Personal ID's, how is it in your country?

[Kuciwalker]

otherwise going out of business would be very strange

People declare bankruptcy.

And how come, if me and my friends decide to pool our money, we suddenly aren't free to devote said money to political expression? I guess we might as well get rid of all those advocacy groups...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And how come, if me and my friends decide to pool our money, we suddenly aren't free to devote said money to political expression? I guess we might as well get rid of all those advocacy groups...

You mean Democrats and Republicans? I agree.

[VetLegion]

Interesting, beside me, only three people need to provide fingerprints when getting the ID issued.

In the majority of the world, it seems, police don't have a database of fingerprints of the entire population, and they still manage to preserve law and order and solve crimes.

Interesting, interesting...

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

-personal IDs issued by the government exist in my country
-I have to provide a picture
-I have to provide fingerprints (at least in the old ID card, don't know about the new one)
-I have to carry it with me wherever I go
-There are authorised persons to whom I HAVE to show it if they ask (only Carabineros if they ask me, which only happens when you run over (sp?) a red light or something)

[VetLegion]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

Enough people voted for purposes of my survey.

It seems I'm not the only one living in a police state

It seems only half of personal IDs are compulsory

It seems that trend in the world is toward less freedin, not more

[GePap]

In Panama there is a thing called the Cedula, which is an ID given to all adults- its given by the Board of Elections-everyone gets it, and its the standard proof of both identity and age (to get into clubs, drink, so forth).

I have no problem with even compulsory ID's- just leave it in your wallet or purse, its not really a hastle at all.

BUt such cards can be abused, depending on the nature of the regime: in Rwanda the Hutu militia knew whom to kill by asking people for their ID's, which had ethnic identity on it.

[Traianvs]

Like my fellow countrymen, I too think a personal ID is no big deal.
What Gepap and others have said is true, it's not the fact of having an ID card that could be bothersome, it's the nature of the regime in that particular country that could cause problems.

The Netherlands is going through a fase of hysteria as far as I can see from over here, and then ID cards could get dangerous indeed as Locutus has pointed out.

On the contrary though in a moderate state like ours it's actually awfully handy to have a legal ID. With it you can show to any official institution who you are and those institutions, or shops, banks and whatever can't be fooled by giving up some fake indentification. I too wonder how people without an ID indentify themselves. For example, I don't drive a car... how on earth could I identify myself to others? I wouldn't be able to prove that I'm me!

Besides, nobody can ask for an ID just like that plus it's handy to simply carry it along in a wallet.
IDs are great, we should support it

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by molly bloom


It has long been a tradition in this country that your identity is your own business, not the state's, the monarch's nor the police's, and that they have to provide a reason for enquiring after your identity.

Any forms of identity that you HAVE to carry are linked with things such as entering restricted areas (private businesses, some government buildings, army bases).

If I am a law abiding citizen, going about my lawful business, the state can go and f**k itself frankly, before it demands to know who I am with no just cause.

Its the same in Australia - of course elements of the government would love all citizens to have an ID card but the benefits, preventing tax evasion etc., are overstated.

[Spiffor]

I have to carry an ID at all times.
I don't know if the lack thereof is a punishable offense, but it would certainly be a lot of hassle, should the cops ask me for one.
I have to show it to the cops if they ask me
I have to provide a pic (duh)
I have to provide my fingerprints (and this is something new)

While it is indeed not Orwellian, I hate it. I especially hate the idea of providing my fingerprints, as well as the idea that the police can do random checks.

Not that I have often een controlled, mind you. I don't know if the policemen are instructed to, or if they are inherently racist, but they seem never to check the IDs of white people. Whenever the police approaches some group of (foreign-origin, presumably dangerous ) teenagers, the always check the IDs if they can't find anything else. The IDs of the non-whites, that is

Very often, when I cross the German border, there are German cops who control the IDs. They only check the IDs of brown people. I have been checked a grand total of two times in my life, including once where they couldn't see my skin colour, because of my sleeping position.

Same idea for my rother: the only time he was checked in France (randomly, of course) was when he came back from vacations with a strong tan, and looked like a brown person

[Alexander's Horse]

ID cards were originally introduced into many parts of Europe by the nazis during WWII. Governments kept the ID system going after the war.

Still feel like defending them?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
ID cards were originally introduced into many parts of Europe by the nazis during WWII. Governments kept the ID system going after the war.

Still feel like defending them?

As much as I dislike some parts of the mandatory IDing, this is a non-argument.

The nazis built highways. The nazis had one of the most ambitious ecological policy ever. The nazis restored economic stability and employment. Since these policies have been held by the nazis, it proves those are horrible policies we should shun for the rest of time

[KrazyHorse]

CANADA: You are not required to get any sort of identification card at any point in your life.

