# National ID Cards



## redleafjumper (22 Feb 2006)

Apparently there is once again a move to have Canadians obtain a national identity card.  It smacks of the same statist mindset that brought us registration of firearms.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of having such a card?  Do Canadians really want or need more ID?


----------



## mo-litia (22 Feb 2006)

No.  Big Brother can go suck on the end of my AR-15 before I'll allow him to police my life to a greater degree...

No surprise that the gov't tried to disarm the populace with gun control before they continued to push for this program.  Any details on this card, redleaf? Does it include fingerprints? Retina scans? DNA samples?

 :threat:


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Feb 2006)

The issue got my attention because Stockwell Day brought it up.  Here is a copy of an article on it:

National ID card back on the agenda
Canada seeks quick border access   
Dan Dugas, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 
OTTAWA -- Sooner or later, Canadians will have to carry some form of identification other than a passport to travel outside the country, says the new federal minister of public safety. 

The British Commons has just adopted legislation for a government-issued national ID card and Stockwell Day suggested in an interview with The Canadian Press that such a card is inevitable for Canada. "At this point, I don't know what it should be called, to tell you the truth," Day said. 

"I don't know if we'll call it that, but we want good, law-abiding people to have smooth and quick access at all border points - not just North American, but international." 

New life is being breathed into the proposal now that the United States has dropped its demand that Canadians be required to show passports to cross the border. 

"We also want to be able to stop people who are a menace or a threat from getting in or getting out, so that's the overall goal," Day said. 

Day said the need for identification of some sort came up again this week when he spoke on the phone with his U.S. counterpart, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cherkoff. 

"I think it's fair to say that in both Canada and the U.S. we do want some kind of enhanced security provision," he said. 

"Whether that's some kind of a biometric approach, an enhancement on a driver's licence - all of that needs to be explored, so we do want to see enhanced technological capacity in that area." 

The idea of a national ID card was raised in the months following the Sept.11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States but proposals go back even further, as a way of replacing the abused social insurance number. 

The SIN was meant only for federal government documents but evolved over the years for such uses as ID for cheque-writing. Today, there are more SINs than people as government lost control over them. 

Former Liberal Immigration minister Denis Coderre has always supported a card to identify Canadians, over and above the passport. 

He says a plastic card could be made to contain biometric and data information that a paper passport could not. 

His proposal in 2003 - which some estimates put as high as $5 billion to implement - did not get a good reception by a Commons committee looking at the idea. 

Critics at the time recalled how the Liberal gun registry started out with a price tag of only $2 million and ended up costing hundreds of millions more and said the ID card was a boondoggle-in-waiting. 

Coderre said this week that it's only a matter of time before other countries follow Britain and that Canada should act to ensure control over data. 

" We have to have a real debate on this . . . we cannot bury our head in the sand anymore," Coderre said. "Something is going on worldwide and we have to have that debate. 

"Three years ago we were in the avant-garde, but right now we're trailing." 

© The Canadian Press 2006


----------



## TCBF (22 Feb 2006)

In the old days, identity was not really an issue, as there was very little in the way of health or welfare the state could provide for you - that was your problem.  Now, with massive ID abuse by welfare, medicare and immigration scammers, the ID card idea has started to pick up speed.

But, what good is another card, if we will only tie ourselves in knots preventing government departments from sharing info that could catch the scammers?

Even if we went to a DNA ID process (the only reasonable one), are we capable of enacting and maintaining the regulatory structure that would use the same DNA ID for health, driving, sporting, licencing, taxation, pension and passport purposes?  With exit controls at our borders?  If we are not prepared to use the card to stop the abuse, then lets just save ourselves $5,000,000,000.

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Feb 2006)

1) The overt* purpose of the card is to provide greater assurance that you are who you claim to be.
2) It is unlikely it will ever be foolproof against identity thieves.
3) Therefore, an identity thief will only be able to pass himself off as you with greater success.

*Nothing should pass discussion without recognition of how it might be abused in the wrong hands.  My fellow citizens, in the guise of government, do not need or deserve the capability to one day have me swipe a card everywhere I go in order to track my movements, ever.  Whether such an eventuality would necessarily transpire is irrelevant; the sufficient objection is that it would be possible.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Feb 2006)

OK, guys.. enough bullshit. I'm going to just start deleting posts where people can't be civil to each other....  NOTE - I'm not picking out the naughty bits, just deleting the entire post.


----------



## ChopperHead (22 Feb 2006)

I don't like the idea of a national Id card as it really won't accomplish anything and will just cost us lots of money, just like the gun registry. It would also make the bureaucracy unbearably slow, imagine everyone in Canada all applying to the same place for their ID it would take a year or more just to get it, unless of course they are going to have provincial offices and in which case I say again whats the point then? provincial Id's are just fine and I happen to like the diffrent provinces having diffrent ones. i dunno makes it kinda unique to where you come from.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2006)

I don't think it's that big a deal. Most people already carry their birth certificate. That's exactly what that is, if not so high tech and simplistic, it's a national ID card. I would love one card that replaces my health card, driver's license, birth certificate, SIN card, etc. Just for the health card, put your history on it, allergies, etc. Sure would save a lot of time, wondering and testing after your found unconcious, in a strange town after getting clipped by a car.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2006)

Wonderful idea if properly implemented, of course those who are paranoid or have something to hide will whine and cry......


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Feb 2006)

It is already possible to build privacy enhancing id cards that use passwords and biometrics for the purposes of id only. The card uses encrypted NFC technology to communicate with the reader. There may also be something like that very shortly which involves a three factor authentication process to access the embedded data. Who is funding the development?- the military, health insurance companies and wireless device companies.


----------



## FredDaHead (22 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wonderful idea if properly implemented, of course those who are paranoid or have something to hide will whine and cry......



Don't they already whine and cry? If we listened to the paranoid and the guilty, we wouldn't have the police patrolling the streets, or laws, or any measure of protection for peace-loving, law-abiding citizens...



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> It is already possible to build privacy enhancing id cards that use passwords and biometrics for the purposes of id only. The card uses encrypted NFC technology to communicate with the reader. There may also be something like that very shortly which involves a three factor authentication process to access the embedded data. Who is funding the development?- the military, health insurance companies and wireless device companies.



How about just a biometrics system? No card, just swipe your finger/eye/foot (uh?) and voila, the right person gets the right info.


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2006)

with respect to a "national ID card"... isn't that more or less what the US wants us and them to have to cross our big undefended border?

In the meantime we already have one... it's called a passport.
No need to get anything else IMHO


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2006)

Quote from Geo,
_In the meantime we already have one... it's called a passport.
No need to get anything else IMHO
_ 

No need?  How many of these would you like buy right now? Not much protection is it?


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2006)

so we need a fancy dandy card AND a passport?
why don't we all get an implanted chip and do away with cards altogether?


----------



## FredDaHead (22 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> so we need a fancy dandy card AND a passport?
> why don't we all get an implanted chip and do away with cards altogether?



That's a jolly good idea! I'll get right on it!


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2006)

>Wonderful idea if properly implemented, of course those who are paranoid or have something to hide will whine and cry......

That's a common rejoinder: if you're an honest person, why do you have any reason to be apprehensive?

My response:
1) If I'm an honest person, the state doesn't need to monitor me.

2) If the state and my fellow citizens can reasonably suspect my future intentions, I can reasonably suspect the state's and my fellow citizens' future intentions.

3) The state and my fellow citizens have plenty of power already to keep me in line.  I have very little power to overcome tyranny of a majority.

4) I see no reason to further skew the imbalance, so

5) Big Brother, go pound sand down a rat hole.


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

"Quote from: geo on Yesterday at 21:58:39
so we need a fancy dandy card AND a passport?
why don't we all get an implanted chip and do away with cards altogether?"

- Ijust ate a bunch of chips.  Does that count?

(burp)

Tom


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

"with respect to a "national ID card"... isn't that more or less what the US wants us and them to have to cross our big undefended border?

In the meantime we already have one... it's called a passport.
No need to get anything else IMHO"

- Well, since we will eventually go to a DNA pasport, why not issue one to EVERYONE?

It will have your citizenship on it, so you will need it to vote (they don't check for citizenship when you vote these days) and acces health care (sorry, Montana, the frebees are over).

