US National ID Numbers

[mwfanelli]

Well, the US is gearing up for the National ID program passed by Republicans last year. So far the under-skin device is optional (only about 1000 people have already had it inserted) but we will all be assigned this number. You will need it to get a job, drive a car, board an airplane, train, bus, or boat, go to school, etc. Yeah, other countries require "papers" but the US has, in the past, stood for freedom.

What do you think about this new National ID? Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? Would you get the device implanted? Perhaps you think it's OK, or fights terrorism, or is the Mark of the Beast, something else...? Personally, I find it terrifying that the Republicans have yet again turned over so much power to the federal government. In hindsight, maybe the Union should have lost the Civil War to preserve our basic freedoms.

[Axle]

Big Brother is watching.

Revelation watchings are gonna love this.

[mwfanelli]

Revelation watchings are gonna love this.

They are already up in arms. The system being proposed matches very closely to what the Mark of the Beast is supposed to be. As there is yet another "Apocalypse Fever" going around, this gross government intrusion adds lots of fuel to the fire.

[SmartWombat]

The stupid thing is that it won't stop a damn thing.
Countries that have national identity papers still have terrorist attacks.
They still have criminals.

I was joking in the office that maybe they ought to use the chips like we use on dogs and other pets.
Then a RF 'curtain' reader over important doors and we could track who's where, when.
Yet again, America is there first, with the dumbest ideas.

[Axle]

They are already up in arms. The system being proposed matches very closely to what the Mark of the Beast is supposed to be. As there is yet another "Apocalypse Fever" going around, this gross government intrusion adds lots of fuel to the fire.

Oh yeah, I made the mark of the beast connection already. I've read revelations about three times now, and what it all boils down to is: Don't Give Up Hope, Stay Strong, Keep Watch, Keep the faith no matter what.

[Ronnoco]

Terrorism has become the blanket excuse for abusing freedom and privacy and defending the extradition of suspects to torture and the denial of human rights. Some american academics have called it the slippery road toward fascism.

There have been quite a few wrongly convicted criminals freed because of DNA and other evidence, and this is in a system with strict procedures regarding the law and rights.

Take away those procedures and make decisions lax and arbitrary, not subject to any accountability or legal restrictions and you have the possibility of even more innocent people suffering torture and the total loss of human rights because of the "suspicion" of terrorism.

The result is that Canadians and Europeans are seeing the U.S. in a much less positive light and definitely NOT as the protectors of freedom and democracy.

Ronnoco

[ken1953]

Hmmm...interesting...2 non americans have responded to this question posted by an american...and 0 americans have replied...
First of all...in the land of freedom and freedom of information...I've never heard of this...
As most know on here...I am a veteran...I thought I fought for freedom...but I'm scared that those freedoms are quickly slipping away.
We might as well add a Swastika and a Hammer and Sicle to the Stars and Stripes. The United States of America that has been fought for and paid for by so many is all but dead.
I personally would rather live with the threat of terrorism than what our current government has forced upon us. I will be so glad when Bush gets out of office. I honestly cannot believe that we Americans let this man have an extra 4 years to screw up our lives. Only good thing is, he can't run again in the next election. Just hope that Jeb doesn't decide to run. I think I would defect if that were to happen.
Finally.....HELL NO I WON'T BE TAGGED!!!!!!
Ken

[mjs1973]

I'm with Ken on this one. No tag for me either. Also like Ken, I haven't heard a word about this and I listen to public radio for about 30-40 hours per week while at work. I too will be thrilled to see W and his "yes men" cronies out of office.

I would elaborate more on my true feelings of this tyrant, but I don't want homeland insecurity officials to raid my home and take my computers like they did to that kid who posted a song on the web with anit-bush lyrics that the administration didn't like. Apparently protest songs are an act of terrorism. Good thing the OHS wasn't around during Vietnam.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I sleep a lot better at night knowing that someone can't make up a song in protest of our current administration.

[mwfanelli]

Also like Ken, I haven't heard a word about this and I listen to public radio for about 30-40 hours per week while at work. I too will be thrilled to see W and his "yes men" cronies out of office..

Republicans quietly slipped this provision into a large domestic security bill last year. Most people didn't know anything about it. The implimentation date is January 1, 2008. Now, the fuss has started as people are becoming aware of what Congress has done.

The bill is a lot more than just your ID number. All sorts of private info is to be stored as well. This is one reason why the still optional (for how long) under-skin device is being talked about.

The only way to even have a chance to stop this is to throw out all the incumbents in November. Or, perhaps, run away to Canada before the crackdown on rights makes it impossible to leave the country.

