The hidden data in your driver's license
As I was surfing the various news sites I ran across this CNN article.
Quote:
(CNN) -- It seems not too long ago that the highest tech device that a bouncer may have had was a flashlight to check out a driver's license. But these days, more and more bars and night clubs, convenience stores and liquor stores are using high-tech ID scanners in order to look at the information that's actually embedded in many driver's licenses.
I don't necessarily have a problem with people being able to read the magnetic strip on the back of my driver's license, but I do have a problem with the potential ability to store that information.
It isn't a question of whether driving
is a right or a privilege. It's a privilege here in New Mexico and in every State with which I'm familiar. It's a question of privacy, of being able to move freely without the Government of the United States tracking your every move.
Right now, if you leave whatever State you live in, Massachusetts I think, and travel to California, nobody knows but you and your credit card company. If you are stopped, the police in the State in which you're stopped will know and NCIC if a records check is done. Nobody else. If the centralized system they're discussing comes to pass, that info will be kept. Why is Palemoon traveling so far from home? Is there any reason for us to be suspicious that he lives in Massachusetts and is stopped in Utah in September? Should we look into his background a bit more? Let's flag his name and keep tabs on him.
That's what it's all about and I can guarantee you that, except possibly during the toursit season when everybody is moving, that is how it'll play out.
It's very much like was mentioned concerning the Right to Bear Arms. Here, in New Mexico, buying a gun isn't much more difficult than buying a package of cigarettes. It's understood that it's a right. Government, other than the damned instant check system, doesn't interfere at any level. Bearing arms isn't a privilege, it's a right. Traveling and free movement is not a privilege allowed by government, it's the right of a free human being, and it isn't government's business to know where you are, when you leave, or why you're where you are as you roam.
Somehow, Old Man, I think you and I
are operating under the same mindset. I have no problem with having the information that's on the front of my driver's license encoded in some strip on the back. I wouldn't have much objection if they wanted to include traffic history onto the code.
The proposed, if it's still under consideration, nationalization of the driver's license is where I start to object. As I said, it would still be issued by your home state, would still look like your current license, but all information encoded would be transmitted to Washington. Essentially, it would become a national identification card, containing whatever history Uncle decides he wants. This is where I draw the line.
I don't always carry my driver's license. If I decide to walk the couple of miles to the store, which I often do, I'll sometimes shove a few bucks in my pocket and go. Will the license suddenly become required carry? Sorry, it all smacks to much of Soviet Russia and many European countries where, when stopped by the police, the first words are,
"Papers?"
And you'd better have them.
Re: It isn't a question of whether driving
Quote:
Originally posted here by Chuck56
It's very much like was mentioned concerning the Right to Bear Arms. Here, in New Mexico, buying a gun isn't much more difficult than buying a package of cigarettes. It's understood that it's a right. Government, other than the damned instant check system, doesn't interfere at any level. Bearing arms isn't a privilege, it's a right.
The scary thing is you're arguing that someone who isn't responsible enough to drive a car has the "right" to own a weapon designed to kill people (handguns). And just how far does that right extend? Are children granted the right to freedom of expression? If so, why do they not have the right to bear arms? Why CAN'T they carry a handgun? Why CAN'T a teacher be packing a few pistols in case some kid comes in with a shotgun or handgun and wants to shoot up his friends?
I will never understand why it is a "right" for anyone -- even those who are irresponsible and careless -- to carry around a weapon for no other purpose than to take someone's life. Talk about screwed up ideas...
I had written an entire page worth of stuff here, but given the events of a year ago, I'll end my rant here.
chch, I did not say that people not old
enough to drive can buy or carry firearms. To purchase a long gun you must be 18, and 21 to buy a handgun. You must also pass the Federal check. I, in fact, would be very much in favor of not allowing driver's licenses to anyone under 18.
Secondly, what gives you the impression that people who carry guns do so with the intent of killing somebody? I carried a gun for 25 yrs as a cop and never shot a soul. I've carried one in the years since I retired and haven't shot anybody yet.
The right is as old as the human race and is called self defense. No government can permit or deny that right. In ancient times our ancestors probably carried rocks. When they discovered clubs they carried those. Later knives were carried, then swords, and with the advent of firearms, they became the choice.
If people are irresponsible and careless with guns as you suggest some are, what makes them less so to drive a car?
Owning and using a firearm demands responsibility. How does one measure that responsibility? Background checks won't validate or invalidate a person's measure of maturity; neither will a waiting period. Neither will forcing gun owners to take a safety class or a test. I know young people of 12 who are far more mature than adults in their 20's.
Banning guns won't work. Witness the former Soviet Union and its various subject countries. As soon as they gained freedom, guns began appearing from the places in which they were hidden during the occupation. Estonia is one that comes to mind. Tens of thousands of armed civilians appeared, all with their own firearms that they had concealed from the Russian invader.
Estimates in this country are that there is one firearm for every citizen. The vast majority by far, are unregistered. Even in New York City, where it's nearly impossible to purchase a handgun, police estimate there are over a million unregistered guns. Most homes in the West, where I live, have guns. Most of the owners will not register them, nor will they surrender them. I'm one of those people, as is every resident in my little town. And, know what, nobody has been shot here in over half a century as far as anyone knows. We don't have burglaries or any of that stuff either.
Sorry, SoggyBottom and Tedob. My fault
for dragging it away from it's original point. I'll end it with just a quick comment and maybe somebody can get it back on track again
SoggyBottom, the laws in in Australia are vastly different concerning guns than here in the States. It's far more difficult there than here. There are Australian gun forums where you can find out more than you ever wanted. Sorry that I don't have the URL's at hand.
Okay, again, I apoligize for the digression and I'll shut up about guns.
Boy, really gotta bite my tongue
going back several decades to my Army days. We had a phrase to differentiate between rifle and gun. I won't post it.
Good point on militia......but it won't make any difference to the anti "gunners." We, the people, can't decide such things for ourselves. We need Big Brother to tell us. That goes for a lot more than firearms, these days. It goes for everything, right down to the food we eat and the air we breathe. If they don't control it yet, they're trying, which is what this thread and a couple of others started out talking about.