What Is Your Opinion On I.D. Cards?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: California Considers Electronic License Plate Ads
Next: Super-drunk Super-speeder gets 10 yrs for fatal crash
From: Brent on 24 Jun 2010 09:52 On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if > you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable > suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. Foolishness. Also proof the slippery slope. You've accepted the other intrusions so you accept further incremental intrusions. Then one day you'll look around and wonder how you ended up starving in country that best resembles North Korea or waiting in a bread line in a country that best resembles the USSR. It is absurd to think that the criminal types that are most often attracted to government will restrain themselves with such power. There is no evidence to think they will. Furthermore even the non-criminal types in government are with rare exception self-interested. That is they will do what is in their best interest, not your's, not mine, not anyone else's. > If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully > detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely > different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the > conditions pertaining to detention. You haven't been paying attention. Under various anti-terror laws and pending legislation the government can grab a US citizen and send him overseas to be tortured and so forth. The difference between what is already 'law' and what is in the new legislation is simply a matter of degree and the work the government has to do. The pending stuff comes right out of those third world countries the USA was supposed to be better than. Of course all of it is a clear violation of rights.
From: Brian Wraith on 24 Jun 2010 11:13 On 6/24/2010 6:52 AM, Brent wrote: > On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith<brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > >> Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >> you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >> suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. > > Foolishness. Also proof the slippery slope. You've accepted the other > intrusions so you accept further incremental intrusions. Then one day > you'll look around and wonder how you ended up starving in country that > best resembles North Korea or waiting in a bread line in a country that > best resembles the USSR. At best this statement ignores the realities of the modern world, at worst it is pure hyperbole, > > It is absurd to think that the criminal types that are most often > attracted to government will restrain themselves with such power. There > is no evidence to think they will. Furthermore even the non-criminal > types in government are with rare exception self-interested. That is > they will do what is in their best interest, not your's, not mine, not > anyone else's. > >> If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >> detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >> different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >> conditions pertaining to detention. > > You haven't been paying attention. Under various anti-terror laws and > pending legislation the government can grab a US citizen and send him > overseas to be tortured and so forth. The difference between what is > already 'law' and what is in the new legislation is simply a matter of > degree and the work the government has to do. The pending stuff comes > right out of those third world countries the USA was supposed to be > better than. Of course all of it is a clear violation of rights. > Please provide a specific citation to the clause in any US bill which allows for "grabbing" a US Citizen and sending him overseas (unless you are talking about the draft which of course ended with the Vietnam war).
From: Lookout on 24 Jun 2010 11:37 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:14:35 -0700, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >On 6/23/2010 10:34 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:11:47 -0700, Brian Wraith >> <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 6/22/2010 12:04 PM, Brent wrote: >>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:35:01 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've been a favor of a national ID card for 30 years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or >>>>>>>> numbered. My life is my own." >>>>>> >>>>>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The government >>>>>>> knows everything about you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you support making it worse? >>>>> >>>>> It's your opinion that it would get worse. >>>> >>>> Name a police state where your papers were checked routinely to make >>>> sure you were permitted to be in that country, work there, etc is one >>>> you would like to live in. >>>> >>>>>> Seems you missed the reference, it's from "The Prisoner". Why do you >>>>>> wish to increase the imprisonment? >>>>> >>>>> That's your opinion. I disagree. >>>> >>>> How turning the USA into a full blown 'paper's please' police state not >>>> make things worse? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Name a single western country, where if you are stopped for suspicion of >>> being involved in a crime, you are not asked to positively identify >>> yourself. >>> >> >> there is a huge difference between the typical requirements to >> "identify yourself" and the current proposals that would require >> biometric ID cards tied to a national database. In the typical >> situation of needing to identify yourself you only need to verbally >> provide your real name. If you are driving and don't have your >> license with you then you might get a ticket for not having it with >> you (if you have one) or for not having a license (if you don't have >> one) when they run your name thru the system. Absent your name being >> in the database of warrants they are not going to arrest you because >> you don't have any "papers" on you. > > >There currently exist portable retina and finger print scanning devices >which can be carried in any police cruiser and tied into the national >identification database. If you don't have your ID, the police can scan >your thumbprint or your retina, right then and there and verify your >identity. So you want to raise taxes to buy one for every police car in America? I'll go along with that. > >Virtually all Police cruisers already carry computers and are tied into >law enforcement databases. How much is EACH scanner? > >Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. > >If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >conditions pertaining to detention. > > >> >> Where this country seems to be heading, and where I'm afraid people >> who hold the attitude you seem to hold are helping it head, is to >> where we will all be required to have an ID with us at all times and >> it will have to be a biometric ID tied to a combination of our finger >> prints, eyeballs and sphincter strength or some such unique and >> difficult to copy identifier and all of that will be maintained in a >> master computer system with all sorts of other info on us along with a >> RFID chip in the card that you will have to scan to enter parking >> lots, building, airports, your workplace, etc. It will start with the >> airports with every entry and exit being reported to the gvt and >> spread until your every movement is tracked by the gvt. Hell, they >> practically do that now in Chicago just with their 10,000 surveillance >> cameras. Maybe that's the kind of world you want to live in... It's >> not the kind of world I want to live in.