[another view]

In hindsight, maybe the Union should have lost the Civil War to preserve our basic freedoms.

I don't think I've ever seen "Civil War" and "basic freedoms" ever used in this context... Certainly hope not, anyway.

[swmdrayfan]

The result is that Canadians and Europeans are seeing the U.S. in a much less positive light and definitely NOT as the protectors of freedom and democracy.

Ronnoco

So are a lot of us Americans

[mwfanelli]

I don't think I've ever seen "Civil War" and "basic freedoms" ever used in this context... Certainly hope not, anyway.

The Civil War was not really about slavery, that was just the battle cry. The real fight, ever since the constitution was first created, was states rights. The south wanted a weak national government so the power would never stray too far from home. The north wanted a strong centralized federal government making most of the rules.

It appears to me that if states had more power to govern their own affairs, wild out-of-control federal government power in the hands of a few could not happen. Perhaps the north winning the civil war was a bad thing in the long run.

[another view]

It appears to me that if states had more power to govern their own affairs, wild out-of-control federal government power in the hands of a few could not happen. Perhaps the north winning the civil war was a bad thing in the long run.

This could be interpreted in different ways. I, for one, am glad that the "wild out-of-control federal government" stepped in to end slavery.

The Civil War and events leading up to it all happened in the days before telephone, TV, satellites and internet forums. You could probably theorize that it was more likely to find a group of like-minded people in close proximity than it is today.

Taking one example, here at PR.com we're from all over the world. It's just as easy to exchange ideas with someone in another country as it is the person sitting next to you. Back in the 1860's, it took days/weeks to get news from across the country - nowhere near as easy as it is here. On the state level, maybe they didn't see much of a problem with it (well, everybody I know is doing it!) but on a national level - a larger group - it's possible that some of these ideas were held in check.

If individual states could do as they choose, then what would stop them from putting up borders and requiring a passport? Since I live 20 miles from Wisconsin, that would be a big (unnecessary) hassle. What if my driver's license wasn't valid there, etc?

[paulnj]

It will be a cold day in hell when I get chipped ;)

We americans are ALREADY A NUMBER though....

SS#
DL#
CC#
PH#
store card #(yes your store cards track your purchases)

I am far more scared of my government than the alleged terrorists they are defending me from !!!! Sorry, but the US is a terrorist nation if we believe that afganistan is.

The whole point(in my view) of going to afganistan wasn't to get Bin Laden, but to get the Taliban out of the way. You see, getting them out made way for the natural gas line that was run through the country

We are in Iraq for a few reasons, but the one I think is the most important to our government is keeping Saddam Hussein from selling his oil on the spot market(through the UN PROGRAM). Once they removed him, the saudis, opec and the oil companies truely controlled the price. Now we will start on IRAN(you heard it here first) . We will sanction them (stop there oil production) and the Iraqi oil will be worth more

Being the big time oil company supporters we taxpayers get to pick up the $400 billion tab for all these energy market manipulations.

..... and you thought the war was on terror? We(the US government) have been pissing off the world for many years, now big brother wants to control even it's citizens.

[mwfanelli]

This could be interpreted in different ways. I, for one, am glad that the "wild out-of-control federal government" stepped in to end slavery.

The Civil War and events leading up to it all happened in the days before telephone, TV, satellites and internet forums. You could probably theorize that it was more likely to find a group of like-minded people in close proximity than it is today.

Taking one example, here at PR.com we're from all over the world. It's just as easy to exchange ideas with someone in another country as it is the person sitting next to you. Back in the 1860's, it took days/weeks to get news from across the country - nowhere near as easy as it is here. On the state level, maybe they didn't see much of a problem with it (well, everybody I know is doing it!) but on a national level - a larger group - it's possible that some of these ideas were held in check.

If individual states could do as they choose, then what would stop them from putting up borders and requiring a passport? Since I live 20 miles from Wisconsin, that would be a big (unnecessary) hassle. What if my driver's license wasn't valid there, etc?

You have some good points but... The government that the Confederacy envisioned would not have allowed passports or other border restrictions. It wasn't "states have all the power" but "federal government does federal things only." Canada works sort of like this and seems to work pretty well!

Slavery was a non-issue as the southern states were slowly eliminating it anyway as ineffective. Many southern slave owners were embarrassed but held on to spite the abolitionists. It was an issue to rally around. The southern states wanted to guide their own future, not have a handful of guys up north do it for them.

