Why not a national ID card?

[Cuddles]

Have to say, I really don't understand the problem. As far as I can tell none of the objections are actually about having a national ID card, they're actually objections to specific hypothetical, and often rather silly, ways such a card could be implemented. For example, most people seem to be assuming that a national ID card would be a replacement for all other forms of ID and would be mandatory to carry with you at all times.

But why should either of those things be true? The latter seems to be nothing more than wild conspiracy theories about a non-existent police state wanting to randomly demand papers off people in the streets Nazi-style and really isn't worth taking seriously at all. The former is at least a potentially legitimate concern, since it does on the surface sound like it could simplify things, but it's far from necessary so objecting to it should not mean objecting to ID cards even in principle.

As for the problem of data being hacked or stolen, how is that any different from now? An ID card doesn't require any extra data to be collected. It's not going to be tracking your location and shopping habits or anything like that, it's just an ID card. Any information that could be stolen from a database related to it can already be easily stolen anyway.

In my opinion it actually sounds like a pretty good idea. In the UK, we don't actually have ID cards at all. There are two which are generally accepted - driving licenses and passports. Both are entirely optional and require jumping through hoops that people who don't want to make use of their primary purpose have no reason to jump through. ID cards which are supposedly nationally recognised pop up every now and then, but because they're generally small-time affairs only used by a very small minority, they're useless because no-one recognises them and therefore doesn't accept them. So what would be wrong with having a single ID card that actually is nationally recognised? It doesn't have to be forced on people, it doesn't have to replace passports or anything, it's just a national standard that can be used anywhere in the country. The only real concern I can see is cost, and that would depend a lot on the actual details of any proposal.

As for the USA, there's even less problem since you already have ID cards. Just replace state IDs with a consistent standard. There would be virtually no extra cost since apart from the design everything's already in place.

Thats because right now its easier, cheaper, and just as effective to fake the ones without chips.

Now the next logical step is to say that all CC should therefor have chips! Sadly that would make faking chipped ones very profitable and before long you would have faked CC's with chips in them.

The USA is really rather backwards on that point. In the EU, and quite a few countries elsewhere, all bank cards, not just credit cards, have had chips for a while now. They're certainly not perfectly secure, but they have greatly reduced fraud in face-to-face shopping. Just because other methods of fraud are still possible doesn't mean it's a bad idea to reduce it where you can.

 

[Wudang]

Why do I suspect misuse of a UK ID card scheme? Because of the history of misuse of things like RIPA and the Terrorism Act, especially Section 24.

 

[icerat]

Even without an ID card, illegal immigrants find some of those things difficult (getting medical help is the exception) and consequently live in a "grey" society which is cash-based. Having a single ID card wouldn't change this a jot.

Well it certainly changed things a lot for me, moving from Australia (multiple IDs) to Sweden (national id).

Needing to carry the card has been repeatedly mentioned by the people proposing its introduction in the UK as a key element of enforcement.

got a link to some details?

 

[Beerina]

The "papers" in "show me your papers" form the cold war era or apartheid South Africa wasn't identification, but the permission papers to travel outside your home town.

If papers didn't exist, the government officials can't start demanding them. That alone is sufficient reason to do without. No ID cards. No Internet ID cards, either, which will inevitably be required to access it.

Yes, quaint, old-school fears are still rational in this day. Chavez recently outlawed sales of guns and ammo.

Do not let the tools of dictatorship get born. Hence the absolutism of the Bill of Rights.

 

[WildCat]

I have spoken of my expertise in spotting fake driver's licenses used by college kids to drink in other threads so I won't re-hash it here. I can tell you the two newest DL last year were TX and CA. Very nice, lots of security features, and we started seeing fakes within 6 months. Kids were paying up to $250.00 for these just so they could drink in bars! Imagine the profits for anyone able to fake a national ID card for you.

And as I pointed out to you in those other threads a fake ID might fool the doorman at a bar but government authorities can easily tell it is fake, because they have the means to match the information on the ID with their own records.

 

[marplots]

I want to back away from a national ID being the repository of all things associated with me and get back to it simply being a way to establish my identity. I think this is a more reasonable goal and more in demand in an era of identity theft. That's the "good" I think will sell it.

I want something that is secure, universally accepted and relatively easy to use. This latter point is the only reason I don't think of a passport as workable.

Once I am able to establish I am who I say I am, then whoever I am dealing with can take up the burden of other information they may require or request. But it has to start with a solid identification.

 

[mikeyx]

The govmint will track my (bowel) movements!!!1]1!!111!1!!!

we already do, eat better....

 

[Biscuit]

I had no idea that the fakes are that sophisticated. I'm not sure what it says about college kids that they need to drink that bad.

