Ever since Sept. 11, public opinion organizations in the United States have been reporting that the citizenry is prepared to trade certain civil liberties and rights for increased security, a prospect the Bush administration encourages.
The sense of personal insecurity afflicting the American people since the terror attack, combined with continual scare stories emanating from the White House, has reached the point where 50% of all adults in the U.S. now seem to back the idea of mandatory identification cards for everyone in the country. Progressives and libertarians have long opposed the concept of a national ID system on the grounds that it would allow adverse state intrusion into private lives, greatly extend the authority of government surveillance powers, and facilitate crackdowns on dissidents.
In late February, CBS News conducted a nationwide poll asking, "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing for the government to require everyone in the United States to carry a national electronic identification card, or smart card, that would have detailed information about each person." The result was that 50% were willing, 44% not willing and 6% had no opinion. Interestingly, 55% of Democrats favored the national ID, compared to 48% of political independents and 47% of Republicans.
The American Civil Liberties Union, among others, is waging a campaign to dissuade the government from imposing a national ID system as an "anti-terrorist" measure. In a recent statement, the ACLU declared:
"A national ID would not prevent terrorism. An identity card is only as good as the information that establishes identity in the first place. Terrorists and criminals will continue to be able to obtain, by legal and illegal means, the documents needed to get a government ID, such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers....
"A national ID would depend on a massive bureaucracy that would limit our basic freedoms. A national ID system would depend on both the issuance of an ID card and the integration of huge amounts of personal information included in state and federal government databases. One employee mistake, an underlying database error or common fraud could take away an individual's ability to move freely from place to place or even make them unemployable until the government fixed their file.
"A national ID could require all Americans to carry an internal passport at all times, compromising our privacy, limiting our freedom, and exposing us to unfair discrimination based on national origin or religion. A national ID would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment. The ID could be used to stop, question, or challenge anyone perceived as looking or sounding foreign or individuals of certain religious affiliations."
In addition, agencies such as the FBI would use a comprehensive identity system to more efficiently compile dossiers on people suspected of having unorthodox political opinions. Federal, state and local police agencies have already gathered enormous amounts of information that could easily be transferred to a national ID card, along with data about political preferences, reading habits, associates, health, finances, credit, buying habits, criminal record, and so on. Police anywhere could demand access to the small, plastic card to decode an individual's entire history.
New York Times columnist William Safire, a conservative libertarian, wrote recently that "the fear of terror attack is being exploited by law enforcement sweeping for suspects as well as by commercial marketers seeking prospects. It has emboldened the zealots of intrusion to press for the holy grail of snoopery -- a mandatory national ID." After listing the various types of personal data that could be collected, Safire concluded: "Beware: It is not just an efficient little card to speed you through lines faster or to buy you sure-fire protection from suicide bombers. A national ID card would be a ticket to the loss of much of your personal freedom."
Many critics of an internal passport suggest it might be brought about indirectly. The ACLU warned in February that "Direct passage of a national ID is only one possible path to such a system. A national ID is much more likely to evolve bureaucratically through existing forms of ID, such as state drivers' licenses."
A few days later, the AP reported that "The government is taking first steps with states to develop drivers' licenses that can electronically store information -- such as fingerprints -- for the 184 million Americans who carry cards.... Privacy experts fear the effort may lead to de facto national identification cards that would allow authorities to track citizens electronically, circumventing the intense debate over federal ID cards.... Already, 37 states store information on licenses electronically."
According to Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, "What you're seeing here is sort of a hardening of the driver's license that could lead to development of a national ID system without creating a national ID card."
One way or another, the U.S. government seems determined to develop the ability to keep close, highly intrusive tabs on all its citizens in the name of national security. Unless we are simply indifferent to the prospect of being stopped on the street by a representative of the state asking to see our "papers," it's time to begin focusing more attention on fighting the prospect of a national ID system that tells it all to Big Brother.