No National ID: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

No National ID (view source)

Revision as of 13:50, 4 May 2005

13,270 bytes added ,  4 May 2005
no edit summary
(No National ID!)
 
No edit summary
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.
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!


See:
See:
[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>
<font color=firebrick size=+2>National ID Card Denounced by Ron
Paul</font>
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."
[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
Subject: [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.50.html 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,
[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;
To get NYS reg change info:
[http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/rulefaq.html]
Funny, this last happened about four years ago...
<font color=firebrick size=+2>New York Privacy Activist Denied
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
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
<I>him</I> 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.
<blockquote>
<font color="#006666">&quot;The Social Security Number was
created to administer the social security system, and nothing
else.&quot;</font>
<P align=right><font size=-1>
[http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072098.htm From a 1998
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...
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
Protection Act of 1999. It will repeal the
sections of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibilities Act that set
the national ID in place.
In 1999: 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 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.
=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?
<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!
[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 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)
<B>More Info:</b>
<!--
http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/SSN Not Required! ... check out
their business-card-sized advisory you can hand out to companies
who try to request your social security number
<BR>http://home.utah-inter.net/don-tiggre/lrt.nonid.faq.htmNo
National ID! -- list of Frequently Asked Questions-->
[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
article on the personal data clearinghouse]
Bonnie
37

edits

Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/75"

Navigation menu