> My theory is that most Americans welcome the opportunity that
> an ID card gives, to discourage anti-social behaviour as well
> as illegal behaviour.
A welcome in one community segment can be anathema to another. What is anti
social to one social group can be good manners to another.
From my observation, ID and specifically mandatory ID creates rather a
schism across American culture. Somewhat like the right to carry guns
inflames the NRA and gun lobby. Considering nothing is viewed officially as
more seriously anti-social within the UK than carrying a gun the comparison
seems reasonably accurate. Regulation of anything may cause difficulties,
direct and tightly controlled regulation of the individual would be assisted
by mandatory ID coupled to privacy laws, either exacerbating the
difficulties or smoothing many of them into extinction. I suppose it is
possible something different could be viewed by some as new and novel with
the dangers not considered or going unnoticed. Is Justice Holmes' comment
"The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience" about to
gain some more experience.
If what you say is correct, Americans are becoming more interested in a safe
and cosseted lifestyle than an entrepreneurial one and consequentially are
willing to sacrifice some freedoms to achieve that. Certainly from one DP
perspective, if ID is adopted, it will be very simple to cross check all of
the databases to highlight errors and determine accuracy rates, and so can
be seen as advantageous. Indeed many arguments would then exist that
segmented databases are not economical, and greater value could be gained by
merging them. However, from what I read, see and have experienced I do not
hold to that view.
> Or the State can say: "I won't let you into the airport
> unless you show ID", as part of the anti-terrorism Patriot
> Act (or whatever).
Mandatory ID does not improve security in that context, although it does
allow a more relaxed attitude on behalf of the officials conducting the
checking A sort of "I did not notice the bazooka Arnie was carrying, when I
check his ID". In a similar way as having to check footwear at airports for
explosive devices like those found in some training shoes results in - It is
easiest and quickest to check slip on shoes or those at the end of shapely
legs, check those so you can meet the quotas without causing delays and
getting hassled. From one viewpoint it simplifies the work, from another,
what a waste of time and effort.
> Why
> do you think there's anything useful to be gathered? Some
> people have suggested things like "medical records" should be
> stored on them, but in practice this isn't done.
If that conjecture were true, the marketing segment of the economy would not
exist, principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 would not be as important as they appear
to be in practice and other legislative restrictions on the use of personal
identity numbers and material would not be necessary.
> There's an old saying that "freedom of speech does not extend
> to shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre". The same is true of
> other constitutional protections. The list of practical
> exceptions that the American public are happy to go along
> with just grows and grows.
Changes are to be expected in any developing society. Also individuals
allowing freedoms to erode is something which was recognised as a real
threat to free societies long ago. Viz statements from the ancient
philosophers through to American presidents. Which causes me to recall an
interesting statement I read as being made by a Senate Committee at the time
of the US Privacy Act 1974 "The Committee is convinced that effective
legislation must provide standards for and limitations on the information
power of government ... It is not enough to tell agencies to gather and keep
only data which is reliable by their lights for whatever they determine is
their use, and then to pit the individual against government, armed only
with the power to inspect his file, and the right to challenge it in court
if he has the resources and the will to do so." That statement appears to
be an opposing stance to the approach taken in some European states during
the 1980's and seems totally contradictory to what you are observing as
happening now. But then I guess any government feeling threatened by a
strong commercial sector and external forces could go to considerable
lengths to protect its own perceived interests. And they say terrorism
never wins.
This e-mail thread could indicate some perspectives perceive the US
senatorial viewpoint quoted above has evaporated and that technological
requirements should now drive US regulative thought rather than humanity
driving the technological requirements.
> Over the weekend it has emerged that the ID card is to be
> based on the Passport, and that (once fully rolled out) it
> will be required to gain access to NHS and other benefits.
Together with containing a chip, there is a need to remember the statement
three paragraphs back which ends "but in practice this isn't done."
Practices as we have both acknowledged do change.
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|