Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/8/2004 6:21:19 PM EST
Why do you want, or not want a national I.D. card or something like that? I know I do not want anything like it. I don't even want a S.S. number. Poll is on the way.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:22:22 PM EST
You already have one...or two..maybe three....


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:24:15 PM EST
I know, that is why I don't like them.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:25:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
I know, that is why I don't like them.




Bad credit huh?

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:26:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 6:29:25 PM EST by LonesomeHawk]
Ha ha ha, no. I don't like people knowing things about me.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:29:15 PM EST
The only good thing about a national ID card is that it will set out the justification for revolution in a little over 7 square inches - a big savings over the area covered by the Declaration of Independence.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:30:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
The only good thing about a national ID card is that it will set out the justification for revolution in a little over 7 square inches - a big savings over the area covered by the Declaration of Independence.

I like your way of thinking.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:33:08 PM EST
Most definately a GOOD thing...

Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?

Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?

Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?

Seriously, we NEED a national ID.

It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...

And we NEED it yesterday...

Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...

Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:40:27 PM EST
Oh, the old tinfoil thing, right. Ok, lets do a fact check. Commies like national I.D. cards. If the commies like it, and think it is good, then it is evillll!
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:41:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Most definately a GOOD thing...
Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?
Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?
Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?
Seriously, we NEED a national ID.
It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...
And we NEED it yesterday...
Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...
Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...



Rueful amusement is the kindness maturity shows to youthful stupidity. You should print your quoted post out and keep it in your wallet so that years from now when you are in divorce court, or criminal court, or an "interview" room being asked to account for the moment-by-moment record of your activities either recorded on the card or recorded by the card, you can whip that post out so the lawyer or detective will know why you're laughing. Is there a constitutional authorization for the federal government to compel me to register myself, apart from the income tax amendment? Is it a good thing, a healthy thing for liberty, that every single human being in this country be entered by unique biometric identifier in a single database?

If it is a sin to oppose human freedom, you will roast in a hell indistinguishable from the America you'd foist on us all.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:44:14 PM EST
By the way, I am told that Nazis allso like national I.D. cards. Of course thiers was offten worn on the chest in the form of a star.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:46:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Most definately a GOOD thing...
Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?
Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?
Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?
Seriously, we NEED a national ID.
It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...
And we NEED it yesterday...
Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...
Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...



Rueful amusement is the kindness maturity shows to youthful stupidity. You should print your quoted post out and keep it in your wallet so that years from now when you are in divorce court, or criminal court, or an "interview" room being asked to account for the moment-by-moment record of your activities either recorded on the card or recorded by the card, you can whip that post out so the lawyer or detective will know why you're laughing. Is there a constitutional authorization for the federal government to compel me to register myself, apart from the income tax amendment? Is it a good thing, a healthy thing for liberty, that every single human being in this country be entered by unique biometric identifier in a single database?

If it is a sin to oppose human freedom, you will roast in a hell indistinguishable from the America you'd foist on us all.

Wow, I wish i could type as well as you.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:47:10 PM EST
Only if I get national concealed carry.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:48:36 PM EST
If I could put my CCW, Driver's Licence, Social Security, Voting Card...maybe Costco card..........onto this and it would keep Illegals out......well maybe............


But then some asshat could steal my card and charge Hot Dogs without my knowledge.

We have all this in place right now and they let people flow freely across our borders. INS and local law cannot talk about this for fear they would break the law...what makes people think it would help?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:52:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:02:43 PM EST
I have a national ID card - it's called a passport. Comes in handy.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:09:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
I have a national ID card - it's called a passport. Comes in handy.

I'll pray for you.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:11:12 PM EST
Redundant and unnecessary...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:17:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
I have a national ID card - it's called a passport. Comes in handy.

I'll pray for you.



Explain.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:29:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 7:30:02 PM EST by LonesomeHawk]
If you have a passport, and it comes in handy, that means you have left the US from time to time. It is not always a nice world out their, hence," I'll pray for you". And I don't like passports, which should explain, " "
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:35:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Most definately a GOOD thing...
Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?
Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?
Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?
Seriously, we NEED a national ID.
It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...
And we NEED it yesterday...
Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...
Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...



