Boggie Dog

I've yet to hear a convincing argument why ID matters to fly domestically given all passengers have met and passed TSA's security screening for WEI.

QtownDave

Different issue entirely from what I’m talking about but I don’t really disagree.

Boggie Dog

Feds mandating a National ID standard pretty much makes it a national ID that is being used to control citizens movement. If anyone thinks it will stop with just domestic air travel then I’m afraid there will be some major disappointment in the coming years.

If the difference between states setting Operator Permit standards and the feds mandating ID standards isn’t obvious I’m not sure that I have the ability to make the issue clearer

QtownDave

That too is different than Real ID vs the previous ID.

Boggie Dog

Not trying to be obtuse but think the difference is obvious.

catocony

The same thing applies to social security numbers as well. They weren't meant to be an identity control but simply something akin to a bank account number. Our whole economy and maybe our democracy is increasingly based on our retirement account number and our proof that we can drive a car around the block without crashing it.

schrodingerdog

As a non-US citizen, I am amazed about the hate and fear that a "National ID Card" creates in lots of US (and UK) citizens.

My home country has a mandatory national ID card for all citizens, and the country where I live currently also has a mandatory national ID card for citizens and foreigners.

They are both extremely useful to prove my citizenship rights and to do online paperwork, they are extremely cheap ($13.4 for a 10 years validity ID card in my home country) and they allow me to travel to a lot of countries without having to take my passport. I can't think of a single downside of having one. Oh yes, both governments have my full name (they know anyway), DoB (same), address (same) and PoB (same) in a database which seems... logic.

gsoltso

Part of the reasoning (not all by any stretch of the imagination) is rooted in Americans as a whole being fairly contrary by nature. We fought England because they tried to tell us what to do and we didn't want to follow their rules. We fought in WW1 because there was a chance that we would face a stronger foe later in the conflict - that would try to tell us what to do. We fought in WWII because it was perceived as an existential threat to the world (and more selfishly the US after the Eurasian areas were conquered) - meaning someone would try to tell us what to do.

There are many that see a National ID as an abrogation of citizens Rights, individual States Rights, and an erosion of privacy on a national scale.

In many cases, it is not a hatred of the concept, nor is it a fear of this concept. It is a fear that unchecked declarations by the Federal government can lead to a loss of freedoms and civil liberties - as evidenced by many people on both the liberal side of the political spectrum and the conservative side, banding together to oppose this (not that it has been completely effective - RealID is still there and the states have caved, so it is still around).

There is also the visceral memory of the requirement for National Papers during the lead up to WWII and all during the war. We Americans as a group typically do not like being told what to do, and for a large part naturally have a tendency to push back some when it happens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the benefit that may or may not be there.

The above issues were much more complex than just not wanting to be told what to do, but that is a part of it.

QtownDave

On the other hand I never understood the complete faith and trust in government, because of history and stuff.

schrodingerdog

I really struggle to see how a national ID can affect these three things.

* Erosion of privacy. Well, one would think that the government will know the full name, DoB, PoB and address of all its citizens and legal residents. Otherwise I don't see how a government can collect taxes, provide services, recruit military etc. If you accept that the government knows that, then a national ID scheme provides no extra data.

* Abrogation of citizens Rights. My national ID card is the easiest way to actually prove my right as a citizen. If I go to a hospital to my home or my actual country, my ID cards allow me to get healthcare services as a citizen / legal resident.

* Individual States Rights. If you are sharing your sovereignty to be part of a Federal State, it seems quite logic to me that the federal government *should* know who is a citizen, as a citizen of one given state is also a citizen of the federal state.

As for asking for an ID to board a flight, it seems an easy way to catch people with an arrest warrant on the loose.

WillCAD

1. Sure, the government has your name, DoB, PoB, address, and a lot of other info about you. However, in the US, surveillance of people by the government is prohibited without a warrant, and is highly limited as to duration, type, and extent. Linking all of the government's information about you to a card which you must then show to a government actor in order to travel, immediately becomes a form of automated, blanket, mass tracking of people without such warrant, and is thus prohibited. It's also creepy as heck, and NOBODY wants Uncle Sam stalking them any more than they want a crazy ex stalking them.

2. In the US, you are not required to prove you have a right, the government is required to prove that you don't. Presumption of innocence, and all that. Health care in the US is provided by private entities, not the government, so you don't have to show an ID to the government to obtain such services.

3. In the US, rights are not based on citizenship - ALL people have rights. Only privileges are dependent on citizenship or legal status. No one is required to show ID or prove identity in order to exercise rights or enjoy freedoms - if you are required to prove that you have a right in order to exercise it, then it's not really a right, it's a revocable privilege.

