A Driver's License Has Little To Do With Driving
Eric Peters writes at the American Daily Herald -- "The Case Against Driver's Licenses":
That little plastic laminated card you've got in your wallet or purse - you know, the state's permission slip for operating a motor vehicle? Ever stop to reflect how peripheral the driving part of a driver's license is?Because, of course, a driver's license is in fact our national ID card.
It's extremely hard to function in modern society without this national ID card - even if you never get behind the wheel. You can't open a bank account, cash a check, visit the doctor, vote, board an airplane or even get a job without one.
Or at least, it is very difficult to do these things without one.
And none of these things, as such, have anything to do with the operation of a motor vehicle.
...Rather, the object of the exercise is ascertaining our identity - in order that we may be kept track of via the interlocking system of data acquisition, indexing, recording and cross-referencing that is the Matrix of modern society.
It is about information - and control.
If it were not, "driver's licenses" would not be linked to one's Social Security number - the government-issued ear tag every calf (oops, citizen) is issued at birth. The SS number, in turn, is the number the government uses to make sure you pay your taxes, to keep track of where you work (and how much you earn), where you live, whom you marry, whether you have children (each of them to be issued their own ear tag in turn) and so on - all of which, again, have nothing to do with your competence as a driver.
...Even a person merely walking down the street, having committed no crime, can be compelled to produce his ID. And if that person lacks an ID, that person will very likely be arrested on the spot and held until his identity is ascertained.
This is the reality of America.
You must have permission to move. You do not move freely.
Even if you are walking.
He's wrong about being compelled to produce ID without committing a crime (in almost all states, except when police go too far -- which happens, of course). From Wikipedia, the exceptions:
•In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.•Six states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
If, however, in other states, the police suspect you of a crime -- or say they have suspicion -- you may be arrested if you can't produce ID. Stop and identify laws delineated here.
via @karendecoster
So. How is the tribe to figure out which of its people are the warriors, the gatherers, the preparers of sustenance, when its numbers are so large that common identity is not known?
How is the tribe to figure out which of its people are properly represented at council?
How is the tribe to ensure that the proper members of the tribe get medical care and benefits?
I remember someone saying that we only have the ability to associate with about 150 people...
While this is realistic, it is no more or less strange than the idea that the barcode is The Number Of The Beast.
And as I recall, the tribe's moneylenders gave the tribal Goddess's wampum to thieves by failing to note that said Goddess wasn't fat and missing teeth.
There isn't really much of an argument against ID today, unless you want to go back to subsistence farming. Good luck doing that in LA.
Radwaste at January 22, 2012 3:05 AM
Some of us apparently have no problem with being asked for our 'papers' when interacting with the police. I would think that most of us do.
DHS/INS can stop anyone traveling within 100 miles of the US borders just to verify their citizenship/immigration status. To illustrate, this includes all of Maine, NH, RI, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Florida and others, and large chunks of other 'border' states like Ohio, NY, PA, etc.
But, hey, no problems, right?
Oh, hey, your 'harmless' stop and identify laws? A gentleman in Ohio was arrested for failure to produce a driver license as ID, after an argument with a store clerk. The man was a passenger in a car (i.e., not driving) so why did he need his driver license? The case was later thrown out, but it shouldn't have gone anywhere in the first place.
The land of the free?
DrCos at January 22, 2012 4:19 AM
Note that the words "produce identification" were not used. If you are stopped without identification the gesta... er, police can ascertain who you are by your name, birth date and place of birth or current address. It varies by state laws.
Are you referring to this case. Obviously the cop didn't know the laws. Do you think that will happen again with that officer? Or even in that police department? I've watched Cops (the TV show) on and off over the years and more than once I have seen them deal with someone who doesn't have ID. It was handled professionally, usually.
But as someone observed -- you have to produce ID to fly and that is not discriminatory. But having to produce ID to vote is discrimination.
