If you're worried about being tracked by a RFID chip, just put your cards in a Faraday cage. There are plenty of wallets on the market that block the frequencies.
PASS-ID Act
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Oh, thanks for the tip!
The point is you shouldn't have to.
There really isn't any needful reason for this. The only reason its happening is because of the Phantom Bogyman created by certain factions of the government to usurp more control and conduct surveillance.
Whether the process is within the reach of practicality or not isn't the issue. Once it's out there, it can be taken back and thus sets a precedent for further incursions on personal privacy down the road.
In this regard, it's no different than requiring a passport (or any ID, for that matter) for interstate air travel. There is no real need for it except, as I said, to fight off that Phantom Bogyman.
Never mind the further degradation of one's self worth into a number.
There really isn't any needful reason for this. The only reason its happening is because of the Phantom Bogyman created by certain factions of the government to usurp more control and conduct surveillance.
Whether the process is within the reach of practicality or not isn't the issue. Once it's out there, it can be taken back and thus sets a precedent for further incursions on personal privacy down the road.
In this regard, it's no different than requiring a passport (or any ID, for that matter) for interstate air travel. There is no real need for it except, as I said, to fight off that Phantom Bogyman.
Never mind the further degradation of one's self worth into a number.
Corporal Clegg,
I agree, it's unreasonable to require people to carry a card on them that could potentially allow them to be tracked wherever they go.
The only reason for this is for the purposes of power. Information is power, and gathering information on people is therefore gathering power over them. This is why dictatorships depend heavily on the purpose of mass surveillance.
First you want to attain power, which requires you to know what everybody's doing to help determine how best to manipulate them; then once you attain the power, you want to maintain the power. To do this you also want to know what everybody's doing as people who have a lot of power do not want to lose it and they know that there are many people who do not like the idea of governments having excessive power, and want to ensure those people never get in their way.
I agree, it's unreasonable to require people to carry a card on them that could potentially allow them to be tracked wherever they go.
The only reason for this is for the purposes of power. Information is power, and gathering information on people is therefore gathering power over them. This is why dictatorships depend heavily on the purpose of mass surveillance.
First you want to attain power, which requires you to know what everybody's doing to help determine how best to manipulate them; then once you attain the power, you want to maintain the power. To do this you also want to know what everybody's doing as people who have a lot of power do not want to lose it and they know that there are many people who do not like the idea of governments having excessive power, and want to ensure those people never get in their way.
It's kind of hard to sort the technology from the politics on this particular issue, so as long as everyone keeps it civil (like they've been doing), I see no need to punt this conversation to TNZ. Carry on.
2 Questions:
1)Where in the US Constitution does it say that you have a right to refuse carrying an ID?
2) In what way would carrying a ID card with you all the time destroy, reduce, or in anyway invalidate the US Constitution, in whole or in part?
STR,
If the ID had a device which would allow you to be tracked...
If the ID had a device which would allow you to be tracked...
Scout101,
Yes I do, but I'm not required by law to carry it on me whenever I drive; with a liscence, I am required to carry it on me whenever I drive.
Yes I do, but I'm not required by law to carry it on me whenever I drive; with a liscence, I am required to carry it on me whenever I drive.
Kind of a pointless question, since the US Constitution is not designed as a "list of rights" but rather a list of Government powers. The Bill of Rights is NOT meant to be an all-inclusive list of all of your rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments attest to this fact.
A better question is, "Where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to mandate that it's citizens carry ID cards?"
By giving the federal government powers that it is not Constitutionally granted.
Chaos Descending,
That is actually a very good point
That's actually correct.
That is actually a very good point
That's actually correct.
Article I, Section VIII.
Specifically the parts where Congress is allowed to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" as well as "To regulate commerce...among the several states."
A national ID can either be viewed as either a security measure, or as a way to facilitate commerce by simplifying ID requirements from almost 60 issuing states and territories to 1 federal bureau. Take your pick. It's all well-worn legal ground. I could probably find precedent rulings from 200 years ago, you know, when the founding fathers were still alive. While you're deciding, I recommend to you actually read the piece of paper you're claiming is being torn to pieces.
Oh, that's right. I forgot the secret God Mode Clause of the Constitution that gives the Government virtually unlimited power to do anything it wants ever, because ANYTHING can be rationalized away as "general welfare" or "commerce".
None of the above, thanks.
Ah, condescension. Lovely.
No, but you're freaking out over the possibility of this ID being trackable, when from a technical standpoint, it would be difficult if not impossible, yet you carry a powered transmitter (keyed to you, specifically) around with you everywhere you go. You say you aren't legally required to have it with you when you drive, but when was the last time you got in the car without it?
Also, if you want to argue legal technicalities, you aren't legally required to DRIVE, so could leave your car keys at home with your ID, and problem solved. I'll bet that you'd still have your phone on you, though...
Don't blame me. And don't think think that just because YOU don't think it's applicable, it doesn't mean there isn't a century of law and court cases that says it does. Attempting to ignore or deny that this intentionally vague section doesn't authorize something like this is delusion. At least it's fantasy. Either way I'm not going to debate it. I'm neither qualified to cure you of delusion nor do I want to argue hypothetical libertarian should'ves on planet Dreamworld.
The world is what it is, pretending it's something else is not rational.
^ I have no idea what this means.
The only time I'm not carrying an ID card (read: driver's license), is when I'm at home.
As to the Constitutional issues, there is a reason that our founding fathers led off with 10 amendments collectively known as The Bill of Rights: They clearly intended to emphasize the importance of individual freedom and the right to be left alone.
I'm just not ready to give that up so Big Brother can keep an eye on me.
Well...duh. They didn't have this technology.
Hmmm... Georgie and Tom sitting in Independence Hall sexting.
Not really. A debate is, at it's most basic, a competition of beliefs between two or more individuals. What I'm doing is more along the lines of informing you. It's not a two-way argument of ideas. It's a one-way instruction. This is the way the Constitution works. Full stop. You can either ignore it, or accept it.
A debate would be whether or not it is a good thing, or if it's the best way that the Constitution is applied as it is. However, as I previously stated (in an admittedly terse way) I'm not interested in discussing that.
I'm not quite sure how the question can be misinterpreted. You stated that a national ID was an "outrageous" unconstitutional overreach by Congress. That the US government has no right to mandate something like this. I asked the simplest question, for you to cite what part of the USC that would lead you to make that statement. Of course, there is no part of the Constitution that mentions anything like this subject, because it is an intentionally vague framework, on which Congressional laws, Executive decisions, and court rulings hang on.
If you want to be anal, you're technically correct in that the government probably can't force you to carry an ID 24/7. They can, by modifying existing law, make it a huge inconvenience to go around without one. Want to drive? Got to have your ID with integrated state DL. State doesn't want to integrate with the new standard? Away goes their federal highway funding. Carry a gun? You need a FOID/National ID card. Want to collect your SS check? Guess what you need. Minor alterations to existing law could require you to show ID to go to your bank, cellphone provider, use a credit card.
It wouldn't be all bad. You'd only have one card in your wallet for SSN, passport, visa/green card ,DL , ID, FOID, or any number of government credentials. You could replace a myriad of organizations with one, drastically cutting costs by reducing redundancy. There is no change in privacy, the government already has all this info, it's just in one location that should be easier to secure than 20. The only bad thing, is that the proposed law doesn't even come close to attempting that kind of convenience.
Last edited:
Similar threads
