September 25, 2001

8:52 AM

National identification cardsThe pros and the cons are given here. Do you have a preference after considering these arguments? What would we do with the 11 million illegals said to be here now?Send them to New Jersey?
posted by Postroad (52 comments total)

we're crowded enough as it is, thank you very much...
posted by mich9139 at 9:00 AM on September 25, 2001

I can't see how id cards would prevent terrorism. You don't have to be a foreigner to be a terrorist. There are supporters of extreme Islamic groups both here in the UK and in the US. Irish people can live and vote in the UK without any trouble so it certainly wouldn't deter the IRA. You don't even have to have a passport to travel to the Republic usually and it's getting easier and easier to travel between EU countries. Wonder if that will change now.
posted by Summer at 9:15 AM on September 25, 2001

Isn't there already a national ID card, known more commonly as a passport?

I have way too much stuff in my wallet as it is. This is just one more piece of ID for me to lose.
posted by kristin at 9:17 AM on September 25, 2001

If, as is being proposed, Id cards digitally incorporate fingerprints and/or retina scans then this could prevent/deter terrorist 'sleeper cells' from operating under false identities. Maybe.
posted by garyh at 9:23 AM on September 25, 2001

These terrorists had a lot of money to throw around. Their flight schooling alone cost over $200,000, and as I understand it, there is some evidence that the hijackers sent money back to the U.A.E. in that days leading up to the attacks. My point is that wouldn't well financed terrorists find a way to buy extremely good forgeries of these ID cards?

Make no mistake about it, there would be an industry of counterfeiting these things. The profit margins would be huge.

And I just don't see a database with 300 million entries running smoothly enough to catch individual discrepancies before it is too late. Given the current state of the INS and other agencies tasked to keep track of nationality, I don't place much faith in this system to protect me.
posted by thewittyname at 9:28 AM on September 25, 2001

We're missing the obvious solution: Registered Terrorist cards.
posted by Skot at 9:28 AM on September 25, 2001

Travelling around eastern Europe in the days of the cold war it was routine to be stopped in a park, cafe, hotel lobby, bar, street, etc. and asked "What is the purpose of your visit?" Needless to say I was always happy to get home.

ID cards are fine as a last resort but there are a lot of steps between here and there we are not doing. e.g. flying schools and airline reservation clerks have access to the FBI, CIA and INS watch list...
posted by victors at 9:41 AM on September 25, 2001

Kristin, no-one is required to carry a passport. The point of these cards is that everyone would be required to carry one and to produce it essentially on demand.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:41 AM on September 25, 2001

True, Steven, but I guess my point is, how many pieces of ID does the government have to issue me? I have a passport, a driving license, a social security card - surely we don't now need a fourth card, separate from the first three?
posted by kristin at 9:44 AM on September 25, 2001

I don't really like the idea of being delared a criminal for not doing something or for not having something. Its like instead of getting a Driver's license, I will have to get an Exister's license. I don't want cops coming up to me all the time asking me for my "papers" and hauling me off to their in-car DNA identification sstem if I don't have them. Of course it is only one more step from there to having it embedded in one of your bones like they do with animals. That way you can never forget it, or escape it.
posted by donkeymon at 9:47 AM on September 25, 2001

Aside from the very big question, "Would this have made a difference on Sept. 11th?" we should remember that we currently have the right to be anonymous in most of our private and public activity.

Anonymous to whom? Anonymous to our government.

That means that if I am at a public event, and I am breaking no laws, then the police cannot ask me who I am, or require that I provide identification.

As a pedestrian on the street, I don't have to furnish ID to anyone. And, unless I am driving a car, I currently don't have to have identifying documents on my person.

