No National ID: Difference between revisions

From LPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(Redirecting to National ID)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This is an issue which has recently come up in the news again. NY has a page on this issue that goes waay back and needs a bit of updating, especially now. Maybe we could just move it here. Please feel free to update it!
#REDIRECT [[National ID]] {{The issue is National ID; "No National ID" is a stance on that issue.}}


See:
This is an issue which has recently come up in the news again. NY has a page on this issue that goes way back and needs a bit of updating, especially now. Maybe we could just move it here. OK, I did that. Please feel free to update it!
 
original page:
[http://ny.lp.org/issues/nonid.htm No National ID!]
[http://ny.lp.org/issues/nonid.htm No National ID!]


-------------------------
-------------------------


<font color="#006666" size=3 face="book antiqua,arial,helvetica,lucida">From the Libertarian Party of NY -- Issues -- No National ID!</font>
='''From the Libertarian Party of NY -- Issues -- No National ID!''' =
<font color=firebrick size=+2>National ID Card Denounced by Ron


Paul</font>
== National ID Card Denounced by Libertarians ==
Jan 6, 2003: Congressman Ron Paul today denounced the national


ID card provisions contained
Jan 6, [[2003]]: Congressman [[Ron Paul]] today denounced the national ID card provisions contained
in the intelligence bill being voted on in the U.S. House of  
in the intelligence bill being voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives, while urging his colleagues to reject the bill and its new layers of needless bureaucracy.


Representatives,
"National ID cards are not proper in a free society," Paul stated. "This is America, not [[Soviet]] Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so." [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul222.html more info]
while urging his colleagues to reject the bill and its new


layers of needless
==National ID for flying?==
bureaucracy.


"National ID cards are not proper in a free society," Paul
Libertarian [[John Gilmore]] is [http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html testing] the bounds the TSA is setting. That's not  
recommended for people who actually need to get somewhere on time!


stated. "This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal
Other people are discovering that it's possible to get on board a plane without ID if you submit to a much more thorough security screening. (The same
kind of screening that some people get somewhat at random, designated by  security code "SSSS" stamped on your ticket).


government should never be allowed to demand papers from
American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional
authority to do so."
[http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul222.html more info]
<font color=firebrick size=+2>National ID for flying?</font>
Libertarian John Gilmore is
[http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html testing] the
bounds the TSA is setting. That's not
recommended for people who actually need to get somewhere on
time!
Other people are discovering that it's possible to get on board
a plane without ID if
you submit to a much more thorough security screening. (The same
kind of screening that some people
get somewhat at random, designated by  security code "SSSS"
stamped on your ticket).


from the RISKS Journal, Vol 23, issue 50
from the RISKS Journal, Vol 23, issue 50
Subject: [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.50.html U.S. air  
Subject: [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.50.html U.S. air travel without government identification]
 
travel without government identification]
 
The article in RISKS also describes a new Continental 'frequent
 
flyer' ID program for those who want to avoid intense screening
 
in exchange for biometric data. However,
 
[http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=2195545 the incident
 
with Ted Kennedy] proves that it's tough dealing with bad data
 
in security databases--even for a senator! That incident looks
 
suspiciously like a hacking coup instead of the 'clerical error'
 
it is attributed to. When we have the 'fast lane' for air
 
travel, how much harder is it going to be to put people on THAT
 
list who don't belong? Especially when their biometric data
 
(stored as just a string of numbers, of course) is right there
 
as &quot;proof?&quot;
 
There is pressure for all states to require a Soc Sec Number
 
(SSN) for drivers licenses to make security processing easier,
 
which is clearly against the original purpose for the SSN.
 
 
<font color=firebrick size=+2>NYS DMV requires SSN for Drivers
 
Licenses?</font>
 
<BR>Well, actually they're saying it is <i>possible</i> that Bob
 
Armstrong's license will be suspended. (Emphasis added.) And the
 
signs at the DMV say it's not necessary for plain (non-suspended
 
nor lapsed) renewals. It turns out, if they don't require you to
 
provide the SSN for a drivers license transaction at the DMV,
 
they still have yours on record. Bonnie Scott got the scoop from
 
the Clinton County (NY) DMV manager (who has an impressive
 
collection of all states' license plates). It's been required
 
since 1995 in all DMV computer records, and the local DMV
 
operators have the ability to override requiring it for an
 
individual transaction, but cannot override a block on
 
transactions (e.g., renewals) if the SSN isn't in the system:
 
only the state DMV administrators can do that.
 