Rueful amusement is the kindness maturity shows to youthful stupidity. You should print your quoted post out and keep it in your wallet so that years from now when you are in divorce court, or criminal court, or an "interview" room being asked to account for the moment-by-moment record of your activities either recorded on the card or recorded by the card, you can whip that post out so the lawyer or detective will know why you're laughing. Is there a constitutional authorization for the federal government to compel me to register myself, apart from the income tax amendment? Is it a good thing, a healthy thing for liberty, that every single human being in this country be entered by unique biometric identifier in a single database?

If it is a sin to oppose human freedom, you will roast in a hell indistinguishable from the America you'd foist on us all.



1) It's hardly hell

2) I will be picking up my very own unique federal ID, complete with fingerprint & smart-card chip soon enough... The recent military IDs are a more primative version of what I'm advocating...

3) There is no right to privacy, let alone anonymity. And they can allready get your credit card records by supoena... I never advocated replacing credit cards with NID, but you should have to present one and verify your PIN every time you apply for credit, or similar...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:37:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 7:38:48 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Gartchen:
If I could put my CCW, Driver's Licence, Social Security, Voting Card...maybe Costco card..........onto this and it would keep Illegals out......well maybe............


But then some asshat could steal my card and charge Hot Dogs without my knowledge.

We have all this in place right now and they let people flow freely across our borders. INS and local law cannot talk about this for fear they would break the law...what makes people think it would help?



Which is why you put a chip in it, and allow each person to pick a PIN number...

If you don't have the 6-digit PIN, then you're denied...

Would cut down on VOTER FRAUD too, big time... Combine it with a state-wide or national electronic voting system, and it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to cheat -> if you're ID is not registered, you are assumed to be committing fraud & deinied the ability to vote...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:38:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
If you have a passport, and it comes in handy, that means you have left the US from time to time. It is not always a nice world out their, hence," I'll pray for you". And I don't like passports, which should explain, " "



Ok, that helps a lot. Your first post was way too cryptic for me. Yes, I've left the US a bunch of times. There are places that are certainly superior to the good ol' USA in many aspects, but not all. I think well rounded individuals _must_ travel outside the country not only to see what works well that we don't do, but to appreciate the things we have that others don't.

I also think all teenagers should be required to travel to Mexico or South America for at least two or three weeks just to see how good they have it here. I've been to more than a dozen countries and have another couple dozen on my list to visit.

Also, it's not always a nice world out there, but I felt far safer walking the streets of Dublin at night than I did in Times Square during the day (this was before they cleaned the place up, it was a pretty scary place).

If you don't like passports, that's really too bad as you will miss out on all the world has to offer. Ever seen a real life castle? They're pretty cool. Ever been to visit the "Blarney stone?" I have, and it's pretty neat. Ever climbed a 10 story tall Mayan pyramid? I did last year. I don't intend for this to be bragging, but as large as the US is, we don't have it all. Expand your horizons, grasshopper.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:39:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:41:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
We've had them for as long as I know - they're called a passport. What's the big concern?


+1
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:44:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Most definately a GOOD thing...
Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?
Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?
Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?
Seriously, we NEED a national ID.
It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...
And we NEED it yesterday...
Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...
Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...



Rueful amusement is the kindness maturity shows to youthful stupidity. You should print your quoted post out and keep it in your wallet so that years from now when you are in divorce court, or criminal court, or an "interview" room being asked to account for the moment-by-moment record of your activities either recorded on the card or recorded by the card, you can whip that post out so the lawyer or detective will know why you're laughing. Is there a constitutional authorization for the federal government to compel me to register myself, apart from the income tax amendment? Is it a good thing, a healthy thing for liberty, that every single human being in this country be entered by unique biometric identifier in a single database?

If it is a sin to oppose human freedom, you will roast in a hell indistinguishable from the America you'd foist on us all.



1) It's hardly hell

2) I will be picking up my very own unique federal ID, complete with fingerprint & smart-card chip soon enough... The recent military IDs are a more primative version of what I'm advocating...

3) There is no right to privacy, let alone anonymity. And they can allready get your credit card records by supoena... I never advocated replacing credit cards with NID, but you should have to present one and verify your PIN every time you apply for credit, or similar...

I beg to differ! 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:44:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
3) There is no right to privacy, let alone anonymity. And they can allready get your credit card records by supoena... I never advocated replacing credit cards with NID, but you should have to present one and verify your PIN every time you apply for credit, or similar...



