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

[Al B. Sure!]

Kuci:

driver's licences are not compulsory. I still don't have one.

[Kuciwalker]

If you wanna drive, you have to. And you have to provide a picture. And a police officer pulling you over can demand to see one. Also, drivers' licenses are a pretty standard means of verifying your identity and age for tons of commercial stuff.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Thorgal
But you could give the data of other person. It is not a secure method.

So tell me, of how many people can you give me detailed info about their identity, such as full name, date of birth, city of birth, current address? And remember that a police computer system typically includes a photo or at least basic info on height, eye colours, etc. So at most you could give yourself out as your own brother or something, but then the cops would still be able to track you down easy enough.

Only if there are strong reasons to suspect someone is lying should cops be allowed to demand to see actual proof of someone's identity.

And of course, you're forgetting that IDs can be forged, so that doesn't change anything in the new system. As I said several times before, in the new system acquiring false IDs will only become easier.

Again, the old system has worked fine in the Netherlands for a long time. The only reason why it's being changed is mass paranoia and xenophobia.

Of course you need. A testimony is nothing without a person ratifying it. Can you imagine a policeman saying at the trial: "i remember somebody at crime scenery saying me Mr X killed MR Y"

So you leave your name and phone number...

It has nothing to do. It depends of a lot of factors. I mean in Spain under Franco there was virtually not crime. Hardly a example, however...

It has everything to do with it. 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it'. Especially not if this touches fundamental liberties.

http://www.car-crime.com/crime_rate.htm

Yeah, because a victim rate says everything about how many crimes are being commited

As far as those statistics go, they only look at a small subgroup of crimes and are based on the notoriously unreliable method of the survey. If you look at some of the numbers the UN collected (e.g. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_...y_seventh.html), Netherlands is not doing poorly. Because it's a lot of raw data to sift through, I made a quick and rough overview of the total number of convictions per 100,000 inhabitants in the late 1990s for most Western/European countries (where numbers are known):

New Zealand: 2600
UK: 2600
Finland: 1700
Denmark: 1300
Canada: 1000
France: 1000
Hungary: 1000
Switzerland: 1000
Greece: 800
Russia: 800
Germany: 700
Czech R: 600
Iceland: 600
Israel 600
Netherlands: 600
Sweden: 600
Italy: 500
Latvia: 500
Lithuania: 500
Portugal: 500
Ukraine: 500
Romania: 400
Slovakia: 400
Norway: 300
Slovenia: 300
Spain: 300

Note that in Eastern Europe, crime is swittly on the rise and the numbers are probably considerably higher by now, whereas in the Netherlands the numbers have fallen 5 years in a row (as was in the Dutch news just yesterday).

Of course, there's still plenty of things wrong with using that statistic as proof of anything (after all, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics"), but the point is that overall the Netherlands is not doing poorly in terms of crime fighting, and the numbers have been falling years without the need of throwing fundamental liberties out the door.

The only reason such measures are being taken in the Netherlands right now is because people feel less safe, not because they are. But if people feel less safe when they're e.g. near a group of immigrant youth (which is in the Dutch discussions on the matter an often cited example), is that a problem with the immigrant youth or with the people who fear them?

Originally posted by Albert Speer
haha! turns out us Patriot-Act having Americans who only require an ID to drive (a document that really only says that you passed the driving tests) have more freedom than you Europeans!

Yes, because if you do better in one issue, you must by definition do better in all

[Thorgal]

And of course, you're forgetting that IDs can be forged, so that doesn't change anything in the new system. As I said several times before, in the new system acquiring false IDs will only become easier.

I dont know how it works in Netherlands. But to falsificate a spanish DNI card is as difficult as to falsificate money. In fact ID cards are made by the same manufacture what makes the money. So, it is not like a library card.

About statistics each country has his particularities. For instance most crimes are drugs related. IIRC drugs laws in Netherland are much more permissive than in most countries (and I agree with Netherlands in this). So what is considered crime in many countries is legal in Netherlands. In this case i think a victims rate would be more accurated.

[VetLegion]

I didn't read all the replies yet, so just a quick reply to alva:

man, why do you hate freedom?

Also, Azazel:

Anything you need a licence to do is not your fundamental right. See example under freedom of speech, how would that work with a licensing system?

And driving a car can one day require no licence, why not, but in the meantime it is a privilege of those who pass the exams, not a right of everyone.

In most countries, constitutions protect freedom of movement as a basic right, you can't parallel that with needing passports to move between countries.

Constitutions also usually have a provision that rights can be limited for protection of public health, morale, or in an emergency.

None of which is the case with compulsory ID.

[VetLegion]

Locutus said it well: compulsory ID creates a presumption of everyone being guilty until proven innocent. That is unacceptible.

[alva]

I didn't read all the replies yet, so just a quick reply to alva:

man, why do you hate freedom?

As I said in one of my first posts, principly: No, Real world: yes.

It's just an illusion to think you're more free without an ID than with one, that's all.

No ID == religion.

[VetLegion]

Also, about terrorism. Didn't guys who commited attacks on 11.9.2001. have regular (1) passports, (2) driver's licences and perhaps even (3) piloting licences? If three licences didn't prevent the attacks, I don't see how a fourth would.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by alva

I didn't read all the replies yet, so just a quick reply to alva:

man, why do you hate freedom?

As I said in one of my first posts, principly: No, Real world: yes.

It's just an illusion to think you're more free without an ID than with one, that's all.

I'm from a country where we had IDs like forever.

I'm never comfortable dealing with policemen.

I'm especially not comfortable having to carry ID when I go jogging or something. I was never "intercepted" jogging, but my friend once went to buy groceries in the morning to a shop on the corner and got fined for not carrying ID in 9 AM in his neighbourhood.

Granted, statistically it doesn't happen very often, but it is an example of system that treats people like sheep.

By the way, this doesn't help police find real criminals one little bit.

[BlackCat]

We have no identity cards except a health insurance card with no pics and it is only used when visting medical care.

There are no plans to introduce such a thing.

You are obliged to give name, adress and person id (birthday + number) if asked by police, but they need a reason to ask and you don't have to prove the correctness by any papers.

Edit : couldn't vote - no match.

[Az]

Anything you need a licence to do is not your fundamental right. See example under freedom of speech, how would that work with a licensing system?

Lots of things pertaining to freedom of speech get licensed. All the bussiness side of operations of media, for example.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel

Anything you need a licence to do is not your fundamental right. See example under freedom of speech, how would that work with a licensing system?

Lots of things pertaining to freedom of speech get licensed. All the bussiness side of operations of media, for example.

Freedom of speech is pertinent to individual human beings only, not companies or organisations.

[Hueij]

I got by for almost 50 years now without carrying an Ausweis 24/7 and I'll be damned if I'm going to start now. My passport expired last May anyway and I'm only going to get a new one when I plan to leave the country.

I'm making the Netherlands a little bit unsafer everytime I leave the house...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Freedom of speech is pertinent to individual human beings only, not companies or organisations.

Companies and organizations are made up of and owned by individuals.

[Jon Miller]

doesn't mean they shoudl have the rights of individuals

otherwise going out of business would be very strange

also, they don't have teh same spirit that people do

Jon Miller