No National ID: Difference between revisions

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. OK, I did that. Please feel free to update it!

original page:

<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.

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).

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.  

<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. NY's petitioning period is early July until mid-August ([http://ny.lp.org/petitions/ check here in June for updates]).

Take along the letter to Bob 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.  

<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.

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

[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...

deception.html More information about the gradual distortion of U.S.C. Sec. 666]

[http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-no-federal-requirements.htm Another interpretation of the Immigration Control Act and U.S.C. Sec. 666]</P>

<B>1999 News:</b>

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

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.

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

<P align=right><font size=-1>

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

<P align=right>

[http://www.netbible.com/netbible/1ch.htm#21 Chronicles 21:1-14], which some Christians believe prohibit them from obtaining SSNs

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.

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!  

(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.

[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>

[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>

[http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr062499.htm Ron Paul's Privacy Protection Act of 1999] (press release)

[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)

[http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/notice.html Privacy Notice to be posted in places of employment]

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]