You are aggressively ignorant. Identify the portion of the US Constitution that requires citizens to submit biometric identifiers or any other information to the federal government. I'll spot you employment and income information necessary to collect income taxes. Go beyond that. Explain where the Constitution provides that a newborn must submit information to the government. It should be very simple. It's a short document. Where is your proposition embedded in it? You know, I assume, that the federal government has no domestic powers except those expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution. Explain the constitutional justification (necessary to the scheme you obviously envision) for a law criminalizing refusal to carry or display a national ID document.

The fact that you have elected to surrender your anonymity as a condition of entry into military service is no argument at all. Military service could as easily be conditioned on blowing Bill Clinton; that wouldn't mean that every citizen could be lawfully required to do it.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:46:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Most definately a GOOD thing...
Do you LIKE people being able to steal your identity because they know your SSN and address?
Do you LIKE the fact that our 'immigration ID' is so easily counterfeited that any 3rfd-world moron can buy one?
Do you LIKE having to carry a CCW, Driver's License, Social Security Card, and such when you could have ONE card hold it all?
Seriously, we NEED a national ID.
It NEEDS to have a biometric identifier, PIN number, and digitized version of the printed information stored on an encrypted smart-card chip to prevent fraud...
And we NEED it yesterday...
Enough with the tinfoil about 'Why then the Govt could track you'... Guess what? They can track you now, it just costs them more money...
Grow up & lay off the tinfoil...



Rueful amusement is the kindness maturity shows to youthful stupidity. You should print your quoted post out and keep it in your wallet so that years from now when you are in divorce court, or criminal court, or an "interview" room being asked to account for the moment-by-moment record of your activities either recorded on the card or recorded by the card, you can whip that post out so the lawyer or detective will know why you're laughing. Is there a constitutional authorization for the federal government to compel me to register myself, apart from the income tax amendment? Is it a good thing, a healthy thing for liberty, that every single human being in this country be entered by unique biometric identifier in a single database?

If it is a sin to oppose human freedom, you will roast in a hell indistinguishable from the America you'd foist on us all.



1) It's hardly hell

2) I will be picking up my very own unique federal ID, complete with fingerprint & smart-card chip soon enough... The recent military IDs are a more primative version of what I'm advocating...

3) There is no right to privacy, let alone anonymity. And they can allready get your credit card records by supoena... I never advocated replacing credit cards with NID, but you should have to present one and verify your PIN every time you apply for credit, or similar...

I beg to differ! 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



And that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

How do you determine a right? Should the courts be able to declare them?

IMHO, the best way to determine it is to say 'If it's not listed, it's not a right'...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:56:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 7:57:40 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
3) There is no right to privacy, let alone anonymity. And they can allready get your credit card records by supoena... I never advocated replacing credit cards with NID, but you should have to present one and verify your PIN every time you apply for credit, or similar...



You are aggressively ignorant. Identify the portion of the US Constitution that requires citizens to submit biometric identifiers or any other information to the federal government. I'll spot you employment and income information necessary to collect income taxes. Go beyond that. Explain where the Constitution provides that a newborn must submit information to the government. It should be very simple. It's a short document. Where is your proposition embedded in it? You know, I assume, that the federal government has no domestic powers except those expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution. Explain the constitutional justification (necessary to the scheme you obviously envision) for a law criminalizing refusal to carry or display a national ID document. The purpose of the scheme would be to provide for the common defense of the United States by way of enhancing security measures and making it easier to deter hostile foreign agents, and to provide for the general welfare by reducing election fraud & identity theft. Remember: The Constitution gives the Federal government broad powers in it's literal text. So long as a desired action relates to 'Providing for the Common Defense', 'Providing for the General Welfare', or 'Interstate Commerce', it is constitutional.

The fact that you have elected to surrender your anonymity as a condition of entry into military service is no argument at all. Military service could as easily be conditioned on blowing Bill Clinton; that wouldn't mean that every citizen could be lawfully required to do it.That was intended to answer your 'Some day when you' scenario, not as an argument for ID for everyone



The fact is that anonymity is downright DANGEROUS in today's society.

