6 ms·

I don't think this kind of characterization is helpful. There are plenty of reasons to oppose state-mandated identifiers without resorting to this kind of anti

I don't think this kind of characterization is helpful. There are plenty of reasons to oppose state-mandated identifiers without resorting to this kind of anti-Christian scapegoating. Can you not imagine a single abusive use of identifiers by the government upon the people?

save_ferris 6y ago
Of course it could be abused by the government, but that can't be the only standard we use to decide on state-mandated identifiers, or really anything else for that matter, because it's not realistic to create a system that simultaneously impacts lives in a fundamental way (as IDs do) while not being susceptible to abuse. We make this tradeoff all the time as a society. This is equivalent to arguing that government mandated lockdowns could potentially be abused and used to oppress citizens, therefore we shouldn't allow the government to mandate lockdown orders, no matter how many people will die as a result. You cannot give an entity like a government power without the potential for abuse, which is why elections exist. If we don't like what government is doing, we vote them out of office.
- Press2forEN 6y ago
  That's why its essential to limit the power of government, and to make sure it doesn't creep into areas where it has no business being (like pandemic management).
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    > to make sure it doesn't creep into areas where it has no business being (like pandemic management). If it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to manage pandemics, a fundamental public health issue, then who should take that charge? Why can't we bestow responsibilities on the government and vote them out if they don't fulfill those responsibilities? What's the alternative?
  - drunkpotato 6y ago
    What business should the government be in? What is your opinion on what should happen during a pandemic, and on what do you base that opinion?
  - astura 6y ago
    If you believe that the government doesn't have business being in public health, I'm curious to know what area you believe the government has business being in.
- mindslight 6y ago
  The immediate problem isn't government abuse per se, but rather that there is no political willpower for the government to prevent abuse by private companies. The only constraint on abuse of the current identity system is people's vague worry about their identifiers being used fraudulently. If we fix the fraud problem before fixing the abuse problem, that constraint goes away.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    > The immediate problem isn't government abuse per se The Snowden leaks proved that this isn’t true. The NSA dragnet surveillance program originated from the highest levels of our military intelligence apparatus, not private companies. Sure, companies were complicit, but it’s important to remember that those orders originated from the Government, not business.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Can we please stop with this false dichotomy of government surveillance xor corporate surveillance? Arguing against one by implicitly justifying another is a losing game. They're both independent threats, while also feeding off of each other. Power always coalesces, regardless of our categorizations of it. Specifically, the other half of the subject of your comment is that there would have been no troves of data for the NSA to take from web businesses had web businesses not collected it in the first place. (And just in case it's still not abundantly clear, I'm not validating the NSA for collecting this data simply because it was sitting around!) Regarding the original topic, I said "immediate" for a reason. I don't think the bona fide government is particularly abusing citizen identification right now, regardless of what it could end up doing in the future.
      - save_ferris 6y ago
