Last year, Congress passed the Real ID Act, a law that calls for standardization of drivers’ licenses across the country by 2008. The current reaction from states like California and New Hampshire raises questions about how a national ID system would affect civil liberties, putting welcome pressure on the federal government. California might have a reputation for supporting civil liberties but on the national ID debate the state is moving to comply blindly with federal mandates.
I applaud your call for a national debate for national Identification. I would like to know if you feel that this method of "failure to comply with federal law" constitutes "entering into debate"? I fail to see that connection. I would like to see those who make the laws to first: get informed themselves. Engage their constituents and find out what their fears, concerns, and true misgivings would be to having a truly verifiable national identification system. Use whatever it takes: community blogs, town meetings, whatever. Then: have demostrable, verifiable investigation into whether those fears and concerns are valid or just "preacher prognostication". Finally, we already have more than just the driver's license as a federal identification, mind you. It's difficult to work in this country without a Social Security card (number). (Of course, 11 million illegal aliens might argue, or if you're independently wealthy, you don't have to work, but I'm sure you still have to report capital gains every year, so you're still required to have one for the IRS.) I fail to see that the "Big Brother" syndrome is a valid argument. With the passage of the Patriot Act (and its recent unfortunate extension), the government has the power and the ability to get into your eMail, your bank accounts, your blog, even your pants if they want to-- who's going to stop them? I, personally, have to side with those ignorant masses that say, "Hey, the only ones that are hiding are the ones that have something to hide." I mean, seriously: If a government agency has your number, I'm not blind to both arguments, but I can only see the merits as strong points. It ensures the government that I am who I say I am, therefore, there are not two of me (drawing some type of government benefit more than once); I am/am not wanted in conjunction with some legal infraction; and as a result, neither are the other 200+ passengers sitting next to me on my next flight somewhere. This is called peace of mind-- IMHO. I also realize there are plusses and minuses and that this issue, if it truly enters "debate" status, could go on and on and on... Doesn't it boil down to a matter of "trust"? Apparently the "privacy advocates" are scared to death of a leadership that "knows" everything about them. They do not trust their government leadership. And that is the issue at the root of this which is something we love to debate, isn't it?
Loading ...
Calling for a Response to Digital ID
Posted by: Sonia Arrison April 21, 2006 05:00 AMLast year, Congress passed the Real ID Act, a law that calls for standardization of drivers’ licenses across the country by 2008. The current reaction from states like California and New Hampshire raises questions about how a national ID system would affect civil liberties, putting welcome pressure on the federal government. California might have a reputation for supporting civil liberties but on the national ID debate the state is moving to comply blindly with federal mandates.
I would like to see those who make the laws to first: get informed themselves. Engage their constituents and find out what their fears, concerns, and true misgivings would be to having a truly verifiable national identification system. Use whatever it takes: community blogs, town meetings, whatever. Then: have demostrable, verifiable investigation into whether those fears and concerns are valid or just "preacher prognostication".
Finally, we already have more than just the driver's license as a federal identification, mind you. It's difficult to work in this country without a Social Security card (number). (Of course, 11 million illegal aliens might argue, or if you're independently wealthy, you don't have to work, but I'm sure you still have to report capital gains every year, so you're still required to have one for the IRS.)
I fail to see that the "Big Brother" syndrome is a valid argument. With the passage of the Patriot Act (and its recent unfortunate extension), the government has the power and the ability to get into your eMail, your bank accounts, your blog, even your pants if they want to-- who's going to stop them? I, personally, have to side with those ignorant masses that say, "Hey, the only ones that are hiding are the ones that have something to hide."
I mean, seriously: If a government agency has your number, I'm not blind to both arguments, but I can only see the merits as strong points. It ensures the government that I am who I say I am, therefore, there are not two of me (drawing some type of government benefit more than once); I am/am not wanted in conjunction with some legal infraction; and as a result, neither are the other 200+ passengers sitting next to me on my next flight somewhere. This is called peace of mind-- IMHO.
I also realize there are plusses and minuses and that this issue, if it truly enters "debate" status, could go on and on and on... Doesn't it boil down to a matter of "trust"? Apparently the "privacy advocates" are scared to death of a leadership that "knows" everything about them. They do not trust their government leadership. And that is the issue at the root of this which is something we love to debate, isn't it?