Stop REAL ID!

[Osborn F Enready]

I am, and have been anti-Real ID since its inception.

I am anti-Social Security also.

[ZNFYRH]

Patrick

I said that SSNs were assigned for Federal purposes.

Then you went and showed me that their only purpose was a Federal one.

What was the point of that?

Quote by: Patrick Fine, but why are the Feds asserting their power to control every aspect of our lives? Don't they trust us? Well, I don't trust THEM (the Feds)...

Look back to where I said that Real ID was superfluous.

They already have a number for every American citizen.

Put aside your distrust of "the Feds" and stick to the simpler point... that they already have an ID for every citizen.

As such, why have Real ID also?

The need to turn this into a debate on politics is unnecessary if you keep it simple.

The gov't already has numbers for each citizen... so why have another one?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I said that SSNs were assigned for Federal purposes. Then you went and showed me that their only purpose was a Federal one. What was the point of that?

They claimed at the time passed, and for years later, and even printed it on the card that it was NOT to be used for an ID.

They lied, thats his claim, I think.

Point of fact, they did lie. Why should I trust them now?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Scribbler How about you check your attitude? Did I say that I like the gov't being around? Not every comment on here is either uber-anti-gov't or pro-gov't.

Well, my attitude, as you claim is simply that I find no substantial difference between people who like the way our government operates and those who shrug their shoulders and meekly accept what the government DOES. If you read the whole post to you, you would see I agreed with you about what the government does. I just disagree with the "whaddya gonna do" attitude your post indicated.

The government, ANY government, likes two kinds of citizen. The one who supports what they do and the one who accepts what they do.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready They claimed at the time passed, and for years later, and even printed it on the card that it was NOT to be used for an ID. They lied, thats his claim, I think. Point of fact, they did lie. Why should I trust them now?

I have my 1950s era Social Security care right in front of me. It says, and I quote:
"FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES-NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"

That was quietly changed by Congress in the 1970s, I believe. Now it's a great tool for identity theft. As it was, it was never protected and it didn't NEED to be. When they changed it to an ID card they kind of forgot to create a system whereby the number would be protected.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said: I have my 1950s era Social Security care right in front of me. It says, and I quote: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES-NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"

Thank you for bearing witness to the facts, and stating that for all to see who DIDN'T know this. I had no idea until someone showed me, which prompted me to investigate the history of S.S.

Scribbler said: That was quietly changed by Congress in the 1970s, I believe. Now it's a great tool for identity theft. As it was, it was never protected and it didn't NEED to be. When they changed it to an ID card they kind of forgot to create a system whereby the number would be protected.

I doubt the bi-partisan monopoly "forgot", and I would suspect the loss of privacy would suit their agenda just fine.

[jsmith36]

It seems to me like there are two ways to convince people that Congress shouldn't pass the REAL ID program:

First, you could show that there aren't any programs like this now, and passing something like it would have negative consequences;

OR

You could say that a program like this carries inherent negative consequences (like a violation of rights, or an invasion of privacy), and that every instance of this kind of violation should be rejected on face, regardless of the consequences.

The discussion so far (in terms of people opposing the program) using the first method has missed out on the status quo. There is a very good reason why this is important, despite the discussion of the original purpose of things like Social Security numbers. If you want to show that a program is bad, you have to prove that it, or something like it, isn't happening now. If it's happening now, we should already see all the negative consequences of it. And if it is happening now, and we are seeing the consequences of it (which is what I think some will argue), then you have to provide some threshold: if this program infringes upon our privacy, but other government programs already infringe upon our privacy, why does this "push us over the brink"? What's so unique about this program that makes it worse than SSN's, or wiretapping, or any other invasion of privacy? Does anyone really believe that this program will break the camel's back?

Otherwise, you can't really say this program is uniquely bad, because so many other programs like it exist, and there is no threshold as to why this program is UNIQUELY bad.

The other method, to say that programs like this should always be rejected, is very tough to make. If the statement is that all invasions of privacy have to be rejected, do you really mean ALL? I can understand taxes, welfare, wiretapping, and most invasions as being subjects of reasonable areas of debate.

But, for example, in order to vote, you need to be 18 years old. In order for the government to make sure that you are actually 18, they would need some sort of proof. Even if it's not an ID, you would have to allow an invasion of privacy (letting the government know you are over the age of 18). Should we reject this invasion of privacy, too?

And if we suddenly carve an exception, our justification no longer works. If we make this one exception, why not another? What basis do we use for making exceptions? Our proof is no longer reliable, and we're back to using the first method, with all of the problems outlined above.

But unless you're willing to argue that we should reject all forms of government intrusion, I don't see how you can have a stable, non-arbitrary method of deciding policy unless you say that this program is somehow uniquely bad, because it doesn't exist and would cause bad things, or it exists, we see the bad things, and this pushes us over some "brink" of unacceptable policy.

Any thoughts?

[jsmith36]

Deleted

[Osborn F Enready]

My thoughts?

Bring back objective law, and objective justice, and this won't be an issue.

Under Constitutional Law respecting the Bill of Rights, using objective reason and logic, REAL ID couldn't even pass the base requirements for being considered a "viable" option.

I have seen no valid reason for needing "REAL ID".

On a sidenote, yay for states rights, and WAY TO GO MONTANA!
American Civil Liberties Union : Montana Enacts 'Declaration of Independence' From Real ID