Tom


----------



## Walrus (23 Feb 2006)

I say go for the card.. so i can get rid of all the other id that i carry. i think the goverment has alot of better things to do that continually monitor who went to a detroit strip joint last saturday night. if all the info is one one card that that will make it alot harder to rip off identities by making up numbers. and these cards are suppose to be alot cheaper to obtain that passports.

I am behind it 100%

Walrus


----------



## HDE (23 Feb 2006)

I believe TCBF is right; the Yanks are really tightening up what they'll accept as I.D. for entry so I'd imagine this national I.D. card is largely a way of keeping them happy.  I believe Canada is exempted from the requirements the U.S. is planning to impose on darn near everyone else so this may be some sort of mutually acceptable compromise.  If executed properly I'd imagine it'd be the less painful of options.  I've heard some pretty nasty stories of fake SIN cards, missing Visas, etc so maybe this idea has merit.  I'd imagine the devil in the details is coming up with a way of making sure the person applying can prove who he/she actually is.


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

It may not matter who they are now: once their ID is cast into the DNA passport/ID Card  data bank, they then become SOMEBODY for good.  No more Montana trailer trash in Calgary hospitals.  No more ex-pat Sri Lankan villages voting six times each in a federal election in a Toronto riding.  No more 40,000,000 old age security pensions in a nation of 32,000,000 (sorry about that last example, a bit of artistic license.).

Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (23 Feb 2006)

Brad's comments echo some of my concerns.

I think another question to ask is what will this cost?  I suspect that biometric technology on these id cards would be pricey.  I am certain that even if the biometric technology is reasonably priced, there will be the technology to duplicate and forge these cards within a few days of the first one being issued.  What protection is there in these cards?  Really there isn't any, it's just another expensive waste of tax payer's money to try and monitor and control people who neither need nor want to be monitored and controlled.


(edited to fix word omission)


----------



## ChopperHead (23 Feb 2006)

If you combine several pieces of ID such as birth certificate, heath card, social insurance, Drivers license etc then if you loose it your SOL cause you need those things and would take a considerable amount of time for it to be replaced.

 what if it gets stolen? would it not make a criminals life easier having all your ID conveniently placed on one card as apposed to maybe only getting your credit card or health card or something now they have everything all in one? I sure as hell don't want all my ID on one thing, there is just to much opportunity's to loose it and then you have no ID. It's also like a free ticket for someone looking to steal your identity or screw you in one way or another.


----------



## FredDaHead (23 Feb 2006)

Why not move to pure biometrics when it comes to "important" business? Important being high-level financial moves, government-related information/decisions, etc.

Of course it's impossible now, if only for the price, but think of the risks for theft or fraud: low to now. Other than ripping off your hand, copying your vocal chords, or gouging out one of your eyes (depending on the biometrics used... probably a combination for higher-level security) there isn't much (ie nothing) one can do to copy your identity. Of course, some will say it's also the ultimate form of control, but I say it's a tradeoff. You get ultimate security, in exchange for having the government (or a special agency) know whenever you do something requiring said ID check.

It would also prevent terrorists and other assorted enemies from forging documents. It wouldn't exactly be easy to make up an identity with this system. And if someone was able to get so deep into our system that they'd be able to get into the security programs to add an identity, then they deserve to win.


----------



## HDE (23 Feb 2006)

I think there's probably an element of, for want of a better phrase, "being seen" to be doing everything possible to go along with whatever the best possible means is of confirming someone's identity.  There may well be various issues involved in bringing in the card, however as long as we're seen by the U.S. as going along with the goal, trying to secure their borders, they probably have less reason to dump on us.  I think our last government burned up considerable reserves of goodwill.   :


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2006)

I think it is a good idea to have it.  Like Recceguy said, "gets rid of all those other ID cards you have to carry around".  What upsets me is the $75 fee (I seem to recall that figure having been said) to get one.  If I have to pay more than that for a Passport, and then that fee also, I feel like the Gov't has its hands too deep into my pockets.  I figure it should be issued automatically when you apply for and pay for your Passport, or it should replace the Passport for all International travel.  Why have to get both, if you travel to other countries other than the US.  Canadians are starting to get upset at being taxed so heavily, and would like to see some results for their money.  

As for fears of 'Big Brother' knowing too much about you.....You already have several different IDs issued by 'Big Brother', so why not combine them all into one?


----------



## Thirstyson (23 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for fears of 'Big Brother' knowing too much about you.....You already have several different IDs issued by 'Big Brother', so why not combine them all into one?



But every single one of your other cards will still have a use somewhere... this is basically a 75$ passport valid only at the US border. Useless.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Feb 2006)

No, we are talking about one card that can upload/download info. Lose your licence?......off it goes....cop takes your card, swipes and sees you have 3 more months of suspension and....well you know..


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2006)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> If you combine several pieces of ID such as birth certificate, heath card, social insurance, Drivers license etc then if you loose it your SOL cause you need those things and would take a considerable amount of time for it to be replaced.
> 
> what if it gets stolen? would it not make a criminals life easier having all your ID conveniently placed on one card as apposed to maybe only getting your credit card or health card or something now they have everything all in one? I sure as hell don't want all my ID on one thing, there is just to much opportunity's to loose it and then you have no ID. It's also like a free ticket for someone looking to steal your identity or screw you in one way or another.



You mean like losing your wallet, and all those cards at once?


----------



## Thirstyson (23 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, we are talking about one card that can upload/download info. Lose your licence?......off it goes....cop takes your card, swipes and sees you have 3 more months of suspension and....well you know..



And you're expecting this to cost less than the gun registry?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Feb 2006)

No, but maybe less than the bureaucracy of all those "other" cards together.......and the savings in our health care system.


----------



## Chimo (23 Feb 2006)

I truly think that it is just another way to whittle away your civil rights. The same promises of security were issued with the SIN card. When a person can access your SIN they can find a lot of private information about you that should not be publicly available. I have the same fear that unscrupulous people will take advantage of  a persons privacy.

If the issue is cross border international travel, I have a passport. If they want medical information I have a medical card. Driver abstracts are available from the information on my drivers license. The idea of having so many cards helps to compartmentalize, one the information and two the people that can access the information. ALL information on a person must be on a need to know.

Yes the Government already knows too much about me and no I have nothing to hide. However, I do think our civil liberties that we all help to protect, should not be easily given away.  Just for the record, if you were  wondering, I voted no!


----------



## Rodders (23 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wonderful idea if properly implemented, of course those who are paranoid or have something to hide will whine and cry......



I don't think not wanting to have yet another form of I.D. which must be presented (Your papers pleeze) everytime you do something makes you paranoid. I'm not above reproach, but I have nothing to hide in the sense that you refer to. However, some of us have passports, many of us have wallet-sized birth certificates, most of us have health cards, credit cards, driver's license, library cards, fishing permits etc. Is one more piece of I.D. really necessary?

I oppose this as it will never eliminate that which is claimed to be it's stated goal. And there is definitely the possibility of abuse both by a criminal element as well as a government. To deny the possibility of the later is quite naive I think.

No matter though. It will take too long to implement. I remember Mr. Common Sense/let em barter with store owners/Iron Mike Harris implementing a program where everyone could/would get photo health cards. Well, I applied for one during his first term and still don't have it.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2006)

Rodders said:
			
		

> ....... Well, I applied for one during his first term and still don't have it.


Funny.  All I did was take in the required ID and filled out an application and I got my Health Card without any problems.  It was just that easy.  No idea what your problem could be.......


----------



## FredDaHead (23 Feb 2006)

I understand that the topics pulling the discussion in all directions might be leading to confusion, but I think many of you are missing the point.

This is not "one more ID card." This is THE ID card. Instead of carrying 15 cards (literally, I just took everything out of my wallet and counted, though they're not all government-related) in my wallet, I could have a single card--and no wallet. All the money spent on having one set of bureaucrats for each card would be reduced to having one set of bureaucrats for all cards.

Would there be a problem if you lose your card? Yes. This is where biometrics come into play.

You lose your card, you show up to a government office (on a business day) and they scan your hand/eye/whatever, and voila, you get a new card with all your info. There, problem solved.


----------



## Thirstyson (23 Feb 2006)

There is zero chance that they could replace health cards, drivers licences, SSN cards, etc. in one shot. Think of all the BILLIONS spent on systems that use these cards. It's an astronomical amount and deploying new systems to replace existing ones smoothly is a nightmare. 