Thanks to anonymity, John Kerry could very well steal the election thru rampant voter fraud in Wisconsin (if it comes down to 10 or less electoral votes). People can vote early & often because there is no secure, reliable, and unique system for proving that a person voted allready, beyond asking for a name and address before you vote. Our very system of governance is threatened by your treasured 'anonymity'...

Thanks to anonymity provided by a very weak national ID system (SSN), people get their credit ruined every day because someone fished their SSN out of a piece of trash, or copied it off a form somewhere...

Thanks to anonymity, folks can enter this country at will (because our borders are so expansive, there will NEVER be a way to seal them) and blend right in...

And so on...

Anonymity was fine for 1840, when almost no one left their home state,, everything was paid for with coins, and 'credit' meant that the shop owner knew you were 'good people'...

It is NOT FINE for modern America...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:57:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

How do you determine a right? Should the courts be able to declare them?

IMHO, the best way to determine it is to say 'If it's not listed, it's not a right'...



CHRIST! Do you talk from any opening other than your ass? "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's the 9th Amendment. IT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO UNENUMERATED (special bulletin for Dave "unenumerated" means NOT LISTED /special bulletin for Dave) RIGHTS. Get it? Smell it? Suspect it?

The fact that the federal government is considering giving you a gun is the best argument I could ever imagine for restriction of its power.

WTF is wrong with you? Can't read? Can't comprehend? Ignore everything that doesn't jibe with your antecedent "Ein Volk, Ein Reich" political theory? What?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:57:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 8:02:54 PM EST by LonesomeHawk]
A court does not have the power to grant a right. A right is god given. Courts do have the power to accept the existence of a right. You know, like my right to privacy. Edited to say ,"and FLAL1As right to privacy.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:03:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 8:04:22 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

How do you determine a right? Should the courts be able to declare them?

IMHO, the best way to determine it is to say 'If it's not listed, it's not a right'...



CHRIST! Do you talk from any opening other than your ass? "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's the 9th Amendment. IT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO UNENUMERATED (special bulletin for Dave "unenumerated" means NOT LISTED /special bulletin for Dave) RIGHTS. Get it? Smell it? Suspect it?

The fact that the federal government is considering giving you a gun is the best argument I could ever imagine for restriction of its power.

WTF is wrong with you? Can't read? Can't comprehend? Ignore everything that doesn't jibe with your antecedent "Ein Volk, Ein Reich" political theory? What?



No, I am looking at a very serious problem here, a dilimma (left horn or right horn, you still die) of sorts...

The founders never envisioned the present judicial environment, and in this environment the only thing keeping us from total ruin is that the courts have not yet discovered the 9th Ammendment.

If you choose to allow the invention of rights, to use the 9th, then you are choosing the 'Left Horn'. Under this scenario, an activist judge could easily create a 'Right' to health care or a job. It could be ruled that everyone has a 'right' to a 'living wage'... Do you want to see a 'right' to every socialist bullshit program ever invented? That is the logical extension of allowing ANYTHING to be declared a 'right' without a full blown constitutional ammendment. How 'bout a right to do drugs, or to steal (because the victim was 'rich' and didn't need what you took)?

If you ignore the 9th as dangerous, you choose the 'Right Horn', and are guilty of ignoring a portion of the constitution for convenience... This also has potential future problems...

Neither is a desirable scenario...

Personally I wish they'd repeal the 9th before some Ginsburg-wannabe discovers it... But I'm content to see it ignored given the can of worms it would open up...

So I end up impaled on the right horn, and you on the left....

The bull still wins...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:07:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
A court does not have the power to grant a right. A right is god given. Courts do have the power to accept the existence of a right. You know, like my right to privacy. Edited to say ,"and FLAL1As right to privacy.



They aren't 'God Given'

They're reserved by the Constitution as contractual consideration for empowering the government created by the Constitution...

As evidenced by the fact that said rights did not exist prior to the formation of the Republic, and do not exist in a majority of the world today (although we're working on that right now, in Iraq and some other places)...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:11:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 8:11:09 AM EST by LonesomeHawk]
I did not intend to start a war over this. I only want the right to reject a national ID, without loosing my other rights. Like voting. I can prove to the FEC who I am when I register to vote.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:16:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
I did not intend to start a war over this. I only want the right to reject a national ID, without loosing my other rights. Like voteing. I can prove to the FEC who I am when I register to vote.



