6 ms·

Why is it horrid? I am genuinely asking. As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot

Why is it horrid? I am genuinely asking. As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot of reasons, like when opening bank accounts, interacting with the state, etc. But without a national id card, this can become complicated, and these countries often use a lot of defacto ids "replacements" like birth certificates, driver's licenses and so on, which increases the bureaucracy for citizens/customers and potential for fraud. So while I see a lot of pros about national ids, what's the "horrid" drawback of ids? (I am from a country with national id, Germany)

Freak_NL 5y ago
It means legally speaking you can't even go for a run or to a supermarket without one. Of course, it turns out you absolutely can if you're not 'suspicious'. A colleague of mine is short, bald, and wears a keffiyeh. He gets stopped for identity checks from time to time. I am never stopped (obviously, this does give away my skin colour and the fact that I have an unassuming or conformist appearance).
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  As a step to combat racial profiling the police here in Oslo, capital of Norway, will likely soon[1] have to give a receipt[2] if they randomly stop you on the streets, documenting who was searched, by whom and the reason for the search. While I can see some of the objections, it seems reasonable that a temporary restriction of freedom like that gets documented. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/har-startet-kartlegging-for-a-vurdere-omstridt-kvitteringsordning-1.15674410 https://www.nrk.no/norge/har-startet-kartlegging-for-a-vurde... [2]: https://www.vl.no/nyheter/2021/12/03/oslo-tester-ny-metode-mot-etnisk-profilering-kvittering-nar-politiet-stopper-deg/ https://www.vl.no/nyheter/2021/12/03/oslo-tester-ny-metode-m...
  - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
    > While I can see some of the objections, it seems reasonable that a temporary restriction of freedom like that gets documented. Any temporary restriction will become permanent. They always tell people it is going to be "temporary" and "there will be protections put in place". All it does is normalise such restrictions and then when anyone objects to people will say "Well it been in place now for a while, it is normal, most people are fine with it, you must have something to hide". The same thing is done time and time again and nobody becomes any the wiser.
    - magicalhippo 5y ago
      I meant temporary in the sense that police stopping you and asking for your ID is, for people with an ID, a temporary restriction of freedom. You can't just go saying you'll miss the bus. As such I think it's good that the police have to leave a paper trail.
      - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
        Yeah I misunderstood what you said.
throwaway22032 5y ago
As a UK citizen, I'd rather that we didn't need a universal ID for those things. If we assume that driving licences are a sane system for safety reasons, I'd prefer a system in which I can show that I am the person that took the driving test, but not that this is the same person that lives at 74 Fake Street or that has bank account number XYZ. So basically, I'd rather it be rowed back. Why would I want to be required to carry identification when wandering about outside? What possible benefit could that afford me? From my perspective it's a pure negative, I generally try to avoid things that fall into that category. Generally I'd say "less information if at all necessary". There are obviously situations in which people need to be identified. If I use my car to smash into someone and then do a runner, and so the police need to find me to punish me, I want that to be a process that's governed by controls e.g. they can run the licence plate and find out it's my car, but only when they have real reason to do so and not just because road tax receipts will increase by a marginal amount if we blanket all of the roads in automated cameras and send fines to everyone.
pc86 5y ago
It's not really complicated, at least in the US. Nearly everyone has a driver's license, which is accepted as ID in all but the strictest scenarios. If you don't have a driver's license, every state offers a non-driver ID which looks nearly identical. I suppose where it might get complicated is some states require you to identify yourself to a police officer when asked, some do but only when there's articulable suspicion, and some don't require you to ID yourself unless/until you're actually arrested. Even some states that require you to ID yourself when asked, without any suspicion of a crime, allow you to just give your info (name, dob, probably social) if you don't have the physical ID on you. But I think that falls into "knowing the laws of the jurisdiction you're in" more than any complications around a national ID process. The US at least just doesn't need a national ID for anything. Nearly everyone has a birth certificate and social security or other federal ID number. Those who don't would likely not have a national ID in any such system either. Anything achieved by a national ID can be achieved by current documentation.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >Nearly everyone has a driver's license I remember hearing a lot about new "voter id" laws, and how they are supposedly meant to suppress the vote of poorer minorities, who often do not possess a driver's license (or a car) - especially affecting the older generations of poor minority people most likely to vote.
  - mcv 5y ago
    I think all sorts of id laws, whether for voting or other purposes, puts a requirement on the government to ensure that everybody has as few obstacles as possible to getting an id. From what I understand, many states with voter id laws didn't do that, and in some cases only accepted forms of id that poor or black voters were less likely to have.
    - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
      >From what I understand, many states with voter id laws didn't do that, and in some cases only accepted forms of id that poor or black voters were less likely to have. When I was earning minimum wage when stacking shelves I managed to sort out an ID fine. This idea that Black people or poor people can't get ID is just the bigotry of low expectations. I personally think it is extremely racist to assume that Black people aren't capable of filling out the required forms for Identification or being able to front the cost of an ID.
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
> As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot of reasons, like when opening bank accounts, interacting with the state, etc. But without a national id card, this can become complicated, and these countries often use a lot of defacto ids "replacements" like birth certificates, driver's licenses and so on, which increases the bureaucracy for citizens/customers and potential for fraud. There is a big difference between having it being compulsory to carry identification and being required to show identification when my identification need to be verified. When I am buying my lunch. I don't need to verify who I am. If I am going to the bank they need to verify who I am. > So while I see a lot of pros about national ids, what's the "horrid" drawback of ids? Because I shouldn't need be required to carry a piece of paper/plastic card to go outside of my house. The idea of it is bonkers if you are in the UK. If the identification isn't compulsory and is voluntary I have no problem with them. However from what I understand many places in Europe they are compulsory.

