4 ms·

We already have a central ID system: the passport. They even come in wallet-friendly card form now. The difference is it's not a forced central ID system, whi

We already have a central ID system: the passport. They even come in wallet-friendly card form now. The difference is it's not a forced central ID system, which is the primary difference between a useful tool and the foundation of a police state. "Your papers, please" was a meme before there was even the concept of memes.

sofixa 4y ago
> We already have a central ID system: the passport. They even come in wallet-friendly card form now. Passports being optional and expensive, they don't fit the same utility as a universal ID system, but you're right, they could. > The difference is it's not a forced central ID system, which is the primary difference between a useful tool and the foundation of a police state Laughable bullshit. Specific technical things, especially ones with actual utility, such as ID cards, or speeding cameras, are not "the foundation of a police state". A police state is a systemic thing, and can be achieved with low tech (Stasi) or high tech solutions (drones doing facial recognition and pattern tracking) regardless of utilities available to the general population. What you actually want is laws and systems preventing police abuses, spying without just cause, tracking en masse, etc.. Refusing utilities that have actual real life applications that are genuinely useful because they could be abused isn't preventing anything. Do you forget the Patriot Act and everything that came out of it? The US president ordering the execution of an American citizen without due trial? Guantanamo? Police abuses on a massive scale? And I'm sorry, it's ID cards that are the foundation of a police state? Your efforts are misguided and wasted. And again, the US federal government already has multiple ways of knowing everything about anyone - like with IRS records and not to mention credit reporting agencies and telecoms selling this kind of data to whoever, including government agencies. That ship has long ago sailed, why not actually make it into something useful?
- stonogo 4y ago
  As tempting as it is to ignore an argument beginning with garbage like "Laughable bullshit," you immediately contradict yourself by claiming police states are systemic problems and then arguing for a systemic change moving in that direction. You mention "spying without just cause" without addressing the fact that the ACLU considers forced national identity systems to be profound privacy issues. If you had a real counterproposal involving an achievable goal, such as legislation strengthening protections of existing national ID systems, making them cheaper or more accessible to encourage adoption, or anything at all other than a national forced ID system, it would be a more credible argument. Several states have already passed laws prohibiting compliance with such systems. It's never going to happen without decades of brutal legal battles in a country that can barely pass a budget from year to year. In other words, the "laughable bullshit" is in fact the default policy and people with your convictions are going to have to be much more convincing of the utility you claim it will bring, which is arguable at best. You say my efforts are wasted, but I don't recall having made any, and here we are with no national ID, and a strong bipartisan opposition to the idea. I'm not going to bother with the breathless whataboutism, because it's completely irrelevant. The plain fact is that citizens on average don't need to identify themselves to the federal government that often, and those who do already have avenues through which to do it. That's a lot of inertia, and your arguments have so far been insufficiently compelling to overcome it. I remain confident that these conditions will persist.

sofixa 4y ago

> We already have a central ID system: the passport. They even come in wallet-friendly card form now. Passports being optional and expensive, they don't fit the same utility as a universal ID system, but you're right, they could. > The difference is it's not a forced central ID system, which is the primary difference between a useful tool and the foundation of a police state Laughable bullshit. Specific technical things, especially ones with actual utility, such as ID cards, or speeding cameras, are not "the foundation of a police state". A police state is a systemic thing, and can be achieved with low tech (Stasi) or high tech solutions (drones doing facial recognition and pattern tracking) regardless of utilities available to the general population. What you actually want is laws and systems preventing police abuses, spying without just cause, tracking en masse, etc.. Refusing utilities that have actual real life applications that are genuinely useful because they could be abused isn't preventing anything. Do you forget the Patriot Act and everything that came out of it? The US president ordering the execution of an American citizen without due trial? Guantanamo? Police abuses on a massive scale? And I'm sorry, it's ID cards that are the foundation of a police state? Your efforts are misguided and wasted. And again, the US federal government already has multiple ways of knowing everything about anyone - like with IRS records and not to mention credit reporting agencies and telecoms selling this kind of data to whoever, including government agencies. That ship has long ago sailed, why not actually make it into something useful?

stonogo 4y ago
As tempting as it is to ignore an argument beginning with garbage like "Laughable bullshit," you immediately contradict yourself by claiming police states are systemic problems and then arguing for a systemic change moving in that direction. You mention "spying without just cause" without addressing the fact that the ACLU considers forced national identity systems to be profound privacy issues. If you had a real counterproposal involving an achievable goal, such as legislation strengthening protections of existing national ID systems, making them cheaper or more accessible to encourage adoption, or anything at all other than a national forced ID system, it would be a more credible argument. Several states have already passed laws prohibiting compliance with such systems. It's never going to happen without decades of brutal legal battles in a country that can barely pass a budget from year to year. In other words, the "laughable bullshit" is in fact the default policy and people with your convictions are going to have to be much more convincing of the utility you claim it will bring, which is arguable at best. You say my efforts are wasted, but I don't recall having made any, and here we are with no national ID, and a strong bipartisan opposition to the idea. I'm not going to bother with the breathless whataboutism, because it's completely irrelevant. The plain fact is that citizens on average don't need to identify themselves to the federal government that often, and those who do already have avenues through which to do it. That's a lot of inertia, and your arguments have so far been insufficiently compelling to overcome it. I remain confident that these conditions will persist.