Also, most of these cards are under the jurisdiction of the provinces who handle all these services in their own way (as is their right). 

All this so you can have a thinner wallet? I got about 5 cards just from the CF in my wallet, I can still sit on it.

Waste of money. Errosion of privacy. great idea?


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

Typical carrot and stick approach...everyone, look at all of the 'benefits' with this new system.  

Oh, and please overlook all of the potential privacy and big-brotherish issues that will go hand in hand with such a new system.  :-\


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Typical carrot and stick approach...everyone, look at all of the 'benefits' with this new system.
> 
> Oh, and please overlook all of the potential privacy and big-brotherish issues that will go hand in hand with such a new system.  :-\



So do you consider yourself the only informed person in Canada? Or are we here the only ones you consider naive and sheltered. Please don't talk down to us because we don't subscribe in your belief that everything the government does is bad for us.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

Am I to be considered that I am talking down to people simply because I have pointed our that the system often advertises the benefits of a new program while glossing over it's negative details?

It's just logic, man, logic.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2006)

Change is Good!  I would look at it as being Progress, if we can straighten out the bureaucratic bungling that the various different Government Levels and Departments carry on with today.  They don't talk or cooperate with each other.  This country is going down the tubes.  Meanwhile, a whole segment of our society, a part that usually doesn't contribute much, except complaints, is concerned that they may loose some sort of freedom.  Notice, they don't complain when they line up for a handout though.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Feb 2006)

Do you have a telephone? Credit Card? Driver's License? Bank loan? File a tax return, ever?  I've got some bad news, I'm afraid..... Big Brother ALREADY knows all about you.  What's the big whoop?  Jeez man, a healthy mistrust is one thing....tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2006)

>You lose your card, you show up to a government office (on a business day) and they scan your hand/eye/whatever, and voila, you get a new card with all your info. There, problem solved.

A bunch of people take over, your life's history is in a registry under a heading of which they disapprove (lawyer, teacher, whatever), you "lose" your complete collection of ID and claim to be a migrant fruit-picker but you're still in the government's handy-dandy biological database, and voila, you spend the rest of your life blindfolded listening to fire control orders.

Yeah, it's far-fetched.  Unfortunately, events have a way of happening in a way that only looks predictable with hindsight.  I like to keep the odds in my favour.


----------



## redleafjumper (23 Feb 2006)

Another problem I have with such a card is as was previously mentioned, giving access to a range of information to more than the agency that needs to know.  Such a card poses a real risk to personal privacy.  I don't want anyone knowing anything about me other than exactly what they need for completing the transaction that is in their realm.  This is not a "your papers, please" society; we will all rue the day when it becomes one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Feb 2006)

Brad,
I guess you don't use ATM machines then?....cause guess what "big brother" already knows about you....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2006)

I'm no genius (watch it!) but I'm sure that the card would be sophisticated enough to only show details pertenant to the card reader being used. ie hospital, police, etc. I understand the Big Brother syndrome and the concerns of some for privacy, but I think these are all things that can be addressed, if and, when such a card becomes a reality. As for your privacy, credit houses, banks, insurance companies and medical labs already have every detail of your personal life. If you collect airmiles, every purchase you've made has been tracked and sorted. They know your driving habits by the amount of gas you purchase, etc. Your lives are already an open book, and not just to the government. Unless you've worked your life on the underground economy and have been paid in nothing but cash under the table, and bartered for everything you have, it's to late. There's already a dossier (or more) on you two inches thick....and it's not owned by the government. Although, I'm sure they have theirs. If you in the CF, your history, and your families, is already on file. Spilt milk and all that.


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

There are about 3,000,000 Canadians on the FIP file alone.

Tom


----------



## bbereziuk (23 Feb 2006)

Now.. normally I'm not hyper suspicious about this stuff, but is the card really necessary for Canadians to travel outside of Canada.. or is it more to keep the American-Canadian border happy?  Certainly.. our boarder is a HUGE issue, and for business sake.. we should try to keep it as open as we can, but is a multi-card necessary?  Part of what makes the passport great is that if you don't want to travel.. you don't have to get one!  Same thing with the driver's license, and theoretically with the health card (though I don't know who wouldn't want one).  If you make one multi-card, you're really taking away the citizen's right to participate...  or not participate in the workings of the government.  If travel is the issue.. than I'd say we should focus on travel:  Step up security on the passport.. AND especially in the offices that issue them!  We shouldn't be seeing any more reports of 500 Canadian passports getting 'stolen' from government offices.  I'm sure there are other answers than coming up with a card with bio-metric information on it.. especially when there will be obvious suspicions about it..


----------



## Rodders (23 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Funny.  All I did was take in the required ID and filled out an application and I got my Health Card without any problems.  It was just that easy.  No idea what your problem could be.......



Me neither. I applied some years ago for my photo health card and never received it. Even phoned to follow-up.

Do you outright dismiss the possibility that it could have been departmental ineptitude?


----------



## Rodders (23 Feb 2006)

Zook said:
			
		

> Now.. normally I'm not hyper suspicious about this stuff, but is the card really necessary for Canadians to travel outside of Canada.. or is it more to keep the American-Canadian border happy?  Certainly.. our boarder is a HUGE issue, and for business sake.. we should try to keep it as open as we can, but is a multi-card necessary?  Part of what makes the passport great is that if you don't want to travel.. you don't have to get one!  Same thing with the driver's license, and theoretically with the health card (though I don't know who wouldn't want one).  If you make one multi-card, you're really taking away the citizen's right to participate...  or not participate in the workings of the government.  If travel is the issue.. than I'd say we should focus on travel:  Step up security on the passport.. AND especially in the offices that issue them!  We shouldn't be seeing any more reports of 500 Canadian passports getting 'stolen' from government offices.  I'm sure there are other answers than coming up with a card with bio-metric information on it.. especially when there will be obvious suspicions about it..



Good post Zook!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2006)

I see a lot of naive and paranoid perceptions being put out here in contrary debate of this proposal.  Preconceptions, that more freedoms and liberties are going to be removed.  As some have already pointed out, you aren't loosing any freedoms or liberties that you haven't already lost.  It is an attempt to simplify the Identification process.  Hopefully, it will combine several other Identification means into one, and free up the necessity to have so many.  Perhaps even cut the costs of administering and maintaining all that data.

How many 'cookies' are you picking up when you surf the net?  How many people are monitoring your Credit Card and Points Card transactions?  How many people are monitoring your Driver's Licence?  How many Government Departments track your SIN?  How many people are listening to your phone conversations?  How many people are tracking your travel movements?  How many know all about your Student Number?  What Credit Agencies have records on you?  What is your Credit Rating - have you checked?  Have you ever done a Security Clearance?  Get real folks.  If you are reading this, your privacy really is a figment of your imagination.  What are you going to do about it?  Wear a Tin foil hat?  Move on.


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

George, people are expressing some legitimate concerns.  It is unfair to characterize reasonable concerns about a very divisive proposal as merely naive and paranoid.  Your points seem overly simplistic to me, even if you have made some good points that bear further discussion and scrutiny.  It is dismissive to postulate that privacy is a figment of one's imagination and to advise people to "move on" just because they have a contrary view.  

In regards to the points you raise , I am very selective about when and what cards and ID I use and when.  I prefer to pay cash, because I don't like my purchases being tracked, and I don't want a biometric card that defines who I am.  One of the nice features about all these different people and agencies tracking my spending habits, credit card ratings, telephone conversations, etc., is that no one party has access to the whole picture, and certainly not without the due legal process of probable cause and a warrant.  

Fair enough?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> One of the nice features about all these different people and agencies tracking my spending habits, credit card ratings, telephone conversations, etc., is that no one party has access to the whole picture, and certainly not without the due legal process of probable cause and a warrant.
> 
> Fair enough?



Until someone does something illegal enough to garner attention. That's terrible.

Oh wait. Maybe that's a good thing! Maybe they can track a criminal during his crime spree, and catch him before he kills you or someone you know. Or maybe you'd rather have your privacy, and die quietly while he drives down the road to his next victim. 

Yep, monitoring peoples habits and whereabouts should be illegal, especially if they're breaking the law and are intent on murdering people because you caught them stealing a can of ham from your cupboard.

I've done nothing wrong. I have nothing to hide.


