Proof of what a national ID service is good for.

[InsaneApache]

People shouldn't have to carry papers, but I think the government should have databases of certainly fingerprints. People who were not on the database would have to explain why not.

The system the government set up of course cost a fortune - like the NHS computer system which was scrapped and the integrated fire services which was also scrapped.

Good god.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Britain effectively has a national ID, or rather it has numerous overlapping schemes which require you to provide ID and they are not schemes you can typically opt out of (i.e. tax forms). Worry not about a national ID as such, if this fear of the government or the impingement of your privacy or other (valid) concerns are you point. In that case worry about your current anti-terror type laws which go well beyond, lack of accountability of parliament vs your rights as citizen (you did know that Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended at the mere whim of your political overlords? can and has happened rather a lot actually), and of course CCTV & data gathering laws...

[Kralizec]

Nurse here got life in prison because she was supposedly a serial-killer, if you would read up on how things went you would probably understand my position a little better.

That case (I assume you're talking about Lucia de B) had nothing to do with ID cards, DNA or fingerprints.

Seriously, if the government had the intent of framing you by planting all sorts of evidence, having a registry of fingerprints would probably save them a haf day's work and nothing more. The only potential problem I see, in free democratic societies, is that the police will make it their modus operandi to build a case around the first fingerprint they find while disregarding all other clues, and I don't think that's in itself a particulary strong argument.

money was never a terribly significant reason to object to ID cards, people felt it was no business of the government to enforce the carrying of ID's, i.e it wasn't terribly British.

It's compulsory to carry one in the Neth's, but I don't remember anyone I know getting fined for not carrying one. The only times I was ever asked to show my ID was to get into bars or to buy liquor (I don't look my age, or so I've heard...which was something of a problem when I was in my early twenties) and once while I was on vacation in Hungary, when me and my drunk friends were being loud and annoying. I always carry mine on me just in case, can't say that it makes me feel opressed or anything.

Care to argue against it based on its merits, instead of saying it's not [-insert nationality-]?

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

The bolded parts are, put mildly, mischaracterisations. Codifying a right to do something is an extra garantue against government intervention and does not necessarily imply that people weren't free to do that particular thing before. There's no statute that garantues the right to breathe, eat food or sleep. It's not that civil-style governments don't see any reason not to allow it. It's that they don't see any reason to ban it. Historically governments on both sides of the channel have restricted what people could say, what they could believe and whatnot, but as TA noted, only the UK lacks constitutional garantues against such things.

Murder is prosecuted by both British and continental justice systems. But only the latter have actual statutes that define them as crimes. If it wasn't explicitly defined as a crime, it would have been legal to do.

About "negative liberty", you do realise that stuff like property (the ability/right to own, use and controll goods at your discretion), right to privacy and whatnot exist because we have laws and the authorities to enforce those laws; i.e. government intervention in the behaviour of the people?

[Montmorency]

Comprehensive identity documentation is not a threat to anything; it's a convenience to all those involved.

If the government wanted to frame you, they'd just plant child pornography on your hard drive.

[Fragony]

@Krazelic No it has to do with how incredibly screwed you can be once you got the wrong people against you. And you trust these guys with your fingerprints?

[rory_20_uk]

Comprehensive identity documentation is not a threat to anything; it's a convenience to all those involved.

If the government wanted to frame you, they'd just plant child pornography on your hard drive.

This is my take.

Liberty in the UK? Maybe - until they decide to suspend it. London and other major cities had a stop and search without cause laws. Kettling was found to be illegal months afterwards. The police not having ready access to fingerprints is only a hindrance. If the police wanted mine they merely have to arrest me on suspicion of whatever. Then yes, if they really want me they can plan those fingerprints wherever they want.

The Government knows where I live, what car I drive, my job, where my family is - and my entire medical history is only a court order away. They only don't have certain things that might be useful in emergencies such as fingerprints.

If the government really wanted me gone, they'd call in a favour with Mossad or the CIA for me to be disappeared - both of whom have expertise in this.

[Furunculus]

Care to argue against it based on its merits, instead of saying it's not [-insert nationality-]?

The bolded parts are, put mildly, mischaracterisations. Codifying a right to do something is an extra garantue against government intervention and does not necessarily imply that people weren't free to do that particular thing before. There's no statute that garantues the right to breathe, eat food or sleep. It's not that civil-style governments don't see any reason not to allow it. It's that they don't see any reason to ban it. Historically governments on both sides of the channel have restricted what people could say, what they could believe and whatnot, but as TA noted, only the UK lacks constitutional garantues against such things.

I believe i just did............?