Here is the [http://cosy.com/Liberty/NYSDMV040629.pdf letter]
 
that was sent to Bob Armstrong about his license.
 
Where do we start? DMVs are a great place to petition. Our
 
petitioning period is early July until mid-August
 
([http://ny.lp.org/petitions/ check here in June for updates]).
 
Take along the letter, show it to people as you're petitioning,
 
as they sit and wait in the DMV, and let them know that the
 
Libertarian Party is the one to stand up to it for them.


&quot;Sign the petition, please, so our candidates can get on


the ballot? Thank you!&quot;
The article in RISKS also describes a new Continental 'frequent flyer' ID program for those who want to avoid intense screening in exchange for biometric data. However, [http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=2195545 the incident with Ted Kennedy] proves that it's tough dealing with bad data in security databases--even for a senator! That incident looks suspiciously like a hacking coup instead of the 'clerical error'
it is attributed to. When we have the 'fast lane' for air travel, how much harder is it going to be to put people on THAT list who don't belong? Especially when their biometric data (stored as just a string of numbers, of course) is right there as &quot;proof?&quot;


There is pressure for all states to require a Social Security Number (SSN) for drivers licenses to make security processing easier, which is clearly against the original purpose for the SSN.


To get NYS reg change info:


[http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/rulefaq.html]
== NYS DMV requires SSN for Drivers Licenses? ==


Funny, this last happened about four years ago...
Well, actually they're saying it is ''possible'' that Bob Armstrong's license will be suspended. (Emphasis added.) And the signs at the DMV say it's not necessary for plain (non-suspended
<font color=firebrick size=+2>New York Privacy Activist Denied
nor lapsed) renewals. It turns out, if they don't require you to provide the SSN for a drivers license transaction at the DMV, they still have yours on record. Bonnie Scott got the scoop from the Clinton County (NY) DMV manager (who has an impressive
collection of all states' license plates). It's been required since [[1995]] in all DMV computer records, and the local DMV operators have the ability to override requiring it for an individual transaction, but cannot override a block on transactions (e.g., renewals) if the SSN isn't in the system: only the state DMV administrators can do that.


Drivers License</font>
<B>For release June 27th, 1999&#151;</b>The New York State


Department of Motor Vehicles would not renew Matt Seigel's
Here is the [http://cosy.com/Liberty/NYSDMV040629.pdf letter] that was sent to Bob Armstrong about his license.
drivers license last December because he refused to provide his  


Social Security Number on their form. Matt believes it to be
Where do we start? DMVs are a great place to petition. [http://ny.lp.org/petitions/ NY's petitioning period] is early July until mid-August.  


illegal for them to require it, and wants to keep his privacy.  
Take along Bob's letter or your own literature, show it to people as you're petitioning, as they sit and wait in the DMV, and let them know that the Libertarian Party is the one to stand up to it for them.  


The DMV are dragging their feet in his case--which is keeping
&quot;Sign the petition, please, so our candidates can get on the ballot? Thank you!&quot;


<I>him</I> off the road.
[http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/rulefaq.html NYS reg change info]


Any public agency is required by the 1974 Privacy Act to
Funny, this last happened about four years ago.


disclose their legal basis for requesting your Social Security
=History=


Number, but Matt has now been waiting over six months to hear
== New York Privacy Activist Denied Drivers License ==


what the DMV's justification is. He wonders if Ron Paul's
'''For release June 27th, 1999''' The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles would not renew [[Matt Seigel]]'s drivers license last December because he refused to provide his Social Security Number on their form. Matt believes it to be
 
illegal for them to require it, and wants to keep his privacy.  The DMV are dragging their feet in his case--which is keeping ''him'' off the road.
proposed Privacy Protection Act will help him get his license


Any public agency is required by the 1974 Privacy Act to disclose their legal basis for requesting your Social Security Number, but Matt has now been waiting over six months to hear what the DMV's justification is.  He wonders if Ron Paul's proposed [[Privacy Protection Act]] will help him get his license
back, and prevent others from going through what he has had to.  
back, and prevent others from going through what he has had to.  