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

"I've done nothing wrong. I have nothing to hide."   

Wow.

Gee Recceguy, what you're saying sounds very familiar.   It is the same sentiment expressed by various ethnic and religious groups all over the world just before they were rounded up and sent off to the camps, the gulags, the killing fields, or just plain disappeared.  The funny thing is that most of them really hadn't done anything wrong, well, except speak out against the people in power, think differently than some, or perhaps just look differently than those with power.

I think it was either Tom Payne or Ben Franklin who said something to the effect of "Those who give up a little freedom to achieve a little security deserve neither freedom nor security."  It may have been "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."  I am in the innocent until proven guilty club on this issue.  I have seen too many abuses of the legal system to trust that such a thing as a biometric national ID card would not become yet another one, as well as being unnecessary, expensive and as big a farce as the administration of the firearms registration system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

Please quit being so melodramatic. It's unbecoming and borders on the ridiculous. If you really feel that way, it's time for you to give up on the modern world and move so far into the wilderness that you'll never contact another human again as long as you live.

People ALWAYS have a choice. What you decide to do with it is up to you and you alone. You can simper and whine, going quietly to the cattle car. Or you can fight tooth and nail, taking as many with you as you can. How you go, or what gets you to that point, may be of your own doing and volition. It does not mean because your reasoning ulimately brought you there, you have to accept it. Belief in human nature is a powerful thing, and if you believe most people are basically good, you should be ready to take the chance. Be on your guard, but for the good of all, take the chance. If you give up on the better good, you've given up on the human race, and ultimately yourself for not trying to change it. In which case your alone in a sea of humanity.

_Edit for spelling_


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

So, what's your point?  Why the personal attack?  I respond to your argument, you respond with a personal attack.

Tsk, tsk.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

I'm not attacking you personally, your opinions are yours to voice. I just find your example a little over the top for the subject of the discussion. That takes care of my first paragraph.

The second is simply a rebut to your view that if you don't stand up to authority your doomed to extermination. 

That and the fact that you do have a choice. It's all a matter of perception and will. That's my point.

Don't take offence, nothing personal was meant.


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

Thanks Recceguy, I appreciate the apology, and the sensible way in which you made it. 

I concede that I felt compelled to take your point to its logical conclusion, and I see how you may have found that "over the top".  My view is not that "...if you stand up to authority, you're (sic corrected) doomed to extermination",  far from it; however, I do believe that there must be a real understanding by those in authority about what their purposes are and also what is achievable.  Authority needs to challenged now and then to ensure that it is not abused.  I learn much from my children in that respect.  My point might be better expressed as it is important to stand up to authority to avoid problems from it expanding unchecked.    

 I am a great believer in choice; I choose to maintain some aspects of my life in privacy.  And, I still don't like the idea of a national ID card.

Cheers

(edited to fix typo)


----------



## Thirstyson (24 Feb 2006)

So... to all those who think this is a great idea, please make a small list of what existing cards these new ID cards will replace and how much you expect this program to cost.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2006)

I voted ‘Yes’; not because I like or even approve of the idea of a National ID card: I am too much of a _libertarian_ leaning classical liberal to do anything but turn up my nose at the whole idea.  I voted ‘Yes’ because I think they will be a practical necessity and I think we – all North Americans – should discuss how to implement them.

My _idée fixe_ is that they should be sub-national in administration but designed to a super-national standard with regards to data and bio-metric identifiers.  In other words we North Americans (Canada and the USA, at least) should agree, at the bi-national level, on what data will be held on each card and how it will be possible to match the card to the holder.  The business of issuing the cards and maintaining data bases should be delegated to the provinces and states.  This addresses two issues:

•	Efficiency – the provinces and states already hold the data, we are not creating new data bases with all the inherent problems of security, updating, etc; and

•	Privacy – we do not need to create new, large, national or even bi-national data bases; all we need do is create a 60+ way communications network so that those _agents_ (machines) which need to verify data can do so from the appropriate , exisiting data bases.

A typical young adult Ontarian, for example, might have her own *Ontario Card* which would serve as:

•	Her driving licence;

•	Her health card;

•	Her university student card; and

•	Her *continental* _internal passport_ – which is why we will need these cards, in any event.


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Feb 2006)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> So... to all those who think this is a great idea, please make a small list of what existing cards these new ID cards will replace and how much you expect this program to cost.



I can definately make a list of the cards this will replace, but as I am not privy to all the cost details for each and every card and the specifics of costs needed for one card, I'd say asking for one as proof that the idea is good is, well, _a bit_ demagogic and, honestly, stupid.

"Having cops is a bad idea, look at how much it costs!"

"Having healthcare is a bad idea, look at how much it costs!"

"Having a government is a bad idea, look at how much it costs!"

Getting my point, yet?


----------



## geo (24 Feb 2006)

one of the positive things about a standard North Ameircan ID card would be to standardise documents...... I remember going round with a paper Driver's licence from Quebec .... and being interrogated by the nice traffic policeman about no picture on my DL..... also, the idea of having an ID card that wouldn't have to be voided each time you move.... have to memorise new numbers, etc....


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

I don't believe that making up a list of the cards that this could/would/should replace and guessing how much it would cost would be anything but speculation.  I agree that such a list would not be helpful in convincing people that a national ID card would be a good idea.  
Frederick G's point that the request is a logical fallacy is true.  

Some reasoned arguments would better support the diverse opinions presented.  I would point out that other polls such as one done by CTV a few days ago seem to show that this a very divisive topic among Canadians.  There are some very strong opinions and arguments on both sides of this issue.  Let's try to fully examine them on this thread.


(edited to correct word error)


----------



## geo (24 Feb 2006)

Redleaf.... would venture to say that this is a subject that is as divisive as the Gun Registry...... and prolly has the potential to be as big a boondoggle


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Feb 2006)

Yes Geo, I am certain that it is.  I am concerned about Day bringing it up again because I believe that he will find that a lot of people who voted for the Conservatives would be resistant to the national ID card.


(edited to fix typo)


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Redleaf.... would venture to say that this is a subject that is as divisive as the Gun Registry...... and prolly has the potential to be as big a boondoggle



I know you're not asking me, but I can't help it.

First, as far as I know this isn't even a project yet. It's something that's being talked about. People talk about warp drives, as well. That doesn't mean the government is going to try and build one. (Bad analogy, I know. I couldn't think of anything better.)

Yes, this does have the potential to be as big a mess-up as the gun registry. It also has the potential to be something great that's going to make Canada better, if only by a little bit.

Should it be studied further before even being a formal proposition? Undoubtedly.

Should it be killed in the egg? I don't think so.

Just because something can potentially be dangerous (the Big Brother issue), misused (again, the Big Brother issue) or become a boondoggle (like the gun registry) doesn't mean it should be pushed away without being given a fair chance to be studied. Also, realize that the "Big Brother" problem already exists. If the police, government, or whoever (say, CSIS or DND) needs to see what you do, what you buy, and what your habits are, they can already do that. A national ID card would put the government agencies together, something that's already more or less being done.

All in all, I'd say there needs to be deep thoughts given to this, before anyone can say it's good or bad. And none of us (unless someone's a government jurist, maybe) is qualified to make that decision.


----------



## JBP (24 Feb 2006)

I think the idea of a National ID is great, is just makes sense. 1 card that is accepted across the country without borders or issues. 

1 problem I can think of right off the top of my head, being employed full-time in the credit card industry, is security. 

Whatever is man-made and be un-made by man. Hackers... 

If this card is to contain "Bio-metric" data, imagine how this would effect the way fraud happens? If hackers cracked whatever security is included in these cards, they would have access to whatever information is included on them. So when you folks talk about multiple cards included.... OUCH!

Identity theft would be rediculous to try and avert if they ever got into those cards... Say this card included your SIN, Birth certificate and healthcard info..... Just those pieces alone would normally take an identity theft hacker months or work to attain, this card would be his/her 1 shop-and-stop place for all that info!!!! 

I'm not worried about the government taking away my "civil liberties".... Or any of that crap. If I was, I wouldn't have joined the army so the government could tell me what to do! Even on a part-time basis... But I see this as a major security issue against fraud, identity theft and maybe even illegal immigration practices....