We accept certain restrictions on this freedom:
- show ID for purchase of age-restricted items (tobacco, alcohol)
- carry driver's license when operating a vehicle
- show photo ID to board a plane

If we ever reach the point where a policeman or other public official can require me to carry, and demonstrate upon request, some form of identification, at any time whatsoever, then we will have confirmed our defeat to terrorists.
posted by yesster at 9:49 AM on September 25, 2001

I am 100% for it, as long as the information contained on the card was as limited as possible. For example, I would not object to a card that contained thumbprint identification, and could be used to determine when and where I had used mass transportation or crossed a border. I would probably object, however, if the card was somehow able to track (for example) spending habits.

Kristin -- to answer your concern, I would assume the one card could take the place of the passport, social security card, and driver's license.

And to yesster, I don't think it's fair to assume that the issuance of an ID card would necessarily mean the government could ask you who you are or require you to produce your ID card. As with anything else, there can (and should) be limits.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:52 AM on September 25, 2001

It's 2 a.m. or so local time, and, well, I've been drinking, which is no excuse for anything (by christ!)(giggle), but I'm going to post this boing.boing link again anyway, as in my bourbonated state, I'm pretty damn sure it's relevant. If not, abuse me in MeTa.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:53 AM on September 25, 2001

Make no mistake about it... whatever technology we can possibly come up with to make the ID cards, someone else can get their hands on to make counterfeit ID cards. National ID cards = colossal waste of time, money, and freedom.
posted by spilon at 9:57 AM on September 25, 2001

Make no mistake about it... whatever technology we can possibly come up with to make the ID cards, someone else can get their hands on to make counterfeit ID cards. National ID cards = colossal waste of time, money, and freedom.
posted by spilon at 9:57 AM on September 25, 2001

What information will these ID cards contain which will help to prevent terrorism or enforce security?

Information from our birth certificates? Our drivers licenses? Our school grades? Religious affiliation? Political affiliation? Voter registration? Medical history? Employment history? Taxpayer information? Criminal records? Credit history? Library records? EZ-Pass data? Passport info? Telephone records? Bank account numbers? IP addresses? MAC numbers? Encryption keys? GPS location? PO Box numbers?

Who needs to know this information? Who's going to keep track of this information? Who's going to ensure that this information is accurate? Have you ever found an error on your credit report? Your driver's license? Your phone bill?

Who do you trust more with all this information? Yourself or "your" government?
posted by eptitude at 10:07 AM on September 25, 2001

An ID card is an enormous violation of civil liberties. It's basically a "permission to live" card. Paying taxes isn't enough to be a valid member of society any more: you have to carry this little card as well, so we know that the Government approves of your existence. Why not just brand me with a barcode and be done with it?
posted by skylar at 10:11 AM on September 25, 2001

I am on the "whats the point?" side of this one. The gov't spent millions (billions?) to make better counterfeit-proof paper money for us - but go into any liquor store or quickie mart and you'll see examples of counterfeits on the window. My neighborhood party store got a fake $20 that looks and feels like real money - the only way to tell was by the marker test or looking for the strand of metallic fiber.

No one can convince me that having a national ID card would do one teeny thing towards staving off terrorism or keeping track of "unwanted" elements in our country. If the current system of Drivers Licensing and Passports can't do it, then why would a stupid ID card?

Here in Georgia, one must submit to thumbprinting to get a drivers license. In my city, one must submit to complete fingerprinting to get a license to sell alcohol as well. I am offended by that, but I do it because of the vague notion that it may be useful for something, like maybe IDing me if I'm unconscious or dead.

Having a national card is redundant and useless.

Why not make everyone have a passport to buy airline tickets? Don't they do a background check or something when you get a passport? I think they check out your birth records to make sure you're a citizen, don't they? Perhaps the passport system could be beefed up rather than trying to institute a new system?
posted by misangela at 10:14 AM on September 25, 2001

I don't get the card thing. If you're an American terrorist, you get your card legally. If you're a foreign terrorist, you don't need a card, you enter the US with your passport. What is the card supposed to do?
posted by signal at 10:34 AM on September 25, 2001

What we really need to do is to start giving people numbers, say, like tattoos. Maybe on the interior of the forearm.