How?

And how can they, at the polls, verify that you (the person who registered) is actually the person trying to vote...

Seriously, this pathetic lack of election security may give Kerry the election... You don't live up here, you have no idea how bad it is...

National ID is the only way to prevent dead people, fake people, and ineligable people vrom voting... It's also the only way to prevent one person from 'voting early & often'...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:16:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
A court does not have the power to grant a right. A right is god given. Courts do have the power to accept the existence of a right. You know, like my right to privacy. Edited to say ,"and FLAL1As right to privacy.



They aren't 'God Given'

They're reserved by the Constitution as contractual consideration for empowering the government created by the Constitution...

As evidenced by the fact that said rights did not exist prior to the formation of the Republic, and do not exist in a majority of the world today (although we're working on that right now, in Iraq and some other places)...

Rights did exist before the constitution. Newton did not invent gravity, he discoverd it. The founders of the US did not invent our rights, they listed them, some of them.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:21:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 8:12:01 AM EST by LonesomeHawk]
Bank statements, property titles, that damn SS number that I don't like, driver permit, proof of residence. How much ID do you need?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:22:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 8:33:40 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:
A court does not have the power to grant a right. A right is god given. Courts do have the power to accept the existence of a right. You know, like my right to privacy. Edited to say ,"and FLAL1As right to privacy.



They aren't 'God Given'

They're reserved by the Constitution as contractual consideration for empowering the government created by the Constitution...

As evidenced by the fact that said rights did not exist prior to the formation of the Republic, and do not exist in a majority of the world today (although we're working on that right now, in Iraq and some other places)...

Rights did exist before the constitution. Newton did not invent gravity, he discoverd it. The founders of the US did not invent our rights, they listed them, some of them.



Rights are a contractual creation... When you sign a perticular contract, you get certain rights in return for giving some other items to the other party as concideration...

If these were 'God Given' rights, then God would have defined them for us in the Bible... He did not...

ETA, there are SOME 'God Given' rights: Life & Property are examples...

They are not directly in the Constitution, however... They are in the DoI & indirectly referenced in the 'search & siezure' and 'cruel & unusual punishment' sections...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:24:35 PM EST
It is late, my arm hurts, and i am to sleepy to see my keybord. Good nite ya'll.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:31:54 PM EST
You are wrong. Rights are like the true laws, they are scientific. When you agree to a contract you are agreeing to grant each party certain privledges,not rights. Rights can not be granted. They exist like a force of nature. They (rights) can be unjustly denied however.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:02:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

And that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

How do you determine a right? Should the courts be able to declare them?

IMHO, the best way to determine it is to say 'If it's not listed, it's not a right'...



The way it works is that unless it is specifically prohibited, it is permitted. We have every right to privacy we can manage.

If you don't want to leave a trail, cover your tracks, otherwise if you use a service, the provider has a right to monitor the service for misuse.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:13:11 PM EST
Once you are "in the system", what difference does it make? Once they identify you with your insurance card, driver's license, SSN, CCW permit they have access to all, or part, of your records. Hell, if I get pulled over by a cop I now have to produce not only my Driver's License and registration, but my CCW permit and inform him if I am carrying (state law). The cop then looks me up in the system and can see my "file". Depending on who the LE is will determine what the "file" contains, but somewhere there is a person who can see the whole damn file. Where you live, where you work, what you like to buy, where you go to eat, where you buy gas, etc. Everyone has a file somewhere.

If the thumbprint became the standard form of ID and you had to place your thumb on the pad to vote, buy gas with a credit card, get healthcare, pay taxes, get social security, go the the doctor, etc. would you just refuse to stay out of the system?

I am tired of carrying multiple documents to "prove" who I am when the technology already exists to track everything with fingerprints. I want to put my thumb on the pad and have then really know its me. I don't have any privacy now, and identity theft is quickly becoming an even larger problem.

I think you should be able to opt out of the entire process and remain anonymous as long as you don't want to drive, bank, go to the doctor, work, pay taxes, get mail, buy food, etc. That way you can really be anonymous and self supporting too.