Jim P. at January 22, 2012 6:57 AM
Just to be clear, in Indiana you do not have to produce an identification card of any kind. You must, when requested, identify yourself (verbally: John Smith, 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Anytown Birthdate). That is all that is legally required. The police may push for more but you are not legally required to produce your 'traveling papers'.
Midwest Chick at January 22, 2012 7:02 AM
All this is fine -- but it addresses police misconduct.
How do you tell who is who, and under what circumstances?
Radwaste at January 22, 2012 7:39 AM
Eric Holder has let it be known that it is racist to require a person to produce photo ID to vote, and is filing suit against states for requiring it. So, I am waiting for Eric Holder to file suit against the states for being racist in requiring people to have photo ID to drive. Also I imagine TSA will no longer be requiring me to produce photo ID since it is racist.
Bill O Rights at January 22, 2012 8:26 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/a-drivers-licen.html#comment-2927816">comment from RadwasteAnd as I recall, the tribe's moneylenders gave the tribal Goddess's wampum to thieves by failing to note that said Goddess wasn't fat and missing teeth.
This is about Bank of America's sleaziness, which I wrote about in I See Rude People. The bank gives people PIN-based cards for identification, but because they cheaped out on creating a computer system that is bank-wide (connecting the many small banks they bought with all the information accessible to tellers, not just the amount in your account), tellers could not read your PIN at their windows, and they basically had to "hope it's you," as I write in the book.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency seems to be corrupt, and refused to investigate this. The head, a bank security expert told me, was a banking lobbyist just previously.
This is about Bank of America's endangerment of its customers by cheaping out on their supposed means of identification that they use to make customers feel protected without putting any sort of actual protection behind it. Disgusting. I wouldn't bank there if I were you.
Amy Alkon
at January 22, 2012 8:47 AM
You can't ... vote ... without one.
Sadly, that's not true. Not even remotely true.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 22, 2012 9:09 AM
Erm, you can do all those things without a license... you can get other types of photo ID cards.
I like the fact that the license works as both and you don't have to carry around a million little cards.
NicoleK at January 22, 2012 10:12 AM
Minor point: having the SocSec number on your driving license is, as far as I know, the default option but, at least in Massachusetts, the citizenry fought back and a DMV-only number is available upon request. In Rhode Island, you are given a DMV number and SocSec is not on the license.
And those States with SocSec number are possibly using it illegally - other than financial institutions, it is illegal under Federal law to use SocSec as an identifier - though I think it is no longer necessary for the IRS to request an exception from the SocSecAdmin every year.
John A at January 22, 2012 10:31 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/a-drivers-licen.html#comment-2927887">comment from John APer #SS demanded by businesses, information on that here: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10a-SSNFAQ.htm#1
Amy Alkon
at January 22, 2012 10:35 AM
All the banks I have dealt with used my driver's license to id me. The only time the card & PIN are used are with an ATM.
The tellers, in fact, are not allowed to know the customers' PINs. I found this out when I was issued a new card which comes in one letter in the mail and the PIN comes in another letter...I got four PIN letters each with a different PIN. When I asked about it, I had two options - they could request that a new PIN be generated which would overwrite the old one and I would get another letter or they would do the "Personnel PIN" program for free. I could go in to the main branch and use a machine to set the PIN.
The Former Banker at January 22, 2012 10:56 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/a-drivers-licen.html#comment-2927969">comment from The Former BankerAt BofA, you slide your card through a reader and type in your PIN. They cannot read it in many BofAs but pretend they can so customers won't know what sleazebags they are, with "hope it's you!" security.
Amy Alkon
at January 22, 2012 10:57 AM
But isn't to 'identify' when suspected of a crime a form of SELF INCRIMINATION?
Paul at January 22, 2012 12:01 PM
"But isn't to 'identify' when suspected of a crime a form of SELF INCRIMINATION?"
No. Period, full stop. Because {who you are} has nothing to do with the question of whether a criminal act was committed.
