Identification in America: Has it Gone to Far

[OldSchoolGamer]

And Legally, there is nothing that says your friend with GTA can't be hired for jobs. It's a social issue that causes prejudice against people with any criminal record.

Legally, once someone has served their time, they have paid their debt to society and punishment should end.  Either that, or let's just start handing out life without parole for any felony conviction.  The bottom line is prospective employers should not be entitled to know a person's life story.  And that is a legal issue.

[Oniya]

Legally, once someone has served their time, they have paid their debt to society and punishment should end.  Either that, or let's just start handing out life without parole for any felony conviction.  The bottom line is prospective employers should not be entitled to know a person's life story. And that is a legal issue.

So, you'd have no problem with a child sex abuser being hired to work at a day-care?

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think the core issue here is I simply don't trust the U.S. government as it exists today.  I'm not utterly and for all time ruling out the notion of a national ID card, but I do believe there are several issues that need to be dealt with first: 

• The creeping growth of statism and corporatism needs to be pruned back.
• The Patriot Act needs to be repealed. 
• Citizens need to have opt-out rights for any corporate databases like credit reporting.
• Protections against search and seizure need to be returned back to what the Founding Fathers intended.  The CIA should not have the right to attach a GPS device to your car.  The government should not have the right to seize the assets of anyone not duly convicted of a crime. 
• Corporations are not human beings and they should not have human rights.
• I should have the right to answer "none of your business" if I am stopped by a police officer and asked what I am doing or where I am going (unless there is ample visible evidence I am doing or have just done something illegal).  I should not have to prove my innocence to avoid being taken to the police station for questioning.
• My financial dealings are none of the government's business. 
• I should not be taxed differently or otherwise penalized because I was once married or have children.

These issues may seem unrelated to national ID cards, but in reality they are very much related.  They each represent an area in which the American government (and state governments, and the corporate shadow government) have usurped the Constitutional rights of the people.  They show a pattern of the State grabbing more and more power, and comprise a track record of abuse which at least strongly implies a national ID card and the database(es) associated with it would likewise be abused by the State to trample our rights still further.

[TheGlyphstone]

And yet, employers do have a legal right to know if someone could be a threat to them, their business, or people around them.

So, you'd have no problem with a child sex abuser being hired to work at a day-care?

EDIT: Or a multiple-conviction embezzler being hired as an accountant, for a slightly less polarized example?

[OldSchoolGamer]

So, you'd have no problem with a child sex abuser being hired to work at a day-care?

In the case of sexual predators and other individuals who cannot be rehabilitated, they should not be released in the first place.

[OldSchoolGamer]

And yet, employers do have a legal right to know if someone could be a threat to them, their business, or people around them.

EDIT: Or a multiple-conviction embezzler being hired as an accountant, for a slightly less polarized example?

Accountants need a license/certification to operate.  If someone skims their employer's assets on multiple occasions, I would have no problem with part of the offender's sentence being a ban (enforced by license/certification denial) from said profession for a reasonable period of time after release.  Ditto for daycare operators (though again I would say that individuals committing sexual assault on children probably should not be released in the first place).

[TheGlyphstone]

Which is good in theory, but how would it be enforceable? If they go to get that certification, but aren't required to undergo a background check to see if they have such a condition on their record, what's left to stop them?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Which is good in theory, but how would it be enforceable? If they go to get that certification, but aren't required to undergo a background check to see if they have such a condition on their record, what's left to stop them?

Licensing and certification is a State function.  Therefore the State could check its own records and deny the certification.  The prospective employer could check the State database for certifications and see the applicant did not have one, but would not be entitled to know why.  Thus, the individual could be kept out of that profession without his privacy being compromised.

[Oniya]

But what if that person 'jumps states'?  There was a case (I'm still looking for an article on it) where a man who had no medical degree put himself out there as a doctor.  By moving from state to state, he was able to stay employed as a treating physician until he was finally exposed by missing a fatal condition in a patient - the victim was suffering from a common diabetes-related disorder that could have been treated if the 'doctor' had properly diagnosed it.  A state database by definition stops at the borders.