I already have a passport, CCW and multiple NFA items that all required a background check and/or fingerprints and photos. They know who I am and I don't need a card for them to tell. Just put those little $79.00 Sony fingerprint readers everywhere and I can leave my wallet at home.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:14:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 9:19:32 PM EST by magnum_99]
Dave, Dave, Dave. You are sooo misguided.

No right of privacy? In whose world?

Let's see...

Re. Requests from .gov entities for private info--FOIA, 5 U.S.C.S. § 552 (b)(7)(C), excuses from disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes if their production could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 124 S. Ct. 1570 (2004)holding, et. al that the statute requires courts to protect, in the proper degree, the personal privacy of citizens against the uncontrolled release of information compiled through the power of the state. The statutory direction that the information not be released if the invasion of personal privacy could reasonably be expected to be unwarranted requires the courts to balance the competing interests in privacy and disclosure. To effect this balance and to give practical meaning to the exemption, the usual rule that the citizen need not offer a reason for requesting the information must be inapplicable.



Re. Sexuality privacy--Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) holding that Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. By tradition, the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of a person's lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

Re. Electronic eavedropping--18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) provides that any person who "intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; . . . shall be punished . . . ." See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967), that the attachment of a listening and recording device to the outside of a telephone booth constituted a search, "Congress undertook to draft comprehensive legislation both authorizing the use of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance on specified conditions, and prohibiting its use otherwise.


Re liberty interest in medical treatment--A person has a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, to terminate treatment. Recognizing that this right is not absolute, however, courts balance it against asserted state interests. The state's interest weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims.Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)


Re. a "right of publicity" for controlling the use of an individual's likeness as a corrollary to the right of privacyHaelan Labs. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953) and Zachini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)


I could go on all night but we'd all die from boredom. It is abundantly cleat that a Constitutional right, statutory and and common-law rights of privacy exist, are deeply embedded in US juriprudence, and are indeed touch and concern many issues.

Not to mention the basic human right "to be left alone" which is reflected in our jurisprudence and contemplated by the Constitution--See Amendment I, IV, XIV

Now, from a practical standpoint, attemping to track all 300 million of the citizens of the US would be incredibly costly and require millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars.

Moreover, there are numerous online resources that point out the concerns much better than I:

www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html

www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/presidentltr2.11.02.html

www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/nationalidsystem.html


www.akdart.com/idcard.html

I oppose any "national ID" card, RFID "tag" for persons, or biometric identifiers for CITIZENS of this country.

I've read 1984 and this stuff if one step closer to it.

Don't be fooled into believing that you can give up liberty to be safer or have more convenience.


Also, you are sooo Goddamn wrong that rights are some "contractural" agreement only granted by the Constitution.

The plain language of, for example, the Second Amendement (which we all know and love here) makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution (shall not be infringed--intimating that the right existed prior to the Constitution) and certainly the Founders recognized and trumpted that man has certain God-given rights that can only be protected or infringed by government, but not granted.

Have you ever taken a US history course? A Con Law course?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:24:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

And that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

How do you determine a right? Should the courts be able to declare them?

IMHO, the best way to determine it is to say 'If it's not listed, it's not a right'...



The way it works is that unless it is specifically prohibited, it is permitted. We have every right to privacy we can manage.

If you don't want to leave a trail, cover your tracks, otherwise if you use a service, the provider has a right to monitor the service for misuse.



We're not talking about a prohibition here, Da...

Under your argument, the 'Right to a Job' is permitted, as it is not specifically prohibited...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:28:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 9:58:42 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Dave, Dave, Dave. You are sooo misguided.

No right of privacy? In whose world?

Let's see...

Re. Requests from .gov entities for private info--FOIA, 5 U.S.C.S. § 552 (b)(7)(C), excuses from disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes if their production could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 124 S. Ct. 1570 (2004)holding, et. al that the statute requires courts to protect, in the proper degree, the personal privacy of citizens against the uncontrolled release of information compiled through the power of the state. The statutory direction that the information not be released if the invasion of personal privacy could reasonably be expected to be unwarranted requires the courts to balance the competing interests in privacy and disclosure. To effect this balance and to give practical meaning to the exemption, the usual rule that the citizen need not offer a reason for requesting the information must be inapplicable.



