Explain this to a stupid European.....
Jun 20, 2008, 1:03 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
Explain this to a stupid European.....
.. why is it that Americans are soo anti some form of Standardized ID. Be it Passports or ID Cards or DL. Heck it would make your travelling lives so much easier and we wouldn't hear some of the sob stories about denied boarding etc. because the person got the wrong info somewhere.
On the otherhand everytime someone suggests a way to make your lives easier there is an uproar - why for goodness sake is it such ab big deal to have some standardized form of ID????
On the otherhand everytime someone suggests a way to make your lives easier there is an uproar - why for goodness sake is it such ab big deal to have some standardized form of ID????
Jun 20, 2008, 1:30 am
#2
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ASHBURN,VA,USA
Programs: UA 1K3MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium , Hertz PC
Posts: 405
I am not a US Citizen but I have lived in the US over a decade ...
There is a form of standardized ID : the passport .... which is required for international travel and accepted as such ....
However no one can force you to have a passport if you don't intend to travel internationally ... (or to use it domestically : see below)
And as the US constitution grants free travel (without any ID) within the US there is absolutely no incentive for sustaining the additionnal burden by taxpayers of a new "Standard ID" even more so if its purpose is contrary to the constitutionnal right to free domestic travel ...
Further "ID for (air) travel" is an issue involved in many controversies , none of which help making a case for a standard ID :
-initially (and still today) the purpose of ID checks is revenue protection for airlines -> this is a private / corporate / economical interest ...
-the TSA current position / rhetoric on the need for ID which has arguably little to do with air travel safety.
There is a form of standardized ID : the passport .... which is required for international travel and accepted as such ....
However no one can force you to have a passport if you don't intend to travel internationally ... (or to use it domestically : see below)
And as the US constitution grants free travel (without any ID) within the US there is absolutely no incentive for sustaining the additionnal burden by taxpayers of a new "Standard ID" even more so if its purpose is contrary to the constitutionnal right to free domestic travel ...
Further "ID for (air) travel" is an issue involved in many controversies , none of which help making a case for a standard ID :
-initially (and still today) the purpose of ID checks is revenue protection for airlines -> this is a private / corporate / economical interest ...
-the TSA current position / rhetoric on the need for ID which has arguably little to do with air travel safety.
Jun 20, 2008, 1:58 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
wait a minute but do I not remember seeing only recently that even US citizens are now required to show some form of ID when passing security at airports???
What is the big deal about not ID yourself to a federal agent??? You are still free to travel as you please - they just want to know if you are who you say you are AND I would figure that is the more important part IF you are entilted to that freedom - once again so form of ID (Come on they not Physic and can see you are an american and have this legal right - you have to proove it)
What is the big deal about not ID yourself to a federal agent??? You are still free to travel as you please - they just want to know if you are who you say you are AND I would figure that is the more important part IF you are entilted to that freedom - once again so form of ID (Come on they not Physic and can see you are an american and have this legal right - you have to proove it)
Jun 20, 2008, 2:15 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ICN / 평택
Programs: AA, DL Gold, UA Gold, HHonors Gold
Posts: 8,714
I can't speak for all Americans, but for me, I am a very private person and it is really no one's business but my own why and where I'm flying to.
If the airlines want me to identify myself, that is one thing. I've bought a ticket from them and agree to their rules under the contract of carriage. If some government entity that is not associated with the airline can physically keep me from executing my end of the bargain with the airline, I have a big problem with that. If I can clear security, that should be proof enough that I can fly. Some of us don't want to live in a surveillence society.
If the airlines want me to identify myself, that is one thing. I've bought a ticket from them and agree to their rules under the contract of carriage. If some government entity that is not associated with the airline can physically keep me from executing my end of the bargain with the airline, I have a big problem with that. If I can clear security, that should be proof enough that I can fly. Some of us don't want to live in a surveillence society.
Jun 20, 2008, 2:46 am
#5
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 342
Originally Posted by etch5895;9910002[B
]I can't speak for all Americans, but for me, I am a very private person and it is really no one's business but my own why and where I'm flying to.[/B]
If the airlines want me to identify myself, that is one thing. I've bought a ticket from them and agree to their rules under the contract of carriage. If some government entity that is not associated with the airline can physically keep me from executing my end of the bargain with the airline, I have a big problem with that. If I can clear security, that should be proof enough that I can fly. Some of us don't want to live in a surveillence society.
If the airlines want me to identify myself, that is one thing. I've bought a ticket from them and agree to their rules under the contract of carriage. If some government entity that is not associated with the airline can physically keep me from executing my end of the bargain with the airline, I have a big problem with that. If I can clear security, that should be proof enough that I can fly. Some of us don't want to live in a surveillence society.