<blockquote>
'''The Social Security Number was created to administer the social security system, and nothing else.'''
<font color="#006666">&quot;The Social Security Number was  


created to administer the social security system, and nothing
[http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072098.htm From a [[1998]] press release by Ron Paul (R-TX)]


else.&quot;</font>
'''Background:'''  In [[1974]], Congress passed a [[Privacy Act]] which was supposed to help individuals keep their Social Security Number private. It forbade government agencies from collecting Social Security Numbers, unless that agency had been doing so before January 1, [[1975]] to verify the identity of an individual.  


<P align=right><font size=-1>
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-privacy-act-ssn.html Relevant text from the [[1974]] Privacy Act] (will open in new window)


[http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072098.htm From a 1998
In [[1996]], though, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act was passed. For the first time, it started setting up a system where Social Security Numbers were to be used outside of the need to collect Social Security payments: now, their use was supposed to be extended just for immigration control and making sure that folks kept up with their child payments. It seemed harmless enough, and it passed.
 
press release by Ron Paul (R-TX)]</font></P></font>
 
<b>Background:</b>  In 1974, Congress passed a Privacy Act which
 
was supposed to help individuals keep their Social Security
 
Number private. It forbade government agencies from collecting
 
Social Security Numbers, unless that agency had been doing so
 
before January 1, 1975 to verify the identity of an individual.
<P align=right><font size=-1>[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-privacy-act-ssn.html Relevant text from the 1974 Privacy Act] (will open in
 
new window)</font>
 
In 1996, though, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant  
 
Responsibilities Act was passed. For the first time, it started  
 
setting up a system where Social Security Numbers were to be  
 
used outside of the need to collect Social Security payments:  
 
now, their use was supposed to be extended just for immigration  
 
control and making sure that folks kept up with their child  
 
payments. It seemed harmless enough, and it passed.
When it passed, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
 
Responsibilities Act only required Social Security Numbers for
 
<i>commercial</i> drivers licenses (affecting about 10 million
 
Americans), but one year later, Congress was tacking an
 
amendment onto the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R.2015) that
 
removed the word &quot;commercial&quot; from this bill that was
 
now Public Law 104-193 (Title 42, U.S.C. 666).  In other words,
 
this amendment in the budget bill struck <I>one word</i> from
 
the law and thereby added the <B>170 million non-commercial
 
drivers in the United States</b> to the list of people now
 
required to provide an &quot;identifying number,&quot; when
 
requesting a license, <i>and</i>--with a change of 21 words--it
 
now removes the right for states to substitute another unique
 
number for the SSN. (Louisiana is challenging this statute...  


When it passed, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act only required Social Security Numbers for ''commercial'' drivers licenses (affecting about 10 million Americans), but one year later, Congress was tacking an amendment onto the Balanced Budget Act of [[1997]] (H.R.2015) that
removed the word &quot;commercial&quot; from this bill that was now Public Law 104-193 (Title 42, U.S.C. 666).  In other words, this amendment in the budget bill struck ''one word'' from the law and thereby added the '''170 million non-commercial drivers in the United States''' to the list of people now required to provide an &quot;identifying number,&quot; when requesting a license, ''and''--with a change of 21 words--it now removes the right for states to substitute another unique number for the SSN. (Louisiana is challenging this statute...
see below.)
see below.)
<P align=right><font size=-1>[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-
deception.html More information about the gradual distortion of
U.S.C. Sec. 666]<BR>
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-no-federal-requirements.htm Another interpretation of the Immigration Control Act and U.S.C. Sec. 666]</font></P>
<B>1999:</b>
On June 24th, Ron Paul (R-TX), supported by our own Maurice


Hinchy (D-NY) and other representatives, introduced the Privacy
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-
deception.html More information about the gradual distortion of U.S.C. Sec. 666]


Protection Act of 1999. It will repeal the
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-no-federal-requirements.htm Another interpretation of the Immigration Control Act and U.S.C. Sec. 666]
sections of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant


Responsibilities Act that set
'''1999 News:'''
On June 24th, Ron Paul (R-TX), supported by Maurice Hinchy (D-NY) and other representatives, introduced the Privacy Protection Act of [[1999]]. It would repeal the sections of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act that set
the national ID in place.
the national ID in place.