        I'm not justifying either of them, I'm pointing out that the government is just as capable of abusing citizens rights as private companies are. I still believe the government is capable of acting in a positive and responsible way, but we have be honest and forthright about their transgressions or else history repeats itself. I don't believe in perpetuating a false dichotomy here, one is not better than the other. > Specifically, the other half of the subject of your comment is that there would have been no troves of data for the NSA to take from web businesses had web businesses not collected it in the first place. This is an oversimplification as well, since NSA wasn't just collecting internet data. The initial scandal was around phone metadata collection, which was conducted at the behest of the government and had been alleged by whistleblowers for years before Snowden leaked his documents. > I don't think the bona fide government is particularly abusing citizen identification right now, regardless of what it could end up doing in the future. Part of this comes down to your political preferences and whether or not you believe that immigrants should be treating differently by government, as they have been for a few years now. There are numerous reports that stimulus checks aren't going out to immigrant families as consistently as they are for others. Profiling is very much in the conscience of this administration, and that comes back to identification.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  You were doing so well! Then you appealed to voting. Is any American happy about either of the currently proposed candidates for President? They are both confused loudmouth old men from the Northeast who grab pussies! If voting could change government, it would have done so by now.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    The lack of voting is precisely why we have the candidates we have. Others ran and polled well, but their bases didn’t show up to vote and they lost. Criticizing voting perpetuates the system that produces the candidates that you dislike. Grassroots efforts only work when people get out and vote.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      I’d argue that their bases did show up. There’s just too many people that like loudmouth pussy grabbing old men.
      - save_ferris 6y ago
        This just isn’t true. Only one state in the 2020 primaries showed increased turnout among young voters, Iowa, while big states like New Hampshire and Michigan saw sizable declines[0]. There was just no way that a candidate like Bernie Sanders was going to overcome the momentum of the DNC without huge turnout, which never materialized. If the citizens don’t vote, we’re gonna be stuck with people who’ve amassed political power and likely done some terrible stuff along the way in their personal lives. Participation is critical, and mass movements have taken hold many times in American history. The issue facing us now is figuring out how to overcome the passive entertainment that is social media and traditional media and actually participate in the political process. 0: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-young-voters-heres-how-the-numbers-have-played-out https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-youn...
        jessaustin 6y ago
arkitaip 6y ago
Tons of countries have had a national ID system for decades and they didn't become tyrannical states. Take, for example, the Scandinavian countries; they even excel at any metric of freedom and democracy there is.
jcrawfordor 6y ago
The state is already perfectly capable of tracking our identities between systems. I would view the assignment of an identifier as a method for citizens to gain a degree of control and visibility into this system, instead of the current state where it is ad-hoc, secretive, and prone to errors that government agencies are not inclined or even capable of fixing.
slg 6y ago
If the state wants to track or even kill people, I don't think the lack of a national ID card is really going to be the obstacle that stops them.
shadowgovt 6y ago
I definitely can, but lots of things can be abused by the government. I haven't seen anything in the United States receive quite as much pushback for quite so many irrational reasons as the idea of a national identifier, which a lot of nations already have. This is in the context of the social security number already serving as a de facto national identifier, because in the 21st century information age it's almost impossible to make functional systems without some way of uniquely identifying individuals.
Aeolun 6y ago
I can imagine a lot of ways it would make abusive administation easier. I cannot imagine any in which solely the ID facilitates the abuse. It’s also much harder to just dissapear an ID than it is to disappear an unconnected body.

