US to Fingerprint British, Japanese Visitors, Other Allies

[Alcazar]

Everybody made excellent points. Especially Steve on the ID cards. I'll just give you a quick rundown on the current political situation regarding ID cards.

Based on political trends, I believe that basically every Western nation will have a national ID card system within 10 years. Certain nations are waiting for an opportune moment to announce these card plans for national IDs they have been wanting implement for years now-a domestic terrorist attack would provide more than enough political capital to get things done.

Governments just see too many benefits to not introduce them. Governments realise they have lost so much power relative to the power of the individual over the last few decades-and we are now paying the price in terms of too many unregistered individuals (illegals), the ability of people to steal identities (and their finances), and the ability of known criminals and terrorists to move between jurisdictions with ease. Governments also feel there are also too many domestic predators out there too that we would all benefit from knowing where they are and what they are up to.

Of course, people often have to carry some form of ID such as a drivers license, or maybe a passport, but governments feel they need more now. In some places, especially places like England, Australia or some other welfare state in say, Western Europe, cards will be brought in under the political auspices of a 'benefits' or 'entitlements' card, which will have to have identifying information to make sure you get your 'entitlements'. (In these places, the economic reach of the state touches basically everyone at some level).

Who is going to say 'no' to that?

On advocacy for such a scheme: I think it it would be fine if this was introduced in Australia, along with any other form of government ID system.

(I've got nothing to hide, and neither have any of the FG here, whose daily lives would not be affected in the least. I don't think you guys are criminals or are threats to the state or anyone else. And you're not likely to become so in the future-you don't have the time for starters.

This is not about political control. It is about barely noticed surveillance upon individuals known to pose a potential threat to others within the society that they live in. Just how policing works now, but with better technology as a tool.

PS: We also all live in nations where the setting up of ID systems would be regulated and watched by other independent bodies to ensure the interest of individuals is protected).

[ramchop]

PS: We also all live in nations where the setting up of ID systems would be regulated and watched by other independent bodies to ensure the interest of individuals is protected).

funny, I though a lot of us lived in Japan :P


So what would the Alcazar penalty be for being caught without an ID?

Would there need to be a reason for say a police to ask to see your ID?

Would not being white be a good enough reason?

[GomiGirl]

(I've got nothing to hide, and neither have any of the FG here, whose daily lives would not be affected in the least. I don't think you guys are criminals or are threats to the state or anyone else. And you're not likely to become so in the future-you don't have the time for starters.

It is not about having anything to hide or not.. it is about being able to choose to let people or governments or whatever into your world not for them to have automatic sovereignty over my person. That choice will be taken away. It is also about personal autonomy.

I do not want somebody else to choose how I live my life and who I am friends with. Because as soon as you have conformed, there will be more changes and you have to conform with these new ones. It is about being allowed to think and dress and behave as I like.

You have too much faith that governments are there to look after the people. I do not.

[GomiGirl]

On advocacy for such a scheme: I think it it would be fine if this was introduced in Australia, along with any other form of government ID system.

It was attempted in 1987 and failed.

Please see Proposals for identity (ID) cards have provoked public outrage and political division in several countries. In this paper Simon Davies analyses the key elements of public opposition to ID Card schemes, and profiles the massive 1987 Australian campaign against a national ID card.

Proposals for identity (ID) cards have provoked public outrage and political division in several countries. In this paper Simon Davies analyses the key elements of public opposition to ID Card schemes, and profiles the massive 1987 Australian campaign against a national ID card.

Advocates pointed out that whilst it is true that some civil law countries (Spain, France etc) have an ID card, none would have been as intrusive or dangerous as the one proposed by the Australian Government. The Australia Card would have gone much further than the mere identification purpose of ID cards in other countries. It would have created a central information register that would touch many aspects of a person's life.

There was a very real fear in the Australian community in 1987 that the fundamental balance of power was shifting. Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, observed "If there is an identity card, then people in authority will want to put it to use....What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the state over the individual".