Found it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Barnes

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the core issue here is I simply don't trust the U.S. government as it exists today.  I'm not utterly and for all time ruling out the notion of a national ID card, but I do believe there are several issues that need to be dealt with first: 

• The creeping growth of statism and corporatism needs to be pruned back.
• The Patriot Act needs to be repealed. 
• Citizens need to have opt-out rights for any corporate databases like credit reporting.

• Protections against search and seizure need to be returned back to what the Founding Fathers intended.  The CIA should not have the right to attach a GPS device to your car.  The government should not have the right to seize the assets of anyone not duly convicted of a crime. 

[/u] 

• Corporations are not human beings and they should not have human rights.
• I should have the right to answer "none of your business" if I am stopped by a police officer and asked what I am doing or where I am going (unless there is ample visible evidence I am doing or have just done something illegal).  I should not have to prove my innocence to avoid being taken to the police station for questioning.
• My financial dealings are none of the government's business. 
• I should not be taxed differently or otherwise penalized because I was once married or have children.

These issues may seem unrelated to national ID cards, but in reality they are very much related.  They each represent an area in which the American government (and state governments, and the corporate shadow government) have usurped the Constitutional rights of the people.  They show a pattern of the State grabbing more and more power, and comprise a track record of abuse which at least strongly implies a national ID card and the database(es) associated with it would likewise be abused by the State to trample our rights still further.

The CIA doesnt' do that (domestically) that's the FBI, DEA, ATF and other federal agencies with federal jurisdiction for domestic affairs. Contrary to Covert Affairs, and other Spy shows..the CIA has ZERO jurisdiction to domestic work.

They can get their metaphorical dick slammed in the desk drawer if they are caught.

That being said, there are a LOT of intelligence and investigative agencies who are watching the current court cases making their way up the chain about about GPS tracking without warrants.  I think that it, along with some of the other datamining practices that are ongoing are going to have problems with the burden of proof.

One case that stood out is that they were tracking a man because his COUSIN was a suspect, and the man's girlfriend. Neither of whom had ANY criminal history or association beyond family with said cousin. I honestly hope the FBI gets their junk slammed in the drawer on that case. Repeatedly.

Do I want the feds listening to my phone calls, email, slapping a tracker on my car because my 2nd cousin Skip is a meth dealer (actually I haven't seen Skip in two decades).

The national ID isn't right..but hey that is why we need to SPEAK up. Support groups like the ACLU and Financial advocacy groups. Tell our congressmen/senators/officials we want. Because we got problems as it is now.

Once upon a time I could put 'relevant information' on checks and not worry that some jackass in BFE, Kansas would be trying to max out my debit card in a Target. (got a phone call last thanksgiving with that happening and I'm still fighting with Paypal over some bogus charges)

There is a problem with the current ID system in place.
-It allows Sex Offenders to vanish (with more difficulty now that the registery is in place, but there are problems with that too)
-It allows deadbeat spouses to skip out on their families. I had a friend that nearly lost track of his child because his ex, a particularly excreatable woman who ran up 120,000 bucks in debt on his exchange card because she knew she was going to leave him. It  was her PAROLE officer that called him to tell him she was getting a second ID and looked to pull a dash and fade. (I really dislike her, she's an example of why mothers shouldn't automatically get custody. What she did to his daughter is.. )
-Identity theft is an issue that needs to be addressed.. the current system DOES NOT WORK. I know of at least nine people who are working on at least 5 digit debt that isn't theirs. My own ID theft issues have crept into the 3 digit range and I know I've been lucky.. but now all my logins are different, and have something around 12 letters/symbol passwords that are unique to each account.

possible off topic rant

The system CAN work. Regardless of your personal outlook on President Obama, he's the best symbol that voter apathy can be overcome. We can retake the governement from corporate and policatical interests.

