by the UK's Labour Government (lots of people say "I have no problem with ID cards", but it turns out that they're talking about some hypothetical or different form of ID card rather than that being proposed - I have no problem with Citizen cards, for example, but I'm completely opposed to Labour's ID cards).

- They will be expensive. A cost of £36 for a standalone one, and £80-90+ (I'm not sure what the current figure is) combined with a passport. If this is like any other Government IT project, expect costs to go up - an independent report suggested it would cost £300 per person. Even if it is made "free" for people, it will still cost billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
- It will be accompanied with a massive database combining vast amounts of personal information on everyone in the country. This gives everything from fears of a big brother society, or the prospect of the Government completely screwing it up (as they often do with big IT projects), to to problem that a single database will make it easier for people to get hold of your information (either legally, or illegally), possibly making identity theft more likely.
- I object to what is effectively a licence to live (people who refuse will be sent to prison). I object to having to be taken somewhere and fingerprinted.
- I dislike the idea that I may need to show ID in more and more situations. Even if we never have to actually carry them all the time (which I strongly object to), it'll be bad enough if I need them everytime to buy something, use public transport and so on.
- There is no known good reason for having these cards. The Government switches between reasons like "terrorism", "fraud", "illegal immigrants", seemingly unable to make its mind up (just like it couldn't make its mind up on the reasons for war with Iraq), and none of these are things that an ID card could be expected to help.

See http://www.no2id.net/ for more information.

Also please sign the pledge if you oppose ID cards: http://www.pledgebank.com/refuse

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Everyone keeps mentioning the slippery slope, that the government can use your national ID card to monitor you, and subject the citizens to a police state. I find this argument dubious because most developed nations can do that already. Everyone carries some form of near-universal identification already, and it is simple enough for the state to track you down from those identification numbers. The internet has made this even easier.

In the US, almost everyone has a Social Security number, or a Driver's License Number, or any of a myriad of other identifiers. You leave a paper trail wherever you go, so don't think that by avoiding a national ID card, you're getting away with anything. The only benefit of a single, universal, national ID card is convenience. No longer would the state have to cross-reference and investigate every potential identifier. Instead, there's just 1 code for 1 person.

Depending on your attitude, you can take this as a convenience for yourself. If you are the kind of person who tries to get away with committing criminal acts, then this is a disadvantage. If you are a good citizen, you won't care what the government discovers about you because, at least in the US, they can't release your private information publically, and they can't do anything with it at all unless it's a matter of criminality.

 

[Winner]

I have no problems with the current German system. However, the prospect of having a ID card with biometrics and stuff would annoy me as well. Fortunately, our ID cards are so far free of all that crap. But I'm sure, we'll have to deal with it some day, too.

And paying 300 pounds for that is is just outrageous. How could you Brits possibly elect that government?

How could Germans re-elect Schröder or how could Americans re-elect Bush?

People are stupid, face it

 

[Winner]

There is an argument perhaps for a form of ID for those who don't have driving licences or passports - but this argument is pointless if the ID cards cost almost as much as passports anyway, and is compulsory (and hence cause of even more expense) for those people who already have alternative ID.

Plus, we already have a cheap alternative form of ID - Citizen cards ( http://www.citizencard.net/ ), costing just £9.

Almost always when people are in favour of ID cards, it is because they say it'd be good to have a "convenient" form of ID - but this makes no sense, as the ID cards that the UK Labour Government plan are far more inconvenient than existing forms of available ID.

Well, the form of proposed british ID card is really strange.

 

[ComradeDavo]

And of course I agree with Mise that people shouldn't need a license to exist. The government is there to serve me, not the other way around.

Damn right!

Everyone keeps mentioning the slippery slope, that the government can use your national ID card to monitor you, and subject the citizens to a police state. I find this argument dubious because most developed nations can do that already.

No, they can't do it to that extent. Sure they can use CCTV footage etc, but with ID cards you could make it so that you basiclly had to scan it every time you entered a building/transprot etc. People would become blips on a radar. Might not happen straight away, but in a few years you know it will start being proposed.

