The new internal passport/national ID

[Zorrander001]

One step closer to a world government. The end is neigh.

 

[burner69]

I wouldn't mind ID cards if I agreed with the government. As it stands I don't, so yes I might have things to hide.

This whole Minority report style pre-emptive imprisonment of 'terrorists' is one such thing. Supposing I'm an arab man who goes to the airport to meet someone, or to buy a ticket or whatever - and earlier that day I was reading up on the I-net about the Jihad group. Well sneaky government checks my i-net history, sees I've been to an airport, then before I know it I'm being arrested for planning to commit terrorism.
For those of you laughing, read up on the evidence that 'terrorists' were arrested for in the US and UK after 9/11.

Secondly, I take illegal drugs. If the government could prove I'd been visiting a dealers house several times a month (which these tracking devices could do) they would have enough evidence to monitor me for a while. Then one day before I go out to a club, I got my pills in my pocket, as I leave the house I get arrested and get sent down for 7 years. Quite frankly, not on.

 

[Tr0n]

We should've had a poll on this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I wouldn't mind ID cards if I agreed with the government. As it stands I don't, so yes I might have things to hide.

I dont see how that has anything to do with it... Unless you really are an extremist planning on doing something violent. I have yet to see Bush pull Kennedy out of the Senate in handcuffs. Really is a paranoid response.

 

[burner69]

I dont see how that has anything to do with it... Unless you really are an extremist planning on doing something violent. I have yet to see Bush pull Kennedy out of the Senate in handcuffs. Really is a paranoid response.

But they have the potential to use it - I wouldn't want them to have that.
Who says you have to be an extremist? They said it's to help stop extremists, but if they get the chance they're bound to use it to catch other 'criminals'.

And I'm just one of those people who dosen't want information being collected about what I do, where I go during the day. Now, if I committed a crime and got tagged for a year or two I could cope with that. It's a liberty that I can handle losing if they have just cause to do so. But essentially putting them on everyone? Sorry, but no thanks.

 

[RZAL]

But they have the potential to use it - I wouldn't want them to have that.
Who says you have to be an extremist? They said it's to help stop extremists, but if they get the chance they're bound to use it to catch other 'criminals'.

And I'm just one of those people who dosen't want information being collected about what I do, where I go during the day. Now, if I committed a crime and got tagged for a year or two I could cope with that. It's a liberty that I can handle losing if they have just cause to do so. But essentially putting them on everyone? Sorry, but no thanks.

Do you use one of the following?
(1) new gps cell phone
(2) drive a gps equipt car
(3) live in a town with high tech traffic controls at the intersections

 

[Tr0n]

Do you use one of the following?
(1) new gps cell phone
(2) drive a gps equipt car
(3) live in a town with high tech traffic controls at the intersections

Bah gps is for dumbasses....You boys need to learn how to read actual paper maps!

 

[RZAL]

Bah gps is for dumbasses....You boys need to learn how to read actual paper maps!

Yeap, but it comes in extremely handy when you want to locate a gps transmitter.

 

[burner69]

Do you use one of the following?
(1) new gps cell phone
(2) drive a gps equipt car
(3) live in a town with high tech traffic controls at the intersections

Nope.
Apart from maybe the traffic control, but I don't drive so.
And the big difference here is you choose to use the top 2, they aren't forced on you. I have a problem with things being forced on me like that.

 

[Murray_H]

Secondly, I take illegal drugs. If the government could prove I'd been visiting a dealers house several times a month (which these tracking devices could do) they would have enough evidence to monitor me for a while. Then one day before I go out to a club, I got my pills in my pocket, as I leave the house I get arrested and get sent down for 7 years. Quite frankly, not on.

I don't get this bit, you are comitting a crime and you don't think it's right if you get caught?

 

[burner69]

I don't get this bit, you are comitting a crime and you don't think it's right if you get caught?