Matt Seigel is willing to carry his his case forward, and [http://www.islandlaw.com/ Libertarian lawyer Dan Conti] has agreed to represent him in a lawsuit against the New York State DMV. They have filed an &quot;Article 78&quot; which is a formal request for an answer from the state.  With other privacy advocates, the Libertarian Party hopes to make a stand against U.S.C. Sec. 666, an intrusion into our basic human right for privacy.


In 1999: Matt Seigel is willing to carry his his case forward,
= What's the problem with everybody knowing my Social Security Number, anyway? =
 
and
[http://www.islandlaw.com/ Libertarian lawyer
Dan Conti] has agreed to represent him in a lawsuit against the
 
New York State DMV. They have filed a
an &quot;Article 78&quot; which is a formal request for an
 
answer from the state.  With other privacy advocates, the  
 
Libertarian Party hopes to make a stand against U.S.C. Sec. 666,  


an intrusion into our basic human right for privacy.
There are many reasons people might not want to provide a Social Security Number. Some people, such as ministers, have previously been allowed to opt out of Social Security, but as of October 1, [[2000]], they would need one if they wanted to drive.  Other people object to the assignation of numbers to people on religious grounds, and/or to the photos that are also now required under this same law.  Previously, the first amendment had been held to
protect the religious against laws like this that violate their beliefs, but lawmakers have made no such exception for U.S.C. 666. In fact, Christian families who do not want to number their children for the governement are now discriminated against on
their tax returns, since the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 eliminated he federal child tax credit for children without Social Security Numbers. In 2000, when Sec. 666 goes into effect, will they have to give up their drivers licenses?


=What's the problem with everybody knowing my Social Security Number, anyway?=
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-new-uses-for-ssn.html More about the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997]


There are many reasons people might not want to provide a Social
[http://www.netbible.com/netbible/1ch.htm#21 Chronicles 21:1-14], which some Christians believe prohibit them from obtaining SSNs


Security Number. Some people, such as ministers, have previously
[http://www.netbible.com/netbible/rev.htm#13 Revelations 13:15-17], which describes a mark ''&quot;so that no one could buy or sell
unless he had the mark&quot;''


been allowed to opt out of Social Security, but as of October 1,  
Privacy groups are also concerned.  Social Security was originally enacted as a voluntary insurance scheme to prevent widespread poverty among the elderly, but little by little, the number has been used to catalogue all aspects of an American's
life: from their school and medical records, to bank accounts and income tax statements, and now, it seems, anybody wishing to drive a car.


2000, they would need one if they wanted to drive.  Other people
&quot;There is no satisfactory condition under which Social Security Numbers may    be required as a condition for travel.&quot; --Scott McDonald, a grass-roots privacy activist


object to the assignation of numbers to people on religious
The more companies and government agencies that index your personal info by Social Security Number, the easier it is in this new information age for others to find out about you--as incidents in [[2005]], 6 years after this page was originally written, are proving--and possibly steal your identity, harm your credit rating, or give you a criminal record. When your photo, height, weight, eye and hair color are all conveniently indexed by Social Security Number, and available to any person who can get a job at the DMV, your privacy is invaded a hundredfold more than before. Eventually, every police department in the nation will be able to reference your photo and arrest record as easily as the phone company can call up your bill when you call them. And every computer cracker will have their choice of places to go to access your private info, even more so than today.


grounds, and/or to the photos that are also now required under
Unless action is taken now, the checkout clerk will scan and maybe even see your Social Security Number every time you buy a sixpack or a bottle of wine!  
 
this same law.  Previously, the first amendment had been held to
 
protect the religious against laws like this that violate their
 
beliefs, but lawmakers have made no such exception for U.S.C.
 
666. In fact, Christian families who do not want to number their
 
children for the governement are now discriminated against on
 
their tax returns, since the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
 
eliminated he federal child tax credit for children without
 
Social Security Numbers. In 2000, when Sec. 666 goes into
 
effect, will they have to give up their drivers licenses?
 
