Comments on: Do we need a national ID card?

There's something wrong when data brokers know more about you than the cops know about felons, CNET editor Robert Vamosi says.

[Baysdale]

Personalised signatures will restore honesty

In reality identity fraud has nothing to do with ID documents (which could be bogus) or shredding documents with personal details (details could be obtained from any other source) or PIN (could be stolen) but has EVERYTHING to do with meaningless outdated signature system, which does not even expose person's gender.

To make signature reliable all we have to do is to apply our ID sticker (small sticker with photo and name printed on it) to the document and countersign so that the signature is shared between the sticker and document. Even if the name and signature is bogus, person?s photo will increase risk of prosecution from next to none to virtually 100%. Do we need unreliable ID cards when we can restore honesty simply by personalising our signatures?

[JackfromBerkeley]

just a step to GPS enabled RFID implants in us all

That way they'll know where we are as well as who we are.
The benefits will outweigh old-fashioned concerns about stuff like
privacy, which is old hat now.

[bobdonohoo]

This gives government toooo much opportunity to abuse

While many people talk about the advantages of a national ID for the government's use and the problem of identity theft, we seldom think about how unscrupulous people in power can abuse it as well. I don't worry about identity theft as much as government abuse.

[marileev]

can a Nat'l ID database be secure?

A linked national ID system per your argument Mr. Vamosi in par with our driver's license's makes sense, but can the government ensure the safety of this database? With yesterday afternoon's news of the 26.5 million vet's at risk for ID theft, can Americans be confident that 298,793,347 of us will be safe when nearly 1% of the population was put in harm's way? http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=61

Let's get our national databases like the VA's secure, then work on a national DB. --Marilee V.

[datonto7]

We Must Have A National ID Card !

To Whom It May Concern: I have Traveled to Europe and It was Obvious that all Europeans have and Use there Identity Cards and Papers.You are riding on aTrain from one Country to another.Different Countrys and Different Laws, Always in place are there National Identity Cards.The American Indians have to have there Identity Cards, Which I think Is Assinine. If they have to Produce Identity Cards, then we all should Have them also.What is the Big Deal anyway? Now that this Country Allowed 9/11 to Occur. We have to be Especially Careful who is allowed into America. We should have had Sky Marshalls on the Planes from 9/11. We had Sky Marshalls in the Early 70/s. Why was it stopped? Isreal has always used Sky Marshalls, England,France,Germany!What is wrong with Amarican Government to allow Foriegn Arabs to learn how to Fly Planes? And train them to Crash into Government Buildings,and the Twin Towers.This is a Gross Mistake that should have never Occured! Thank You,

[Blito]

Bimetrics is too invasive: It's not a good lock system

Anything can be faked but if someone owns my biometrics they practically own my soul.
When devising a lock system it is best not to make it too powerful because if the thief breaks it he has THAT munch more power of you. If he does win through and break that lock he doesn't win too much with a basic lock system.
I agree with the as we should do more obvious things instead of extremes.

This is just too Orwellian for me. The 1950s was bad enough.

[GES Herbert]

It's not the card or even the biometrics

The problem with the UK scheme is not merely the collection of biometrics, it is that the scheme is conceptualised to act as a means of collation of all government data, and indexing all significant civil transactions through a central database. Total Information Awareness done from the bottom-up, rather than by data-mining.

From the privacy and security points of view, it is the worst possible system. But from the point of view of a naive government, offers the best chances of both universal surveilance and a notional "administrative efficiency" via data-sharing.

American readers should be extremely loth to follow this example, even if they incline (for reasons incomprehensible to me) to give the federal government approval of their own personal identity. Be warned: if this system is permitted to succeed in the UK, then there will be a clamour among securocrats for it to be brought in over there. "The Brits have it; they have a free country: so it must be OK." Only we won't have a free country if universal state ID control is in place...

Save yourselves. And for heavens' sake help us!

Guy Herbert
General Secretary
www.no2id.net

[prozac360]

ya know... your right....

Radio devices in them need to go period. Personal information like social security numbers for example need to go. It should be a drivers lisence/ID for the country if anything and not much more.

No databases, no archives, no radio transmitters!

and for godsake if there so worried about terrorist and illegals driving places why dont they just setup the dang roadblocks already. We are already heading back to 1940s. Wheres my papers?