Freak_NL 5y ago

It means legally speaking you can't even go for a run or to a supermarket without one. Of course, it turns out you absolutely can if you're not 'suspicious'. A colleague of mine is short, bald, and wears a keffiyeh. He gets stopped for identity checks from time to time. I am never stopped (obviously, this does give away my skin colour and the fact that I have an unassuming or conformist appearance).

magicalhippo 5y ago
As a step to combat racial profiling the police here in Oslo, capital of Norway, will likely soon[1] have to give a receipt[2] if they randomly stop you on the streets, documenting who was searched, by whom and the reason for the search. While I can see some of the objections, it seems reasonable that a temporary restriction of freedom like that gets documented. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/har-startet-kartlegging-for-a-vurdere-omstridt-kvitteringsordning-1.15674410 https://www.nrk.no/norge/har-startet-kartlegging-for-a-vurde... [2]: https://www.vl.no/nyheter/2021/12/03/oslo-tester-ny-metode-mot-etnisk-profilering-kvittering-nar-politiet-stopper-deg/ https://www.vl.no/nyheter/2021/12/03/oslo-tester-ny-metode-m...
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  > While I can see some of the objections, it seems reasonable that a temporary restriction of freedom like that gets documented. Any temporary restriction will become permanent. They always tell people it is going to be "temporary" and "there will be protections put in place". All it does is normalise such restrictions and then when anyone objects to people will say "Well it been in place now for a while, it is normal, most people are fine with it, you must have something to hide". The same thing is done time and time again and nobody becomes any the wiser.
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
    I meant temporary in the sense that police stopping you and asking for your ID is, for people with an ID, a temporary restriction of freedom. You can't just go saying you'll miss the bus. As such I think it's good that the police have to leave a paper trail.
    - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
      Yeah I misunderstood what you said.

throwaway22032 5y ago

As a UK citizen, I'd rather that we didn't need a universal ID for those things. If we assume that driving licences are a sane system for safety reasons, I'd prefer a system in which I can show that I am the person that took the driving test, but not that this is the same person that lives at 74 Fake Street or that has bank account number XYZ. So basically, I'd rather it be rowed back. Why would I want to be required to carry identification when wandering about outside? What possible benefit could that afford me? From my perspective it's a pure negative, I generally try to avoid things that fall into that category. Generally I'd say "less information if at all necessary". There are obviously situations in which people need to be identified. If I use my car to smash into someone and then do a runner, and so the police need to find me to punish me, I want that to be a process that's governed by controls e.g. they can run the licence plate and find out it's my car, but only when they have real reason to do so and not just because road tax receipts will increase by a marginal amount if we blanket all of the roads in automated cameras and send fines to everyone.

pc86 5y ago

It's not really complicated, at least in the US. Nearly everyone has a driver's license, which is accepted as ID in all but the strictest scenarios. If you don't have a driver's license, every state offers a non-driver ID which looks nearly identical. I suppose where it might get complicated is some states require you to identify yourself to a police officer when asked, some do but only when there's articulable suspicion, and some don't require you to ID yourself unless/until you're actually arrested. Even some states that require you to ID yourself when asked, without any suspicion of a crime, allow you to just give your info (name, dob, probably social) if you don't have the physical ID on you. But I think that falls into "knowing the laws of the jurisdiction you're in" more than any complications around a national ID process. The US at least just doesn't need a national ID for anything. Nearly everyone has a birth certificate and social security or other federal ID number. Those who don't would likely not have a national ID in any such system either. Anything achieved by a national ID can be achieved by current documentation.

rndgermandude 5y ago
>Nearly everyone has a driver's license I remember hearing a lot about new "voter id" laws, and how they are supposedly meant to suppress the vote of poorer minorities, who often do not possess a driver's license (or a car) - especially affecting the older generations of poor minority people most likely to vote.
- mcv 5y ago
  I think all sorts of id laws, whether for voting or other purposes, puts a requirement on the government to ensure that everybody has as few obstacles as possible to getting an id. From what I understand, many states with voter id laws didn't do that, and in some cases only accepted forms of id that poor or black voters were less likely to have.
  - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
    >From what I understand, many states with voter id laws didn't do that, and in some cases only accepted forms of id that poor or black voters were less likely to have. When I was earning minimum wage when stacking shelves I managed to sort out an ID fine. This idea that Black people or poor people can't get ID is just the bigotry of low expectations. I personally think it is extremely racist to assume that Black people aren't capable of filling out the required forms for Identification or being able to front the cost of an ID.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago

> As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot of reasons, like when opening bank accounts, interacting with the state, etc. But without a national id card, this can become complicated, and these countries often use a lot of defacto ids "replacements" like birth certificates, driver's licenses and so on, which increases the bureaucracy for citizens/customers and potential for fraud. There is a big difference between having it being compulsory to carry identification and being required to show identification when my identification need to be verified. When I am buying my lunch. I don't need to verify who I am. If I am going to the bank they need to verify who I am. > So while I see a lot of pros about national ids, what's the "horrid" drawback of ids? Because I shouldn't need be required to carry a piece of paper/plastic card to go outside of my house. The idea of it is bonkers if you are in the UK. If the identification isn't compulsory and is voluntary I have no problem with them. However from what I understand many places in Europe they are compulsory.