But by scanner I meant a device that links electronically to a live database. When you swipe a credit card it links directly to the bank, which determines whether it's valid and records the transaction. The card is no good if the database doesn't accept it. If you do two transactions one minute apart, and the second one breaks your credit limit, the database can reject it. My idea of a secure card is one that is linked directly to an official database. A passport is not just a piece of paper. It's part of an electronic system that records when you left the country and when you returned, and when the border officer scans it your picture and information from your passport shows up on his screen -- unless you stole or tampered with the passport -- and it is provided by the database, not the document. He will ask you when you left the country, and getting it wrong or saying "I don't remember" will not go well. Ideally, when you scanned those driver's licenses they would be connected to state databases that would show the correct information for legitimate DLs and would flag the ones that come up with no records. A magnetic strip that just confirms the fake information seems kind of pointless.

I doubt the state wants every single business in America accessing its information on an almost constant basis. It would crash their systems and slow down official business.

The CC processing companies would most likely not be given access by the state either so using a CC scanner is unlikely as there is a fee associated with every swipe.

I still don't understand what problem the national ID card solves. Why do we need one at all? I promise you that if one card can verify your citizenship people will come up with a way around any security features you can find. Even state databases for DL are not accurate or particularly fast as in the info is only as good as the person who entered it.

To my knowledge there is no accessible electronic national database of U.S. citizens. This would have to be built and updated hundreds of thousands of times a day for every birth and death alone. It would require a broad spectrum of people being able to access and change it from DMV to hospitals to private doctors. For military bases and embassies the access would have to be global. The opportunity to introduce fake information would be enormous and lucrative.

 

[Trakar]

If papers didn't exist, the government officials can't start demanding them. That alone is sufficient reason to do without. No ID cards. No Internet ID cards, either, which will inevitably be required to access it.

Yes, quaint, old-school fears are still rational in this day. Chavez recently outlawed sales of guns and ammo.

Do not let the tools of dictatorship get born. Hence the absolutism of the Bill of Rights.

There are some concerns and issues that still transcend partisanship. I'm glad this is one of them!

 

[Biscuit]

I don't think so. There a are millions of chipped credit cards so I think we would have seen it by now. You don't just set up a microchip factory.

My bank card from USAA is not chipped. Not 6 months ago someone made a physical clone of my card and used it to buy $200 worth of gas on the other side of the country. If all cards are chipped this will not stop.

You may not think so but the thieves look for whats easy and right now thats none chipped cards. If every card is chipped they will figure out a way around it. I have already seen products like this. I had a customer very excitedly showing me his RfID wallet when i pointed he didn't have any chipped cards he felt a little silly.


I think this article will change your mind.

With a Vivotech RFID credit card reader she bought on eBay for $50, Paget wirelessly read a volunteer’s credit card onstage and obtained the card’s number and expiration date, along with the one-time CVV number used by contactless cards to authenticate payments. A second later, she used a $300 card-magnetizing tool to encode that data onto a blank card.

 

[crimresearch]

Have to say, I really don't understand the problem. As far as I can tell none of the objections are actually about having a national ID card, they're actually objections to specific hypothetical, and often rather silly, ways such a card could be implemented. For example, most people seem to be assuming that a national ID card would be a replacement for all other forms of ID and would be mandatory to carry with you at all times.

But why should either of those things be true? The latter seems to be nothing more than wild conspiracy theories about a non-existent police state wanting to randomly demand papers off people in the streets Nazi-style and really isn't worth taking seriously at all. The former is at least a potentially legitimate concern, since it does on the surface sound like it could simplify things, but it's far from necessary so objecting to it should not mean objecting to ID cards even in principle.

As for the problem of data being hacked or stolen, how is that any different from now? An ID card doesn't require any extra data to be collected. It's not going to be tracking your location and shopping habits or anything like that, it's just an ID card. Any information that could be stolen from a database related to it can already be easily stolen anyway.

In my opinion it actually sounds like a pretty good idea. In the UK, we don't actually have ID cards at all. There are two which are generally accepted - driving licenses and passports. Both are entirely optional and require jumping through hoops that people who don't want to make use of their primary purpose have no reason to jump through. ID cards which are supposedly nationally recognised pop up every now and then, but because they're generally small-time affairs only used by a very small minority, they're useless because no-one recognises them and therefore doesn't accept them. So what would be wrong with having a single ID card that actually is nationally recognised? It doesn't have to be forced on people, it doesn't have to replace passports or anything, it's just a national standard that can be used anywhere in the country. The only real concern I can see is cost, and that would depend a lot on the actual details of any proposal.

As for the USA, there's even less problem since you already have ID cards. Just replace state IDs with a consistent standard. There would be virtually no extra cost since apart from the design everything's already in place.