Jun 20, 2008, 2:50 am
#6
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PDX,PHX,LON
Programs: too many of the few that are left
Posts: 627
There are no stupid questions
—but if you're European, you probably are a citizen of a government that proposes rights mostly similar to ours. The U.S. Constitution puts a higher premium on privacy than some others, because it was created by outcasts. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I hope this will help:
1) Because a major principle of our form of government is limiting federal interference with travel and association with others. Having legal internal travel monitored invades our cherished privacy: whatever has nothing to do with prevention of crime, collection of taxes or provision of service is none of the government's business. This relates to far older principles in Scottish and English law to the idea that a sovereign rules by consent of the governed, not the reverse.
2) Because identity theft has become a serious problem: RealID as designed (assuming that's what you're asking about) provides carte blanche to the criminals who do it. Identity theft may go beyond stealing your money and ruining your credit rating. It is very difficult to undo the damage. Even minor attempts can disrupt one's life for many years.
3) Because the government now in power has established its active hostility to the rule of law. It follows neither the letter nor the spirit. It has promoted torture, invaded other nations on false pretext of imminent danger, and imprisoned people for years without accusing them of crimes or bringing them to trial. Governments that abuse outsiders generally treat their own citizens no better.
If your government were doing these things, would you want to trust it with new powers, and assume it would use them judiciously?
20th century Eurasian history provides plenty of evidence that, if a government actively improves its ability to monitor its citizens, it tends to use this to restrict their rights, not protect them.
—but if you're European, you probably are a citizen of a government that proposes rights mostly similar to ours. The U.S. Constitution puts a higher premium on privacy than some others, because it was created by outcasts. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I hope this will help:1) Because a major principle of our form of government is limiting federal interference with travel and association with others. Having legal internal travel monitored invades our cherished privacy: whatever has nothing to do with prevention of crime, collection of taxes or provision of service is none of the government's business. This relates to far older principles in Scottish and English law to the idea that a sovereign rules by consent of the governed, not the reverse.
2) Because identity theft has become a serious problem: RealID as designed (assuming that's what you're asking about) provides carte blanche to the criminals who do it. Identity theft may go beyond stealing your money and ruining your credit rating. It is very difficult to undo the damage. Even minor attempts can disrupt one's life for many years.
3) Because the government now in power has established its active hostility to the rule of law. It follows neither the letter nor the spirit. It has promoted torture, invaded other nations on false pretext of imminent danger, and imprisoned people for years without accusing them of crimes or bringing them to trial. Governments that abuse outsiders generally treat their own citizens no better.
If your government were doing these things, would you want to trust it with new powers, and assume it would use them judiciously?
20th century Eurasian history provides plenty of evidence that, if a government actively improves its ability to monitor its citizens, it tends to use this to restrict their rights, not protect them.
Jun 20, 2008, 2:57 am
#7
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PDX,PHX,LON
Programs: too many of the few that are left
Posts: 627
The government (represented by TSA) isn't party to this contract, so has no business sticking its nose in (if you're traveling within its borders), let alone interfering with execution of the contract.
IANAL, would those who are please correct me, if I have this wrong?
Last edited by YCTTSFM; Jun 20, 2008 at 3:02 am Reason: added intl/domestic distinction
Jun 20, 2008, 3:31 am
#8
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Programs: BA, UA, DL
Posts: 201
I'm an American living in the UK. It's debatable, of course, whether the English, Welsh, and/or Scottish are European in the full sense of the term, but the present Government seems to think so. That said, UK citizens travelling internally are entitled to more privacy than American domestic travellers, rather than less. No photo ID is required for domestic air travel or rail travel, and you are not required to have your driver's license on you to drive - if you are pulled over you have I believe a week to send in your identification. The profusion of CCTV and the use of extrajudicial detentions in the UK are both modern phenomena and remain highly controversial.
Privacy is not an invention of the US constitution, it is the ancient right of all free citizens in common law societies. "An Englishman's home is his castle" etc. Continental legal systems are different, but I do not believe there is any indication that they have worked better over the long run. I don't trust any government, and if you know your own history, I'm surprised that you do.
Does that help?
Privacy is not an invention of the US constitution, it is the ancient right of all free citizens in common law societies. "An Englishman's home is his castle" etc. Continental legal systems are different, but I do not believe there is any indication that they have worked better over the long run. I don't trust any government, and if you know your own history, I'm surprised that you do.
Does that help?