Yeah, I belive that quite strongly.
Everytime I've gone out and taken drugs I've never hit anyone, never vandalised anything, never been abusive to anyone, never stolen anything.
The justice system is there to stop people being harmed by other people. Every law in the system is designed around that principle except the drug laws.
The drug law principle is: Drugs can be bad for you, so if you're caught with them we'll send you down for longer than a burglar, or someone who's committed manslaughter, and often even murderers.
I view my drug taking as responsible, I research a drug before I take it, I don't over do them, and I limit my intake accordingly.

Drugs can harm you, so we'll lock you up for having them. Bugger off, I'm a free man, I should be able to make informed choices on my own. I mean, for christ's sake, suicide has been legal since the sixties.

 

[Sainku]

Whether drugs should be legal are not is debateable, but not supporting something because you wouldnt be able to get away with a criminal activity is just silly.

Also, suicide is an unpunishable crime. Unless you fail, in which case it was likely in your best intrest to kill yourself anyway.

 

[burner69]

Whether drugs should be legal are not is debateable, but not supporting something because you wouldnt be able to get away with a criminal activity is just silly.

Just looking after number 1

Also, suicide is an unpunishable crime. Unless you fail, in which case it was likely in your best intrest to kill yourself anyway.

Lol, actually iI heard that in some countries suicide is a crime punishable by....death. Yes, I am not joking.

I saw an equally daft warning sign on the net once too. It was a photo of the fencing along a railway track that read
"Warning! Danger of Death! These tracks have a 10'000 volt current (or something to that effect).

Anyone caught tresspassing on the track will be prosecuted."

 

[Sainku]

Just looking after number 1

Cant blame a man for that

Lol, actually iI heard that in some countries suicide is a crime punishable by....death. Yes, I am not joking.

I saw an equally daft warning sign on the net once too. It was a photo of the fencing along a railway track that read
"Warning! Danger of Death! These tracks have a 10'000 volt current (or something to that effect).

Anyone caught tresspassing on the track will be prosecuted."

Lol, that is great. I think I had a sign along those lines as my desktop at one point.

 

[RZAL]

Nope.
Apart from maybe the traffic control, but I don't drive so.
And the big difference here is you choose to use the top 2, they aren't forced on you. I have a problem with things being forced on me like that.

Its not been forced on anyone yet and beside it doesn’t matter if your driving or not. The next time you go through town check out the intersections, what your looking for are the small cameras located close to the traffic light. These cameras are hooked into a main hub at the traffic department. You would be suprised to see quality of video they produce. Besides being able to track you from one intersection to another the quality is acceptable for face recognition programs to work.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeah, I belive that quite strongly.
Everytime I've gone out and taken drugs I've never hit anyone, never vandalised anything, never been abusive to anyone, never stolen anything.
The justice system is there to stop people being harmed by other people. Every law in the system is designed around that principle except the drug laws.
The drug law principle is: Drugs can be bad for you, so if you're caught with them we'll send you down for longer than a burglar, or someone who's committed manslaughter, and often even murderers.
I view my drug taking as responsible, I research a drug before I take it, I don't over do them, and I limit my intake accordingly.

What about the dealers you keep in business that take advantage of young people and even resort to murder?

 

[Brassm0nkey]

Everytime I've gone out and taken drugs I've never hit anyone, never vandalised anything, never been abusive to anyone, never stolen anything.

You sound like a friend of mine from school. He liked to get shitfaced drunk whenever he could, sometimes I went with him. I tried to keep him from driving when he gets too bad, but it's no use. "I know how to drive when I'm drunk, I never hit anyone, I never got a ticket, ect...". I found out last year that he died, wrecked while driving intoxicated. Nothing goes wrong until it does. I know that won't make any difference to you, but you sounded so much like him I thought I would mention it.

The justice system is there to stop people being harmed by other people. Every law in the system is designed around that principle except the drug laws.

Not exactly. Because you never harmed anyone doesn't mean thats true for everyone. Drugs are illegal because they induce and altered state of consciousness in which many bad things happen a lot of the time with a lot of people. I hear so many users say "well I have never done this or that", they don't understand that what they have personally done is largely irrelevant in the bigger picture. Nothing good comes out of drug use. In the best case scenario, the users only hurts destroys himself.