 

[Flak]

Depending on your attitude, you can take this as a convenience for yourself. If you are the kind of person who tries to get away with committing criminal acts, then this is a disadvantage. If you are a good citizen, you won't care what the government discovers about you because, at least in the US, they can't release your private information publically, and they can't do anything with it at all unless it's a matter of criminality.

Again, have you or anybody got any evidence that these IDs actually help with crime in anyway? There are countries that have national IDs. So where's the data to support their use in curbing any kind of criminal activity in any way, shape or form? You'd think that if this was valid argument for these things to exist, then somebody would be able to offer some evidence, any evidence, that this is indeed the case. I haven't even heard anectodotal examples of any such National ID actually helping solve a crime of any kind, or solve any issue with immigration, or solve any problem whatsoever actually. Surely the impact of such an ID has been the topic of a study somewhere. Maybe the results were so bad that that data wasn't released to the public? Does anybody know?

I'm more and more convinced that this is simply another excuse for another pork barrel bureaucracy to come into existance, that does nothing but cost taxpayers money.

Atleast social security numbers, driver's licenses, passports, etc... have specific use. Unless somebody can come up with evidence of crime prevention or some other social issue being relevant, these IDs are worse than a complete waste of taxpayer money.

 

[JoeM]

Can someone explain to me why national ID cards are so bad? I dont have an opinion on the issue yet. Ive heard plenty of people saying that theyre bad, but never WHY theyre bad.

Why so bad?

Take your pick.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Again, have you or anybody got any evidence that these IDs actually help with crime in anyway? There are countries that have national IDs. So where's the data to support their use in curbing any kind of criminal activity in any way, shape or form? You'd think that if this was valid argument for these things to exist, then somebody would be able to offer some evidence, any evidence, that this is indeed the case. I haven't even heard anectodotal examples of any such National ID actually helping solve a crime of any kind, or solve any issue with immigration, or solve any problem whatsoever actually. Surely the impact of such an ID has been the topic of a study somewhere. Maybe the results were so bad that that data wasn't released to the public? Does anybody know?

I'm more and more convinced that this is simply another excuse for another pork barrel bureaucracy to come into existance, that does nothing but cost taxpayers money.

Atleast social security numbers, driver's licenses, passports, etc... have specific use. Unless somebody can come up with evidence of crime prevention or some other social issue being relevant, these IDs are worse than a complete waste of taxpayer money.

I don't have any evidence that national ID cards reduce crime more than usual, but I don't have any evidence that they don't. I have no reason to complain if they are enacted in the US, unless I have to pay an arm and a leg for it. The plan in the UK apparently involves the people shelling out a lot of money for each card, which is unfair.

Like I said, it's more a matter of convenience. If there's one ID card for all things, it's more manageable. Perhaps if one was enacted in the US, we wouldn't need to have SS cards, and driver's licenses, and this and that.

 

[IglooDame]

I don't have any evidence that national ID cards reduce crime more than usual, but I don't have any evidence that they don't. I have no reason to complain if they are enacted in the US, unless I have to pay an arm and a leg for it. The plan in the UK apparently involves the people shelling out a lot of money for each card, which is unfair.

Like I said, it's more a matter of convenience. If there's one ID card for all things, it's more manageable. Perhaps if one was enacted in the US, we wouldn't need to have SS cards, and driver's licenses, and this and that.

You pay either way, directly (as in the UK proposal) or indirectly, via general tax revenue.

And as for convenience, how inconvenient is it now? I keep a driver's license in my wallet along with credit cards, membership cards, a couple people's business cards, and a health insurance card. I'd still be carrying all them with any of these Nat'l ID proposals. I carry my passport if I am anticipating going outside the US, and domestically I bring my birth certificate and SS card if I am going to need them (currently every few years to get a driver's license after moving to a new state). How often do you (unexpectedly or not) need more than a driver's license for ID? Oh, and exclude use of a passport because no national ID proposal I've heard about would eliminate/replace the passport.

 

[zulu9812]

re: ID cards in the United States

A mate of mine thinks that compulsory ID cards in the US is constitutionally illegal. His argument is that Americans have the right to silence, which necessarily involves refusing to divulge information - it would be difficult to refuse to divulge information if it was all stored in a government database anyway. That's one point of his argument, but I'm not convinced. Anyone care to weigh in?