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

They two statements may be overstated to highlight the distinction, but i fail to see how the point is incorrect, and the first paragraph (which lacks any highlights from you), does a very adequate job explaining why i refuse to help legitimise the governments attempt to push the authority of the state where it does not belong by accepting a mandatory ID card.

[gaelic cowboy]

The police don't need to plant anything on you they hit you a few times and book you for assaulting a police officer game set and match.

[Kralizec]

They two statements may be overstated to highlight the distinction, but i fail to see how the point is incorrect.

It's incorrect, not overstated.

Legal positivism and positive liberty are completely unrelated concepts. Legal positivism holds that all substantive law should be codified in positive law; i.e. written law or statutes. Positive liberty entails the freedom from starvation, ignorance etc. which is realised by government intervention such as social security, subsidised education and whatnot.

[Double A]

I fail to see why that if you think the government can and is able to take you out with CIA/corruption/whatever, they should also have ready access to your fingerprints. It just makes injustice that much easier for them. Furthermore, if you say they can do that, why you would support them at all.

[TheLastDays]

I fail to see why that if you think the government can and is able to take you out with CIA/corruption/whatever, they should also have ready access to your fingerprints. It just makes injustice that much easier for them. Furthermore, if you say they can do that, why you would support them at all.

Because he probably thinks they don't do it. At least not to him After all, we're all a bunch of selfish . He's only arguing that, should they want to do it, they wouldn't need his fingerprints.

[Ronin]

I fail to see why that if you think the government can and is able to take you out with CIA/corruption/whatever, they should also have ready access to your fingerprints. It just makes injustice that much easier for them. Furthermore, if you say they can do that, why you would support them at all.

Just taking Fragony's argument to it's logical extreme conclusion....that if the government had the desire to take that kind of negative involvement in a person's life they have ample means to do so even without having your fingerprints.
I´m not saying I agree that is feasible or likely to happen to any given individual, if that were the case I would not live in the country that had that government much less give them my fingerprints.
When you think about it if you have that level of distrust in your government, how can you stand to live in the territory controlled by that government? what? you feel you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and the chosen position is ID cards? seems like a half-way-there position that is kinda strange, if you actually distrust the government that much you should either be trying to change it or moving to someplace out of their sphere of influence.

I see this as kind of a "us against them" fantasy that some people like to adhere to, makes day to day like more exciting or something, without you know..actually having to take any practical and logical steps that level of distrust would warrant if it was real.....it's kinda like in the US lots of people give you the whole attitude of "we all need to have guns in our houses, just in case you know, the government get uppity".....to that I say, that might have been true in the past when both sides had muskets...but when the government has stealth planes and tactical bunker piercing smart bombs..etc..I say if they want to come in..they are coming it....do I think that is reasonably likely? no...but I acknowledge the fact.

The truth is that having a national ID service provides tangible advantages with hypothetical drawbacks only for the average law abiding citizen...I´m fine with that.

[CountArach]

Without having gone through this thread yet (so I'm not sure how many people have already said it), I don't like the idea that the government is viewing me as a suspected potential criminal at all times. There is no way that this would be done with transparency and enough security to ensure that no breaches would occur, etiher from outsiders or from those who work in the relevant department having access. I would rather that my government trusted me enough to assume that I am not a potential criminal until proven to be one.

[Ronin]

Without having gone through this thread yet (so I'm not sure how many people have already said it), I don't like the idea that the government is viewing me as a suspected potential criminal at all times. There is no way that this would be done with transparency and enough security to ensure that no breaches would occur, etiher from outsiders or from those who work in the relevant department having access. I would rather that my government trusted me enough to assume that I am not a potential criminal until proven to be one.

why do you see this as the government assuming you are a potential criminal?
I see it as the government acknowledging "you are one of us, here is your membership card".

[CountArach]

why do you see this as the government assuming you are a potential criminal?

If they didn't see me as a potential criminal, why would they need my fingerprints?

I see it as the government acknowledging "you are one of us, here is your membership card".

I like that even less for the way that it defines Us vs Them along nationalistic lines.

[Ronin]

If they didn't see me as a potential criminal, why would they need my fingerprints?

It's called an Identity Card because it has the necessary data to Identify someone.......without that it would be rather pointless no? then you are just back to point zero in the discussion.
a fingerprint is good for this as it can´t be easily changed or altered on the actual person, contrary to just a photo were simple aging, changing hair/beard etc can happen quickly.
We're talking about a photograph and the fingerprint of your right index finger here....it's not like I got took down to police booking to get mine done :P

I like that even less for the way that it defines Us vs Them along nationalistic lines.

that's pretty lofty but those divides exist whether you like them or not......even in just practical if not ideological or nationalistic terms (i.e. who you pay taxes to and get services back from..etc)....pretending they don´t exist isn´t really an option.