They should just inact a standard every year to retest for your lisence written and driven and prove your a citizen. Think about it you cant even maintain a job in certain fields unless you are CPR trained annually. Why should some one with a 2,000lbs+ car be any diffrent!

back on topic. I wont support it and never will. I wrote my congressman but unfortunitly he supports it!

[wbenton]

Biometric identification is dangerous

Unless biometric identification is implemented properly... which it VERY RARELY IS... is dangerous.

You can easily change your password and/or your RSA coded USB Key, but how does one go about changing their finger tips and/or retna?

It's NOT going to be implemented in a safe manner MOST of the time and thus such info WILL BE STOLEN. Once it's stolen... you can't change it so the end of biometric technology... even if re-implemented properly in the future... it's like closing the barn door after all the horses have gone out!!!

Walt

[wbenton]

Biometric identification is dangerous

Unless biometric identification is implemented properly... which it VERY RARELY IS... is dangerous.

You can easily change your password and/or your RSA coded USB Key, but how does one go about changing their finger tips and/or retna?

It's NOT going to be implemented in a safe manner MOST of the time and thus such info WILL BE STOLEN. Once it's stolen... you can't change it so the end of biometric technology... even if re-implemented properly in the future... it's like closing the barn door after all the horses have gone out!!!

Walt

[Lorrette]

Biometrics in vogue for our National Security

In this realm of transnational communication and transportation such monitoring system is needed for the homeland security which requires identifying people from their root traits. And I think using Bio-metrics for immigration, laws and national security purposes is a great way. I think where there is a question of spoofing, looking for authenticated experts and well established biometric research firms is the only solution. My friend is in the cop and he told me about the jail management software they are using in their office which is integrated with fingerprint recognition system offered by a Biometric research firm named M2SYS based in Atlanta Georgia. Fingerprint Scanners help them to keep track of all the criminals and help tighten the security system. I strongly feel that the reputed experts in this field should be authorized by the U.S. government to provide exclusive and advanced biometrics systems and they should also be provided with adequate facilities for continuous research for the purpose of a comprehensive biometric identification program at a national level.

[jefframse]

the Movie, "Ghandi"

""If we can't yet sync the names of criminals wanted in one state with people arrested in another state, it seems to me that we shouldn't be so eager to start tracking honest, noncriminal citizens. ""

In the movie Ghandi, he speaks to a crowded auditorium of Hindus and Muslims in South Africa against the government's new law to fingerprint each Indian person as if they were common criminals. There were some in the crowd who declared that they would kill and die for their rights against this (and more things which were in that decree by the military general who made the decree). Ghandi up there on stage said how he admired such courage and that he too would die for the prinicple but not ever kill for it. That publicly and openly he would never submit to the law and that all of them should not submit. They should peacefully not submit. Then the crowd gradually stood up in support of the committment not to submit to the unjust law upon law abiding citizens.

This movie scene is on my mind because this very morning before work I watched that 5 minute vignette on the DVD that came with the book, 'The 8th Habit' by Steven Covey. Currently I'm reading that book as I continuously read or listen to such books and tapes and CD's of that caliber.

I saw the movie Ghandi many years ago when it first came out on VHS ( or was it BETA hiihhi ). But that scenario reminds me of our current situation of the national Super ID cards being proposed for law abiding citizens of America and other countries of the west. Wow. I work to keep our society safe and sound without the government feeling compelled to go beyond the duty of protecting my negative rights and providing some few positive rights. I don't want the government to be in the business of recording more and more of my life's activities. Where do we draw the line? Is there a place to 'draw the line' and say that there is no more need for them to record any more details of my life?? I can't say as I don't know the answer. I do know that I obey the law, I raise my children in scouts and sunday school, I work full time and take classes at the local university. I love my country and teach my children to do so also. I think this is a good start. It certainly is where we must all begin: with ourselves and our family.

Perhaps I/we should do more for our country because apparently this isn't quite enough. Thank you for your time and consideration of my thoughts.

[nwteacher]

I find this article interesting...especially since it appears criminals who have been dealt with via the
judicial system have had their rights protected. We, as common, law-abiding citizens, don't seem to have those same rights. Perhaps we need to get charged with a crime in order for our rights to be visibly protected. --nwteacher