[Alcazar]

Wot? You guys wouldn't want to submit to a DNA test either? Australian developed technology (this year) means that the most minimal of contact is needed to get a positive DNA reading from contact with a surface-eg, having worn a sock or opened a doorknob. But a DNA database is much further away still, and by no means a given.

GG, I know about the Australia card business, it was a big deal at the time. Labor wanted to bring it in and the Liberal party opposed it for political gain. But this is 2004, not 1987. In 1987, nightclubs were still called 'discos'-it was a while ago. I was in grade one.

Likewise, as you would know, the Liberal party in now in government and has subdued it's small 'l' liberal faction-it is now a Conservative party. There is now no internal political opposition to such a move. And the Australian public is much more receptive to such an idea-even more so if there is a terrorist attack.... we'll see what happens hey...

[ramchop]

In 1987, nightclubs were not called discos.

[GomiGirl]

And why would I need to take a DNA test??

(BTW I used to work with the guys in the lab that developed this test!! I also did a heap of work with the forensic dept near QEII hospital!!)

You sound as if you are hoping for a terrorist attack to get the people to see the "light" - you need some help - either that or you really need to get laid.

[GomiGirl]

In 1987, nightclubs were not called discos.

They were called niteclubs weren't they?



I used to sneak into clubs in 1987 as I was under legal drinking age and before bouncers were checking ID's. I went to a nice private girls school and we were BAD!!!

[Alcazar]

In 1987, nightclubs were not called discos.

Oh, you would know, wouldn't you woolman! Please, in NZ, people don't even have electricity yet, let alone 21st-Century Conservatism. Drop 'Uncle Helen' and get with the program!

[Alcazar]

And why would I need to take a DNA test??

No, I was just teasing you by this point!

[ramchop]

In 1987, nightclubs were not called discos.

They were called niteclubs weren't they?

'87, funnily enough I think that was the very year I first went to a nightclub (and I was a weedy little 15 yr old, f*ck knows how I got in - maybe they let me in out of pity)

I do remember going to "the pictures" rather than the movies - that might have been when Alcazar was still in nappies though.


I'll still vote for "Uncle Helen", but the polls aren't looking too shit hot at the moment.

[Caustic Saint]

Who is going to say 'no' to that?

Me. A national ID card, and the ability of any gov't agent, police officer, etc to ask for it is a bit too close to "papers please, mein Herren" for me.

This is not about political control. It is about barely noticed surveillance upon individuals known to pose a potential threat to others within the society that they live in. Just how policing works now, but with better technology as a tool.

It is about an invasion of privacy and the tracking of ordinary citizens who've done nothing wrong and should not be subjected to such surveillance.

PS: We also all live in nations where the setting up of ID systems would be regulated and watched by other independent bodies to ensure the interest of individuals is protected).

Maybe you do, but I can guarantee that any such "independent body" in the US will be a complete farce, nothing more than a puppet show put in place by the administration so they can say, "see? We're looking out for your rights."

[GomiGirl]

You sound as if you are hoping for a terrorist attack to get the people to see the "light" - you need some help - either that or you really need to get laid.

Ya know I am just teasing you!!

[Steve Bildermann]

Would there need to be a reason for say a police to ask to see your ID?

Ahhh - co-incidentally this very issue has just gone before the US Supreme court.

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html

[kamome]

Governments just see too many benefits to not introduce them. Governments realise they have lost so much power relative to the power of the individual over the last few decades-and we are now paying the price in terms of too many unregistered individuals (illegals), the ability of people to steal identities (and their finances), and the ability of known criminals and terrorists to move between jurisdictions with ease. Governments also feel there are also too many domestic predators out there too that we would all benefit from knowing where they are and what they are up to.

On advocacy for such a scheme: I think it it would be fine if this was introduced in Australia, along with any other form of government ID system.