Joe


----------



## geo (24 Feb 2006)

would also be an issue of access to personal information - which is protected by the access to information act... and many more.
Provincial & federal gov't agencies are extremely sensitive to sharing info......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

The only way biometrics is going to be used against us is if the bad guys start stealing hands and eye balls.  I'm sure it will come to that one day, but really...

I always love when the civil libertarians feel threatened by something they start throwing around quotes.  Who gives a crap what Ben Franklin said?  He flew a kite in a thunderstorm for Chrise sake, he is your intellectual spearhead???
As previously said, "Big Brother" is here, has been for a while and is going no where (as I am part of the arms of BB, I feel qualified to say this).  No one cares that you go to the store, buy Players Extra Light, visit the C700 animal porn site too often, drive over the speed limit etc.  There are so many people who are so screwed up, there is no point or way to keep track of them.  The ones we want are the ones who want to hurt OTHERS.  Just because you want to spank off with sand paper and are ashamed of it, doesn't mean I care or will act on the info when we find out.  WE DONT CARE!  Your illusion of privacy is just that.  If reality is too scary for you, time to head to Micronesia and grab a nice island of your own.   
The ID card is to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.  Get the card, put it in a box and bury it in your back yard.  Never use it again.  At least you will be properly accounted for and some guy whose name is Phan Thi Vanthergagimsamspism won't be using your SIN number to work and collect welfare at the same time.  
Screw the cost.  It is necessary.  It can be a simple process, or it can be a royal pain in the ass if people want to screw around and make it a problem.  How much did it cost to implement the photo health card or drivers licence systems?  Storing the bio information is only a case of more memory space in a  bank somewhere.  The expensive part is the other end, when you are verifying it.  Hell, maybe you can use the card to register your guns too.  Kill two birds with one stone [ :crybaby: :threat: :rage: AAAAGGGHHH BIG BROTHER, THEY ARE AFTER THE GUNS, ZEKE, FER GAWD SAKES HIDE THE GUNS!!!]
Get your heads around this one, people.  The only reason your credit card doesn't use biometrics YET is only because it is too expensive to install the verification equipment, and that expense has not yet outstripped the cost of reimbursing people who are victims of fraud.  
How long do you want Canada to be the unfettered playground of criminals and terrorists?  Don't let hippie dickweeds scare you (the same ones who were probably screaming OOOOO....SCARY CONSERVATIVES during the elections).  Get with the 90's and lets get on with the business of protecting this country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2006)

>Brad,
>I guess you don't use ATM machines then?....cause guess what "big brother" already knows about you....

Sure I do.  Big Brother knows that I buy groceries at CostCo, pet food at the pet food store, liquor at the liquor store, and withdraw a sum of money every few days.  About where that latter goes, he hasn't a clue.  Also, if you're suggesting we should allow the various levels of government, the banks, and every organization with a membership card or licencing arrangement to freely exchange information, I think it's time to dynamite the database servers.

I see the suggestion being advanced that since so much is already known, what's the diff?

You're right, much is known.  No one has explained what more needs to be known, and how the proposed benefit outweighs the potential for harm.  If I go to cross a border and the agents don't like my looks or my answers, they can search me, my luggage, and my mode of transportation exhaustively.  If they're still not happy, they can deny me entry.  In practice, it would seem there are still millions of border crossings and airline seats filled on a daily basis in the free world without a disaster every other week.  I am unconvinced further concessions of freedom to security are required.

It's harder to falsify many pieces of evidence than it is to falsify one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

Quote,
_No one has explained what more needs to be known, and how the proposed benefit outweighs the potential for harm_. 

Who said more needs to be known? Noooooobody!!....just that the info is easily assimilated for those who require it. 
Next time you hear a story of a cop letting a known parole violator go after a routine traffic stop because he didn't have access to the P@P system because the more the smaller "fiefdom" sites have to share info the more they take a chance on getting hacked, and then he goes off and rapes a 14 year-old girl just remember " I'm OK, Jack".

One system with top notch security would go a lot farthur protecting your personal freedoms than the hodge-podge of bad security we have now....


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Feb 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> If this card is to contain "Bio-metric" data, imagine how this would effect the way fraud happens? If hackers cracked whatever security is included in these cards, they would have access to whatever information is included on them. So when you folks talk about multiple cards included.... OUCH!
> 
> Identity theft would be rediculous to try and avert if they ever got into those cards... Say this card included your SIN, Birth certificate and healthcard info..... Just those pieces alone would normally take an identity theft hacker months or work to attain, this card would be his/her 1 shop-and-stop place for all that info!!!!



Maybe I (and others) haven't expressed myself clearly, or maybe you just got the wrong idea. (Or then again, maybe I misunderstood what YOU meant.)

I won't talk about what other people meant, but when I said there would be biometrics involved, I meant that TO USE the card, one would need to get their hand/eye/butt/whatever scanned. If you bother to do that, then, like Bruce said, there would likely be the best security possible. Also, the card wouldn't hold the info itself. That would be stupid. It would simply be a card that says to the card reader "ok, go access Database 8432984239b if this guy scans the right hand/eye/butt/whatever". Not unlike your bank card, (the magnetic strip tells the ATM to access your account, it doesn't contain your actual account info) but with higher security levels.

I'd personally say do away with the card, just install readers that access the proper information depending on what you're trying to do. If you want to buy something, the reader scans you, accesses your bank account, and takes out the proper amount of money. If you want to buy a weapon, it scans you, searches the police database to make sure you're not a dangerous criminal, and tells the dealer "this guy is allowed to buy an AK-47."

With proper security, there would not be any problem. And those who believe Big Brother would suddenly spring up, well, like Mr Cop said, wake up and smell the poutine. Big Brother is already out there.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's harder to falsify many pieces of evidence than it is to falsify one.


With the Criminal networks in place today, I would say that that isn't as true as you would like to think.  I would imagine that this new card would have a far greater amount of security measures in it than any other card commonly used today and would in fact be harder to forge.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2006)

>Next time you hear a story of a cop

Well, here we just have a difference of philosophy.  I'm willing to accept some risks for greater personal freedom.

The new card will doubtless be harder to forge, just as new legal tender is.  On the flip side, whenever it's successfully forged it's more widely trusted.  It's not so much the forging that bothers me, though, as the possibility that one day I might - for entirely good and moral reasons beyond my control - need to unforge my own identity.  Almost every day I hear and read stories how people in positions of control and authority abuse it.  Good enough reason, says I.


----------



## JBP (24 Feb 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Maybe I (and others) haven't expressed myself clearly, or maybe you just got the wrong idea. (Or then again, maybe I misunderstood what YOU meant.)
> 
> I won't talk about what other people meant, but when I said there would be biometrics involved, I meant that TO USE the card, one would need to get their hand/eye/butt/whatever scanned. If you bother to do that, then, like Bruce said, there would likely be the best security possible. Also, the card wouldn't hold the info itself. That would be stupid. It would simply be a card that says to the card reader "ok, go access Database 8432984239b if this guy scans the right hand/eye/butt/whatever". Not unlike your bank card, (the magnetic strip tells the ATM to access your account, it doesn't contain your actual account info) but with higher security levels.
> 
> ...




Ahhh! Now that makes some damn good sense to me! I agree with that 100% and it just seems logical for something like that. Integration of services like that would be incredible and I believe it would go a lot farther in speeding up government services in general... Something like seamless information requests between government agencies.

For example, a social worker for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, they are a case manager and realize that 3 out of thier 25 cases this year is flat-out fraud, with the person falsifying information and working under the table and at the same time collecting pogey etc.... And yes, this does happen and exist currently in the system that social workers know when someone is working etc, doing illegal activities but has no will or way to report it... 

Say they had a system in place to automatically notify the police and/or whatever other government agency is required to bring the scoundrel to justice... It would stop a lot of corruption and waste of taxpayer money. I guess that does sound slightly "Big Brotherish" but who cares! If it cuts my taxes 10% cause of some loosers dropping off the system and having to go to jail, fine... 

Just an example mind you....


----------



## TCBF (24 Feb 2006)

Two problems:

1.  Technical - if it does not use DNA, then it can be forged, and we jucst have another boondoggle, only one most people will trust. Result: it will decrease our security.

2.  Political - we will not be allowed to use it to actually catch criminals, as government departments will not be allowed to give each other the info.  Result: only the criminal hackers will actually be sharing the info, and it will decrease our security.

