4 ms·

The author of the article implies that he used to be proud of not having to do so because it differentiates his country from the Soviet Union. How will having

The author of the article implies that he used to be proud of not having to do so because it differentiates his country from the Soviet Union. How will having to carry ID turn a country into an authoritarian dystopia? Is it just an American thing? I ask because I live in a country with an authoritarian past and we still have to carry ID everywhere and people just don't see anything wrong with that. Should I try to persuade them otherwise?

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Requiring papers to travel means convincing your government. Not requiring papers/ID means the government can't withold them. Personal freedom, which is paramount in American public discourse.
- saint_fiasco 12y ago
  In my country everyone has a right to an ID card and not even the police can confiscate them. I agree that withholding an essential ID document is evil.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    But, do you see that checking even your ID means the police can deny travel based on who you are? The 'travel papers' are then in the government computer. No, its essential you do not even present ID to travel, for personal freedom to be ensured.
    - saint_fiasco 12y ago
      If you have a warrant for your arrest, they will detain you. Or if you are under house arrest or something. They can't stop you on mere suspicion, though. I don't mean to say "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". It's more like "if you weren't literally convicted of a crime, don't worry".
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Today. But that can change whenever some politician decides.
nine_k 12y ago
There's a difference between requiring to identify oneself and requiring to get an explicit clearance to travel. Last time I checked, air travel in the US requires a valid ID, but you're automatically allowed to travel, unless you're on some no-fly list or are a wanted criminal. (Last time I took Amtrak it did not require any authentication; I bought a ticket from a vending machine.) The US system is built with certain distrust to the government, and with a number of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming tyrannical. Hence the idea of the government having no business to know my whereabouts unless there's a good reason to suspect me of some wrongdoing. I personally don't see an excessively great trouble in anyone having my location data. Still, there are two good reasons for the government to collect as little such data as possible. First, the data may fall to wrong hands: fancy your house robbed when you're traveling? Second, it costs a lot of money to collect the data; if the data are collected "just in case", that money is wasted.
- saint_fiasco 12y ago
  In my country it's exactly the same way. You need an ID, but not an authorization. The location data is also treated the same way, for the second reason you stated. The way people feel about needing valid ID is very different, though.
CWuestefeld 12y ago
Perhaps it's a small thing, but I remember as a young boy, probably in the early 70s and the Cold War, my mother telling me about the USSR. I specifically recall her saying "over there you need to have papers to travel, so we couldn't just go visit your grandparents like we're doing today". For whatever reason, that stuck with me for 40-odd years, so the differences today really do resonate with me.
- saint_fiasco 12y ago
  I agree there is a superficial similarity, but it seems strange to focus on that little detail. What prevented people in the USSR from visiting their family wasn't the requirement of ID per se. It was the fact that the government could confiscate all your documents and basically turn you into an unperson. In my country, which had a recentish authoritarian past, the Constitution (we made a new one when we changed the form of government) says that everyone has a right to an identity, and nobody can take that away from you.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Requiring papers to travel means convincing your government. Not requiring papers/ID means the government can't withold them. Personal freedom, which is paramount in American public discourse.

saint_fiasco 12y ago
In my country everyone has a right to an ID card and not even the police can confiscate them. I agree that withholding an essential ID document is evil.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  But, do you see that checking even your ID means the police can deny travel based on who you are? The 'travel papers' are then in the government computer. No, its essential you do not even present ID to travel, for personal freedom to be ensured.
  - saint_fiasco 12y ago
    If you have a warrant for your arrest, they will detain you. Or if you are under house arrest or something. They can't stop you on mere suspicion, though. I don't mean to say "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". It's more like "if you weren't literally convicted of a crime, don't worry".
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Today. But that can change whenever some politician decides.

nine_k 12y ago

There's a difference between requiring to identify oneself and requiring to get an explicit clearance to travel. Last time I checked, air travel in the US requires a valid ID, but you're automatically allowed to travel, unless you're on some no-fly list or are a wanted criminal. (Last time I took Amtrak it did not require any authentication; I bought a ticket from a vending machine.) The US system is built with certain distrust to the government, and with a number of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming tyrannical. Hence the idea of the government having no business to know my whereabouts unless there's a good reason to suspect me of some wrongdoing. I personally don't see an excessively great trouble in anyone having my location data. Still, there are two good reasons for the government to collect as little such data as possible. First, the data may fall to wrong hands: fancy your house robbed when you're traveling? Second, it costs a lot of money to collect the data; if the data are collected "just in case", that money is wasted.

saint_fiasco 12y ago
In my country it's exactly the same way. You need an ID, but not an authorization. The location data is also treated the same way, for the second reason you stated. The way people feel about needing valid ID is very different, though.

CWuestefeld 12y ago

Perhaps it's a small thing, but I remember as a young boy, probably in the early 70s and the Cold War, my mother telling me about the USSR. I specifically recall her saying "over there you need to have papers to travel, so we couldn't just go visit your grandparents like we're doing today". For whatever reason, that stuck with me for 40-odd years, so the differences today really do resonate with me.

saint_fiasco 12y ago
I agree there is a superficial similarity, but it seems strange to focus on that little detail. What prevented people in the USSR from visiting their family wasn't the requirement of ID per se. It was the fact that the government could confiscate all your documents and basically turn you into an unperson. In my country, which had a recentish authoritarian past, the Constitution (we made a new one when we changed the form of government) says that everyone has a right to an identity, and nobody can take that away from you.