Jun 20, 2008, 3:45 am
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
Perhaps I can clarify want I mean..... I am a member of an EU schengen state (the UK does not belong to them) We too have the right to move around freely with in the 20 odd memebr states. HOWEVER we are required to carry at least our ID cards (which are basically a copy of the laminated part of our passports with an addtional adresse paragraph) We are often asked to show these cards when passing borders with in the Schengen states but in most cases it is simply a proof of the fact that we are memebrs of the EU and are entilted to that right. Example if you arrive on a flight from one Schegen to another there will often be no checks at all but if they do and you show them this ID you are always waved through. Not a huge deal and no swiping of cards or registering of your movement etc. Of course if you are considered suspious they will check up the number to see if there are any warrents for your arrest etc. But I really cannot see that as a bad thing as it gets the futitve criminals into legal proceedings.
This system makes everyones life easier - everyone knows what document is required end of story. There is none of this is this the correct BC - raised seal or not...... the list of troubles we hear about goes on....
This system makes everyones life easier - everyone knows what document is required end of story. There is none of this is this the correct BC - raised seal or not...... the list of troubles we hear about goes on....
Jun 20, 2008, 6:14 am
#10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Programs: Miles&More Blue, SPG Silver
Posts: 3,376
.. why is it that Americans are soo anti some form of Standardized ID. Be it Passports or ID Cards or DL. Heck it would make your travelling lives so much easier and we wouldn't hear some of the sob stories about denied boarding etc. because the person got the wrong info somewhere.
On the otherhand everytime someone suggests a way to make your lives easier there is an uproar - why for goodness sake is it such ab big deal to have some standardized form of ID????
On the otherhand everytime someone suggests a way to make your lives easier there is an uproar - why for goodness sake is it such ab big deal to have some standardized form of ID????
First topic: One standardized ID.
Second topic: Showing any kind of government ID for traveling domestically.
First topic: Personally I think a standardized ID would solve some problems like for example the common use of the social security number as identification for credit background checks. Still I absolutely understand everyone in the US who doesn't want a standardized ID especially when it involves federal agencies. The United States has a completely different history and based on this the relationship between people and government is totally different. You have to keep out your European understanding of governments to see why an federal ID in the US would be a radical change in the relationship of US government and the American people.
Second topic: No ID for domestic travel! This is unbelievable and doesn't help to increase security. Especially someone from Europe should see this. One of the great developments in Europe is the Schengen treaty. Passport/ID free travel between the Schengen members. No passport controls at borders. And is traveling within the Schengen members more dangerous because of that? Of course not.
Again don't mix the two topics. The DHS is using the security arguement to dictate the Real ID (a standardized ID for all Americans based on federal rules). Don't let you trick you by the DHS and the foul arguement.
Jun 20, 2008, 6:39 am
#11
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: HNL
Programs: AS MVPG
Posts: 236
You do carry an ID, but remember that you are still crossing into a foreign country when you pass between Schengen treaty countries. The people of the EU member states have not yet voted their nations out of existence. In the meantime, it would be silly for the German government to demand to see your papers to travel from Bremen to Bavaria. Or from your home to the market in the next town. They're in the same country and so there is no practical purpose. Why do I need papers to travel within my own country?
Now for the incompatibilities with the American system and culture. The United States is a republic consisting of 50 states that are subsumed within the US, but still retain some strong powers within their borders. This includes jurisdiction over the forms of state ID that their residents carry. Passports are solely for foreign travel, which in turn is clearly the business of the federal government according to the Constitution. So no problem there. But imposing a unified, federal, national ID for domestic purposes violates multiple articles of the Constitution. Tramples on the rights of the states to manage their own affairs within their borders, you see.
Our government was intentionally designed to create tension among the feds and the states, and among the states, and among the feds themselves. It's because our founders (and many colonists) were generally suspicious of government interference in their business.
Now for the incompatibilities with the American system and culture. The United States is a republic consisting of 50 states that are subsumed within the US, but still retain some strong powers within their borders. This includes jurisdiction over the forms of state ID that their residents carry. Passports are solely for foreign travel, which in turn is clearly the business of the federal government according to the Constitution. So no problem there. But imposing a unified, federal, national ID for domestic purposes violates multiple articles of the Constitution. Tramples on the rights of the states to manage their own affairs within their borders, you see.
Our government was intentionally designed to create tension among the feds and the states, and among the states, and among the feds themselves. It's because our founders (and many colonists) were generally suspicious of government interference in their business.