We fight with one hand behind our back.  CSIS is not allowed to investigate corporate espionage, so if you want to spy in Canada and steal economic and hi-tech research secrets, you first form a corporation, and CSIS wont be able to touch you.  Cdn s loose a billion a month in profits from this theft, CSIS has been complaining to the government about it for years - and nothing happens.

The same with a new I card - no matter how advanced, the crimefighters will not be allowed to use it to it's full extent.

I say, just upgrade our passport system (biometrics, or 'Voight-Kamp' or whatever), and issue us all passports.  Cheaper.

Put only the basic info on it now, but add ALL citizenships the holder has.

Too easy.

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

Quote from Brad Sallows,
_Well, here we just have a difference of philosophy.  I'm willing to accept some risks for greater personal freedom._

What freedom, man? Did you not catch the part about all the info there they already know?
So, all the info is already out there, the card would be more secure....please give some reasonable reasons besides personal paranoia?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Next time you hear a story of a cop
> 
> *Well, here we just have a difference of philosophy.  I'm willing to accept some risks for greater personal freedom.*
> The new card will doubtless be harder to forge, just as new legal tender is.  On the flip side, whenever it's successfully forged it's more widely trusted.  It's not so much the forging that bothers me, though, as the possibility that one day I might - for entirely good and moral reasons beyond my control - need to unforge my own identity.  Almost every day I hear and read stories how people in positions of control and authority abuse it.  Good enough reason, says I.



Perhaps you could refer your address to your local social services office to volunteer to have the next newly released child rapist seeded into your neighborhood.  Oh, yeah, you don't have access to the Sexual Offender Registry.  Sadly, it is never the self righteous prigs that get harmed by their anal oration.  Again, please let me reiterate:  If we want you, we have you.  Peoples homes get B&E's by the police/CSIS/RCMP every day on general warrants and get their homes bugged and camera'ed, and have GPS stashed on their auto's.  You went to Costco?  You were on camera as soon as you went through the door.  You are on camera everywhere.  
And I would love to see you cite an example of an abuse of authority by our Government in the sense of a misuse of information.  Ridiculous fear mongering.


			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Two problems:
> 
> 1.  Technical - if it does not use DNA, then it can be forged, and we jucst have another boondoggle, only one most people will trust. Result: it will decrease our security.



No, DNA is excellent, but unless we have finger prick machines everywhere, ala "GATTACA" then you won't see that.  Retinal and full hand scans can't be faked, regardless of how many times you have seen it on "Alias".



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> 2.  Political - we will not be allowed to use it to actually catch criminals, as government departments will not be allowed to give each other the info.  Result: only the criminal hackers will actually be sharing the info, and it will decrease our security.
> The same with a new I card - no matter how advanced, the crimefighters will not be allowed to use it to it's full extent.



Beyond silly.  Of course law enforcement will have access to it.  WE are the whole point of having it.  Who else would need the info?  



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> We fight with one hand behind our back.  CSIS is not allowed to investigate corporate espionage, so if you want to spy in Canada and steal economic and hi-tech research secrets, you first form a corporation, and CSIS wont be able to touch you.  Cdn s loose a billion a month in profits from this theft, CSIS has been complaining to the government about it for years - and nothing happens.



Ahhhh, sweet denial.  I wish I could go back to that Neverland state again.  ****sigh****You can never go home.  



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> I say, just upgrade our passport system (biometrics, or 'Voight-Kamp' or whatever), and issue us all passports.  Cheaper.
> 
> Put only the basic info on it now, but add ALL citizenships the holder has.
> 
> ...


 :rage:  BLOODY HELL!!   If you don't care about that info getting out, what the hell does it matter if it is in a photo card format?!?!?!?!?!? :brickwall:

Other than poo poo feelings from socialists, there is no downside to this.  All it can do is help make our country safer.  If you have done something to garner the complete and undivided attention of an investigative agency, they have you now.  A photo card and a holo-magnetic stripe won't be the TSN turning point of the investigation.  Smile to the northwest corner of your living room!  Say CHEESE!!


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Feb 2006)

Guys, power it down a notch, por favor....

There are numerous, articulate, well-respected posters posting opposing opinions in this thread, and it's getting more snarky than it needs to be (on both sides). 

Make your case, and skip the jabs..  Thanks.   



Army.ca Staff


----------



## Thirstyson (24 Feb 2006)

One more thing... reliable, secure, cheap biometrics don't exist yet.

It's rarely even implemented in closed environments like computer security, on a National scale I can't see it flying too well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2006)

>please give some reasonable reasons besides personal paranoia?

I don't trust the people running the country.  Do you need proof they can't uniformly be trusted?  (See below.)

>Nice jackass attitude.  Perhaps you could refer your address to your local social services office to volunteer to have the next newly released child rapist seeded into your neighborhood.

That's the government's job.  Those people you think should be trusted with my information?  They're the ones who make and follow the rules that put those people back on the street.  You have a bug up your ass about released offenders, take it up with them.

>Again, please let me reiterate:  If we want you, we have you.  Peoples homes get B&E's by the police/CSIS/RCMP every day on general warrants and get their homes bugged and camera'ed, and have GPS stashed on their auto's.

Speaking of paranoia and jackass attitudes, I don't think I need look any further.  Are you a police officer, and is it common for police officers to beak off and brag about the power they wield?  I do wish immature emotional cripples could be reliably screened out of police and armed forces.  People like you really challenge my ability to adhere to "obey and support lawful authority".  Fortunately, I'm acquainted with a few police officers who don't share your arrogance.  As for whether you can "have me", I'll believe that the day gang members can no longer openly wear colours.

>Ridiculous fear mongering.

I'm not afraid, but if you carry a badge, then I'm concerned.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2006)

>And I would love to see you cite an example of an abuse of authority by our Government in the sense of a misuse of information. 

The first one to come to mind offhand involves a misuse of information by pharmacists receiving government paycheques.  If you don't think government employees never have and never will misuse their authority and the information to which they have access, you are naive beyond rational adult expectation.


----------



## TCBF (25 Feb 2006)

For the above reasons mentioned by others, I don't see this as much of a big brother exercise as a few other national issues we have.  I just don't see how it will be a great improvement until the technology improves.

But, assuming Zipperhead_cop is right, and it would work, I would say wether it uses biometrics or DNA, it must be linked to a national data bank, so we can't have people with five or six of these, like we have for SIN cards and so on.

So: The first machines go to the borders:

1. You don't enter the country unless we bio you and card you first.  

2. The card must be presented to access all health care.  

3. The card must be presented and swiped upon leaving the country.

4. The card must be presented and swiped to vote.

5. The card must be presented and swiped to access social services.

6. The card cannot be used for commercial purposes. 

7.  Card numbers and SIN card numbers cannot be stored by non- auth agencies. 

8.  Possesion of unauth card info - including numbers - punishable by 30 years in prison.

9.  You can change your name, but you will keep your number.

10. Citizenship: ALL of them, will be on the card.

Any other ideas?

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2006)

For all the conspiracy theorists:Just a little sidebar, let's not get off the original subject.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/76081/conspiracy_documentary/


Tom,

I like your ideas!


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Feb 2006)

For most of us,of all points of view, a review of this site might be helpful when crafting our arguments:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


----------



## TCBF (25 Feb 2006)

People still look at me funny when i say "All Parakeets are birds, but not all birds are parakeets."

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Feb 2006)

It has been brough to my attention that I am coming off too strong.  So, since I was offensive in a public way, I am apologizing in a public way.  
National security is a passionate subject for me.  My job gives me a unique perspective on just how easy our system is to manipulate and get away with, literally, murder.  I have friends in national intelligence positions, and am privy to a lot of info that Joe citizen is not.  Have no doubts in your minds:  the only reason there has not been a terrorist attack in Canada is lack of desire on the part of terrorists.  They live here, so there is a "don't shite in your own back yard" way of thinking.  Drivers licences, health cards, passports are all painfully easy to counterfeit.  On top of that, we don't even hold people claiming refugee status to ensure who they are.  We just give them a bunch of money and make them promise to come back in a few weeks.  
You're mad at the Fed for not supporting health care enough?  How about the millions that is spent on illegal immigrants or Americans sneaking over to get our free medical treatments?  
Welfare bug you?  There are people who maintain four identities that travel from Hamilton to Montreal, to four different addresses collecting welfare and other social benefits because no one knows who they are.  Oh, those addresses:  about thirty people residing in a two bedroom apartment.  Doesn't get crowded because no one lives there.  
Thought you had a pay check?  Card skims are everywhere, and while in the long run you MAY get your money back, what are the odds that your account gets cleaned out the day you are going on vacation.
And these are just the examples that are such common knowledge that I can openly talk about them. 