Is it possible to destroy oneself responsibly? I'm not sure.

I mean, for christ's sake, suicide has been legal since the sixties.

It's somewhat difficult to enforce a law against suicide, dont you think?

 

[gh0st]

I havent read through some of this thread, because I was at work but regarding databases not being in place making the card unimportant...

...as it is now, you can have more than 1 drivers license and more than 1 identity in states. This will tie 1 citizen to 1 card, so illegals can be quickly spotted and it will be impossible for them to take out loans, open bank accounts, etc, without this card, which is GREAT. It will make non american people living here much easier to keep track of, not let them obscure into the masses as it were. So no, databases are not necessary and add nothing to the cards value. I'm not sure why you people think the government would want this obscure 'database' at all... whats your reasoning for the government putting this database in place? what would they store on it?

 

[GhostFox]

Nothing goes wrong until it does.

Sadly isn't that the truth. Everyone seems to have this "It hasn't happned before so it won't ever happen attitude". Once it does happen, it is usually too late.

 

[RZAL]

I havent read through some of this thread, because I was at work but regarding databases not being in place making the card unimportant...

I suppose you missed my previous response (see below).

... So no, databases are not necessary and add nothing to the cards value. I'm not sure why you people think the government would want this obscure 'database' at all... whats your reasoning for the government putting this database in place? what would they store on it?

So the government would issue every citizen a national id card, but would not keep track of the information, and this card could be used for taking out loans, opening bank accounts, etc,. If they are not keeping track of these cards, what prevents a private person or government from reproducing the card using the correct information for that particular immigrant? In other words how would you verify the cards authenticity without a database?

Ok guys listen....
2.Just because they say there isn't a database doesn't mean they already have one setup or is gonna setup one in the future.Do not doubt our goverment when it comes to secrecy.Hell they built a huge ass bunker in the 60's under some hotel and no one ever knew it was there or what it even was.

Except they have already said there wont be a database

So you think there wont be a database for a National Identification Card/RFID? Then tell me what good would the card be without a database? The Card would just upgrade our drivers license database… no big deal…or is it.

You dont know that there will be. Thats simply a conspiracy theory and nothing more. Its speculation that is most likely wrong, and more importantly you cannot offer ANY proof, evidence, motive, ANYTHING to add to your case.

Conspiracy theory…. think again, the driver license database has already been abused by our government.

CNN May 21, 1999

In a move that could have long-term ramifications for individual privacy concerns and state autonomy over public records, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide whether or not states have the right to sell or distribute personal information collected from driver's license applications.

The litigation fueling the issue is Reno v. Condon -- South Carolina's challenge to the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September struck down the law as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is poised to review that decision. In its decision, the Appeals Court ruled that Congress was stepping illegally into state territory and noted further that there exists no constitutional right to privacy in information contained in public records

DPPA was passed in the aftermath of the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer, slain by a stalker who found her residential address through the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The law bars states and their employees from selling or releasing personal information such as Social Security numbers, photographs, addresses, telephone numbers and birthdays.

Until the law was passed, at least 35 states had made motor vehicle records public in some form, and many had routinely sold personal information to direct marketing firms, businesses, charities, other organizations and even private individuals. New York, for example, earned $17 million in one year selling drivers' records, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

But the 1997 law contains several exceptions that allow personal information to be released to law enforcement officials, courts, government agencies, private investigators and even businesses such as insurance companies.

The one group that didn't receive an exception was the media. Free speech advocates complain that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act violates the First Amendment, and many, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America, supported the South Carolina challenge.

South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon, when hearing that the Supreme Court agreement to hear the case, said he believed citizens have a right to keep their privacy protected -- which he says is guaranteed by a clause in the South Carolina Constitution. But the real question is who should be enforcing that protection Condon said. Condon and other state officials strongly believe that states should have full autonomy when it comes to administering public records. In the case before the Supreme Court, South Carolina will argue that the new federal law violates the 10th Amendment.

