Jump to content

Compulsory national ID cards.


Recommended Posts

One think you'll notice if this gets implemented in the UK is the drop in the acceptance of these and the extrict requirement of showing the ID card and probably a fotocopy of it depending on the burocracy.

 

One thing to note is that it acts as an ID and a driving licence, performing two functions, and hence being a lot more efficient than just an ID card.

 

 

So, isn't just stopping you and asking who you are assuming guilt?

 

Um, no. It's asking who you are. Stopping you and demanding you to produce ID is basically stating "We don't trust you to tell the truth, we think you're a criminal, and we're going to check."

 

Anyway, the "Innocent until proven guilty" is for courts of law, not the police, police deal with infractors and suspects

 

Innocent until proven guilty has to do with law, yes, but it also has to do with justice.

 

On the other hand, if it's active tracking, that would be complete mahem and true paranoia as that would actually mean keeping track of every IDs location at any given time of day. This is the one I'm saying would be impossible to have

 

AFAIK, the system would be passive, but active tracking isn't impossible. GPS beacons are getting smaller and smaller, and although nowhere near practical in terms of cost or usage, it's not impossible by any means. Still, when was the last time you knew a government to be practical? :P

I'm sure any number of active tracking systems could be put into place. Using mobile phones has been mentioned, and is very possible.

 

There's no need to enforce by law, in can be enforced via burocracy, by making you have to present the original ID with any paperwork or denying access to certain services that require you to show the ID card.

 

So you need to carry it then. That means it's compulsory. Whether by law or by bureaucracy, it's still enforced, and is still compulsory. Or, you can not carry it and get nothing (free healthcare, which everyone is entitled to, etc).

 

Additionally, the ID card main purpose when used correctly is to identify you when you can't do so yourself, like when you're unconcious for example. Think of dog-tags

 

Civilians aren't soldiers, so we don't need dog-tags. And why would treatment vary from person-to-person if found unconscious? It wouldn't. Everyone would (or should) receive exactly the same level of care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing to note is that it acts as an ID and a driving licence, performing two functions, and hence being a lot more efficient than just an ID card.

 

Driver's lincenses can be revoked due to infractions, an ID card cannot since it would deny you one of the most basic of human right's, the right of an identity.

 

Um, no. It's asking who you are. Stopping you and demanding you to produce ID is basically stating "We don't trust you to tell the truth, we think you're a criminal, and we're going to check."

 

You're presuming that the only reason for asking for an ID would be this. While it can be a posibility other options would be just protocol, something so automatic, that they would actually ask for the ID 1st rather than to ask for your name. Also, unless there's a typo, if could be faster than asking for someone "how do you spell it?" :P

 

Innocent until proven guilty has to do with law, yes, but it also has to do with justice

Police aren't justice, and the various constitutions of 1st world nations clearly state that. Police may arrest and or detain suspects, but they cannot judge nor sentence them. And if they do so, they are commiting a crime themselves. Note that I'm not refering to personal impressions that each officer might have regarding a suspect or case, but the regulations the police force are under.

 

I'm sure any number of active tracking systems could be put into place

If they focus on few targets then yes, but they cannot have constant vigil over each and every IDed citizen of the nation. So they would require a reason/suspicion for active tracking and in those cases, they already have resources for it and the ID card would have neglible benefit for them.

 

And why would treatment vary from person-to-person if found unconscious? It wouldn't. Everyone would (or should) receive exactly the same level of care

Seems I didn't explain myself. It is not meant to determine if you're entitled to basic human aid, which should be given to anyone that needs it regarless of the situation. Rather, it can help if with it they can find a relative who they can contact, find your medical history regarding alergies or other important stuff they need to know so they can determine the best course of action for you. Otherwise it would require tests that take some time. Hey, you might even get lucky and have the police take you home (yeah right :D, more like down to the local "police motel" for the night) after they find you stumbling pissed drunk in the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, no. It's asking who you are. Stopping you and demanding you to produce ID is basically stating "We don't trust you to tell the truth, we think you're a criminal, and we're going to check."

 

Full auto, it seems to me that you're taking the prospect of the police asking you to show your ID card personally. somehow you think that "please show us your ID card" = "we're sure you're guilty of something sunshine now prove us otherwise". If a shop asks for a cheque guarantee card when you pay by cheque, would you get offended and tell them they're accusing you of attempting fraud? If the guy in the computer games shop checks the game you've just traded in for scratches, do you tell him he's accusing you of trying to sell him a faulty product?