Radwaste at January 22, 2012 12:57 PM
I've had a number of blind/visually impared friends over th years. They all had non-drivers liscense photo IDs, that they carried. Be they student ids, (even a decade after being a student)work idsone even used to use a Costco/sams club id. Was accepted almost everywhere.
Joe J at January 22, 2012 7:25 PM
No. Period, full stop. Because {who you are} has nothing to do with the question of whether a criminal act was committed.
Absolutely correct. When they start asking about a crime Paul, that's when you can take the Fifth. Note that when people do that in court, they have still identified themselves and been sworn in.
Ltw at January 22, 2012 10:02 PM
This is probably the one thing I disagree with the Libertarians on.
If we don't have a national ID card (and I think a driver's license could be a notation on that card, or a separate card altogether) how do we know who "belongs here" vs. who doesn't?
I'd like passports for everyone. I'd have no problem with that, myself.
I'm open to suggestions, however. Driver's licenses are a flawed form of ID because no one can keep track of 50 different standards. Either make them all the same or go to passports. I'm thinking of this mainly from the perspective of the poor 7-11 clerks who have to card people for liquor - it is too easy to forge an out of state ID.
A passport, however, would be universal and easy to check. So yeah, driving is the least of your problems.
Daghain at January 22, 2012 10:17 PM
I'd like passports for everyone. I'd have no problem with that, myself.
And we should have them with us at all times?
OK, just have one on file with the benevolent Fatherland Security dept.
Who pays for them? You know a passport is around $150, not including the work you put in to get the papers together. Do we subsidize them for the poor?
We're headed in an ominous direction, and becoming less 'free' every day.
Oh, and requiring ID to fly? The TSA requiring it borders on interference with interstate commerce. Just sayin'.
DrCos at January 23, 2012 2:46 AM
"And we should have them with us at all times?
OK, just have one on file with the benevolent Fatherland Security dept."
I hear you, but that barn door has been standing open for decades, and the horse is over in the next county. As Daghain points out, we've already pretty much got that already. And it had to happen because the mechanisms that human beings traditionally used to establish trust relationships don't work in a society as large as ours.
Putting aside the TSA for a moment, let's suppose that the airlines decide that having terrorists fly their airplanes into the sides of buildings is bad for business. So they want to implement their own security and establish trust relationships with their customers. How are they going to do that? You can say, "Well, someone can set up a private identifying organization, and you can register yourself with it". There are several problems here. For one, it doesn't really fix the records issue: all the government has to to is issue one subpoena, and bam, they've got the records. The second problem is, when you go to register with the ID organization, how do they know who you are? If I had DrCos' name and address, I could go register as him. In fact, I could harvest names and addresses from the Internet and register myself as millions of different people. All the ID organization does is kick the can down the road.
Ultimately someone has to be the "root cert" authority. I would argue that that's a proper function of government. Admittedly, other setups are possible; perhaps a private ID organization could be set up as a public utility and regulated as such. I'm not sure if that's an improvement.
Cousin Dave at January 23, 2012 6:53 AM
All that AND they fail to confer competency at the underlying regulated activity.
smurfy at January 23, 2012 2:04 PM
Cousin... let's not forget that airline security does NOT depend on positively identifying anyone.
Radwaste at January 23, 2012 5:36 PM
At one time OK used your SSN for your DL number; until it was pointed out that there was a identity theft problem with doing that and it was quickly phased out.
And hey, this fits in with the "You have the right to travel, but if you use any personal transportation more advanced than your feet or a bicycle that right becomes a 'privilege'" mindset of the .gov. Including that dirtbag in charge of TSA stating that he 'thinks that flying is a privilege'. Whereas it used to be just a travel option.
Firehand at January 23, 2012 5:38 PM
Rad, at least in theory, they have to check your name against the no-fly lists. Of course, that usually takes place at the time you purchase the ticket, and they don't really have positive ID on you at that time. You're right in that, as far as I know, when they check your driver's license at the security line, they do absolutely nothing with the information on it. They just want to see if the card itself appears to be valid.
Cousin Dave at January 24, 2012 4:43 PM
Leave a comment