Do We Need a National ID Card?

[R.A. Hettinga]

--- begin forwarded text


From: Novmgtco at aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:54:11 EST
Subject: Richard Rahn's "Do We Need a National ID Card?" (The Washington Times)
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Do we need a national ID card?
By Richard W. Rahn
Published December 22, 2004

Are you in favor of a national identity card? Even though many Americans
are against the idea of a national identity card, it is coming. In fact, in
many ways, it is already here. Every American citizen and every foreign
worker in America is required to have a Social Security card. Your Social
Security card is only supposed to be used to gain employment and receive
Society Security benefits, but try applying for credit without giving your
Social Security number -- and most often you will be turned down.

You cannot board an airliner or certain trains, cash a check, go to a
hospital, obtain a hotel room or even enter some office buildings without
showing a photo ID. You cannot travel to foreign countries without a
passport. Yes, we have no national ID card but, instead, we are required to
have many ID cards just to engage in the normal activities of life.

We are torn on the issue of a national ID because we do not want big
brother government to monitor us (we all know the potential horrors from
the Gestapo and sci-fi movies).

On the other hand, we understand the legitimate needs of many purveyors of
public and private services to know who we are. We also worry about the
theft of our identity. We want to be able to provide our medical history to
those who need it to help us in a medical emergency, but we don't want
those who might abuse or embarrass us with that knowledge to have the
information.

In the current world, we are required to know and give more passwords than
most of us can remember to access our bank and credit card accounts,
frequent flyer accounts, e-mail and Internet providers, and other
information service accounts.

If the question posed at the beginning of this commentary was: "Would you
be in favor of a card that could prove your ID while at the same time
protect you from giving information about yourself (including medical and
financial information) that you do not wish to provide?" I am sure that
more people would give a yes response.

The fact is we do not need nor should we have a government issued national
ID card. What we need is for the government to specify for what purposes
and when it positively must know our identity, and what constitutes
acceptable proof. Private organizations, such as airlines, banks and
merchants already do the same thing. Then the private sector will develop
the most user-privacy-friendly and cost-effective devices. Tiny computer
chips containing all of the necessary biometric information coupled with
nearly unbreakable encryption have already been developed. Consumers will
be able to choose what information they wish to have stored in such
devices, and who is allowed to have access to what. The chips can be placed
in "smart cards," cell phones and PDAs, or even implanted in the body.

In my ideal world, the government would know with certainty who has voted
(but not their vote), who is coming into the country, to whom it is making
payments and from whom it is receiving taxes. I would like to be able to
prove my identity to government agencies, airlines, banks, etc., and have
access to all my password accounts and computers, and deliver such
additional information about myself to those I choose to (such as my
medical history to a hospital in case of an emergency), while protecting
all my information from those with whom I choose not to share it.

In addition, I do not want to have to carry more than one device with me
(such as a card or PDA), nor do I want to have to remember any passwords.

Fortunately, the current technology will indeed allow all of the above (my
thumbprint could give me access to my PDA with all of the passwords, etc.).

The Government Passport Agency is in the process of developing new
passports to prevent counterfeiting and to give more secure ID. In reality,
it is not necessary for us to have passports. What is necessary is for the
government to know whether or not I am a U.S. citizen when I am entering
the country, and whether or not I should be detained because of some
criminal act. If I provide the government with a high quality ID, including
proof of citizenship, they should instantaneously be able to determine if I
am on a wanted list (including my foreign travel history). The idea of
having passports stamped is not only obsolete and useless, but just plain
silly. (Obviously, foreign governments would also have to agree to do away
with the existing passport system, to get the full advantages of the new
private ID systems.)

Again, we do not need a government issued ID. Those who require information
about us (including government agencies) should merely specify what
information they need and what forms are acceptable. Private companies can
then compete to give us the most secure, cost-effective, user-friendly
personal information and protection ID devices and systems.


Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an
adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.


--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"Several times a week, to enter a TV studio say, or to board a plane, I
have to produce a tiny picture of my face."  -- Christopher Hitchens

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com