We just have to agree that not everyone will agree on things, accept that compromise between parties is a good thing and as a voting public.. pull our collective heads out of our asses. We are in one of the strongest representative democracies on the planet yet since the 1970s..we have had the WORST voting participation record of any other 'freely elected government' in the WORLD.

An estimated HALF of all eligible voters.. DO NOT register. Of that half that does.. something like only HALF of that vote on any given elections.

How many of you have written your congressman, senator, governor in the last year? At least once? or called their office? Know their outlook on issues you consider important.

I have talked to the office of Congressman Anders and Senator Rubio SEVERAL times this year. Dealing with Veteran issues, Net Neutrality.. Sen Rubio's HIDEOUS motion to castrate the FCC and other things.  I am severely disappointed with him compared to his promises.

Most of the folks I go to school with .. don't vote, don't watch their officals and don't speak up.

We're a nation of sheep. Why do you think our opinions don't count? I honestly wish we worked on a parliamentary system where coalitions were required to run the government. It would break up some of the bipartisan foolishness out there.

The hostility between the parties is counter-productive.

ID issues need to be fixed. Sticking our head in the sand and trying to roll back to the 1900s won't fix the problems we have.

[OldSchoolGamer]

But what if that person 'jumps states'?  There was a case (I'm still looking for an article on it) where a man who had no medical degree put himself out there as a doctor.  By moving from state to state, he was able to stay employed as a treating physician until he was finally exposed by missing a fatal condition in a patient - the victim was suffering from a common diabetes-related disorder that could have been treated if the 'doctor' had properly diagnosed it.  A state database by definition stops at the borders.

Found it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Barnes

There are already laws against practicing medicine without a license.  So that is the fault of the doctor's HMO or other employer, for not vetting him properly.  If an ersatz "doctor" crosses state lines, he or she does not have a license to practice medicine.  A national ID program does not change that.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are already laws against practicing medicine without a license.  So that is the fault of the doctor's HMO or other employer, for not vetting him properly.  If an ersatz "doctor" crosses state lines, he or she does not have a license to practice medicine.  A national ID program does not change that.

Does the concept of 'linked identity' not cover this? If you have an ID that is going to cross state lines.. and someone runs your pertanant info and finds out that your are in fact practicing medicine in Kalamazoo and points east at the same time you're trying to get hospital privileges here in this area?

[Iniquitous]

• I should have the right to answer "none of your business" if I am stopped by a police officer and asked what I am doing or where I am going (unless there is ample visible evidence I am doing or have just done something illegal).  I should not have to prove my innocence to avoid being taken to the police station for questioning.

I had originally decided to bow out of this topic because, much like Oniya, I was under the impression that Ruby was not looking to debate the issue but get everyone to say she was right - which is not what a debate/discussion is. However, this statement right here caught my attention.

As a daughter of a police officer, the niece of a deputy sheriff and the sister of a police officer, I can say that if you are pulled over (cops do not pull over for no reason - you have either been speeding, failing to obey traffic laws or your car is not up to legal standard (brake lights out, headlight out, tags expired, etc)) then the cop has every reason to start questioning you and you do NOT have the right to tell them 'none of your business'. The more attitude you give a police officer, the harder it will go for YOU.

The simple fact of the matter is that these are men and women who put their lives on the line to make sure that the laws are upheld and that the people are safe. I do not think it an intrusion into a citizen's private life to turn over your ID, insurance papers and answer the questions asked of you politely.

[OldSchoolGamer]

As a daughter of a police officer, the niece of a deputy sheriff and the sister of a police officer, I can say that if you are pulled over (cops do not pull over for no reason - you have either been speeding, failing to obey traffic laws or your car is not up to legal standard (brake lights out, headlight out, tags expired, etc)) then the cop has every reason to start questioning you and you do NOT have the right to tell them 'none of your business'. The more attitude you give a police officer, the harder it will go for YOU.