<P align=right><font size=-
 
1>[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-new-uses-for-ssn.html More about the Taxpayer Relief Act
  of 1997]<P align=right>
[http://www.netbible.com/netbible/1ch.htm#21 Chronicles 21:1-14],
 
which some Christians believe prohibit them from obtaining SSNs
<BR>
[http://www.netbible.com/netbible/rev.htm#13 Revelations 13:15-17],
 
which describes a mark <i>&quot;so that no one could buy or sell
 
unless he had the mark&quot;</I></font>
</P>
 
Privacy groups are also concerned.  Social Security was
 
originally enacted as a voluntary insurance scheme to prevent
 
widespread poverty among the elderly, but little by little, the
 
number has been used to catalogue all aspects of an American's
 
life: from their school and medical records, to bank accounts
 
and income tax statements, and now, it seems, anybody wishing
 
the drive a car.
<blockquote><font color=#006666>&quot;There is no satisfactory
 
condition under which Social Security Numbers may
  be required as a condition for travel.&quot;
<P align=right> Scott McDonald, a grass-roots privacy activist
</P></font></blockquote>
 
The more companies and government agencies that index your
 
personal info by Social Security Number, the easier it is in
 
this new information age for others to find out about you--as incidents in 2005, 6 years after this page was originally written, are proving--and possibly steal your identity or harm your credit rating. When
 
your photo, height, weight, eye and hair color are all
 
conveniently indexed by Social Security Number, and available to
 
any person who can get a job at the DMV, your privacy is invaded
 
a hundredfold more than before. Eventually, every police
 
department in the nation will be able to reference your photo
 
and arrest record as easily as the phone company can call up
 
your bill when you call them. And every computer cracker will
 
have their choice of places to go to access your private info,
 
even more so than today.
 
Unless action is taken now, the checkout clerk will scan and  
 
maybe even see your Social Security Number every time you buy a  
 
sixpack or a bottle of wine! (Regulations will nearly ensure
 
that states print your SSN right on your license to meet with
 
the Federal Guidelines for the National ID.  Perhaps it will be
 
barcoded.)


Help us draw attention to this issue!  
Help us draw attention to this issue!  


[http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfmID=16021&c=39 Urge Congress to Defang the Matrix] (LINK UPDATED 9/28/04)
[http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfmID=16021&c=39 Urge Congress to Defang the Matrix] (LINK UPDATED 9/28/04)
(The ACLU also outline more details of
(The ACLU also outline more details of the database of information that will be created as a result.)
the database of information that will be created as a result.)
Then, write a letter to the editor. Let them know that you're
 
not just a number.
 
=Related links=
 
<B>Good, but doesn't go far enough:</b>
 
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/981023_money_withheld_nat.shtml In 1998, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill deliberately
 
withheld funding for the provisioning of the National ID
 
system]<BR>
<B>Better:</b>
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-ssn-act-
 
louisiana.html Louisiana bans DMV from Requiring a SSN, but
 
concerns remain over the provisions in the Immigration Act]<BR>
<B>Please support this!</b>
 
[http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr062499.htm Ron Paul's


Privacy Protection Act of 1999] (press release)
Then, write a letter to the editor. Let them know that you're not just a number.


<B>More Info:</b>
== Related links ==
<!--
http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/SSN Not Required! ... check out


their business-card-sized advisory you can hand out to companies
'''Good, but doesn't go far enough:'''


who try to request your social security number
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/981023_money_withheld_nat.shtml In 1998, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill deliberately withheld funding for the provisioning of the National ID system]<BR>
<BR>http://home.utah-inter.net/don-tiggre/lrt.nonid.faq.htmNo


National ID! -- list of Frequently Asked Questions-->
'''Better:'''
[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-ssn-act-louisiana.html Louisiana bans DMV from Requiring a SSN, but concerns remain over the provisions in the Immigration Act]


[http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html Grassroots Granny and the Washington State Citizens Against National ID],
'''Great:''' Anything from Ron Paul, e.g., 
[http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr062499.htm Ron Paul's Privacy Protection Act of 1999] (press release)


another Privacy Activist who opposes a National ID (LINK UPDATED
'''More Info:'''


9/28/04)
[http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html Grassroots Granny and the Washington State Citizens Against National ID], another Privacy Activist who opposes a National ID (LINK UPDATED 9/28/04)
<BR>[http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/notice.html Privacy Notice to be posted in places of employment]


<B>6/27/99:</b> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/27/211l-062799-idx.html Washington Post
[http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/notice.html Privacy Notice to be posted in places of employment]


article on the personal data clearinghouse]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/27/211l-062799-idx.html Washington Post article on the personal data clearinghouse]

Latest revision as of 19:35, 18 October 2008

Redirect to:

Template:The issue is National ID; "No National ID" is a stance on that issue.