Yes, Brad, I am a police officer and have pledged my life to protect my little slice of Canada every time I go out.  Every car I stop, every door I go through, I put my ass on the line for guys like you, so you can sit back and say "I can't trust anybody but me".  Well, I have every belief that you are a completely trustworthy guy and conduct yourself credibly and with distinction in your community.  Unfortunately, there are a great many people who don't, and they kind of wreck it for the rest of us.  Other than criticizing the government, what do you do to make your world a better place?

Our system of identifying one another is antiquated and no longer has any valid purpose.  It is one more example of a situation where nothing will be done about it until there is a smouldering city block or a pile of dead people and then someone will go "gee, what should we do to avoid this the next time".  I would think people would be encouraged to perhaps trust the government a little more (isn't that why these guys got voted in?) because they are showing some due diligence to try to head off a problem before someone gets hurt. 

It is easy to sit back and shoot down ideas.  It is the corner stone of socialism:  rip appart others ideas but don't offer solutions.  If not a biometrically enhanced national ID card, how can we hope to deal with identity fraud, terrorism, our sieve borders and national security in general?


----------



## redleafjumper (26 Feb 2006)

Zipperhead_cop,  while I respect your zeal in defending Canada, I must dispute your method.  The attraction of Canada for many is not its reputation for security but its reputation for freedom.  From my way of thinking, a  national ID card has nothing to do with providing anything but a false sense of security, while at the same time providing a means of tracking large numbers of people for dubious purposes, more related to control, than security.  

What type of terrorism would such a card prevent?  The Air India attack? Marc Lepine shooting people?  Someone sneaking a nuclear device into a Canadian port through the security sieve that those places are, and detonating it even at point of inspection?  Hmm, I don't think so.  When a terrorist is below the radar, that is, doesn't associate with suspicious folks, keeps away from such toys as cell phones and computers and engages in otherwise legitimate activities, up until their act of terrorism,  no fancy ID card in the world is going to stop that.  One of the things that I appreciate most in this country is that it is not a "Your papers please!" environment that I have seen operate in tin-pot dictatorships all around the world.  It is an historical fact that state terrorism (Armenia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Guatemala, Cambodia, USSR, China, etc. gee,  did I mention Germany?) has killed far more people in even the past 100 years than spectacular single acts by ideologically-driven fanatics.

I disagree that we haven't seen terrorist attacks based in Canada, I think the examples provided show that we have.  I do agree that the lack of a major attack is more of a function of the temporary lack of desire on the part of those who would do such things.  I also disagree with your characterisation that it is a function of the left to criticize security and statist control over people in the way that you describe.  Far from it, such statist activities are highly characteristic of the "mommy democracy" of the left that claims to provide all the measures to protect and look after all of us throughout our lives.

I think my philosophical objections to such a card would include premises that I do not believe that such a thing would provide the security claimed, and that I am concerned that it would be abused for purposes well beyond trying to stop something that it cannot.  In short, I don't belive it would "work", and I don't believe that any percieved benefit is worth the range of costs that would be associated with it.  

I am all in favour of enhanced security procedure at points of entry, but realize that procedures that would work would be very expensive, not only in direct costs, such as more Customs Officers, screening equipment, shipping container inspections, etc., but also in terms of the necessary delays which would slow transportation down to the point where the economy is affected. 

Proposals for such things as national biometric-based ID cards tell me that any terrorists don't have to do much here, as we are quite prepared to do their work of limiting freedom and creating an environment of fear for them.

(edited to fix apostrophe error)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2006)

Wow, did you read my post?

Once more....all the info on the card already exists "out there", all it does is put it in one much more secure device.

Quote,
_From my way of thinking, a  national ID card has nothing to do with providing anything but a false sense of security, while at the same time providing a means of tracking large numbers of people for dubious purposes_

Well then turn in your health card and start paying under the table for your doctor visits,.... your work benifit card?...destroy it quick!!!!!, ...ATM card....AARRRGGG!!!.....getting the point yet?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2006)

As this discussion carries on and on, I tend to think back to the discussion that must have gone on way back when, ages ago, and time and time again, over and over again.  What was said for and against the issuance of Health Cards, SIN Cards, Drivers Licences, Passports, Military ID, Credit Cards, Interact Bank Cards before their implementation?  All the same arguments over and over, time immoral.  What was argued before over DNA use in the Courts, and Fingerprints before that?  

I find it funny that people are arguing against this "One Card" to do all, by saying we already have several that do the same thing and that one more will infringe on our rights and freedoms.  When the same arguments were used in the past, for issuance of those very same cards.  Imagine what the arguments were for the first piece of ID that was created some centuries ago?  Were they not basically the same arguments?


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2006)

When I was a kid, there was a  family from Scotland that was in a dispute with the post office because the father refused to put numbers on his house.  He argued that the people who needed to - including the mailman - knew who lived there, and it was nobody else's business.

Tom


----------



## geo (26 Feb 2006)

no pleasing everybody..............


----------



## STONEY (27 Feb 2006)

Did anyone here read the news report that started this tread, well read it again.  It simply says a new card might be needed for travel outside Canada . If you dont want one ,then stay home. Why complicate things, if you fly in a commercial aircraft you require a ticket so if you dont have a ticket you can't fly. If you want to go to the U.S. and they require a ID that costs 25 bucks instead of a passport that costs a 100 bucks then either get one or don't go and stay home.  Ta Ta.


----------



## DJ (27 Feb 2006)

So the lesson here is to have faith in our policy makers and never ask questions?


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

Note that the US has an even bigger "sell" job for it's population.
The "national ID card" is something that Homeland security wants for people entering the US.... be they Cdn visitors (who are traveling without a passport) OR US Citzens who have come up north for some R&R.
The Governors & senators from the northern states have led the opposition to these cards....... more to follow - I guess.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

Calvin said:
			
		

> So the lesson here is to have faith in our policy makers and never ask questions?


Wouldn't go that far...........


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Feb 2006)

I only have one potential problem with this. If a government runs a 1000% over budget for a gun registry, how much would a National ID card over run!


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

(heh.... have you heard about the computer system that is used to keep track of the GST?)


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2006)

>Were they not basically the same arguments?

Yes, and in each case some degree of freedom was surrendered to security.

Those of you on the "inside" of security endeavours also know that the bad guys recruit people to work on the "inside" as well.  One of the (possibly) tall tales I rather enjoyed was the one about the officer who undertook to infiltrate a criminal organization and wound up trussed like a turkey dumped on the lawn of a local law enforcement property with a note to the effect "we think this belongs to you".  That could certainly have gone worse.  Regardless whether that incident actually happened, those of you on the "inside" must be aware of the fact that the human element is not watertight.  Information grows legs.

Have credit cards and ATM cards made it easier or harder to rip people off?  I can turn them both off tomorrow and go back to making cash withdrawals from my local bank branch.  I have control over the decision to use those.  Whether I've conceded to use them is irrelevant to my other objections.

The more trustworthy the ID, the less additional verification people seek.  Is that a good thing?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Feb 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Zipperhead_cop,  while I respect your zeal in defending Canada, I must dispute your method.  The attraction of Canada for many is not its reputation for security but its reputation for freedom.  From my way of thinking, a  national ID card has nothing to do with providing anything but a false sense of security, while at the same time providing a means of tracking large numbers of people for dubious purposes, more related to control, than security.



Your reputation for freedom is the worlds reputation for being suckers.  Are you actually saying you would rather have this wide open terror and criminal playground for a country than be safer from identity theft?  The mind reels...



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> What type of terrorism would such a card prevent?  The Air India attack? Marc Lepine shooting people?  Someone sneaking a nuclear device into a Canadian port through the security sieve that those places are, and detonating it even at point of inspection?  Hmm, I don't think so.  When a terrorist is below the radar, that is, doesn't associate with suspicious folks, keeps away from such toys as cell phones and computers and engages in otherwise legitimate activities, up until their act of terrorism,  no fancy ID card in the world is going to stop that.