It doesn't surprise me that that the sort of people whole believe you can have something as as non-existent in nature as "security" are jumping on this chance to foster public opinion for their various dopey ideas.
What surprises me is that so many otherwise intelligent people are falling for it.
posted by Hima Otsubusu at 10:40 AM on September 25, 2001

Let's assume for a moment that the card would be counterfeit-proof (thus meaning that the people actually using the card are who they say they are), and that the only things it would track would be use of mass transit and crossing into/out of the country. I, for one, can see a legitimate law enforcement use of that data, particularly for rapid response, if not preemption (of course, the ability to rapidly respond may itself be a deterrent).

For many of you, this concept instantly gets your privacy hackles up in that "I-never-trust-the-government-with-anything" way. I, too, am concerned about privacy infringement, but not in a "knee jerk" way -- I don't believe it's fair (or even intellectually honest) to analogize every governmental idea to Nazism (ahem, Hima Otsubusu). Could someone please explain to me how the information I described would be a great invasion of your privacy?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:08 AM on September 25, 2001

"I am 100% for it"

Why? Just because? Do you even need a reason? Do you think about these things, or just assume others know what is best for you?

"the only things it would track would be use of mass transit and crossing into/out of the country."

Sort of exactly like the passport?
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:13 AM on September 25, 2001

pardonyou -

You have it wrong - the burden of proof is not on the protectors of freedom, it is on the promoters of the National ID Cards and Database.

So, you tell me what "benefits" this will create. List for me the ways that it will help fight terrorism. Tell me how it could have prevented Sept. 11th events.

If your answer to the last is "it couldn't," then what public interest is served by such a proposal?
posted by yesster at 11:19 AM on September 25, 2001

It wouldn't have prevented WTC, the hijackers weren't americans, they wouldn't have had cards.
posted by signal at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2001

My thoughts on 'should we have national security cards?':

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ...

Oh yeah ... NO!!!!
posted by orpheuswish at 11:37 AM on September 25, 2001

What yesster and signal said.
Also, I'm not interested in having to present law enforcement with papers on demand merely to prove that I'm not guilty of anything. A tad unamerican, yeah?
posted by Hima Otsubusu at 11:37 AM on September 25, 2001

i've never been fingerprinted, and i want to keep it that way. NID are a bad idea because they don't do anything except allow officers, as stated above, to demand to see our "papers". someone that would execute a plan to kill a lot of people isn't going to be too worried about having the proper ID, and if he was, i'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to falsify it.

I would assume the one card could take the place of the passport, social security card, and driver's license.

isn't the licensing of drivers one of the rights reserved for the states?

What would we do with the 11 million illegals said to be here now?Send them to New Jersey?

can't. the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
posted by tolkhan at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2001

Why? Just because? Do you even need a reason? Do you think about these things, or just assume others know what is best for you?

umm, y6y6y6... he gave reasons as well as conditions he'd accept for such a situation.

While I'm nowhere near 100% for it. I'm not completely against it either. I think the bigger illusion is that we as American citizens aren't already tracked. I can't remember the last time I applied for anything be it job, bank account, tax return, et cetera when I wasn't asked for either my Driver's license (ID) or Social Security Number(might as well be called Gov't Registration number). Actually having something called an "ID Card" won't change anything but rather just remove the illusion of anonymity. There's already, in Ohio anyway, sort of a requirement to have a State ID if you don't have a Drivers license. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of middle ground between the current delusional system and random police roaming the streets saying "Papers please". I'm with pardonyou? this thread's been awful knee-jerk so far.

Oh and ...no, it would not have done anything to prevent the WTC thing but as a detached subject there is room for discussion I think.
posted by srw12 at 11:48 AM on September 25, 2001

OK, this is just my guess, and it's a dark one, but here's what I think the potential value of the cards might be.

