From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Wed May 11 2005 - 08:59:10 PDT
> Alas, I fully and heartily disagree. And whether a
> tiny step or a large one, it is indeed a further
> travelling down the road to full monitoring of the
> entire citizenry.
It's already in effect. Has been for decades. Technology is just
making it more focused, which is both good and bad. As Glenn pointed
out, this is a driver's license and how many years have you had one of
those? The only thing that is different about this one, from a Big
Brother standpoint, is the thumb print. Which the cops can get from
you if they really wanted it (i.e. booking you for whatever offense
they claim you committed). So besides the thumbprint, what else is
there to object to? The fact that cops will have an easier time
figuring out if you have a legal document instead of a faked one?
> and the "i have nothing to hide, i have done nothing
> illegal" comment is just a tad naive.
And the opposite is paranoia :-)
> What was once legal can easily be made illegal.
> Remember prohibition??
Didn't need a national ID for that, nor computers and fancy listening
devices. Just overbearing religious zealots who somehow managed to get
others to ram through legislation before the people knew what hit them.
Not that we have any risk of that happening today...
> or simply being Jewish in Nazi Germany, or gay, or
> "non-conformist"?
How does a unified driver's license allow them to figure out you're gay
or a member of the Green Party?
> What about a having been a succesful businessman in
> Russia in 1917?
Or a successful slave trading businessman when the evil Unionists put a
stop to it! Reality is that societies change, standards change, and so
on and so forth. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. National
IDs (which this thing is not) weren't needed before and won't be needed
now or in the future to continue that cycle.
> Funny though, a former
> convicted prisoner doesnt have to tell the police when
> they move...
That's because in this country when you've done your time you are now
considered square with society. It's the way things are here, even if
the system is so badly broken that too often criminals come out of jail
worse than they went in. If people felt like sex-offenders were worth
defending the whole notification process would likely be thrown out as
unconstitutional. But like Prohibition, its in place even though it is
probably a violation of the Bill of Rights (or at least it's a Big
Brother precedent that could be applied to Gays, Liberals, Muslims, or
any other "enemies of the state").
> History has thousands of examples of things being
> legal then illegal, and stuff like this makes it just
> that much easier to target you..
>
> "sorry sir, we've decided that antique military
> vehicles should not be in private hands" zip..away
> goes your collection
They could easily do that now or at any time in the past. All a few
people need to do is get together and sign a bit of paper that says
"private citizens can no longer drink a beer" and bingo... it's law.
It's that simple. Nothing more is needed. Enforcing it... on the
other hand, depends on circumstances. As it was the police, local
politicians, and "moves and shakers" had all the booze they could
drink... it was just the poor schmucks on the street that were
affected.
> Such ID cards can (and will Im sure) be eventually
> used in conjunction with scanners to gain admission to
> all kinds of places..and once scanned, there will be a
> record of you having been there, whereever "there"
> might be, and who knows how that may eventually be
> used against you..
Unfortunately, probably true. But having a unified look to driver's
licenses is hardly a step in that direction. I bet some old timers on
this list can probably tell us that at one point driver's licenses were
not standard within the state, yet nobody has a problem carrying around
the license they already have.
> Remember the hearings for US Judge Thomas when his
> video rental was brought up??? That's scary!
Or when Ashcroft got his wet dream of being able to get library records
without having to notify anybody and putting the librarian in hot water
if they so much as mumbled that the FBI had been around? *THAT* is the
kind of stuff that we should be worried about... but I don't recall
anybody on this list getting upset over it.
> Anyway, if you are unhappy about this, best to
> complain to your senator. Complaining on lists like
> this serves very little indeed.
Yup, but complaining about things like this to Senators won't likely do
anything either.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 22:42:51 PDT