Okay, your terror example is an old one, and Marc Lepine was a psycho.  An ID card also has NOTHING to do with port security.  You are arguing apples and base ball bats.  This isn't to stop violence, it is to identify people.  Does your SIN card or drivers licence save you from peril now?  Must be better than the ones issued here in Ontario.  The reason they are below the radar is that they are POSING as people who don't show on the radar.  You can get hundreds of dollars for selling your passport to a criminal.  What do you think happens to the passport?  It's not used to wallpaper someones bathroom ???
The ID card isn't some magic bullet, it IS AN ID CARD.



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> One of the things that I appreciate most in this country is that it is not a "Your papers please!" environment that I have seen operate in tin-pot dictatorships all around the world.  It is an historical fact that state terrorism (Armenia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Guatemala, Cambodia, USSR, China, etc. gee,  did I mention Germany?) has killed far more people in even the past 100 years than spectacular single acts by ideologically-driven fanatics.


So, by your thinking, because you have the card, it will obviously be brought into force of law, on pain of arrest, to present it at any and all times with no probable cause.  No doubt, all of the worst demogouges around the world got launched to power with a wallet sized piece of plastic with a photo and some numbers.  By the way, currently, refugees are required at all times to carry their papers with them.  Think that happens?  



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I disagree that we haven't seen terrorist attacks based in Canada, I think the examples provided show that we have.  I do agree that the lack of a major attack is more of a function of the temporary lack of desire on the part of those who would do such things.  I also disagree with your characterisation that it is a function of the left to criticize security and statist control over people in the way that you describe.  Far from it, such statist activities are highly characteristic of the "mommy democracy" of the left that claims to provide all the measures to protect and look after all of us throughout our lives.



I will concede that there are more learned persons on this site who can speak to the left and right ends of the political spectrum and their typical characteristics.  As a generality, the left in Canada are winy, socialist crybabies that fear all things conservative (IMHO).



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I think my philosophical objections to such a card would include premises that I do not believe that such a thing would provide the security claimed, and that I am concerned that it would be abused for purposes well beyond trying to stop something that it cannot.  In short, I don't belive it would "work", and I don't believe that any percieved benefit is worth the range of costs that would be associated with it.



And I am sure that in your professional opinion, which includes the ability to do national threat level assessment, terrorist interdiction and international document codification that is a great assessment.  Because otherwise, you just posted "Me don't like it, make me feel poo poo".



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I am all in favour of enhanced security procedure at points of entry, but realize that procedures that would work would be very expensive, not only in direct costs, such as more Customs Officers, screening equipment, shipping container inspections, etc., but also in terms of the necessary delays which would slow transportation down to the point where the economy is affected.
> 
> Proposals for such things as national biometric-based ID cards tell me that any terrorists don't have to do much here, as we are quite prepared to do their work of limiting freedom and creating an environment of fear for them.
> 
> (edited to fix apostrophe error)



Again, you are talking about importation of goods and commercial interdiction.  It has nothing to do with identifying individuals, unless they turn up in a shipping container or transport truck.  



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Were they not basically the same arguments?
> 
> Yes, and in each case some degree of freedom was surrendered to security.
> 
> ...



Having a deep cover agent burned has nothing to do with a card to identify people within Canada (although what you describe sounds like something from an episode of Smokey and the Bear).  It is the human element that is being eliminated.  
Honestly, there have got to be some really guilty conscience's leaking out here.  There are thousands upon thousands of criminals in and out of Canada trying to do harm here.  There are even thousands of more radical and alarming vocal disenters who on an outside chance may attract someones attention.  You as Joe Nobody is just not interesting enough to warrant attention.  Sorry.  Don't want to burst anyones bubble here.  I know for my part, I do a lot of crazy crap, and I could seriously care less who is watching.  And I actually have a whole set of rules that can give me real penalties that most of you don't.  
Brad, you got all bent earlier when you felt that I was bragging about the powers that exist for policing.  That was not my intention.  I am just trying to show that there is nothing special about this stuff (search warrants, bugs, GPS).  It happens all the time, but only to the worst people whom you would want on a short leash.  
So you don't trust the Government?  No one really does completely.  But what do you think, in your worst case scenario, they could do to misuse the information?  Please illuminate this info boogie man you are so terrified by, because I for one just don't get it.


----------



## Rodders (28 Feb 2006)

"As a generality, the left in Canada are winy, socialist crybabies that fear all things conservative (IMHO)."

So as an equal generalization, the right in Canada are inconsiderate, intolerant looking-out-for-number-ones that despise anything different than the status quo. IMNSHO.

Don't speak in generalizations. Maybe you should consider the inherent dangers of painting one group with the same brush. Or don't. Just remember. Stalin was on the political left. Hitler was on the political right. Do you want to be that limiting?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Mar 2006)

Rodders said:
			
		

> "As a generality, the left *in Canada *  are winy, socialist crybabies that fear all things conservative (IMHO)."
> 
> So as an equal generalization, the right in Canada are inconsiderate, intolerant looking-out-for-number-ones that despise anything different than the status quo. IMNSHO.
> 
> Don't speak in generalizations. Maybe you should consider the inherent dangers of painting one group with the same brush. Or don't. Just remember. Stalin was on the political left. Hitler was on the political right. Do you want to be that limiting?


I don't recall either Stalin or Hitler being Canadian, but maybe I missed something.  

My pan of socialist Canada is generally limited to my lanes, which is usually law enforcement.  It is most certainly not the conservative end of the spectrum that fights for criminal rights and pushes for weak sentencing.  As far as your generalization:
*Inconsiderate*:  I feel that allowing criminals and terrorists to go unidentified and free to be mildly inconsiderate.  
*Intolerant*:  All of the intolerance on this debate so far have been the civil libertarians
*Looking out for number one*:  Yeah, in my case number one is my family and my brothers and sisters in blue, and in general all of the citizens of my community.  Someone has to look out for them, since you socialists seem to need to limit a security measure for the ultra valid reason of "just cuz" (I can't believe we have gotten this far without some pink pants using the phrase "slippery slope")
*Despise anything different than the status quo*:  Oh, that is pretty crass considering what we have been reading here!

We tried it your way.  It has been hippie green socialist paradise since the Charter was introduced, and it has to be reigned in and slowed down.  
Hey, if you don't want the card, DON'T GET ONE   No one is forcing anyone to travel abroad.  Stay home.  Too easy.


----------



## Rodders (1 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't recall either Stalin or Hitler being Canadian, but maybe I missed something.
> 
> My pan of socialist Canada is generally limited to my lanes, which is usually law enforcement.  It is most certainly not the conservative end of the spectrum that fights for criminal rights and pushes for weak sentencing.  As far as your generalization:
> *Inconsiderate*:  I feel that allowing criminals and terrorists to go unidentified and free to be mildly inconsiderate.
> ...



I think you missed my point about my generalization. I don't believe that ALL conservatives fall under that description. They most certainly do not. My point was and is that not all people on the "left" fall under your scathing, insulting and condescending description. 

Should I deduce from your retort that you disapprove of the existence of the Charter Of Rights? I don't honestly think anyone on the "left" has a goal of creating weak sentences. As for criminal rights, people who commit crimes are still people. They must pay for their crimes, but there is such a thing as unacceptable treatment, at least in my opinion. Beatings, torture, improper housing are unacceptable, but perhaps we are not on the same page on this issue. The Victorian approach to prison did nothing to combat crime and only ensured that upon release, these criminals were even more hardened in their contempt for authority and society. Of course, I suppose that equals job security for law enforcement.

 Another presumption, are you in favour of capital punishment? If so, what do you tell the families of the David Milgards of the country. Oops we're sorry?

If your stance is that all things are acceptable for the enhanced(real or illusionary) security of the nation, than what are you protecting? Certainly not people's rights. Or is it simply about power and control?

With no disrespect intended, it's cops like you that concern me. You seem to think that so long as security is the goal, any means are acceptable. I don't wish to get into a mud-slinging here as the absence of this type of discussion is one of the things I appreciate about this board. But your insulting and derogatory generalizations almost demand a similar response.

I think it's interesting and disconcerting that the West is slowly but surely becoming more and more like a system they until recently were opposed to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2006)

And with that, everyone to their corners for a time out.


----------