[CountArach]

It's called an Identity Card because it has the necessary data to Identify someone.......without that it would be rather pointless no? then you are just back to point zero in the discussion.
a fingerprint is good for this as it can´t be easily changed or altered on the actual person, contrary to just a photo were simple aging, changing hair/beard etc can happen quickly.
We're talking about a photograph and the fingerprint of your right index finger here....it's not like I got took down to police booking to get mine done :P

Again... why would they need my fingerprint if they didn't treat me as a potential criminal? By thinking that changing my hair/face/whatever might mean that they can't identify me, then you're still left with that same question - why would they want to identify me if they didn't think I might be a criminal?

that's pretty lofty

Thank you, I take that as a compliment.

but those divides exist whether you like them or not......even in just practical if not ideological or nationalistic terms (i.e. who you pay taxes to and get services back from..etc)....pretending they don´t exist isn´t really an option.

Practical and ideological terms are completely different things. Practically they exist because the prevailing ideology is based on them. If I don't like the prevailing ideology why would I like the practical purpose?

I don't pretend that nations don't exist, that would be stupid. But every step towards defining our lives around them is a step in the wrong direction.

[Ronin]

why would they want to identify me if they didn't think I might be a criminal?

you see no reason why the government would want to be able to identify you except for assuming you might be a criminal?...really?



ohhh I don´t know....the other day I had to check into a hotel......being able to prove I was who I said I was came kinda handy.......same thing when I needed to sign a contract a few months ago.....you know...criminal enterprises.....gangsta stuff.
sorry for the tone but I have a hard time understanding how you think a modern society would be able to conduct business without some form of this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

you see no reason why the government would want to be able to identify you except for assuming you might be a criminal?...really?

Theoretically, you can have a society structured in a way where government doesn't need to be able to identify you. Granted, all taxation would have to be consumption based, no personal income tax....

[Greyblades]

Granted, all taxation would have to be consumption based, no personal income tax....

You make its sound like that would be a bad thing.

[InsaneApache]

I think it must be an Anglo-Saxon thing. Suspicion and distrust of authority. We tend to think of our governments as our employees not our masters. Given that mindset it's not surprising that we rail against overbearing and authoritarian diktaks. It's no business of governments to print, photo, scan, file, catalogue and store information on us.

[Ronin]

You make its sound like that would be a bad thing.

that itself would not be a bad thing.....the consequences of that are another matter :P

[Double A]

Just taking Fragony's argument to it's logical extreme conclusion....that if the government had the desire to take that kind of negative involvement in a person's life they have ample means to do so even without having your fingerprints.
I´m not saying I agree that is feasible or likely to happen to any given individual, if that were the case I would not live in the country that had that government much less give them my fingerprints.
When you think about it if you have that level of distrust in your government, how can you stand to live in the territory controlled by that government? what? you feel you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and the chosen position is ID cards? seems like a half-way-there position that is kinda strange, if you actually distrust the government that much you should either be trying to change it or moving to someplace out of their sphere of influence.

I see this as kind of a "us against them" fantasy that some people like to adhere to, makes day to day like more exciting or something, without you know..actually having to take any practical and logical steps that level of distrust would warrant if it was real.....it's kinda like in the US lots of people give you the whole attitude of "we all need to have guns in our houses, just in case you know, the government get uppity".....to that I say, that might have been true in the past when both sides had muskets...but when the government has stealth planes and tactical bunker piercing smart bombs..etc..I say if they want to come in..they are coming it....do I think that is reasonably likely? no...but I acknowledge the fact.

The truth is that having a national ID service provides tangible advantages with hypothetical drawbacks only for the average law abiding citizen...I´m fine with that.

Well I am trying to change it, back to when it could actually be trusted sometimes.

I think it must be an Anglo-Saxon thing. Suspicion and distrust of authority. We tend to think of our governments as our employees not our masters. Given that mindset it's not surprising that we rail against overbearing and authoritarian diktaks. It's no business of governments to print, photo, scan, file, catalogue and store information on us.

Probably saved our asses more than a few times.

that itself would not be a bad thing.....the consequences of that are another matter :P

It makes sense to me. You buy more stuff, you pay more taxes. No need to make an amendment to the Constitution anymore.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If different kinds of goods were given different amounts of consumption tax, I might be fine with it. I would prefer jacking up the income tax on individuals making $1,000,000+ but reduce corporate and capital gains taxes to zero. If the rich won't invest and create jobs, force them to invest or keep the bonuses in the company coffers.