Re. Sexuality privacy--Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) holding that Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. By tradition, the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of a person's lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. Bullshit decision that cited INTERNATIONAL COURTS as precedent for the ruling...

Re. Electronic eavedropping--18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) provides that any person who "intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; . . . shall be punished . . . ." See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967), that the attachment of a listening and recording device to the outside of a telephone booth constituted a search, "Congress undertook to draft comprehensive legislation both authorizing the use of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance on specified conditions, and prohibiting its use otherwise. That does not create a 'right' to privacy, it is a prohibitive law designed to PROVIDE a privledge of pricacy


Re liberty interest in medical treatment--A person has a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, to terminate treatment. Recognizing that this right is not absolute, however, courts balance it against asserted state interests. The state's interest weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims.Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)


Re. a "right of publicity" for controlling the use of an individual's likeness as a corrollary to the right of privacyHaelan Labs. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953) and Zachini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)


I could go on all night but we'd all die from boredom. It is abundantly cleat that a Constitutional right, statutory and and common-law rights of privacy exist, are deeply embedded in US juriprudence, and are indeed touch and concern many issues. It is abundantly clear that this 'right' was created by Roe v Wade & it's predecessor (Griswald), citing a non-existant 'Penumbra of the 14th Ammendment. More bullshit

Not to mention the basic human right "to be left alone" which is reflected in our jurisprudence and contemplated by the Constitution--See Amendment I, IV, XIV Lots of rights listed there, being 'left alone' is not one of them

Now, from a practical standpoint, attemping to track all 300 million of the citizens of the US would be incredibly costly and require millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars. About 500kb per citizen, that makes 150TB of information, plus encryption technology & security. The comm infastructure is allready in place, thru the Internet

Moreover, there are numerous online resources that point out the concerns much better than I:

www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html

www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/presidentltr2.11.02.html

www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/nationalidsystem.html


www.akdart.com/idcard.html

I oppose any "national ID" card, RFID "tag" for persons, or biometric identifiers for CITIZENS of this country.

I've read 1984 and this stuff if one step closer to it.

Don't be fooled into believing that you can give up liberty to be safer or have more convenience.


Also, you are sooo Goddamn wrong that rights are some "contractural" agreement only granted by the Constitution.

The plain language of, for example, the Second Amendement (which we all know and love here) makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution (shall not be infringed--intimating that the right existed prior to the Constitution) and certainly the Founders recognized and trumpted that man has certain God-given rights that can only be protected or infringed by government, but not granted. Then how come it did not exist prior to the founding of the Republic?

Have you ever taken a US history course? A Con Law course? Yes, I seem to have a better grasp of it than you



Yes, I have...

And I (apparently unlike you, can differentiate between judge-made-law (your evidence) and the reality of things...

Infact, your evidence PROVES my point...

The 'right to privacy' was invented out of thin air by an activist court.

Just like the 'right' to own slaves, in Dredd Scott...

Just like the 'right' to a job, or to free health care, or all manner of socialist programs could be...

I don't see how you guys miss this stuff, in your mad stampede to have as many 'rights' as possible, generally without the responsibility that those rights would require...

Here's a simple example: If you're so 'for' anonymity, then don't complain when your lack of responsibility for your identity makes you a victim of an identity crime...

And remember, I'm not advocating tracking every citizen, and every transaction they make...

I'm advocating a system by which you swipe your ID card, enter a PIN number or scan a thumbprint, and the system checks to see if you are you. That's it.

Anything more would be prohibitively expensive, and provide little/no return.

However, there are huge benefits to a postiive identification system, over the current 'we trust you're a good person' system in place now...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:33:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 9:37:14 PM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Here's a simple example: If you're so 'for' anonymity, then don't complain when your lack of responsibility for your identity makes you a victim of an identity crime...




HOLY SHIT!

I can't believe this guy.

Why don't we blame the girl in the slutty outfit for "asking" to be raped either?

DAVE!

Activist court?

What are you smoking?

EVERY damn state court in the country recognizes a common-law right of privacy, not to mention state and the US legislatures.

It exists because, as free human beings, we have a right to "be left alone" in our personal thoughts, actions, and business.

The purpose of government is not to track us and intrude upon our lives for its own sake, but to organize and make efficient a society.