From: Lookout on 24 Jun 2010 11:39 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > >> Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >> you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >> suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. > >Foolishness. Also proof the slippery slope. You've accepted the other >intrusions so you accept further incremental intrusions. Then one day >you'll look around and wonder how you ended up starving in country that >best resembles North Korea or waiting in a bread line in a country that >best resembles the USSR. AHHAHHAH The sky is falling, the sky is falling! > >It is absurd to think that the criminal types that are most often >attracted to government will restrain themselves with such power. There >is no evidence to think they will. Furthermore even the non-criminal >types in government are with rare exception self-interested. That is >they will do what is in their best interest, not your's, not mine, not >anyone else's. > >> If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >> detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >> different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >> conditions pertaining to detention. > >You haven't been paying attention. Under various anti-terror laws and >pending legislation the government can grab a US citizen and send him >overseas to be tortured and so forth. Just what bush did on several occasions. >The difference between what is >already 'law' and what is in the new legislation is simply a matter of >degree and the work the government has to do. The pending stuff comes >right out of those third world countries the USA was supposed to be >better than. Of course all of it is a clear violation of rights.
From: Brian Wraith on 24 Jun 2010 12:15
On 6/24/2010 8:37 AM, Lookout wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:14:35 -0700, Brian Wraith > <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > >> On 6/23/2010 10:34 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:11:47 -0700, Brian Wraith >>> <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/22/2010 12:04 PM, Brent wrote: >>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:35:01 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've been a favor of a national ID card for 30 years. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or >>>>>>>>> numbered. My life is my own." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The government >>>>>>>> knows everything about you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you support making it worse? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's your opinion that it would get worse. >>>>> >>>>> Name a police state where your papers were checked routinely to make >>>>> sure you were permitted to be in that country, work there, etc is one >>>>> you would like to live in. >>>>> >>>>>>> Seems you missed the reference, it's from "The Prisoner". Why do you >>>>>>> wish to increase the imprisonment? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's your opinion. I disagree. >>>>> >>>>> How turning the USA into a full blown 'paper's please' police state not >>>>> make things worse? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Name a single western country, where if you are stopped for suspicion of >>>> being involved in a crime, you are not asked to positively identify >>>> yourself. >>>> >>> >>> there is a huge difference between the typical requirements to >>> "identify yourself" and the current proposals that would require >>> biometric ID cards tied to a national database. In the typical >>> situation of needing to identify yourself you only need to verbally >>> provide your real name. If you are driving and don't have your >>> license with you then you might get a ticket for not having it with >>> you (if you have one) or for not having a license (if you don't have >>> one) when they run your name thru the system. Absent your name being >>> in the database of warrants they are not going to arrest you because >>> you don't have any "papers" on you. >> >> >> There currently exist portable retina and finger print scanning devices >> which can be carried in any police cruiser and tied into the national >> identification database. If you don't have your ID, the police can scan >> your thumbprint or your retina, right then and there and verify your >> identity. > > So you want to raise taxes to buy one for every police car in America? > I'll go along with that. Nope, I advocate taking the money from Obumblers stimulus program. It would be the only good use made of the $800 Billion he has pissed away. >> >> Virtually all Police cruisers already carry computers and are tied into >> law enforcement databases. > > How much is EACH scanner? Why don't you look that up for all of us. I suspect it would barely add $100 to the cost of each fully equipped cruiser when purchased at government volume discount. >> >> Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >> you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >> suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. >> >> If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >> detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >> different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >> conditions pertaining to detention. >> >> >>> >>> Where this country seems to be heading, and where I'm afraid people >>> who hold the attitude you seem to hold are helping it head, is to >>> where we will all be required to have an ID with us at all times and >>> it will have to be a biometric ID tied to a combination of our finger >>> prints, eyeballs and sphincter strength or some such unique and >>> difficult to copy identifier and all of that will be maintained in a >>> master computer system with all sorts of other info on us along with a >>> RFID chip in the card that you will have to scan to enter parking >>> lots, building, airports, your workplace, etc. It will start with the >>> airports with every entry and exit being reported to the gvt and >>> spread until your every movement is tracked by the gvt. Hell, they >>> practically do that now in Chicago just with their 10,000 surveillance >>> cameras. Maybe that's the kind of world you want to live in... It's >>> not the kind of world I want to live in. |