This is an issue which has recently come up in the news again. NY has a page on this issue that goes way back and needs a bit of updating, especially now. Maybe we could just move it here. OK, I did that. Please feel free to update it!

original page: No National ID!


From the Libertarian Party of NY -- Issues -- No National ID!

National ID Card Denounced by Libertarians

Jan 6, 2003: Congressman Ron Paul today denounced the national ID card provisions contained in the intelligence bill being voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives, while urging his colleagues to reject the bill and its new layers of needless bureaucracy.

"National ID cards are not proper in a free society," Paul stated. "This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so." more info

National ID for flying?

Libertarian John Gilmore is testing the bounds the TSA is setting. That's not recommended for people who actually need to get somewhere on time!

Other people are discovering that it's possible to get on board a plane without ID if you submit to a much more thorough security screening. (The same kind of screening that some people get somewhat at random, designated by security code "SSSS" stamped on your ticket).


from the RISKS Journal, Vol 23, issue 50 Subject: U.S. air travel without government identification


The article in RISKS also describes a new Continental 'frequent flyer' ID program for those who want to avoid intense screening in exchange for biometric data. However, the incident with Ted Kennedy proves that it's tough dealing with bad data in security databases--even for a senator! That incident looks suspiciously like a hacking coup instead of the 'clerical error' it is attributed to. When we have the 'fast lane' for air travel, how much harder is it going to be to put people on THAT list who don't belong? Especially when their biometric data (stored as just a string of numbers, of course) is right there as "proof?"

There is pressure for all states to require a Social Security Number (SSN) for drivers licenses to make security processing easier, which is clearly against the original purpose for the SSN.


NYS DMV requires SSN for Drivers Licenses?

Well, actually they're saying it is possible that Bob Armstrong's license will be suspended. (Emphasis added.) And the signs at the DMV say it's not necessary for plain (non-suspended nor lapsed) renewals. It turns out, if they don't require you to provide the SSN for a drivers license transaction at the DMV, they still have yours on record. Bonnie Scott got the scoop from the Clinton County (NY) DMV manager (who has an impressive collection of all states' license plates). It's been required since 1995 in all DMV computer records, and the local DMV operators have the ability to override requiring it for an individual transaction, but cannot override a block on transactions (e.g., renewals) if the SSN isn't in the system: only the state DMV administrators can do that.


Here is the letter that was sent to Bob Armstrong about his license.

Where do we start? DMVs are a great place to petition. NY's petitioning period is early July until mid-August.

Take along Bob's letter or your own literature, show it to people as you're petitioning, as they sit and wait in the DMV, and let them know that the Libertarian Party is the one to stand up to it for them.

"Sign the petition, please, so our candidates can get on the ballot? Thank you!"

NYS reg change info

Funny, this last happened about four years ago.

History

New York Privacy Activist Denied Drivers License

For release June 27th, 1999 The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles would not renew Matt Seigel's drivers license last December because he refused to provide his Social Security Number on their form. Matt believes it to be illegal for them to require it, and wants to keep his privacy. The DMV are dragging their feet in his case--which is keeping him off the road.

Any public agency is required by the 1974 Privacy Act to disclose their legal basis for requesting your Social Security Number, but Matt has now been waiting over six months to hear what the DMV's justification is. He wonders if Ron Paul's proposed Privacy Protection Act will help him get his license back, and prevent others from going through what he has had to.

The Social Security Number was created to administer the social security system, and nothing else.

From a 1998 press release by Ron Paul (R-TX)

Background: In 1974, Congress passed a Privacy Act which was supposed to help individuals keep their Social Security Number private. It forbade government agencies from collecting Social Security Numbers, unless that agency had been doing so before January 1, 1975 to verify the identity of an individual.

Relevant text from the 1974 Privacy Act (will open in new window)

In 1996, though, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act was passed. For the first time, it started setting up a system where Social Security Numbers were to be used outside of the need to collect Social Security payments: now, their use was supposed to be extended just for immigration control and making sure that folks kept up with their child payments. It seemed harmless enough, and it passed.