Why don't you go live in North Korea or China, you'd be happier where you aren't required to actually think on your own.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:46:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 9:47:38 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Here's a simple example: If you're so 'for' anonymity, then don't complain when your lack of responsibility for your identity makes you a victim of an identity crime...




HOLY SHIT!

I can't believe this guy.

Why don't we blame the girl in the slutty outfit for "asking" to be raped either?

Apples and oranges. If you want absolute freedom, than you are absolutely responsible for your actions, including those actions that open you up to harm. If you want to be 'anonymous', then don't come crying to me when you get ripped off because of it...

It's like complaining that someone stole your car when you gave them the keys...



DAVE!

Activist court? Federal 'Right to Privacy' was created by Roe V Wade

What are you smoking?

EVERY damn state court in the country recognizes a common-law right of privacy, not to mention state and the US legislatures. Passing a law doesn't create a right, you are extended a legal privledge of privacy in those cases, which can easily be recinded by passing another law. As for state courts, check the dates on the decision - the concept of a RTP started in most cases after Griswald & Roe

It exists because, as free human beings, we have a right to "be left alone" in our personal thoughts, actions, and business. Recognized by who? Granted in what document? It's not in the Bible, so it's not God Given... It's not in the Constitution... Oh, and 'free human beings', that's not something you're just automatically entitled to be - it's something that we had to fight for and still do, something we as a nation earn & preserve... While it can be 'given' by another power, in our case it was not,,, There is WAY too much of a sense of entitlement here...

The purpose of government is not to track us and intrude upon our lives for its own sake, but to organize and make efficient a society. It's not about government tracking you. It's about making sure that people are who they say they are, for some very critical transactions such as voting, obtaining credit, entering/leaving the country, etc. This requires a verifyable ID, something that is sorely lacking, and that is costing the government and private industry billions

Why don't you go live in North Korea or China, you'd be happier where you aren't required to actually think on your own. I am thinking on my own here, If I wasn't I'd be joining the same sky-is-falling groupthink you all are demonstrating here

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:49:45 PM EST
P.S. None of you have presented a viable scenario for how you would stop your invented entitlements/rights from spreading beyond 'privacy' and 'anonymity'

How would you do it?

Without ammending the constitution?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:56:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 9:57:27 PM EST by magnum_99]
Dave, you can pretend all you want that no right of privacy exists. I know otherwise. Whether judicially or statutorily created, in your words, it exists.

The right existed long before Roe v. Wade in state and common law. There is no "federal common law" and the only authority the Feds have derives from the Constitution and Congress' power to make laws. The US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and if they say a Constitutional privacy right exists, then it does. And that isn't activism, it's merely acknowledging the reality of privacy rights as they've existed for decades before Roe v. Wade--i.e. state law and natural privacy rights.

You can also pretend that government is benevolent and will protect you from any evil associated with tracking your every move. I don't believe it for a second.

You will be sorry as we all will if this ever comes to pass.

We can't know all of the pitfalls right now--there is no crystal ball.

But I damn guarantee that MORE government involvement in the life of every person in the country cannot be a good thing.

If you do, then you are a hard-core socialist.

Admit it.

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:59:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By twonami:

Originally Posted By Paul:
We've had them for as long as I know - they're called a passport. What's the big concern?


+1




+1, and the older ones let you write in (cough) make up (cough) your own address-in PENCIL!!!
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 10:01:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 10:05:55 PM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Here's a simple example: If you're so 'for' anonymity, then don't complain when your lack of responsibility for your identity makes you a victim of an identity crime...




I'm probably MORE likely to be the victim of an identity crime after a "national ID" system.

There will be a premium put upon being 'legit' to the system once the info is centralized.

Illegals, terrorists, and the like will demand, and the (black) market will fulfill the demand, that they have access to 'legit' identities.

No system is foolproof enough to keep my 'ID' from being stolen, counterfeited, or cloned.


That alone makes this proposal a boondoggle.


It is the decentralized nature of the current system that affords some level of protection now.

I don't like that my credit transaction give away my buying habits, but at least if someone gets my CC number, I cancel it and no further harm can be done.

What happens when someone gets ALL of my relevant personal info from either using my 'ID card' or from it directly?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top