One of the hijackers apparently told his neighbor in Florida that he didn't like the U.S., he could go anywhere and they couldn't stop him.

ID cards could change that. You could be required to present them any time you pass through an airport or train station or bus terminal, or even get gas. "Suspicious" people could be asked to present them when spotted. Eventually, we could then track the movements of people. "Suspicious" movements could be looked into. I think you get the picture.

Obviously, this would be a terrible amount of power to put in the government's hands. But it would help them hunt down terrorists. And it would have the added benefit of destroying our free society, so the terrorists wouldn't feel compelled to attack us anyway.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:50 AM on September 25, 2001

I think the bigger illusion is that we as American citizens aren't already tracked.

No, we're not. We develope histories in multiple databases, but no agency tracks that information in anything resembling a centralized way, unless we are suspected of criminal activity. Then, efforts are reactive to compile that history into a case. There's a pretty vast difference between that and a central database where ALL this information can be stored and used for purposes ...?. Knee-jerk or not, I really want the only central db of my information to be in my head.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:59 AM on September 25, 2001

Thanks, srw12. I agree -- this would not have stopped the WTC bombings. But this is a bigger issue than that, and has to do with deterring all kinds of terrorists, not just suicide bombers.

And to those who claim only Americans would have the cards, I would only approve of the system if everyone travelling into the US was required to have obtained a similar card under similar scrutiny (perhaps by going to an American consulate in their home country).
posted by pardonyou? at 12:03 PM on September 25, 2001

Perhaps we would all be better off if we dropped the illusion of privacy.
posted by revbrian at 12:10 PM on September 25, 2001

pardnyou:"I would only approve of the system if everyone travelling into the US was required to have obtained a similar card under similar scrutiny "

that would make the US the most Stalinist country in the world, as not even China requires that sort of thing.
posted by signal at 12:12 PM on September 25, 2001

These id cards are sheer idiocy, it's just another sick way that people are exploiting the tragedy that was 9/11. There is nothing to be gained here except for those that want immigrants out, well, maybe also for the counterfeiters.
posted by tiaka at 12:16 PM on September 25, 2001

This whole argument goes to the belief that if the Government has a file on everybody, nothing bad is gonna happen. Hello? It's a bit late for 1984, don't you think? Should we call the Homeland Security thingie be called MinHomeSec? Remember, peace is war.
posted by signal at 12:22 PM on September 25, 2001

There's no such thing as tamper-resistant proof of identification.
posted by kasnj at 12:25 PM on September 25, 2001

Signal -- I know the arguments in this thread have gone seven different ways, but my original point was only that I can see the point in having a legitimate ID that establishes the bearer as the person he/she claims to be, and that can be used to track no more than coming into/out of the country, and use of mass transit. My point regarding foreign travelers was that I wouldn't be in favor of the card at all unless those coming into the US from other countries had similar cards (which, quite frankly, would contain no more information than visas, but which would be much more difficult -- I might argue impossible -- to counterfiet). I think calling such a policy "Stalinist" is hyperbolic.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:33 PM on September 25, 2001

Just another card to use to break into my own house.
posted by GirlFriday at 12:37 PM on September 25, 2001

Pardonyou -- sorry for the "stalinist" cheap-shot, but have you seen US Visas? they're pretty goddamn hard to counterfeit as it is. My point is that no country - "civilized" or not - requires you to get a special ID card to travel through the country, and only the seriously paranoid ones register your movement through them. Do you really want to live in that kind of country? Would you feel safer living in China? I have lived in a military dictatorship where police could and did stop you for random searches on the street. I have crossed the street to avoid policemen at night, though I had commited no crime. I personally prefer, and feel safer, in a more open society.
posted by signal at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2001

The problem with ID cards is not just technological -- it would signal a major philosophical shift in our nation's definition of liberty.