That part I highlighted in red is very much a matter of opinion.  I have quite a few friends of African descent who would disagree emphatically.  What's more, they have empirical evidence to back them up. 

http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/department-justice-statistics-show-clear-pattern-racial-profiling

Please understand I am not saying that the cops in your family are racist.  I don't know them.  I am simply rebutting the highlighted statement of yours...and why I think a person has the right to refuse to answer questions asked without probable cause re the line of questioning.  If I am pulled over for a busted taillight or some other minor issue, the purpose of my trip and my intended destination are none of the officer's business.  If on the other hand my vehicle is a close match of an eyewitness description of the vehicle that just pulled away from a burgled house ten minutes ago and it has a TV and other possessions in the back of it, then yes, I would say the officer is entitled to be more inquisitive.

[RubySlippers]

I want to explain although I feel the Real ID regulations are heavy handed the Federal government has a right to demand identification to their standards for Federal uses a good example air travel, international travel, entering Federal buildings and the like. My issue is with my state for not offering a non-Federal use state only ID that is allowed under the regulations by the government.

This is a violation of my state to the rights as a state citizen to access to state facilities, in-state transportation other than air travel in some cases, rights of access and voting and the right to participate in commerce (hold a job if I want want one) and the like.

I do think the two-tier system would be adequete since the Florida ID would be of no value outside of Florida, making some issues like juristiction jumping more difficult since Georgia doesn't need to accept such an ID. And as such would offer some protection but I admit would not be perfect.

I will note its overall an access to ID issue and having to use it for things like buying a mature video game which I felt was unreasonable, if I was buying a prescribed narcotic then it makes full sense to scan my card as a case I did use it for recently. So I am opting not to use it or give out my SSN unless its required by Federal or state law which is just within my rights. And am fighting with others for an addition to the state law allowing a non-Federal okay state ID and Drivers License option.

I will sue in state court on the constitutional grounds when the time comes its needed.

[RubySlippers]

And yet, employers do have a legal right to know if someone could be a threat to them, their business, or people around them.

EDIT: Or a multiple-conviction embezzler being hired as an accountant, for a slightly less polarized example?

What good then is a state ID or even Federal ID what you need is a social security number, legal name and address to do a criminal background check not the ID card which has little security value in any event.

And on the earlier topic of Identity Theft and tracking deatbeat parents its an issue but again that is more likely to be done using a standard ID which can be forged very easily over a selective use ID. Lets say you open a bank account and they decided all banks issue their own photo ID with their own biometrics and it had to be unique in a visual feature and have a computer chip and mag-strip with safety features. And you used that to access the bank and ATM's with say a custom pin and other features. Now wouldn't that be far better to prevent misuse over a state drivers license that can be forged over say 100 unique bank ID cards?

For deadbeat parents your saying it would make tracking easier but any good collection agency could track the person down for you most of the time and move on their assets etc. using the simple social security number and name. Having the ID is not a concern at some point he or she must use the SSN and it would likely have to be good or have it investigated.

Now state jumping drunk drivers again the simple solution is a national registry for that and other crimes of a felony nature, which could be part of the sentence.

Why are all three and other options a legitimate excuse to violate my rights to privacy and unreasonable demands by the state in my case if I opt not to let them scan my sensitive documents or if disadvantaged and can't get the documents to get an ID? As far as I'm concerned the only document an American should have as evidence is a Birth Certificate, even a social security card should be elective since legally it is required for a modest number of things. If you don't do those its not a necessity then is it? But I have no issue with specific use ID I have a disabled bus ridership ID with my photo and name that never expires, but they just needed a form from my medical doctor and then got it. They didn't pry to much. I think it would be best to do away with general use ID and stick to a few different ID's for ones needs a bank ID, employers ID and such on a case by case need.