The USA is really rather backwards on that point. In the EU, and quite a few countries elsewhere, all bank cards, not just credit cards, have had chips for a while now. They're certainly not perfectly secure, but they have greatly reduced fraud in face-to-face shopping. Just because other methods of fraud are still possible doesn't mean it's a bad idea to reduce it where you can.

I don't have a state ID card, why do you?

 

[Biscuit]

And as I pointed out to you in those other threads a fake ID might fool the doorman at a bar but government authorities can easily tell it is fake, because they have the means to match the information on the ID with their own records.

And as I explained to you that access to that system is not perfect or instantaneous and the information in the data base is only as good as the information entered by a person. I explained how according to the state of AZ I only weigh 115lbs when in reality I am 215lbs all due to user error inputting the data.

Anything to say about a national ID system or do you want to take this back to that other thread?

 

[Trakar]

I want to back away from a national ID being the repository of all things associated with me and get back to it simply being a way to establish my identity. I think this is a more reasonable goal and more in demand in an era of identity theft. That's the "good" I think will sell it.

I want something that is secure, universally accepted and relatively easy to use. This latter point is the only reason I don't think of a passport as workable.

Once I am able to establish I am who I say I am, then whoever I am dealing with can take up the burden of other information they may require or request. But it has to start with a solid identification.

So how do you provide secure and reliable verification of ID that cannot be forged, duplicated or otherwise compromised? What happens when you promote this card as the ultimate ID and security crazed idiots begin demanding that it is the only reliable ID (despite warnings of potential vulnerabilities) so they start demanding that form of ID only, and campaigning for every one to use the one ID as it is the only one they can really trust. Within a few years, we have defacto eliminated all other forms of acceptable official state and federal ID. Now you have a situation where the card is accepted without question, is the primary if not solitary acceptable form of ID, and you have made a criminal's job easier. They won't need multiple pieces of crafted plastic acquired information. They will only need one to access your life and money. You will have elimated privacy and compromised security moreso than eliminating ID fraud which is largely a minor issue now.

 

[marplots]

So how do you provide secure and reliable verification of ID that cannot be forged, duplicated or otherwise compromised? What happens when you promote this card as the ultimate ID and security crazed idiots begin demanding that it is the only reliable ID (despite warnings of potential vulnerabilities) so they start demanding that form of ID only, and campaigning for every one to use the one ID as it is the only one they can really trust. Within a few years, we have defacto eliminated all other forms of acceptable official state and federal ID. Now you have a situation where the card is accepted without question, is the primary if not solitary acceptable form of ID, and you have made a criminal's job easier. They won't need multiple pieces of crafted plastic acquired information. They will only need one to access your life and money. You will have elimated privacy and compromised security moreso than eliminating ID fraud which is largely a minor issue now.

I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. Certainly a much better way to prove I am who I say I am would do. We see something similar with a kind of graduated level of ID. For some purposes one type will do, for others, even multiple types are required. Wouldn't making a criminal's job harder be enough?

I would say that the best ID available now is a passport. The problem I have with it is a lack of convenience and an inability to verify it electronically (for other than Customs checks). I disagree that multiple forms are more difficult, since they drive each other -- a forged birth certificate and some made-up mail will get you a real state ID in my state. Accessing my "life and money" is a separate issue, isn't it? That's on the holders of the data to verify.

If what you are saying is that privately issued ID is still needed, so what? I don't mind if Citi Bank still wants to send me a credit card. All I want is a way to prove I am who I say I am to either Citi Bank or a merchant when I present that card.

Let's not overlook that any existing ID can be made more secure with bio-metrics and a linked data base. I have a hard time believing you could pass a phoney driver's license off to a cop at a traffic stop. But the purpose of a driver's license is different than a standardized ID, and I can't make sure you aren't fooling me because I can't access the same data base.

This is a relevant issue to me because I freelance online. One of the brokered sites I use has adopted a verified ID policy through a third party. They require a government issued document, a phone call, and a web cam to verify you are who you say you are for online commerce. This is the function I would like to have available to me from both ends -- as someone who wants to buy and as someone who wants to sell. How can I be assured you are who you say you are?

I'm not against anonymity and choice. But if you want to do business with me, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

 

[Trakar]

I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. Certainly a much better way to prove I am who I say I am would do. We see something similar with a kind of graduated level of ID. For some purposes one type will do, for others, even multiple types are required. Wouldn't making a criminal's job harder be enough?

I would say that the best ID available now is a passport. The problem I have with it is a lack of convenience and an inability to verify it electronically (for other than Customs checks). I disagree that multiple forms are more difficult, since they drive each other -- a forged birth certificate and some made-up mail will get you a real state ID in my state. Accessing my "life and money" is a separate issue, isn't it? That's on the holders of the data to verify.