"The people of Carolina established drivers' records, maintained them, and have a right to determine their use," he said in a statement. "South Carolina should be run by South Carolinians. If the federal government can tell us what to do with these records, it can tell us we can't keep records at all. The 10th Amendment is the legal and spiritual guardian of state rights. Washington, D.C., is a long way from South Carolina, and the federal government needs to keep its distance."

The U.S. Justice Department, meanwhile, argues that the federal government has the right to regulate the records under the Constitution's commerce clause. Specifically, DOJ contends that new law regulates the disclosure of personal information by DMV offices in the same way that similar federal statutes regulate disclosures by video stores, cable television companies, credit bureaus and electronic communication services. Officials declined to comment on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the case.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9...cense.priv.idg/
http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/qaprive.htm

 

[burner69]

What about the dealers you keep in business that take advantage of young people and even resort to murder?

What kind of dealers do you know?
The one's I use are very nice guys - and drug dealers don't 'push' drugs onto young people, people come to them. The one I get my pills off won't sell to anyone under 17, and even then he'll often refuse if he thinks they're going to be stupid with it.
Murder? I think not.

Now, not to say that several places up the chain some dodgy crap goes down - I wouldn't like to say. What I will say is... why the hell is it illegal if it's going to keep on happenening, and if dealers are so bad? Legalise it, tax it, sell it, remove those nasty murderous pushers.

And if people here are so concerned about murder and dodgy dealings do you buy addidas trainers? Drink Kenco coffee? A lot of big name companies have people working in terrible conditions abroad, and I've seen several programs on coffee plantations where harsh beatings and occasionally murder go down.

You sound like a friend of mine from school. He liked to get shitfaced drunk whenever he could, sometimes I went with him. I tried to keep him from driving when he gets too bad, but it's no use. "I know how to drive when I'm drunk, I never hit anyone, I never got a ticket, ect...". I found out last year that he died, wrecked while driving intoxicated. Nothing goes wrong until it does. I know that won't make any difference to you, but you sounded so much like him I thought I would mention it.

Woah woah woah. Your mate liked to drink irresponsibly and then VERY irresponsibly go driving. That is very different to me. I take drugs responsibly, in a club, or at home in a safe environment, I'd never dream of going out driving.
So should we lock people up for 7 years for drinking alcohol because some people abuse it? Hell no.

Not exactly. Because you never harmed anyone doesn't mean thats true for everyone. Drugs are illegal because they induce and altered state of consciousness in which many bad things happen a lot of the time with a lot of people. I hear so many users say "well I have never done this or that", they don't understand that what they have personally done is largely irrelevant in the bigger picture. Nothing good comes out of drug use. In the best case scenario, the users only hurts destroys himself.

Bad things happen a lot of the time? A lot of people? I've known people who've taken pills for years, and the only time anything bad has ever happened is when they started doing them in excess and got depression. They cut down, it went away, and they limited their intake - just as I've done from day one.
Drugs do induce altered states of consciousness, but believe me bad things rarely, if ever, happen. The idea of people jumping off buildings thinking they can fly, attacking people they think are after them are blown waaay out of proportion, within my group of friends nothing even remotely like that has ever happened. And in the last few years only a handful of people have died under the effects of ectasy - that's from either heat exhaustion caused by not drinking and dancing too much, or overdosing on water. Things very easy to avoid if you're responsible, and know what you're doing.

Bad things can happen with drug abuse, sure, bad things can happen if you abuse anything. I'm sure if I abused hl2.net, was on it all the time, I'd get depressed, become antisociable etc etc.

As it stands I don't believe that just because I'm doing something that has equal, if not less chance of causing problems than beer I should not be liable to 7 years in prison - or life senetence if I give a pill to a friend.

Is it possible to destroy oneself responsibly? I'm not sure.

So everyone who drinks will end up in the gutter reeking of ale? There's drug use, and drug abuse - Don't confuse the two.

It's somewhat difficult to enforce a law against suicide, dont you think?

*After jumping from a bridge onto a road*
"You have the right to remain silent...."