"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >[snip]
    >> >It generally really serves no purpose.
    >> >
    >> Insurance is also unnecessary for most people most of the time, other
    >> than perhaps giving them some peace of mind. But when it is
    >necessary,
    >> it can be very useful indeed.
    >Yes, but when it is not used, it really has little opportunity
    >to be abused either. ID cards on the other hand provide
    >an avenue for abuse that does not currently exist. (Just
    >as there is alot of insurance that is sold for questionable
    >prices and for questionable risks as well as questionably
    >useful coverage, but lets keep the insurance business to other
    >threads).
Hmm. So you say that there is little opportunity to abuse insurance,
and then indicate some abuses?

I can just as confidently assert that a society without official ID
cards provides opportunity for abuse that does not exist in those
societies which employ them. You pays your money and you makes your
choice. [And please note that I have not come done on either side in
relation to ID cards: all I have done is tackled arguments which seem
to me to be inadequately made; to me, assertion and appeals to emotion
are poor forms of argument.]

    >> >The people most
    >> >likely to be caught up in the "violation" are those
    >> >who aren't of any real interest to someone. Those
    >> >of most interest are the least likely to be caught.
    >> >
    >> On what basis do you make these claims?
    >A variety of sources. Of course some of them are
    >from traditional opponents of national ID's such
    >as an ACLU. Others though are from acquaintences
    >who also happen to be LEO's (law enforcement officers).
    >One of the little ditties that came to light after
    >9/11 was how long, and relatively useless, most
    >"ID checks" were at the road side. Unless you
    >were somehow "wanted" in the immediate vicinity,
    >a full data base search was rarely conducted at
    >the time and many folks wanted by other jursidictions
    >generally "got away". (This particular ditty may
    >be less applicable in an island nation like the UK.
    >They may have fewer databases).
Anecdotal evidence: not terribly persuasive.

    >> >Because of this, it mostly just gives the empowered another
    >> >opportunity to be corrupted by power and use it for abuse.
    >> >
    >> The basis for your conclusion and the logical process by which you
    >> arrive at it are weak.
    >Doesn't make me wrong.
No. But the onus is on you, if you make claims, to ground them
properly or I am entitled to disregard them.

    > I would point out though that the
    >very fact that you are asking about my basis means you don't
    >know what it is and therefor whether or not it is weak.
Huh?

    > A
    >law which empowers the government to classify you as a
    >criminal, yet has little actual useful purpose in protecting
    >society in anyway, is a dangerous power. I'm willing to
    >assert that as an axiom.
I won't disagree with that, but you would need to establish that an ID
card system has little actual useful purpose in protecting society.
That's the claim I am questioning.

    >I'd be willing to assert as an axiom that national ID cards
    >that must be carried at all times also serve little direct benefit
    >to society and merely empower LEO's to detain you with little
    >justification.
I don't buy that. If your logic depends on axioms like that, then
there is no debate.

    >But if you insist we could debate it. Euclid
    >got in trouble with axioms so I suppose there is a basis
    >for suspicioun. I'd be curious to know how you intend upon
    >establishing that a conclusion that mandatory ID laws AREN'T
    >opressive. Considering that the laws don't currently exist,
    >I'd suspect that the greater burden would be upon you would
    >it not?
But I'm not making a case for ID cards. All I'm doing is challenging
weak arguments. Come on, persuade me by solid well-grounded arguments.
I am open to persuasion on this one, as I have not made up my mind on
it.

    >> >> and, more particularly, how is it totalitarian?
    >> >Correlation more than anything. Totalitarian authorities
    >> >tend to want an amazing amount of knowledge about individuals
    >> >available at all times.
    >> >
    >> Not a strong case. Most wrongdoers also have heads; does that mean
    >> that everybody with a head is a wrongdoer?
    >Only if the "rightdoers" don't. Totalitarian governments
    >want ALOT of info. Relatively free ones don't. That makes
    >a correlation. I'm not aware of a correlation with respect
    >to headed vs unheaded doers.
Correlation is usually a very weak basis on which to make any case.
And again, you are making assertions rather than establishing a solid
case.

    >> >> >"May I see your papers please? ... YOUR PAPERS!!!"
    >> >> >Yes, it has a familar ring to it!
    >> >> >
    >> >> Does it? Or are you just making a vacuous case by creating a false
    >> >> image and then using it to support an emotional appeal?
    >> >
    >> >It is hard to deny the hyperbole associated with the image, but
    >> >the image is hardly false. However, a more appropriate may
    >> >have been that of Richard Jewel. The mere designation as "person
    >> >of interest" came close to destroying his life. Power tends
    >> >to corrupt. There is virtually no power which governments
    >> >have been given that have not been abused. A power such
    >> >as this, one that has such little functional use, and alot
    >> >of opportunity for abuse, seems a bit absurd to hand over to
    >> >any government.
    >> >
    >> I agree that power tends to corrupt, so there is a need for
    >> constitutional and legal arrangements to maintain a proper balance
    >> between individuals and those who govern.
    >Well, you may have chosen you words poorly, or we may have
    >a culture clash. Individuals make up "those who govern".
    >I presume you mean "those empowered to enforce laws upon them".
I didn't choose my words poorly. I live in a representative democracy
in which government is entrusted to a sub-group. And while those who
govern comprise individuals, they, as individuals, also need to have a
proper balance maintained.