"Papers, please" is a phrase that most Americans associate strongly with restrictive regimes like Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union. Domestic travel in the US does not require permission from the government, it's a right, known generally as Freedom of Movement, and any restrictions placed upon it instantly rile most Americans.

4. In the US, there is no obligation to prove that you're not a criminal on a regular basis (see "presumption of innocence" above), particularly not to exercise one's basic rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of speech, or freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. Requiring a person to show government ID to prove you're not a criminal before you can exercise such rights is a violation of such rights.

In plainer language, all of this fancy talk means that, according to the US Constitution, I don't have to prove to the government that I'm not a criminal in order to walk around the block, meet with friends, express my opinion, bike to the next town, or board an airplane to another part of the country. It's up to the government to go out and FIND the criminals, without abridging the rights of everyone else to do it. The belief that some kind of security is created by requiring me to show a government-issued ID card a government official before I may exercise one of my Constitutionally protected rights, such as traveling, is patently false, and is also a violation of several of our most basic rights. That's why Americans tend to balk at any such things, even though other countries have them and think we're being wimpy about it.

Section 107

VERY well said.

In addition, while government itself, in theory, is not bad, government is made up of humans some of whom, all too regularly, misuse and abuse their authority and capabilities in spite of prohibitions. And once the government has done something illegal or simply unjust it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to get it to fess up, let alone remedy the situation. Better to keep as much limit and restraint on the gubmint from the get-go than to try to rein it back in.

catocony

The US doesn't have a single database. The IRS knows about my taxes, but they cannot share that info with any other Federal agency. The Social Security Administration knows about my pay, but they can't share that info with any other Federal agency. So even on the Federal side, there isn't a single dossier on every citizen. I'm a citizen because my birth certificate says so, but the Federal government doesn't issue those - states do. Likewise, there isn't a Federal drivers license (for ordinary drivers), those are all done at the individual state level. Which leads us to Real ID, which is more based on correlating citizenship to my ability to parallel park and my proclivity to get a speeding ticket every 5 years or so.

The US system of government is simply different than any other country, so it's citizens by extension tend to have a different view of government than most other places.

As to the part about TSA checking for warrants, since they are not law enforcement, they have no more powers of arrest than I do walking down the street. We don't have armed police at every checkpoint, just like we don't have armed policy standing around every subway or bus stop. After 9/11 there was a general deployment of local police at airport checkpoints, but there were there to keep the peace, not check to see if passengers had warrants. The National Guard were there for a while, with rifles but without ammo loaded, just looking bored for the most part. We don't really have a Federal police force (hence local police at airports) and the active-duty and reserve Federal military cannot police US citizens with US territory (hence National Guard at the airports after 9/11 sans ammo locked and loaded).

Section 107

Well, the bolded statements are not entirely accurate. Information sharing between agencies is controlled but is allowed under specified circumstances. But the number of allowed specified circumstances is much greater than most people would generally expect, resulting in LOTS of sharing of information between federal agencies, particularly by the two mentioned, especially in regards to regulatory enforcement, criminal law enforcement, counter-intelligence and eligibility for and processing of benefits in many categories.

gsoltso

1. Ostensibly, in the US, the information is supposed to be compartmentalized until needed for some compelling legal reason, or the individual willingly indicates that the information can be shared (which, is how the .Gov group will defend their position with this - at least, IMHO)
2. Forcing someone to do something under color of law, is an abrogation of their rights, period. There are situations where the issue is murky because of informed consent and things of that nature, but to come out and require a citizen to do something requires a compelling legal reason in the US (or, rather, it is supposed to at this point)
3. The US was designed to be a loosely affiliated collection of individual States, allowing their citizens to primarily live under their own set of laws. Then there was a Federal government designed to provide for common defense, and to generally rule over interstate squabbles, as well as Rights related issues from state to state - like when one state doesn't recognize the laws of another (the Fed is much more complicated, this is really oversimplified for the sake of discussion). At this point, it is the other way around, the Federal government is involved in everything, and the requirements by the Feds to do something at the state level is consistent now - although they do it in a less straightforward fashion (like withholding Federal dollars if a State fails to do what the Feds want).

The US was designed to be a Constitutional Republic, and we are not quite there at the moment. Since the country was designed to be a bit contrary to the major powers of the world at the time of founding (Monarchies, Totalitarian regimes, etc), the average American has a pretty stubborn streak about being told to do something they dislike or disagree with. Hence the current pushback. If the ID were voluntary in every sense of the word, there would be some grumbling, but the ones that wanted it, would get it, the others would not and everyone would go on about their business and be relatively happy. At this point, there is a situation where some folks will have challenges because of the ID that they have that is good enough for the State, but not good enough for the Feds - and it does not just apply to aviation, it is just that aviation is going to be the most visible.