| |
|
Your Papers Please: National Identification Cards |
|
|
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Wednesday, 24 November 2004 |
November 24, 2004
Your Papers Please: National Identification Cards
American Military University
SS 121, American Government I
by James Landrith
Following
the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York City,
Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, the concept of a mandatory national
identification card has crept back into public policy discussions and
debates. While not a new idea in many parts of the world such as Hong
Kong, Malaysia, South Africa and most of Europe, national
identification cards would be new to the United States (EPIC).
On its extensive webpage titled “National ID Cards,” the Electronic Privacy Information Center reports that:
In
1971, the Social Security Administration task force on the SSN rejected
the extension of the Social Security Number to the status of an ID
Card. In 1973, the Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Secretary’s
Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems concluded that a
national identifier was not desirable. In 1976, the Federal Advisory
Committee on False Identification rejected the idea of an identifier.
In 1977, the Carter Administration reiterated that the SSN was not to
become an identifier, and in 1981 the Reagan Administration stated that
it was “explicitly opposed” to the creation of a national ID card.
As
the above text from the Electronic Privacy Information Center
demonstrates, throughout multiple Administrations and political party
changes in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, at the height of the Cold War,
the American government repeatedly rejected the concept of mandatory
national identification cards.
Further, according to the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, this idea re-emerged during the
Clinton Administration’s national discussion on health care reform.
EPIC also reports that:
In 1999 Congress repealed a
controversial provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 which gave authorization to include Social
Security Numbers on drivers’ licenses.
An American Civil
Liberties Union report from 1996 claims that the social security number
provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 would be “misplaced” and a “superficial
quick fix.” Three years later, Congress agreed and removed the
provision from the law (EPIC).
The American Civil Liberties
Union further pointed out that the use of social security numbers or
other forms of a national identification card “would be no more
reliable than the documents a person would show to obtain” the national
identification card. In short, fraudulent backup paperwork could easily
be used to obtain what would otherwise be considered a legitimate
identification card from the government. Further, such an
identification card would make government oppression of political
minorities far easier to accomplish through increased ability to
perform surveillance and tracking of an individual’s movement through
the use of his national identification card.
Further elaborating
on this theme, David Sobel of Boston University School of Law has
chronicled the ugly history of abuses of several nations visited upon
their respective citizenry through the use of identification cards and
paper systems. For instance, slavery era laws in the United States
required slaves traveling off their respective plantations to carry
permission passes (Sobel). In France, the use of the world’s first
passport was created to control the movements of political dissidents
following the French Revolution. This now commonly used document soon
spread across Europe as an effective method of internally controlling
political dissidents and other critics of the status quo (Sobel).
In A History of South Africa,
Robert Lacour-Gayet discusses the use of identification methods by the
apartheid South African government to control the movement of non-white
citizens. Lacour-Gayet points out that all individuals over the age of
sixteen were required to possess an “identity book and proof of their
work contract” in order to travel outside their government segregated
communities.
A similar system of identity controls were used by
Nazi Germany to track and suppress the movement of its Jewish citizenry
during the years leading up to World War II and the Holocaust (Sobel).
German officials used government collected documents to access birth
records, business documentation, marriage licenses and other forms of
data collection to identify and segregate populations based on
religion, sexual orientation, race and other factors (Sobel). While
such a task could surely be accomplished without the records, the
logistics of such would have been much more difficult, costly, time
consuming and less accurate without having access to the previously
collected documentation. Clearly, collecting such data for so-called
harmless ends like tracking statistics on marriages or births can
easily be used for much more devious ends by future regimes.
The
concept of a national identification card, resurrected from the policy
graveyard, is again being discussed and debated as a potential weapon
in the war on terror. This time, however, the proponents of such a
concept have chosen to promote a de facto national
identification card via coordination of an individual’s driver’s
license and national information databases. The American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) Special Task Force on
Identification Security has repeatedly requested that Congress
implement a mandatory plan to standardize and link all state license
databases and identification cards for ease of identification tracking
and issuance. Further, the AAMVA advocate that Congress mandate the use
of biometric identifiers such as a thumbprint or retinal scan on
driver’s licenses and other forms of government issued identification
(EPIC).
While such provisions can possibly lead to a moderate
increase in security, they will likely also lead to greater control of
the citizenry through the government’s increased ability to monitor and
track political opponents and dissident movements (Sobel). In addition,
the AAMVA proposals would shift the focus of state driver’s licensing
offices from issuing licenses and identity cards to verification of
citizenship and various unrelated tasks. These additional powers open
the door to unnecessary accumulation of personal and professional
information in government databases. The more information a particular
government agency is allowed to accumulate about its citizens, the
greater the possibility of abuse of said data and suppression of the
public by dishonest or tyrannical leaders.
The accumulation of
such data by government agencies also seems to be in violation of the
Fourth Amendment’s restriction against “unreasonable searches and
seizures.” By allowing such data hoarding of private information, the
government would be complicit in the public’s loss of privacy and the
potential for abuses of said data by future administrations.
On
February 11, 2002, a non-partisan coalition of national civil liberties
organizations, policy institutes and related publications, including my
publication The Multiracial Activist, sent a letter to President George
W. Bush outlining our concerns with the AAMVA’s proposal. First, the
coalition pointed out that an “identity card is only as good as the
information that establishes” the individual’s identity. Second, this
proposal would require massive amounts of personal data storage by
government agencies. Third, a national identification program would
drain away funding from more legitimate uses, such as border security
and other methods of counter-terrorism. Fourth, the accumulation of
such data in multiple databases leaves the information vulnerable to
hacking and the public exposed to a greater chance of identity theft.
Fifth, once established, a national identification card system could
easily be transitioned into an “internal passport,” restricting
movement and stifling dissent.
Later that same year, H.R. 4633,
the “Driver’s License Modernization Act of 2002” was introduced in the
U.S. House of Representatives. The same coalition of organizations sent
another letter in opposition. This letter was addressed to Chairman Don
Young and Ranking Member James Oberstar of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. In addition to the previous
concerns, the coalition was especially distressed by the addition of a
provision allowing private corporate databases to be linked to
government databases. Such a linkage, without the consent of those
included in the database, would greatly increase the amount of
information available to bureaucratic agencies about the public.
Over
the next two years, little happened on this front until the passage of
H.R. 10 in the House and S. 2845 in the Senate. The same coalition
responsible for the two 2002 letters issued another letter to the
Conference Committee on Intelligence Reform on November 15, 2004,
outlining their concerns with the AAMVA’s database expansion proposal
being included in the bills passed by both Houses of Congress. These
bills are currently stalled in Conference, but the possibility of a de facto
national identification card is extremely likely in the very near
future. Should such an undesirable outcome occur, the possibilities for
theft of information, fraud, impersonation, blackmail and suppression
of minority political views will be greatly increased.
References
Lacour-Gayet, Robert. A History of South Africa. London: Cassell. 1977.
“National Identification Cards.” American Civil Liberties Union. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaidcard.html>.
“National ID Cards.” Electronic Privacy Information Center. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/>.
“Open Letter to the Conference Committee on Intelligence Reform.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 15 Nov. 2004. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2004-11-15.pdf>.
“Letter to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 27 Jun. 2002. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2002-06-27.pdf>.
“Letter to President George W. Bush.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 11 Feb. 2002. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2002-02-11.html>.
“Your Papers, Please: From the State Drivers License To A National Identification System.” Electronic Privacy Information Center. Feb. 2002.
 Add as favourites (74) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 6933
|
- Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
- Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
- Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
- Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
- Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 05 January 2008 )
|
|
|
Be first to comment this article