Alcazar, you definitely don't sound like a Conservative here. Conservatives are "supposed" to believe in smaller government and less regulation of private activity. Communists were the ones who believed in regulating individuals from practicing private freedoms, restricting travel, etc. For example, I recall how no one in the Soviet Union could travel without passing through checkpoints and showing papers. I guess the same would be true of fascist regimes, so if anything, Alcazar would be equally guilty of being a Communist AND and a Fascist!

[Alcazar]

Alcazar, you definitely don't sound like a Conservative here. Conservatives are "supposed" to believe in smaller government and less regulation of private activity. Communists were the ones who believed in regulating individuals from practicing private freedoms, restricting travel, etc. For example, I recall how no one in the Soviet Union could travel without passing through checkpoints and showing papers. I guess the same would be true of fascist regimes, so if anything, Alcazar would be equally guilty of being a Communist AND and a Fascist!

I was waiting for some bright person to bring this up.

Kamome's right, all this is a contradiction/betrayal of prior Conservative values. It is a battle that is happening within Conservatism too at present-people who want to greatly expand the security size of the state, and those that say more say and scope for the state is wrong. 20 years, the idea of more power to the state would have been considered untenable within the Conservative mainstream.

(However, all Conservatives basically agree that the individual should enjoy immense economic freedoms-that ain't going to change, believe me. )

This internal battle has certainly not been concluded within Conservatism. Really, it's about to get pretty hot. As Kamome knows, Conservatism is not a monolithic bloc of opinion-it has factions within it who are grappling for control of the respective Conservative movements.

Kamome, very clever of you to notice that important point and bring it up!

[Big Booger]

Would there need to be a reason for say a police to ask to see your ID?

Ahhh - co-incidentally this very issue has just gone before the US Supreme court.

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html

A sad day indeed when you have to show your "papers" without any reasoning behind it.. I wonder what will become of this...

[Socratesabroad]

I thought I'd beg to disagree with a few of the points mentioned here.

I know that technology is moving this way and there are upsides.. but please do not be naive and think that this sort of power will be abused. I do not want the control of my life placed in the hands of somebody less intelligent than myself. Checks and balances are required.

Then you should never live in a country with an elected/appointed official or monarch.

And on a more serious note...

The fact that you see nothing wrong with this is just as spooky as the politicians getting bills to allow this passed. How much longer until we have national ID cards?

We do in the US. They are known as Social Security cards, complete with a personalized Social Security number ('I am not a number, I am a free man'). These cards can serve as a form of ID. And anyone who's ever been in the military knows that the SSN can serve as a form of ID as well.

And even before 9/11, my state of Georgia driver's license included a photo as well as my fingerprint encoded in a bar code on the back.

It is about an invasion of privacy and the tracking of ordinary citizens who've done nothing wrong and should not be subjected to such surveillance.

Fair enough. The guy minding his own business and requested to produce his ID card is, I believe, an abuse of the system. In the same way Miranda v. Arizona (of the 'You have the right to remain silent' fame) and Terry v. Ohio (Stop and frisk) cases placed checks on police power with respect to the individual, I believe that a similar case may arise for requests to produce ID cards. Perhaps Dudley's case will be the one.

It is not about having anything to hide or not.. it is about being able to choose to let people or governments or whatever into your world not for them to have automatic sovereignty over my person. That choice will be taken away. It is also about personal autonomy.

Sovereignty of the state is not 'automatic,' but an extension of the individual being granted rights as a citizen. Thus, the government can tax your personal income whether you want them to do so or not. Personal autonomy as a citizen has other limits. Driving an automobile is not a right, nor is receiving a passport. When we choose to enjoy those privileges, we must surrender certain rights.

But if you choose to do so, you can choose to not participate as a citizen and go elsewhere. Of course, you'd just be subject to another state's sovereignty, although you may not enjoy the rights of a citizen in your new home, as anyone in Japan [edit: who's an FG ] well knows...