 

These people are just covering themselves, and that would be all the police are doing. They check your ID, it comes back clean. "cheerio buddy, sorry for the inconveinience, off you tod" it comes back not clean "you're nicked, book im danno"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full auto, it seems to me that you're taking the prospect of the police asking you to show your ID card personally. somehow you think that "please show us your ID card" = "we're sure you're guilty of something sunshine now prove us otherwise". If a shop asks for a cheque guarantee card when you pay by cheque, would you get offended and tell them they're accusing you of attempting fraud? If the guy in the computer games shop checks the game you've just traded in for scratches, do you tell him he's accusing you of trying to sell him a faulty product?

 

None of these people have anything to do with law enforcement. None of them can arrest you and chuck you in a cell. Justice has everything to do with law, and law enforcement. Justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done, hence juries and so on. You can't have the police accusing random people of crimes, can you? No, of course not. Yet this means the police will come up and demand an ID, they won't ask, because you saying 'no' means the cuffs go on and they haul you in. So in effect, this is stating "We're not going to ask you who you are, because we think you're a criminal and you'll lie about it." They wouldn't be 'asking' if the card was compulsory, would they? It's an assumption that you have done something wrong.

If they're arresting you, they'll find out who you are. If they're not, then they have no need to know your ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These ID cards seem just fine to me. The only flaw is that you'll have to pay for them yourself. Which I find ridiculous. (Isn't that why taxes exist?)

 

@ Fullauto: Honestly, man, I'm not seeing your logic that well. Researching Criminal Justice here in the states, I can tell you one thing. A police officer can pull you over in the road no matter what, here. He could pull you over if you're going .000004 miles over the speed limit, if you're wearing a hat the wrong way, or if he's just plain having a bad day. He cannot search you, but he must then ask for your license and registration.

 

Now, in the states, if you fail to procure your license, they DO have a computer that they can look your name up on. And if you refuse to give them your ID and name, then you can be arrested. It doesn't matter whether or not you did anything wrong. But that mere resistance is illegal.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't do that? Because of this procedure, we're able to nab twice as many drunks and stoners that are at the wheel. Side effects only include the light inconvenience of having to sit in your car for fifteen minutes while they check your license, and if you haven't done anything you can go free.

 

From what I'm seeing here, it looks like you don't just oppose the ID cards, but rather the stricter security measures already in place. Do you oppose the stopping of cars on suspicion? If not, what do you have against ID cards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These ID cards seem just fine to me. The only flaw is that you'll have to pay for them yourself. Which I find ridiculous. (Isn't that why taxes exist?)

 

@ Fullauto: Honestly, man, I'm not seeing your logic that well. Researching Criminal Justice here in the states, I can tell you one thing. A police officer can pull you over in the road no matter what, here. He could pull you over if you're going .000004 miles over the speed limit, if you're wearing a hat the wrong way, or if he's just plain having a bad day. He cannot search you, but he must then ask for your license and registration.

 

Now, in the states, if you fail to procure your license, they DO have a computer that they can look your name up on. And if you refuse to give them your ID and name, then you can be arrested. It doesn't matter whether or not you did anything wrong. But that mere resistance is illegal.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't do that? Because of this procedure, we're able to nab twice as many drunks and stoners that are at the wheel. Side effects only include the light inconvenience of having to sit in your car for fifteen minutes while they check your license, and if you haven't done anything you can go free.

 

From what I'm seeing here, it looks like you don't just oppose the ID cards, but rather the stricter security measures already in place. Do you oppose the stopping of cars on suspicion? If not, what do you have against ID cards?

 

Technically they have to have a charge of some sort to arrest for those 15 minutes if they don't want a law suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice everyone opposing me is using driving-related examples. That's not what this is.

 

Do you oppose the stopping of cars on suspicion? If not, what do you have against ID cards?

 

Stopping someone behind the wheel of a ton of metal moving in excess of 60mph is not the same as stopping someone walking down the street.

E.g. police generally don't stop drunk people walking home from the pub. Police DO stop people driving home drunk from the pub.

This isn't about driving.

A man is walking home. If the police have stopped him on suspicion of something or other, and they find that suspicion justified, they'll arrest him. If not, or if they have stopped someone for no reason other than they felt like it, they'll send the man on his way.

Why do they need to ID this man instantly? Because he's a terrorist? Do we really think a terrorist would be retarded enough to go about with an ID that would ensure his arrest? No, he'd have a nice clean one. It'd be one of the first things they took care of.

A bomb would be no use if they can't take it anywhere.

All I can think of is, why do the police need to know your name? If you're doing something illegal, surely you'll be arrested. If you're not, then they have nothing to stop you for, no reason to arrest you, and no reason to know who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E.g. police generally don't stop drunk people walking home from the pub.