When it passed, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act only required Social Security Numbers for commercial drivers licenses (affecting about 10 million Americans), but one year later, Congress was tacking an amendment onto the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R.2015) that removed the word "commercial" from this bill that was now Public Law 104-193 (Title 42, U.S.C. 666). In other words, this amendment in the budget bill struck one word from the law and thereby added the 170 million non-commercial drivers in the United States to the list of people now required to provide an "identifying number," when requesting a license, and--with a change of 21 words--it now removes the right for states to substitute another unique number for the SSN. (Louisiana is challenging this statute... see below.)

[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp- deception.html More information about the gradual distortion of U.S.C. Sec. 666]

Another interpretation of the Immigration Control Act and U.S.C. Sec. 666

1999 News: On June 24th, Ron Paul (R-TX), supported by Maurice Hinchy (D-NY) and other representatives, introduced the Privacy Protection Act of 1999. It would repeal the sections of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act that set the national ID in place.

Matt Seigel is willing to carry his his case forward, and Libertarian lawyer Dan Conti has agreed to represent him in a lawsuit against the New York State DMV. They have filed an "Article 78" which is a formal request for an answer from the state. With other privacy advocates, the Libertarian Party hopes to make a stand against U.S.C. Sec. 666, an intrusion into our basic human right for privacy.

What's the problem with everybody knowing my Social Security Number, anyway?

There are many reasons people might not want to provide a Social Security Number. Some people, such as ministers, have previously been allowed to opt out of Social Security, but as of October 1, 2000, they would need one if they wanted to drive. Other people object to the assignation of numbers to people on religious grounds, and/or to the photos that are also now required under this same law. Previously, the first amendment had been held to protect the religious against laws like this that violate their beliefs, but lawmakers have made no such exception for U.S.C. 666. In fact, Christian families who do not want to number their children for the governement are now discriminated against on their tax returns, since the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 eliminated he federal child tax credit for children without Social Security Numbers. In 2000, when Sec. 666 goes into effect, will they have to give up their drivers licenses?

[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-new-uses-for-ssn.html More about the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997]

Chronicles 21:1-14, which some Christians believe prohibit them from obtaining SSNs

Revelations 13:15-17, which describes a mark "so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark"

Privacy groups are also concerned. Social Security was originally enacted as a voluntary insurance scheme to prevent widespread poverty among the elderly, but little by little, the number has been used to catalogue all aspects of an American's life: from their school and medical records, to bank accounts and income tax statements, and now, it seems, anybody wishing to drive a car.

"There is no satisfactory condition under which Social Security Numbers may be required as a condition for travel." --Scott McDonald, a grass-roots privacy activist

The more companies and government agencies that index your personal info by Social Security Number, the easier it is in this new information age for others to find out about you--as incidents in 2005, 6 years after this page was originally written, are proving--and possibly steal your identity, harm your credit rating, or give you a criminal record. When your photo, height, weight, eye and hair color are all conveniently indexed by Social Security Number, and available to any person who can get a job at the DMV, your privacy is invaded a hundredfold more than before. Eventually, every police department in the nation will be able to reference your photo and arrest record as easily as the phone company can call up your bill when you call them. And every computer cracker will have their choice of places to go to access your private info, even more so than today.

Unless action is taken now, the checkout clerk will scan and maybe even see your Social Security Number every time you buy a sixpack or a bottle of wine!

Help us draw attention to this issue!

Urge Congress to Defang the Matrix (LINK UPDATED 9/28/04) (The ACLU also outline more details of the database of information that will be created as a result.)

Then, write a letter to the editor. Let them know that you're not just a number.

Related links

Good, but doesn't go far enough:

In 1998, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill deliberately withheld funding for the provisioning of the National ID system

Better: Louisiana bans DMV from Requiring a SSN, but concerns remain over the provisions in the Immigration Act

Great: Anything from Ron Paul, e.g., Ron Paul's Privacy Protection Act of 1999 (press release)

More Info:

Grassroots Granny and the Washington State Citizens Against National ID, another Privacy Activist who opposes a National ID (LINK UPDATED 9/28/04)

Privacy Notice to be posted in places of employment

Washington Post article on the personal data clearinghouse