If what you are saying is that privately issued ID is still needed, so what? I don't mind if Citi Bank still wants to send me a credit card. All I want is a way to prove I am who I say I am to either Citi Bank or a merchant when I present that card.

Let's not overlook that any existing ID can be made more secure with bio-metrics and a linked data base. I have a hard time believing you could pass a phoney driver's license off to a cop at a traffic stop. But the purpose of a driver's license is different than a standardized ID, and I can't make sure you aren't fooling me because I can't access the same data base.

This is a relevant issue to me because I freelance online. One of the brokered sites I use has adopted a verified ID policy through a third party. They require a government issued document, a phone call, and a web cam to verify you are who you say you are for online commerce. This is the function I would like to have available to me from both ends -- as someone who wants to buy and as someone who wants to sell. How can I be assured you are who you say you are?

I'm not against anonymity and choice. But if you want to do business with me, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

I'm saying that multiple local, state and federal acceptable IDs are preferrable, and provide greater security and privacy than a single assumed to be perfectly secure form of national ID.

And unless you possessed something I had extreme need of and could not get elsewhere, I probably wouldn't do business with you. If I did need to do business with you it would be by going through those steps you require. Why should this be made universal, however, rather than just the means necessary to do business with you, if the only place that requires such rigor is you? IOW, I wouldn't want or need a card to serve as sufficient ID to do business with you and to verify that I am the proper person using my debit card at a corner convenience store.

In this case you take your necessary identifications to an office of the company you want to do business with, establish your bonefides and create a symetric or asymetric key ID system that works with that company (and a serperate one for each company that you wish to do that sort of business with) and quit trying to create a new and unnecessary problem to address your rather minor issue preferences. Seems rather like trying to change the entire US monetary system because you find the 9/10 of a cent charge on a gallon of gasoline to be confusing and outdated.

 

[AlBell]

I don't think so. There a are millions of chipped credit cards so I think we would have seen it by now. You don't just set up a microchip factory.

Crooks may not choose to, but a US ID that demonstrates citizenship would be valuable enough to enemy states that their security services could accomplish fakes. I find that frightening.

Nor do I want I all my info easily accessable starting solely with an ID.

 

[marplots]

... cut to respond to this part...
And unless you possessed something I had extreme need of and could not get elsewhere, I probably wouldn't do business with you. If I did need to do business with you it would be by going through those steps you require. Why should this be made universal, however, rather than just the means necessary to do business with you, if the only place that requires such rigor is you?

This is probably the strongest objection.

The system (although "system" is really a stretch) now is that for any particular level if ID security, you can either choose to accept the prying eyes of each business you deal with or refuse to do business with them. So, for example, your bank, your hospital, your car dealership, and any of an expanding number of entities know more about you than they probably should. Even if you are presenting a driver's license as identification, they can get your birthdate and other info you might not wish to divulge.

My selling point to you is that a national, recognized for of identification could increase your privacy if you only authorized the first level -- I am who I say I am. It would be enough for me to do business with you because I no longer need all the tangential information about you as "add-ons" simply to verify who you are. Keep your social security number to yourself, keep your mother's maiden name private -- I no longer need it.

Does that help sway you?

If not, consider how close this is to giving out your signature. Your signature is uniquely yours but doesn't give further information, perhaps not even your gender. All it does is match up some activity with you, uniquely.

Now, let us say you do wish to make a claim based on the standardized ID. Suppose you wish to verify that you are a US citizen. I'd like that ability. To do so, I can be empowered to release other information linked to my national ID and bingo! that gets verified as well.

 

[Bob001]

Crooks may not choose to, but a US ID that demonstrates citizenship would be valuable enough to enemy states that their security services could accomplish fakes. I find that frightening.
....

Just a question here. We have a single document now that demonstrates U.S. citizenship. It's called a passport (also available in card form for travel to Canada and Mexico), and once you have one you don't need anything else to prove your identity to the DMV, TSA, banks, employers, etc. Is there any evidence that evil enemy states are manufacturing functional counterfeit passports?

 

[WildCat]

And as I explained to you that access to that system is not perfect or instantaneous and the information in the data base is only as good as the information entered by a person. I explained how according to the state of AZ I only weigh 115lbs when in reality I am 215lbs all due to user error inputting the data.

Why does it have to be perfect or instantaneous? Is that your standard for all things, or just national ID cards?

The fact is a fake card will not fool anyone in the government who has a need to see it.

Anything to say about a national ID system or do you want to take this back to that other thread?

You brought this nonsense up in this thread, I'll respond to it in this thread but thanks for your concern.

 

[WildCat]

So how do you provide secure and reliable verification of ID that cannot be forged, duplicated or otherwise compromised?

Easy, biometric data. A retina scan for example. The holder of the fake card will fail the retina scan.