 

Actually, this isn't true. If you pass by a cop, stumbling about and drunk like mad, then they will approach you and question you. I guess the difference is, that you can refuse to tell them anything, but that won't stop them at all from watching you and waiting for you to do something wrong. Isn't that the exact same thing as considering you guilty already?

 

I understand what you're saying in regards to Terrorism, and it is kinda ridiculous to force everyone to carry them. But I see no skin off my back at all if America was forced to do it. I have pockets and a wallet. A large portion of this country will never leave the house with money or something so it's not like our lifestyles are required to change to carry them.

 

Also, as mentioned already, it would help immensely in emergency medical situations. So terrorism wouldn't be the only reason, despite how much it can be considered to be a null reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have a thread called "Look Ma, I'm arguing over the Internet"

Or something.

 

 

Anyway.

 

Actually, this isn't true. If you pass by a cop, stumbling about and drunk like mad, then they will approach you and question you. I guess the difference is, that you can refuse to tell them anything, but that won't stop them at all from watching you and waiting for you to do something wrong. Isn't that the exact same thing as considering you guilty already?

 

I don't think so. In that situation, they're just waiting for you to incriminate yourself. :P What I'm attemtping to get at is the fact that no matter the situation, whether you've committed a crime or not, your ID is of secondary importance. If it's "You're nicked, chum." then they'll find out who you are anyway. If you haven't done anything, they don't need to know your name!

What difference does your name make, if you're stealing the wheels off some poor sod's car? Are the police really that desparate to know your first name and have a nice informal chat about reformation?

As for the medical emergency angle...come on, really? If the government was that fussed, they'd have whipped up a medical card. Yes, assuming it had your medical history on it, in certain situations it would be useful, but I can also see conflict when mistakes would be made (as they always are) and lawsuits break out because a card was lost and paramedics didn't look for it, or something similar. As for identifying you in a medical emergency, that's way down the list of priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have a thread called "Look Ma, I'm arguing over the Internet"

Or something

 

Naa, too many threads would end up with that name and not only at these boards. Every topic started within "The firering range" is bound to be an argumentative thread, a civilised thread that is, and so far this thread has been such.

 

Regarding your previous comparison of the driver and the pedestrian, I can't consider it valid, because simply put, you compared a situation that had a violation (driving a vehicle above the speed limit) with a non violation (walking in the street) situation. The 1st gives a reason for the officer to act, the 2nd doesn't. Now if the second would of been "running in the street knocking people over" that would be a different issue now, wouldn't it?

 

Additionally, regarding the police issue, you've only considered the extreme situations. Either they don't have a reason to arrest you, or they have reason enough for you to be arrested. What in the case you've commited a violation, let's say, public property damage. The violation is sever enough to catch the police's attention, but not enough to actually have to take you to the station, question you, fine you and jail you for some hours. With the ID card then can just send the info to HQ and you have a nice fine waiting for you in your mailbox as would only need to take the info on the card and the report it later at the station. And if you don't have the ID, then they have an agravating excuse to detain you, "You're doing something wrong and you don't have an ID with you, you're coming with us"

 

About terrorists or other criminals carrying or not the ID card, you would be suprised how easely is to forget your'e carrying it until you need it once it has been stablished as "normal", like here in spain. You carry them with you everyday without even considering "Oh, I should take my ID with me". Unless properly organized they would forget that they should leave the ID card behind to try anc complicate matters. Alternatively they could bring in Fake IDs to try and throw them off for a while, but this just actually serves to help the police find a suspect that collaborated by producing fake IDs (and probably other type of cards)

 

As for identifying you in a medical emergency, that's way down the list of priorities.

Maybe for you, but it is a main benefit from getting an ID card that I would NOT classify as down the list from the civilian point of view, maybe it is for the goverment.

 

However I must state against the reasons the goverment gives sted in A. Troll's Starting post:

 

Terrorism: Very little to no effect in preventing it as the last year's attack in Spain showed. It can help in the chaotic aftermath of a terrorist attack and investigation.

Crime: Help for petty crimes to simplify the process of issuing fines. Little to no effect with larger crimes.

Inmigration: No effect.

 

It is clear that the goverment is trying to patch into the insecurity the people are feeling around them to make them side with the ID card system, by making them believe that "The ID card will protect me from errorism. The ID card will protect me from crime. The ID card will protect me from illegal inmigration". I can say that this is a bad strategy from part of the goverment. Just ignore what the goverment says and think egocentrically "How will the ID card benefit me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding your previous comparison of the driver and the pedestrian, I can't consider it valid, because simply put, you compared a situation that had a violation (driving a vehicle above the speed limit) with a non violation (walking in the street) situation.

