Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (20472)	11/20/2001 10:18:53 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I didn't point out the flaw because I thought it self-evident. Even with a national i.d. system, foreign visitors would have to have some kind of i.d. They'll just show that. They will be legal and perfectly acceptable, even if they are all Mohammed Atta's. And, I have been asking all along how future events would be avoided because of an i.d. card, because that's what's most important from a practical standpoint anyway. Now, finally, you bring up "criteria" and "risk" issues and admit to a problem. People have different views about privacy, and those views must be respected. A national i.d. card, which came up years ago in connection with a national health care system, has broad implications. And Uncle Sam already has the technology to snoop; we're not talking about the future. Some possibly far-out, but not terribly far-out examples: Women will need to show their national i.d. card to prove their age at abortion centers. The fact that of the card being scanned and checked against a database for positive i.d. will be recorded and become a matter of record. There will be a permanent record that Suzie was at XYZ Abortion Clinic on X date. Is that an invasion of Suzie's privacy? In order to buy a pack of cigarettes, 18-year-old Tom, a closet smoker, will have his I.D. scanned at 7-11. The fact of his being checked will be recorded on an Oracle database, possibly for his insurance company to gain access to in discovery 30 years from now when Tom develops lung cancer and sues Philip Morris. Is that an invasion of privacy? Linda and Bobby are 17 and want to see an "R" or "X" rated movie. So, they'll have to show their national i.d. card to prove their age, which will be scanned and checked against the database, and of course will be recorded. Whose business is it that they went to see the movie? And, each one of these instances ASSUMES that the owners of the card will be the users. Is the abortion clinic in the business of verifying i.d.'s and checking them against finger prints? The Movie Theater? 7-11? Additionally, have you ever looked at a credit report, and seen errors? Have you ever had an error in a bank statement or credit card statement? You have voluntarily given up your privacy in many areas, as have all of us, but most importantly, in areas we choose. And, that's the point: CHOICE. That's what the U.S. is all about. I'm quite sure that you will find some people who would actually even stop flying and engaging in certain other activities that would require a national i.d. card if it were a requirement.