If you want to work, you need a social insurance number (no picture)

If you want to drive you need to get a driver's license (picture)

If you want the free government health care (which you do) then you need a Medicare card (picture)

If you want to travel outside of a select group of foreign countries then you need a passport (picture)

US where I currently reside): same system as above (minus the Medicare bit as they hate it when poor people can afford going to the doctor's). For me, however, as I am a visiting student I must theoretically carry my passport and attached I-94 form with me everywhere I go and present it upon request. I must also keep the US government informed of my current residence at all times. The fact is that I don't carry my passport with me anywhere. It stays safely in my house. If somebody wants to see it they can let me go get it there or not. Their business.

[Kassiopeia]

Hmm, looks like Finland's system is pretty much identical to Canada's - I will have to correct myself and Pekka in the sense that the SS number is mandatory, but the "card" we've talked about is the health insurance card, which I guess isn't mandatory (but you'd be silly not to get one), but the Finnish card does not necessarily have a picture.

[Agathon]

Anything proposed by that scum-sucking bastard Blair should be abandoned and he should be shot.

The man is single-handedly wrecking the Labour Party for good.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Flandrien


Why ?

What's the difference with being asked for your driver's license and being asked for your personal ID ?

From 'The Guardian' 17th December 2004:

" To be anonymous, to go privately, to move residence without telling the authorities is a fundamental liberty which is about to be taken from us. People may not choose to exercise this entitlement to privacy, or see the point of it, but once it's gone and a vast database is built, eventually to be accessed by every tentacle of the government machine, we will never be able to claw it back. We are about to surrender a right which is precious, rare even in western democracies, and profoundly emblematic of our culture and civilisation. And what for? The government advances arguments of necessity, raising the threats of terrorism, organised crime, benefit fraud and illegal immigration.

It is obvious that the members of criminal gangs will not be deterred by having to apply for identity cards, just as they are not by the need to have a passport. The possession of a legitimate national ID card does not of itself magically prevent criminal intent. It doesn't in mafia and Camorra strongholds of Italy, so why should it here?

Benefit fraud may be reduced a little, but most cases involve people making false claims about their circumstances, not their identity. A national registration scheme will do nothing to put off those bent on coming here, as has been discovered in France, Spain and Italy, which of course all have identity card schemes.

The first claim about countering the terrorist threat is, of course, baloney. Even at the height of the IRA campaign no one suggested that identity cards would defeat the active units here, or in Northern Ireland. Al-Qaida will not be unduly troubled by an identity card. The Spanish card did not prevent the Madrid train bombs; the German card didn't impede the Hamburg cell; and the Italian card didn't limit the activities of al-Qaida's financing and support cells.

When Blunkett was riding high and his problems appeared to be under control, he stated that MI5 and MI6 would be allowed access to the central register in the fight against terrorism because it will provide a "full audit trail" of when and where cards are produced - at hospitals, banks, local councils. The full audit trail was a phrase that gave Blunkett some satisfaction. One hopes that Clarke will be less susceptible to its allure, for it means that everyone's actions will be discreetly recorded on computer, just like the number recognition technology that logs the movement of every vehicle on Britain's major roads.

This is a chilling prospect, and we should ask ourselves whether we're willing to trust the government with such power. Has the prime minister's behaviour before and after the release of the September WMD dossier been so scrupulous as to suggest that his government would not in extremis abuse such an instrument? Did Mr Blunkett's respect for the traditions of liberty and free speech suggest that we could have had complete faith in him? What about his successor? Let us hope that he is more able to weigh the likely benefits against the undoubted loss of liberty.

Simply working on the evidence in the serious organised crime and police bill, I suggest that the restriction of defendants' rights, the curbs on protest and the measures relating to arrest are enough to conclude that the government's aim is to increase the power of the state at the expense of civil liberties. Yet the real concern must be not with Blair, with what Blunkett did or even what Charles may do, but with future governments, the nature of which we cannot predict.

We may fret about illegal immigration and improper use of the NHS, but the national identity register, which will include adults' fingerprints and an electronic scan of the face or iris, as well as date of birth and address, is the tyrant's ideal means of control. This is presumably why other English-speaking countries have rejected compulsory schemes backed up by penalties.

If we are to accept this sinister legislation, which will cost upwards of £3bn, we should know that it will be a matter of time before a government insists that the unique key to every adult's genetic profile be included on the card. With that would come a data bank of every individual's DNA to be accessed by God knows whom, with God knows what terrifying purpose. Later versions of the ID card might carry a chip called a radio frequency identification (RFID), which can be read from a distance. Thus anyone carrying a card who passes a sensor will give away their position.

This is not science fiction. RFID technology is being tested for US passports, and the British police are covertly monitoring an individual's movements with analogous technology on motorways.

We must not imagine that respect for individual liberty is innate to the British establishment. With this bill, the government is attempting to change for ever the relationship between the individual and the state in the state's favour. Those who treasure liberty must not let it pass. "


The difference between a driving licence and personal identity cards is of course that a driving licence is required to drive vehicles. As of yet, in this country, no one has made it compulsory to have a licence to be in charge of one's own body.