 

That was my point. Up 'til now, everyone had given me driving-related examples.

 

Additionally, regarding the police issue, you've only considered the extreme situations. Either they don't have a reason to arrest you, or they have reason enough for you to be arrested. What in the case you've commited a violation, let's say, public property damage. The violation is sever enough to catch the police's attention, but not enough to actually have to take you to the station, question you, fine you and jail you for some hours. With the ID card then can just send the info to HQ and you have a nice fine waiting for you in your mailbox as would only need to take the info on the card and the report it later at the station.

 

So we're getting the card to make it easier for fines to be administered? That's it?

 

Unless properly organized they would forget that they should leave the ID card behind to try anc complicate matters. Alternatively they could bring in Fake IDs to try and throw them off for a while, but this just actually serves to help the police find a suspect that collaborated by producing fake IDs (and probably other type of cards)

 

Terrorists who aren't organised aren't a threat. They'll do something stupid like blow themselves up or ask a policeman where the best place to leave a bomb would be.

 

Maybe for you, but it is a main benefit from getting an ID card that I would NOT classify as down the list from the civilian point of view, maybe it is for the goverment.

 

In a medical emergency, the top priority is to save life, right? The name, job, place of residence of the person is not important. Again, if the government are so charitably concerned with saving life, have them make a 'medical emergency' card.

 

It is clear that the goverment is trying to patch into the insecurity the people are feeling around them to make them side with the ID card system, by making them believe that "The ID card will protect me from errorism. The ID card will protect me from crime. The ID card will protect me from illegal inmigration". I can say that this is a bad strategy from part of the goverment.

 

Totally agree. People are behind the scheme because they're afraid, nothing more. The government will jump on every reason it can get, and you've got some people doing their work for them, saying that anyone who opposes the ID card must be a criminal or a terrorist. Nice way to rationally argue.

 

Full auto, it seems to me that you're taking the prospect of the police asking you to show your ID card personally

 

i dont plan on doign anything illegal.....ergo:i have no probelm with id cards

 

Perhaps those opposing, myself included, aren't evil at all, we just don't want money wasted when the current system functions well and the new system could pose restraints upon civil liberties?

Ever think of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a medical emergency, the top priority is to save life, right? The name, job, place of residence of the person is not important. Again, if the government are so charitably concerned with saving life, have them make a 'medical emergency' card.

 

What difference would it make what the card is called? I see two somewhat reasonable reasons for having an ID card.

 

But I must say... In regards to resources and the like, I don't think compulsory ID cards are profitable. The benefits exist, but they would be slim. If a more economic way to produce them were manufactured, then I would be in support of them, but currently, I can't say I do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree. People are behind the scheme because they're afraid, nothing more. The government will jump on every reason it can get, and you've got some people doing their work for them, saying that anyone who opposes the ID card must be a criminal or a terrorist. Nice way to rationally argue.

 

I have to say I'm in favour of an ID card, not because I believe it will magically stop all criminals, or dumbfound terrorists, I don't think it will. I believe an all-in-one card would be a very useful thing to have. no more "please bring a passport, birth certificate, proof of address, mothers maiden name, lock of hair, semen sample. . ." crap when you open a bank account or go for a job interview. Wont have to dig out my V5 and drivers licence next time I run over a hare and it headbutts my number plate to exact revenge.

It's just a simple piece of plastic to carry everywhere with that that will instantly say that I am who I am and that I have a right to do what I'm doing.

 

So we're getting the card to make it easier for fines to be administered? That's it?

 

That probably isn't 'just it'. But even a fairly minor use like this will free up the police form paper work and red tape, giving them more time to "go out and catch proper criminals" as many people suggest they should do.

 

As for the medical records thing, again that will be great. I have a loved one who's allergic to anaesthetic (shes allergic tro just a bout everything - but I digress). If that were stored on a record with her ID card, where paramedics can access that info quickly along with blood type, previous conditions, it can only be a good thing! If they can't find one, then the situations the same as it is now no better, no worse.

 

I have to agree with you though, fullauto, that Civil Liberties are important, and if the police start setting up Checkpoints on your nearest High Street, I'll be on the fron row waving a placard with you. But I dont think it will come to that.

 

If the Government is honest with us and tells us the good points of ID cards without resorting to blatant scaremongering I'm sure a larger majority of people would be in favour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
  • Create New...