[Fragony]

'Just taking Fragony's argument to it's logical extreme conclusion....that if the government had the desire to take that kind of negative involvement in a person's life they have ample means to do so even without having your fingerprints.'

Higher government has stealth bombers lower doesn't, you wouldn't be the first that gets destroyed because the person who wants it knows the mayor. All lower authorities have access though, and Guiseppe and Alfonso went to school together, their wives go to the same party's

[CountArach]

ohhh I don´t know....the other day I had to check into a hotel......being able to prove I was who I said I was came kinda handy.......same thing when I needed to sign a contract a few months ago.....you know...criminal enterprises.....gangsta stuff.
sorry for the tone but I have a hard time understanding how you think a modern society would be able to conduct business without some form of this.

Exactly which part of this can I not use my driver's license for?

[Husar]

If they didn't see me as a potential criminal, why would they need my fingerprints?

Actually, it could stop identity theft if you not only have to show your ID card but also verify it with your fingerprints. Unless the saved fingerprints are as easy to replace as a photograph of course.

Nobody assumes you are a criminal, they just want to make sure that no criminal pretends to be you, a problem that is rising.

[CountArach]

Actually, it could stop identity theft if you not only have to show your ID card but also verify it with your fingerprints. Unless the saved fingerprints are as easy to replace as a photograph of course.

Nobody assumes you are a criminal, they just want to make sure that no criminal pretends to be you, a problem that is rising.

Given that identity theft a phenomenon that exists largely online, my fingerprints aren't really usable.

[Furunculus]

It's incorrect, not overstated.

Legal positivism and positive liberty are completely unrelated concepts. Legal positivism holds that all substantive law should be codified in positive law; i.e. written law or statutes. Positive liberty entails the freedom from starvation, ignorance etc. which is realised by government intervention such as social security, subsidised education and whatnot.

John Austin would, I believe, disagree with you.

He notes:

"Insofar as non-sanctioned rules and laws that allow persons to do things, Austin says failure to obey the rules does indeed result in sanctions; however, such sanctions are in the form of "the sanction of nullity." In this way he defined law primarily in terms of the power to control other people.

i.e. argument is framed from the position law 'enable' activity, rather than freedom from.

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

As might Bentham: an aside, but the link between continental law and legal positivism, i.e. you rights have been determined by you sovereign, the opposite of natural law.

"The nineteenth century was an era of codification. Systems of customary and judge-made law were replaced with codes drafted by jurists of which the most influential was the French Code Napoléon of 1804. As a result, the work of academic jurists tended increasingly to consist of commentary on and exposition of the codes. There arose from this an ideology expressed in its most extreme form by the French exegetical school. According to this ideology, there was no need to study anything outside the code. The code contained all the law there was and moreover constituted a gapless system capable of yielding an answer to any legal question. There was thus no need or warrant for the use of judicial discretion. The right answer in any case could be deduced from the code. This sort of approach is often described as “positivism”."

I believe it to be a contributory cause:

A cause may be classified as a "contributory cause," if the presumed cause precedes the effect, and altering the cause alters the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which possess the contributory cause experience the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which are free of the contributory cause be free of the effect. In other words, a contributory cause may be neither necessary nor sufficient but it must be contributory.

there is an evident split between english common law and the napoleonic law common on the continent.

there is (to me at least) an evident split between the english enthusiasm for negative liberty, and the continental embrace of positive liberty.

in search of a link between the two i reach the following logic:

i believe that states that use a Napoleonic legal code will be less enamoured of natural rights, and thus more prone to adopt legal positivisim, and that as a consequence a society that is both;
a) governed by a system that identifies "rights to do something",
b) influenced by a system that views law as a social construction,
will likely result in a society that emphasises positive liberty.

thus, i can explain to my satisfaction a link between the two disparities of law and liberty, and explain why english society rejects ID cards as an infringement of their negative liberty, whereas continentals will embrace them as an enhancement of their positive liberty.

[Nowake]

That is probably the why, and Isaiah Berlin has drawn enough worst-case scenarios involving the escalation of positive liberty, yet fundamentally, are they correct? In my opinion, the two must be balanced, not chosen between, in the same way you should not choose between the extremes of each notion of liberty i.e. revolution (positive) and anarchy (negative). Both the UK and US misunderstand that balance historically because of the failure of the French revolution and Bolshevism.

and explain why english society rejects ID cards as an infringement of their negative liberty

To be perfectly honest, I would explain it as the faux pas which expands on the attributes of the word "right" ad nauseam, completely forgetting it was always only an euphemism for "privilege". And that's the deep truth always lurking just under the crust of our civilisations