One of our current notions of liberty is freedom of movement, which is based on a natural right --something innate to each and every human being, stemming from our possession of consciousness, curiousity and mobility. We accepted certain limits on our freedom of motion when we came to own land, when we invented a penal code and when we defined national borders.

This right to freedom of movement is the opposite of a government-granted privilege. When cars and airplanes first came on the scene, there were no requirements for licensing or testing. Eventually, as a society, we realized the need for safety and common expectations on the road, creating registration first for vehicles, and later on for individuals. We gave the state the ability to define criteria for who may drive and where. In giving up that right, we accepted back from the government the idea of driving as a privilege.

Accepting an ID card means accepting the right of the government to demand presentation of the card upon suspicion of wrongdoing -- the same way a cop is allowed to stop your car without a warrant. It also cedes to the government the ability to revoke my right to stroll down Canal Street, walk on some beach, gather with friends when and where I choose, investigate a news story or watch on TV a news story gathered by someone else.

Liberties ceded are never returned. The thought of being asked for my "papers" because my beard is long or my skin is dark, brings up memories of too many WWII movies and leaves me with a sense of dread.
posted by eptitude at 1:03 PM on September 25, 2001

pardonyou? - Again, what public interest is served by such an ID card?
posted by yesster at 1:05 PM on September 25, 2001

Okay, yesster, I did say it above, but I'll say it again: I think even limited identification of people travelling into and out of our country would be helpful to law enforcement. Consider the following (with some help from this link): (1) No agency currently has the ability to track foreigners who enter in legally, let alone illegally; (2) information on foreigners who do enter depends on them truthfully filling out an I-94 form -- in the recent attacks, the two people the FBI were looking for had indicated "Marriott Hotel, New York" as their address, but they couldn't be found at any of the city's 10 Marriotts; (3) there is no database of biometric information on foreign travelers, so no way to raise a yellow flag if they seek certain training (e.g., flight school); (4) we currently only keep a record of 10% of foreign travellers -- those that come in through Canada or Mexico do not even need visas.

To sum up, I think even my limited proposal could be very useful to law enforcement, while giving up essentially no civil liberties. Hey, maybe I'm just naive. In fact, if you can believe it, my beliefs usually align most closely with the Libertarian party! But in this case, everyone's just screaming "my privacy!" "my privacy!" without actually doing the honest work of thinking whether there's a real substantive infringement.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:55 PM on September 25, 2001

A national ID card could bring on a new era of "political profiling." Say you get pulled over for speeding and the police pull up a detailed record, entailing your spending habits, political beliefs and all sorts of information that shouldn't be available for them. They see that you expressed pacifistic views on the day of the bombing and they proceed to beat the shit out of you because they don't like what you stand for.

Certainly, having a driver's license with information about your traffic history makes all the sense in the world. But if this system works, why "fix" it? Will police barricade the entrance of a political demonstration and scan IDs, reporting the figures into the government to determine which social miscreants (possible "terrorists?") attended a demonstration every week in the last year?

The reason citizens live under a government is for the government to provide Locke's notion of security to us. But our government failed to take the appropriate security measures in airports, and this allowed 9/11 to happen.

The national ID card is a privacy-invasive solution that fails to get at the real problem, which is improving this nation's security measures on a basic, non-invasive, common sense level. If a schmuck takes anything resembling a weapon on board a plane, it should be the obligation of airports to confiscate the damned thing or have him go back to the check-in counter to turn it in. Shouldn't the Office of Homeland Security be concentrating on that?

The question here is where to draw the line and here I honestly don't have an answer. Millions of cars come into this country from Canada and the U.S. Some of these cars smuggle drugs. Some sneak in people desperately clamoring to get into this country. Will we see a crackdown on poor people who simply want to come here to experience a better life? I certainly hope not.