Last edited by finlandia; Jun 20, 2008 at 6:39 am Reason: typo
Jun 20, 2008, 6:43 am
#12
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 6,031
We too have the right to move around freely with in the 20 odd memebr states. HOWEVER we are required to carry at least our ID cards (which are basically a copy of the laminated part of our passports with an addtional adresse paragraph) We are often asked to show these cards when passing borders with in the Schengen states but in most cases it is simply a proof of the fact that we are memebrs of the EU and are entilted to that right.
Jun 20, 2008, 7:26 am
#13
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CLT
Posts: 7,249
The biggest problem with the RealID is not so much that it is a standardized ID, but that it also provides datamining and a 50 state database. People get falsely accused and now all 50 states are aware of it and it can haunt you.
From Wikipedia
From Wikipedia
Each state must agree to share its motor vehicle database with all other states. This database must include, at a minimum, all the data printed on the state drivers' licenses and ID cards, plus drivers' histories (including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses).
Original legislation contained one of the most controversial elements which did not make it into the final legislation that was signed into law. It would have required states to sign a new compact known as the Driver License Agreement (DLA) as written by the Joint Driver's License Compact/ Non-Resident Violators Compact Executive Board with the support of AAMVA which would have required states to give reciprocity to those provinces and territories in Canada and those states in Mexico that joined the DLA and complied with its provisions. As a part of the DLA, states would be required to network their databases with these provinces, territories and Mexican states. The databases that are accessible would include sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, home addresses and other information. The foreign states and provinces are not required to abide with the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and are free to access and use the sensitive information as they see fit.
Traffic violations would be required to be sent to the licensing jurisdiction and be recorded. The licensing jurisdiction would be required to act on the violation according to its own laws such as assigning points and insurance surcharges to the driver not only for violations reported from DLA members but also from non-DLA members as well. The DLA requires member states to treat non-DLA states as if they are DLA members concerning their drivers.
Since foreign countries are included, there are no procedures to deal with due process issues such as a U.S. driver getting cited for a violation in a foreign country. Although not discussed, other countries could sign on to the DLA at a later time, such as the European Union countries.
Original legislation contained one of the most controversial elements which did not make it into the final legislation that was signed into law. It would have required states to sign a new compact known as the Driver License Agreement (DLA) as written by the Joint Driver's License Compact/ Non-Resident Violators Compact Executive Board with the support of AAMVA which would have required states to give reciprocity to those provinces and territories in Canada and those states in Mexico that joined the DLA and complied with its provisions. As a part of the DLA, states would be required to network their databases with these provinces, territories and Mexican states. The databases that are accessible would include sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, home addresses and other information. The foreign states and provinces are not required to abide with the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and are free to access and use the sensitive information as they see fit.
Traffic violations would be required to be sent to the licensing jurisdiction and be recorded. The licensing jurisdiction would be required to act on the violation according to its own laws such as assigning points and insurance surcharges to the driver not only for violations reported from DLA members but also from non-DLA members as well. The DLA requires member states to treat non-DLA states as if they are DLA members concerning their drivers.
Since foreign countries are included, there are no procedures to deal with due process issues such as a U.S. driver getting cited for a violation in a foreign country. Although not discussed, other countries could sign on to the DLA at a later time, such as the European Union countries.
Jun 20, 2008, 8:05 am
#14
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: CO
Posts: 238
German driver's licenses are good for life. I got one back in the 80s.It's never happened, but if I ever get stopped while doing nothing wrong, and am asked for proof of identity for absolutely no reason, I plan to whip that out.
It's proof of identity!
Jun 20, 2008, 9:04 am
#15
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
When you fly the airline submits your name to the government requesting permission to travel (i.e., checks the no-fly list), and waits for a response. That the default answer is "yes" for most people is irrelevant to the level of freedom. Particularly if your name is David Nelson or Robert Johnson and the default answer is "no," and thus you don't really have the freedom at all.
Logically speaking, the system is no different than that of a mid-1900s authoritarian government where you have to go to a clerk and request travel papers before going anywhere; it's just that the system is fully automated and most people don't notice it. Making matters worse, the no-fly list is secret, there's no way to find out if you are on it or why, and there's no effective means of getting yourself off it.
Essentially, the US Government has decreed that there is a group of US citizens that are not evil enough to arrest/convict but too evil to be allowed free movement throughout the country. That is so against the spirit of the US Constitution and culture that I can't even begin to quantify it.
Having a national ID only facilitates this abusive system by making it harder to bypass and making it easier for people to demand that ID and check the "list."
To give the OP an idea of how bad this whole thing is to some Americans, IMO the no-fly list is so anti-American that the architects and leaders responsible for it should be brought up on treason charges and imprisoned for life.