There was a time when most Americans hated the idea of a reliable national identification system.  But since 9/11, many people have become more concerned about Big Terror than Big Brother.  The question is, will a better ID system do more harm than good?  The honest answer is, we don't know, and therefore, any such system of identification ought to be voluntary and matched to our needs.

There are risks--well-documented risks--to today's vague system of identification.  September 11 terrorists were able to get false IDs easily from the states of Virginia and Florida, were little is done with background checks.  Undocumented aliens can obtain false or stolen documentation, including Social Security numbers and licenses with little trouble in most major cities or border towns, which allows them to blend into the general population.  This means that known terrorists in the country illegally can circulate throughout the country with little fear of being caught.

And there are other costs to inadequate and easily falsified IDs. Foreign nationals can enter on short term visas and then disappear easily with newly assumed identification. With fake IDs, they are able to open bank accounts, lease or buy long-term lodging, obtain pilot training and pilot licenses, buy firearms and get weapons training, buy materials for explosives, apply for licenses carrying hazardous materials or work for private security firms guarding important economic targets.

Domestically, some 300,000 escaped prisoners are estimated to have taken advantage of the loose American, ID system.  The system is implicated in identity theft, which causes Americans hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  Thousands of child molesters and sex offenders use it to avoid detection, and it's implicated in income tax fraud and welfare fraud.  These problems can be mitigated by doing away with inadequate identification cards and substituting better forms of identification.

One of the charges levied against national IDs is that they are no less susceptible to tampering or fraud than the current system. But great strides have been taken in making reliable IDs.  Laser holography makes cards difficult to duplicate.  Biometrics, the measurement of body features like fingerprints and irises, makes it impossible for one person to use another's identity when added to an identity card.  Embedded microchips create "smart cards" which when crosslinked to databases make it possible to produce an ID card that's difficult to duplicate and easy to cross-check at airports, stores, or traffic stops.

But should we then make these IDs mandatory?  No. The right to privacy, to be let alone in one's person should imply that a citizen's anonymity be guaranteed if he or she desires it.  If American citizens are willing to forgo some of the things which might require reliable identification--forms of air travel that require positive identification, the ownership and use of credit cards, the right to drive on public roads, etc., they ought not be required to have a form of positive identification.  If they are willing to accept the possibility of ID theft, then they ought not to be forced to obtain such a form of ID.

But the public also has the right to insist that identification systems be made reliable.  Some may argue that this is an insufficient protection for privacy, that an outright ban on reliable identification is required.  This, however, would go against the desires of a majority of Americans who are willing to trade a portion of their privacy for better security.  The regular airline traveler wants to be assured that no known terrorist rides his airplane; the credit card user that no thief can steal his number and use it.  This is a more concrete and realistic fear for them than the fear that Big Brother may one day use his ID against him.

The reality is that technology will continue to advance, and private companies like banks and airlines and security firms will lead the charge in improving the reliability of identification if they want to succeed economically.  The technical improvements that they develop, like biometrics, laser holography, and "smart cards," will inevitably make the transition from private identification and credit cards to driver's licenses.  The solution isn't to fight a reliable form of identification but to restrict the government's ability to require its use.

James Hall from the Left makes a compelling argument as it applies to the personal benefit that this author would receive. Consider for a moment the horror of being falsely identified as being the 'bad seed', simply because we share the same name. Yes; that recent confusion on FreeRepublic would have never existed, and all those odious comments would have rightly gone to the proper author. But this is one time that, your humble writer, will defer the defense of individual rights for the good of the society.

Our argument rests, that we already have a voluntary national ID. It's called the United States passport. Since it has long been accepted that birth records are the primary proof for origin, what is the pressing need to go much beyond possessing such a state issued document? Surely the claims that counterfeit certificates can be easily overcome, with the sophistication of modern technology. As for immigrants, isn't it required to have a passport or a visa? If they become nationalized citizens, doesn't the government issue proof that they are now Americans?

Thus, a national ID polemic, relies upon the assertion that society must have a system of identification to attain protection from those who seek to harm the community. Well, such a noble goal. But how can this objective be reached if the ID's are voluntary?

If it is a right of privacy that we are presumed innocent until charged and proven guilty, where is the authority to allow some of the slackers to slip under the cracks and resist the tattoo of government to know who we are, and tract what we do? Privacy for some, while most comply, doesn't achieve community security. So let's get it right - what is at stake and place it in the proper perspective.

Place those birth certificate implanted chips in every infant and the discussion is done!

The issue of voluntary surrender to register for any form of national ID, is really the codification of mandatory refusal for goods and services, if you do not have approved documents. Today, try to rent a car or secure a room in a hotel without a credit card. Tomorrow, it will be - show the ID card or grow your own groceries. You say that will never happen; oh, of course it can't happen here?

No more potato chips or your insurance company will cancel your policy. Sure you can buy the snack, but don't die if your family needs the money. But it is voluntary, isn't it?

We all know that privacy has been mortally wounded, but this fact does not justify that government has any right to monitor your patterns of behavior. Those who throw out the trial balloons of incremental relinquishing of your rights, don't respect you as a citizen or as a sovereign person. Society can never be secure when the means for 'so called' safety, requires the permanent loss of fundamental rights.

If the government can't give us an accurate count on illegal aliens, do you really think that these folks will line up to get a picture of their retina? Get Real! Close the 'Open Borders' with serious immigration control, and let ordinary citizens enjoy their dignity.

Only a fool, translation - LIBERAL; would think the real danger in losing our privacy comes from the current threat of terrorists, and deny that government is the 'Big Terror'. When our modern day, John Reed claims that "a majority of Americans who are willing to trade a portion of their privacy for better security", shows how much he fails to understand the American experience. Majorities have no legitimacy for voluntary giving away of RIGHTS. People accept abuses out of their laziness to resist and a frustration that they can't stop the juggernaut of the tyrant. But the mindset of the Liberal sees no problem with marching to the tune of Ein Sohn des Volkes will ich sein und bleiben (I want to Be and remain a Son of the People).

You see the seducers who use fear, have no solutions but the surrender of your freedoms. "You have nothing to lose but your chains!", has become whistling along with the rock group Sleepyhead, when they sing "Communist Love Songs" .