In Denver, small amounts of grass was made legal. Why should the federal government say no? The old national speed limit of 55 mph, mandating the speedometers no less, was a federal function? Assisted suicide should be determined by the loony tunes in Washington rather than the people in Oregon? Pornography is guided by "local standards" but abortion is national?

The constitution as it exists actually gives very limited power to the federal government. The constitution has been artificially expanded to give the federal government much more power than it was ever meant to have. Our lives are being run by a small number of professional politicians and the special interests that buy and sell them on eBay. This is why it is so much easier to grab and abuse power.

This is why, in recent years, I've been leaning very heavily towards the Libertarian party. Small and specific federal government the way it was meant to be.

[another view]

The government that the Confederacy envisioned would not have allowed passports or other border restrictions.

It's not like passports are really listed in the Constitution - security in those days (or even the 1860's) wasn't really the issue it is today, worldwide.

Slavery was a non-issue as the southern states were slowly eliminating it anyway as ineffective...The southern states wanted to guide their own future, not have a handful of guys up north do it for them.

But without "incentive", how long would it have taken? Generations?

This is why, in recent years, I've been leaning very heavily towards the Libertarian party. Small and specific federal government the way it was meant to be.

They certainly have their advantages. I'm afraid that politics is such a corrupt world that it may never catch on, but in a strongly Democrat-based town we did elect an independent mayor by a large margin.

[mwfanelli]

Originally Posted by mwfanelli
Slavery was a non-issue as the southern states were slowly eliminating it anyway as ineffective...The southern states wanted to guide their own future, not have a handful of guys up north do it for them.

But without "incentive", how long would it have taken? Generations?

Then again, the only reason the north even cared about slavery was so they could focus on exerting their power over states. Lincoln's abolition of slavery policy was widely ridiculed in the northern states. Without the Civil War, it would have taken much longer to get it right anyway.Good often stems from bad intentions, but we can't later rewrite the history and claim that good came from good intentions. There was politics back then as well!

[srobb]

Well, from another veteran, they will put a tug under my skin only after I am dead. I am truly ashamed of how this government is getting to be. Michael, I have been looking towards the Libertarians for quite some time. Do you happen to have a link, or know the particular bill this was attached to? I have some straight-laced Repub friends I would love to show it to.

[paulnj]

Here's the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Tx19Qp::

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5573414.html

[srobb]

Thanks, Paul. The first link does not bring up anything about a bill for me. Just some kind of search page. I have followed some links to where I have searched for bill, but I don't know the particular one to look at.

The second link works fine. I am not finding anything that mentions under the skin stuff, though.

[Sebastian]

I have not researched this, not have I heard much about it in the media, so excuse my ignorance, but how is this any different than the Social Security number that identifies each one of us? Also, as a naturalized citizen, I already have another number which I need to present when I leave or enter the country.

[srobb]

I have not researched this, not have I heard much about it in the media, so excuse my ignorance, but how is this any different than the Social Security number that identifies each one of us? Also, as a naturalized citizen, I already have another number which I need to present when I leave or enter the country.

I am still trying to look over stuff, Seb, but I think most of the furor comes from the fact that this is something that will be required for jobs, drivers license, just about everything. The question would be why. All of that requires at least the SS number anyway. There is also questions about just how much personal info will be included in these cards and the fact that some are pushing for RFID technology used on them.

[mwfanelli]

I am still trying to look over stuff, Seb, but I think most of the furor comes from the fact that this is something that will be required for jobs, drivers license, just about everything. The question would be why. All of that requires at least the SS number anyway. There is also questions about just how much personal info will be included in these cards and the fact that some are pushing for RFID technology used on them.

Although people willingly give it up, the Social Security Number is not required for anything except those situations where SS will be accessed, e.g. a job application. I have refused to give mine to schools for the ID number, check-cashing, those "general forms" you fill out that have absolutely no need for it, my drivers license, even my passport. You are not required to provide this information. The National ID will be required for everything.

The under-the-skin device is NOT part of the bill, only the National ID and the information attached to it. However, many companies have come forth with these devices and about 1000 people have already gotten them. The entire point of the NID is to insure that all information about you is available at all times to "appropriate authorities." That is an application that is just crying out for these RFID-like tags. If I implied that the bill will force you to get one in 2008, I apologize.

[mwfanelli]

UPDATE: Great Britain has agreed to impliment a similiar system. GB has been in the forefront of privacy invasion by the government with the US trying to play catch up with these draconian measures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4856074.stm

[srobb]

Even without the under the skin device and not having to have one by a certain date, just the fact that this is being thought of at all is scary.