And yet that's precisely what would happen and what may be happening underneath the media radar in the WTC aftermath. And this would open up another philosophical can of worms that, if it were to become a very public issue, would take years to sort out. Unfortunately, how people get into this country and what they bring into this country, whether drugs or weapons, is the immediate problem. If the United States would offer a national ID card, it might be perceived as a "quick fix," but it really wouldn't fix anything. The floodgates would still be open and it would be next to impossible to keep track of all the water.
posted by ed at 2:22 PM on September 25, 2001

As I see it, the point is not legal or illegal immigration, but wether or not a national ID card is:

a) useful in preventing terrorism

b) consistent with the rights of US citizens

I.M.N.S.H.O., my answer on both counts would be no. I don't really think a National ID card would be such a totalitarian measure, per se, but if grouped together with an increase in the police's right to search somebody because the look "suspicious" according to some race-profiling system, brrrrrrrrrrrr. Mainly, I don't see any benefit to the system, and I do think it has potential for abuse.

Also, a lot of people say "it would be counterfeit proof". Why? If it's so easy to make it foolproof, why haven't they apply this magical technology to current ID systems?
posted by signal at 2:42 PM on September 25, 2001

What about the hundreds of thousand of folks (homeless, transient, illegal aliens) that currently live in the US without any sort of identification? They might have a social security number, but most don't have a driver's license or passport. How will they be accounted for? How do we actually prove who they are in the first place? And who pays for their card? What happens to the Average Joe when his card is lost or stolen? This whole scheme just has too many "what ifs" involved.
posted by Oriole Adams at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2001

New Jersey?

A 1997 Study from the Urban Institute says that New Jersey's undocumented share (of Illegal immigrants) is below the national average. However, the 2000 census suggests that there are 140,000 more than estimated, bringing the total to about 215,000.

Other Census Bureau information about New Jersey indicates a total population of 8,414,350. So, while 12 million illegals would outnumber the present residents of New Jersey by 3 to 2, It really wouldn't be too much of a burden upon the State.

New Jersey as an internment camp probably would be a lot cheaper than a national ID card. But the Sopranos just wouldn't be the same.
posted by bragadocchio at 4:10 PM on September 25, 2001

Hey, I kinda like New Jersey. Why the state is only known for the Turnpike, the Sopranos, and the IROC Camaro is beyond me. Staten Island would be much more appropriate.
posted by adampsyche at 5:28 PM on September 25, 2001

10 reasons to oppose the proposed national I.D. card.
posted by xowie at 5:39 PM on September 25, 2001

10 reasons to oppose the proposed national I.D. card.
posted by xowie at 5:39 PM on September 25, 2001

oops.
posted by xowie at 5:41 PM on September 25, 2001

adampsyche,

Don't get me wrong. My post above was a bit of self-deprecating New Jersey humor. I just spent four days in Jersey a little over a week ago, for my brother's wedding. Most of my family lives there. I grew up in New Jersey, and found it a great place to live. Frank Sinatra, Bruce Springstein, Bud Abbot, William Brennan, Stephen Crane, James Fenimore Cooper, Allen Ginsburg, Dorothy Parker, Count Basie, William Carlos Williams; were all born or lived in New Jersey. There aren't too many schools like Princeton anywhere else in the world - and its campus was a great place to play frisbee golf.

If a National ID card law gets passed, I'm planning on violating it. I refuse to carry the thing. I know a lot of folks whom I would expect the same behavior out of - and a great number of them are from New Jersey.
posted by bragadocchio at 6:18 PM on September 25, 2001

well, Y6Y6Y6 his honor-bound not to self link, but we had a great discussion about this on his site...

Right now, Americans are scared shitless... we're not thinking things through, and the Government will be playing on our fears quite a bit to get their way.

Everything those terrorists did was perfectly legal right up until they hijacked the plane... (now I understand a few suspects now have licenses to drive hazardous material trucks and crop dusters???) those ID cards wouldn't have done shit.

I have seen the light... thanks to Y6Y6Y6 (bowing down and genuflecting).
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 7:27 PM on September 25, 2001