    >I think my point is really about this balance. These laws empower
    >them very little other than to abuse this very power. The laws,
    >on the other hand, criminalize large numbers of people
    >instantly who otherwise present no particular threat to society.
You argue again by assertion.

    >> Many states have ID card systems. I am not sure if you can make a
    >case
    >> that they are all oppressive.
    >The case is less about having the system, and more about
    >legally having to either 1) participate for the purposes
    >of existing or 2) carry at all times to avoid being a
    >criminal by default. I have a wide variety of government
    >and private identifications. The fact that there is little
    >if any correlation between them contributes to their "safety"
    >(in terms of abuse by government entities). Contributing
    >to an even greater extent is the fact that I'm required to
    >have virtually none of them generally. Their possession
    >is predicated upon other activities. Furthermore, even
    >those I'm required to have, cannot be demanded without
    >the existence of other criteria (all to simple but none the less).
    >And I believe my point is particularly about abuse, not oppression.
    >Oppression comes when abuse becomes openly tolerated.
Okay, I'll accept your distinction between oppression and abuse, and
that we are discussing abuse. But you are the one who brought
totalitarianism into the debate.

I recognise that power tends to corrupt, but I don't see that it
follows that a government should be refused power: what I see is that
there is a need for arrangements to ensure that the power is not
abused. A well-devised constitution and a good legal system are very
important instruments for that purpose.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

In article <[email protected]>, Sjoerd
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Go Fig" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > news:211220040208362054%[email protected]...
    > > In the U.S., you are Constitutionally protected against "your papers
    > > please" searches...
    >
    > But the US is the country where I have been asked to produce ID most often:
    > when going to a club, when buying alcohol, when going to a gym, it just
    > didn't stop. And I was 29 when all of this happened......


None of which is done by the government.

jay
Tue Dec 21, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    >
    > Sjoerd
    >

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:211220041547410759%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Sjoerd
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "Go Fig" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > > news:211220040208362054%[email protected]...
    > > > In the U.S., you are Constitutionally protected against "your papers
    > > > please" searches...
    > >
    > > But the US is the country where I have been asked to produce ID most
often:
    > > when going to a club, when buying alcohol, when going to a gym, it just
    > > didn't stop. And I was 29 when all of this happened......
    > None of which is done by the government.

Well, most of it is a direct result of the government's actions.(laws)

Sjoerd

Alan Harrison wrote:
    > "Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >>In Germany you have you current adress on it. If you move, it has to be
    >>changed. Would be difficult to do that in the UK, as they don't have that
    >>system where you have to report to your council when you move house.
    >
    >
    > One issue is that the new ID cards would introduce just such a requirement
    > to tell the state when you move.

In Germany, this was a law introduced by the Nazis. You had to register
at the local police station if you moved house. A law never repealed by
post-war German governments, who have found it too convenient.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:56:19 +0000, Markus Splenius wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:09:37 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The cameras are watching you all the time. It can be checked later to find
    >>your whereabouts over a wide range of times and places. A copper checking
    >>an ID only knows you where at one place at one time. The camera is the
    >>secret policeman constantly checking your ID.
    >
    > Indeed Tim. And might not these videos fall into the wrong hands?

Exactly, and that is of concern to me.

    > The police knowing your whereabouts can be an advantage though.
    > Suspects have been eliminated from murder enquiries within a couple of
    > hours because of video cameras. Sean Russell whose wife and daughter
    > were murdered in 1996 was eliminated in this way - he was out shopping
    > in the high street at the time.

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and that's a bloody
good reason to have them. The downside is the possibility of misuse. The
balance lies therein. If they're not misused they're good, if they are
they're vary bad. The same goes for ID cards or any other surveillance
system.

--
Tim C.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:49:01 +0000, Markus Splenius wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:25:31 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:34:13 +0000, chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
    >>th' barn wrote:
    >>It's funny, I think that in many parts of the EU identity cards are
    >>commonplace, yet the populations baulk at the idea of video cameras in
    >>public places, yet in the UK it's the other way round. Videos all over the
    >>place actively watching your every move, yet they can't accept a passive ID
    >>card.
    >
    > That's because the video cameras are to watch the chavs. It's the rest
    > of the population who are complaining about ID cards.

Maybe they could build in some automatic chav-detection software connected
to a semi-automatic machine gun system. ;-)

--
Tim C.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:01:45 GMT, Jim Ley wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:02:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>I've never been stopped at random and asked for my passport or other ID -
    >>except at Xmas during an anti drink-drive campaign.
    >
    > So you presumably don't fit the profiles that regularly get stopped,
    > I've been stopped 15 or more times, mainly because I am often walking
    > about late at night, but it's been at a variety of times and places.
    >
    > Just because you never get stopped, don't assume others don't, it
    > could be because the stops aren't quite as random as we might hope.
    >
    > Jim.

