Centerfield

http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html

The biggest reason I'm against it is that, by centralizing, it would lower the threshold for ID hacking and abuse; since, currently, the price for ID info from drivers' license workers seems to be well below $5 a name, that prospect is rather frightening. Right now you have to corrupt several bureaucracies to get or set all information about a particular name.

Yeah, I saw this picked up by the Glober earlier this week and meant to link it but never got around to it.

I think you're on target in saying that both business special interests don't like the idea because of the labor angle, and minorioty special interests hate it due to the immigration angle.

Personally, I'm for it. And one of my strongest reasons for supporting it (or maybe even the strongest) is the "cat's out of the bag" angle. Let's face it. Consider whether your are an adult with any of the following things
• a regular paycheck
• health insurance
• a bank account
• email
• one or more credit cards
• a credit rating
• a driver's license
• a mortgage
• magazine subscriptions
• a building pass

I have to wonder why anybody with any number of these things would waste their time pretending they can be anonymous, that any number of private entities can't or haven't already built a profile of us, who we are, what we do, what we like, how we vote, where we live, what we drive, what we buy, where we work.

if anything, a national identity card, if properly adminstered, could serve as protection. ID theft/hacking/abuse is a problem, but I don't see a national ID card as exacerbating this. If anything, a drive for national ID should be accompanied by some sort of strong effort to give Americans much better ID security than we have now.

I read Schneier's essay, and I find it unconvincing. I think his last paragraph shows where he's at

That's why, when someone asks me to rate the security of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can't give an answer. It doesn't even belong on a scale.

In other words, he's so much against it that he hasn't bother to think it through, and consider ways that it could be made workable.

First of all, there should be no requirement that people carry the ID card at all times. It should only be used for certain specific identification needs, such as airport security or job applications or, possibly, operating a motor vehicle. But if you're just walking down street, you should not be required to have it on you.

Second, a comprehensive system would, I believe, avoid some of the problems he's talking about. Right now, anyone can pop up and get driver's liscences in all 50 states. They can register to vote in multiple places. Paper documents can be used repeatedly. If there were a national ID, citizens could not simply materialize out of nowhere. Of course, in the initial rollout period of the ID, some people could create multiple identities. But once it was a mature system, inflow would have to be justified through birth, immigration or visa.

When Social Security was rolled out, many in Congress protested that the Social Security Number would turn into a national ID number. Their argument was rebuffed with promises to tightly regulate the use of Social Security Numbers for non-SSA purposes. Indeed, federal statute requires government agencies to provide a reason on any form demanding the SSN. That doesn't stop virtually every government agency, federal, state, and local, from requiring the SSN on almost every form. That doesn't stop the private sector from requiring the SSN for almost any commercial transaction involving credit. The SSN was created for one specific purpose--tracking income and SS contributions in order to provide SS benefits at retirement; look at what we put up with now.

Anyone who thinks that a national ID card wouldn't suffer from similar overuse by government agencies and the private sector isn't considering the issue realistically. Therefore, I reject the proposition that, once created, the national ID card wouldn't be overused.

That having been said, I still haven't decided where I stand on creating the card. But to suggest that one who hasn't reconciled himself to a position on the issue hasn't thought it out, or is prejudiced against it, is inaccurate.

Your idea is thoughtful, articulate, and desperately in need of implementation. In a country struggling to avoid becoming a polyglot boarding house, any precaution against illegal immigrants working our system should be taken.

I am a moderate Republican. I do not to shut down the borders. I recognize that immigration is a beautiful part of our society. However, that immigration must be legal and it must be under the guise of certain restrictions.

For example, on Thursday, CNN reported that there was a woman that whom, under new New York City laws, was going to lose her driver's liscense and thus the right to drive her children to school. Sounds like a sad story doesn't it? It completely is, until you realize that the women obtained her driver's liscense via a false social security number.

Your point about the voter registration being wasted time that could be put to better use is valid. In one swift and binding swoop, we can shut up all of the Jesse Jacksons and John Conyers. You could simply show a card, walk into the booth, vote, and voila. Instead, we cringe over civil liberties.

Now, civil liberties are great. They should never be taken for gratned. Personally, I am a big fan of them. However, they can only go so far. In a time when Americans are struggling with their national identity. In a time when 47 million Americans say that they speak no English at all... it is time we band together and take back the rights that we as born or naturalized citizens have earned.

Your argument is perfect. I agree with it wholeheartedly and I would cheer for its implementation. However, with no one willing to offend ethnic voters, I dont expect it to see it in focus. Bravo for your effort.

On a personal note, please visit the home of my organization Republicans and Democrats for Positive and Issue Oriented Politics. We have launched our Revolution ’06 campaign, so please feel free to visit, sign up, read stories, from 150 newspapers daily, and correspond on our blog as well.

Our one major ally in the world, the United Kingdom, is very close to adopting a national ID. Here is info on their plan.

I would distinguish between visual inspection of the ID, and secure use through a database transaction. Yes, it would immediately be "overused" through visual inspection of the ID just about everywhere. ID's could be forged through traditional means, though I would expect them to use holograms or whatever the latest technology is to make it a bit harder to forge.

The secure use of the ID is what I'm more interested in. The ID would come with a magstrip or smart chip, which would allow card readers to query a database. The government could control what organizations can query the database, and what information they would receive. Employers could query the database before hiring someone. They would have to supply their employer ID in order to do so. That query would be recorded in the individual's audit trail. If I inspected my personal record, and found that a company I'd never applied to had made a citizenship query about me, I could initiate a complaint.

Airport security could also use the secure database. In my view, bars and restaurants should not be allowed to query the database. Finding out whether a person is of drinking age is not that critical. They would have to rely on visual inspection.

Voter registration could query the database. Individuals would thus be prevented from registering and voting in more than one location in one election. I'm not sure whether the database would contain the individuals home address. Perhaps it would not. If so, it might not be possible for the voter registrar to determine whether the individual really resided in the district, but they would be assured that they could not vote elsewhere.

There are a lot of things that would have to be figured out with a National ID. But we should start thinking about it, rather than simply dismissing it pre-emptively. I see the opposition from libertarians of the left, like the ACLU, and libertarians of the right, like the Cato Institute, as being rights-based, and not based on a cost-benefit analysis.