save_ferris 6y ago

Of course it could be abused by the government, but that can't be the only standard we use to decide on state-mandated identifiers, or really anything else for that matter, because it's not realistic to create a system that simultaneously impacts lives in a fundamental way (as IDs do) while not being susceptible to abuse. We make this tradeoff all the time as a society. This is equivalent to arguing that government mandated lockdowns could potentially be abused and used to oppress citizens, therefore we shouldn't allow the government to mandate lockdown orders, no matter how many people will die as a result. You cannot give an entity like a government power without the potential for abuse, which is why elections exist. If we don't like what government is doing, we vote them out of office.

Press2forEN 6y ago
That's why its essential to limit the power of government, and to make sure it doesn't creep into areas where it has no business being (like pandemic management).
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > to make sure it doesn't creep into areas where it has no business being (like pandemic management). If it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to manage pandemics, a fundamental public health issue, then who should take that charge? Why can't we bestow responsibilities on the government and vote them out if they don't fulfill those responsibilities? What's the alternative?
- drunkpotato 6y ago
  What business should the government be in? What is your opinion on what should happen during a pandemic, and on what do you base that opinion?
- astura 6y ago
  If you believe that the government doesn't have business being in public health, I'm curious to know what area you believe the government has business being in.
mindslight 6y ago
The immediate problem isn't government abuse per se, but rather that there is no political willpower for the government to prevent abuse by private companies. The only constraint on abuse of the current identity system is people's vague worry about their identifiers being used fraudulently. If we fix the fraud problem before fixing the abuse problem, that constraint goes away.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > The immediate problem isn't government abuse per se The Snowden leaks proved that this isn’t true. The NSA dragnet surveillance program originated from the highest levels of our military intelligence apparatus, not private companies. Sure, companies were complicit, but it’s important to remember that those orders originated from the Government, not business.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Can we please stop with this false dichotomy of government surveillance xor corporate surveillance? Arguing against one by implicitly justifying another is a losing game. They're both independent threats, while also feeding off of each other. Power always coalesces, regardless of our categorizations of it. Specifically, the other half of the subject of your comment is that there would have been no troves of data for the NSA to take from web businesses had web businesses not collected it in the first place. (And just in case it's still not abundantly clear, I'm not validating the NSA for collecting this data simply because it was sitting around!) Regarding the original topic, I said "immediate" for a reason. I don't think the bona fide government is particularly abusing citizen identification right now, regardless of what it could end up doing in the future.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      I'm not justifying either of them, I'm pointing out that the government is just as capable of abusing citizens rights as private companies are. I still believe the government is capable of acting in a positive and responsible way, but we have be honest and forthright about their transgressions or else history repeats itself. I don't believe in perpetuating a false dichotomy here, one is not better than the other. > Specifically, the other half of the subject of your comment is that there would have been no troves of data for the NSA to take from web businesses had web businesses not collected it in the first place. This is an oversimplification as well, since NSA wasn't just collecting internet data. The initial scandal was around phone metadata collection, which was conducted at the behest of the government and had been alleged by whistleblowers for years before Snowden leaked his documents. > I don't think the bona fide government is particularly abusing citizen identification right now, regardless of what it could end up doing in the future. Part of this comes down to your political preferences and whether or not you believe that immigrants should be treating differently by government, as they have been for a few years now. There are numerous reports that stimulus checks aren't going out to immigrant families as consistently as they are for others. Profiling is very much in the conscience of this administration, and that comes back to identification.
jessaustin 6y ago
You were doing so well! Then you appealed to voting. Is any American happy about either of the currently proposed candidates for President? They are both confused loudmouth old men from the Northeast who grab pussies! If voting could change government, it would have done so by now.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The lack of voting is precisely why we have the candidates we have. Others ran and polled well, but their bases didn’t show up to vote and they lost. Criticizing voting perpetuates the system that produces the candidates that you dislike. Grassroots efforts only work when people get out and vote.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I’d argue that their bases did show up. There’s just too many people that like loudmouth pussy grabbing old men.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      This just isn’t true. Only one state in the 2020 primaries showed increased turnout among young voters, Iowa, while big states like New Hampshire and Michigan saw sizable declines[0]. There was just no way that a candidate like Bernie Sanders was going to overcome the momentum of the DNC without huge turnout, which never materialized. If the citizens don’t vote, we’re gonna be stuck with people who’ve amassed political power and likely done some terrible stuff along the way in their personal lives. Participation is critical, and mass movements have taken hold many times in American history. The issue facing us now is figuring out how to overcome the passive entertainment that is social media and traditional media and actually participate in the political process. 0: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-young-voters-heres-how-the-numbers-have-played-out https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-youn...
      - jessaustin 6y ago

arkitaip 6y ago

Tons of countries have had a national ID system for decades and they didn't become tyrannical states. Take, for example, the Scandinavian countries; they even excel at any metric of freedom and democracy there is.

jcrawfordor 6y ago

The state is already perfectly capable of tracking our identities between systems. I would view the assignment of an identifier as a method for citizens to gain a degree of control and visibility into this system, instead of the current state where it is ad-hoc, secretive, and prone to errors that government agencies are not inclined or even capable of fixing.

slg 6y ago

If the state wants to track or even kill people, I don't think the lack of a national ID card is really going to be the obstacle that stops them.

shadowgovt 6y ago

I definitely can, but lots of things can be abused by the government. I haven't seen anything in the United States receive quite as much pushback for quite so many irrational reasons as the idea of a national identifier, which a lot of nations already have. This is in the context of the social security number already serving as a de facto national identifier, because in the 21st century information age it's almost impossible to make functional systems without some way of uniquely identifying individuals.

Aeolun 6y ago

I can imagine a lot of ways it would make abusive administation easier. I cannot imagine any in which solely the ID facilitates the abuse. It’s also much harder to just dissapear an ID than it is to disappear an unconnected body.