Until recently I used to frequently walk home or around town at 2-3am. I
still never got stopped.
--
Tim C.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:03:45 GMT, Jim Ley wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:44:44 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Harrison"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]. ..
    >>> In Germany you have you current adress on it. If you move, it has to be
    >>> changed. Would be difficult to do that in the UK, as they don't have that
    >>> system where you have to report to your council when you move house.
    >>One issue is that the new ID cards would introduce just such a requirement
    >>to tell the state when you move.
    >
    > As I have two homes, I think I might be moving quite regularly under
    > the system, civil disobedience of these measures seem quite easy,
    > continous moving is completely legal...

As you do in Germany, you have to nominate a "main" residence, and any
others would be registered as secondary residences. You can have as may of
these as you can afford and you don#t have to reregister each time you go
and stay there.

--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger wrote:
    > Icono Clast wrote:
    >> I happened to have my passport on me and convinced them that I
    >> wasn't the guy "who fits [my] description".
    >
    > And were you actually the guy they were looking for?

No. They told me they were looking for a guy about my height and age
"with long hair". In those pre-Beatles days, men with long hair were rare.

    >> They never showed me their papers
    > Maybe they did identify themselves, as you said you didn't understand
    > what they said. They would normally be expected to show a badge, at
    > some stage in the proceedings. Were they in uniform or civvies?

I neglected to say that they were wearing business suits, an oversight.
Sorry. I would have understood "Polizei" had it been said. Maybe it was.
I really had t'piss . . . bad, and the door to the Men's room was in sight.
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Tim Challenger wrote:
    > Frank Hucklenbroich wrote:
    >> Tim Challenger said:
    >>> Go Fig wrote:
    >>>>> Giving up about as much as a US cop asking to see your
    >>>>> driving licence.
    >>>> The act of driving is considered a privilege and requires a
    >>>> licence.

It is a revocable privilege even though some people consider it an
irrevocable right.

    >>> I meant that it is the de facto ID card.

Only if you let it be.

    >>> It is used for purposes over and above the proof of having passed
    >>> a driving test.

People try to use it thus. Unless I'm driving and you're a cop, if you
ask to see my license to drive I say "I don't have one." Sometimes that
happens in gas stations where the asker saw me get out of the driver's
side of my car.

    > The point I was trying to make was that having an ID card is no worse
    > than (in effect) having to have a DL to identify yourself for many
    > things.

But you're wrong. It is far worse. Driving, being a privilege, is
something one elects to do. One further studies to learn what needs to
be known to qualify for a license to do so. It is a personal choice that
one is free to not make.

    > Call it a DL, or call it an ID card. It has more or less the same
    > data on it and performs more or less the same function.

The date contained are irrelevant. Getting a license to drive is
voluntary. Getting an identity card is compulsory. Fight it!


Frank Hucklenbroich wrote:
    >> Icono Clast said:
    >>> When I changed residences in Germany, I was told to go to the
    >>> police station to tell them. I didn't.

    > Normally it's not the police station, but something called
    > "Einwohnermeldeamt",

I'm sure I was told "police station" because it's a phrase a
non-Germanic foreigner would understand.

    >>> I needed [an identification card] to get into my last place of
    >>> employment. It, too, lived in the car but not the trunk.

    > I wouldn't keep any papers in my car, as the risk that the car is
    > stolen or broken into would be too big, and too much fuss to get back
    > a stolen passport.

It happened to me. I didn't bother getting a new license to drive as the
number issued to me many decades ago has remained unchanged except for
the addition of a leading digit. I got a new passport without
difficulty. They didn't ask, and I didn't say, that it had been stolen.
__________________________________________________ __________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:49 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:


    >Until recently I used to frequently walk home or around town at 2-3am. I
    >still never got stopped.

On a discounted guided tour with you know who?
--
Martin

Following up to Stu

    >The UK govt is a soft touch in that
    >it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
    >the disadvantages.

Its going to cost a *lot* of money and being sold as terrorism
protection. Will a terrorist go down to the police station within
7 days to produce the thing?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:52:45 +0100, nitram wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:49 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Until recently I used to frequently walk home or around town at 2-3am. I
    >>still never got stopped.
    >
    > On a discounted guided tour with you know who?

    :-)

Normally staggering from a bar.

--
Tim C.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:16:54 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:52:45 +0100, nitram wrote:
    >> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:49 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Until recently I used to frequently walk home or around town at 2-3am. I
    >>>still never got stopped.
    >>
    >> On a discounted guided tour with you know who?
    >:-)
    >Normally staggering from a bar.

a guided crawl with you know who?
--
Martin

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:21:18 +0100, nitram wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:16:54 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:52:45 +0100, nitram wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:49 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Until recently I used to frequently walk home or around town at 2-3am. I
    >>>>still never got stopped.
    >>>
    >>> On a discounted guided tour with you know who?
    >>:-)
    >>Normally staggering from a bar.
    >
    > a guided crawl with you know who?

You know who doesn't like alcohol, so I doubt if either of us would find it
a particularly pleasant experience. Yuck!

--
Tim C.