It’s long past
time for a national identity card with biometrics
Non-invasive technology exists to biometrically record and then
conclusively verify someone’s identity.
So why don’t we extend that technology to everyone here in this country? Why is the concept of a national identity
card with biometrics taboo?
All you have to do for a clue is to look at what’s happening now with the
raging debate over photo IDs and voting.
Several states are trying to make presenting a photo ID a requirement to vote. Some will even pay the cost of photo IDs for
people who can’t afford them. Still, the
uproar is unbelievable, with charges of “plots” to disenfranchise the poor, the
elderly, and minorities and rob them of the right to have their voices heard in
elections.
This is probably somewhat baffling to most folks – poor, elderly and minorities
alike -- who use a photo ID all the time for all kinds of mundane daily
activities.
Since you already need a photo ID to buy tobacco, liquor, or cold medicine, get
a library card, or get on a plane, why is it suddenly an incredible burden to
require one for voting?
To most reasonable people, this is a pretty low threshold for such an important
privilege; one hopes at least as important as getting a pack of smokes and a
beer, or picking up some Advil Cold & Sinus at Wal-Mart, which all demand
the same burden of proof.
So the only people who would seem to be broadly disenfranchised by
requiring a photo ID to vote would be people who can’t – or more likely don’t
want to – prove that they are who they say they are. It would also disenfranchise people who
maintain multiple identities for whatever purpose.
There are some exceptions – such as the Amish and others who oppose photo IDs
on religious grounds. But let’s be
honest: no one is worried about Amish voter fraud. Or fraud
by women who wear burkhas or veils. It’s more about people who vote on behalf of
the dead – a reliable voting bloc in many major cities – and those who register
multiple times, under multiple identities, to vote at multiple polling places
on election day.
And frankly, that's why there’s a push on photo IDs to vote – the growing
suspicion that elections are no longer won or lost based on one-man / one-vote, but more on the
“Philadelphia politics” principle of “vote early and vote often.”
But if you think the outrage over photo IDs for voting is over the top, just
wait for the battle over national identity cards. It will take on “end of days” proportions,
because with a national identity card with biometrics, a lot of mischief that
goes on now will come to an end.
As necessary as a national identity card is today, and despite the obvious benefits
to all citizens to improve security and prevent fraud on so many levels, don’t
hold your breath.
Knowing that someone is really who they say they are would appear to be a good
thing. But Federal, and many state and
local governments clearly don’t want to know.
Neither do a host of special
interests, including churches.
A national identity card with biometrics is a rational, logical and cost-effective
answer to solving problems like entitlements fraud, identity theft, bogus
voting, and yes, illegal immigration. And
in a time when we are trying to find ways to offset multi-trillion dollar
deficits, cutting billions in waste and fraud alone this way would seem to be a
no-brainer.
Not long ago, a woman essentially kidnapped a large number of mentally-challenged and homeless people across multiple states and held them as virtual prisoners locked in a dank basement with a bucket for a toilet and little food while she collected their Social Security and welfare benefits solely for herself. She'd successfully conned state workers into believing that she was a legal guardian of some of them. In other instances she may have assumed their identities for the purposes of illegally claiming benefits.
Apparently nobody had the tools for, or the interest in, verifying who she was. If they had, they'd have learned she was a convicted murderer who had served time for that crime; someone who had imprisoned, starved, and then beat to death another human being already.
Just a wild guess here, but had there been an actual verification of her identity at some point, a lot of this might never have happened.
It's weird that opposition to the simple idea of an absolute means to verify identity is so intense, typically framed as a
“human rights” issue for the most emotional impact. It’s
been called the first step toward a Big Brother society, an invasion of
privacy, and a hateful concept. Of course,
there are references to Nazi Germany, as well – a perennial top-10 choice for
anything to be demonized.
Ultimately, much of this resistance has very little to do with protecting our
rights to privacy and more to do with protecting elected officials’ re-election
efforts and preserving funding and power for entrenched special-interest groups.
In addition, no politician wants to take the risk of alienating Hispanic voters,
dead voters, vacant-lot voters, or being accused of being discriminatory to
other minorities – legally dead or alive – by demanding valid documentation for
anything.
But mostly it’s about avoiding the reality of who is entitled to benefits and
who isn’t.
A great example is the recent census exercise.
The government wanted to know when you went to work and when you got
home, and the number of bathrooms in your house. But it was afraid to ask you if you were a
U.S. citizen.
Several cities now prohibit even asking if someone is a citizen. The Feds and the cities would rather not
know. That’s because government dollars
for programs are often allocated to cities and states based on population;
schools get state and Federal dollars based on the number of students they have
enrolled. The bigger that number, the
more dollars you get. If you started
disallowing some of those numbers through identity checks, funding would
drop. The gravy train would end for many
programs.
That’s why we can’t get to a national identity card. It’s
all about money. And power.
No comments:
Post a Comment