Elonka wrote:
] Hmm, in 40 years, you're saying that you'd bet that every
] citizen will be required to carry ID on them at all times,
] even if they're traveling on foot, on private property? Or
] that every citizen will be required to carry something that
] lets them be identified without their knowledge?

What I'm saying is that Brown vs. Texas will be overturned. Hiibel basically already does this as reasonable suspicion is a very weak standard, but I think they'll completely reverse that decision. In 40 years it will no longer be uncontitutional for a government in this country to pass a law which provides for the arrest of people simply because they cannot be identified in the absense of any other reasonable suspicion.

In retrospect, carrying ID might be a bit of a mis-statement. All the police will actually need to do is take a biometric. If they require that all citizens over a certain age have ID, and that those IDs have biometrics, and that you be willing to let an officer who stops you perform a biometric reading, we'll have satisfied this requirement. Its a short hop from Hiibel to requiring that you let a police officer scan your finger.

However, if the police are allowed to cross reference information from video cameras with the (soon to be national) ID database using face recognition software then there you have it. Ubiquitous remotely readable indentification and personal details without reasonable suspicion. Your only way to "opt out" is to not have an ID. To NEVER drive or drink or smoke or travel outside the US or write checks or pay with a credit card. This will be with us a long time, and then a law will be passed that requires the handful of people who've managed to stay outside of this system to join in, and it will be held constitutional.

It will take 40 years because 99% of the population will be in the system before the law will need to be changed...

] Either way, I think I'd be willing to take that bet. Especially
] with Republicans in power, who I think are *less* likely than
] Democrats to want to promote anything like a mandatory
] national ID.

A Republican Congressperson (Sensenbrenner) sponsored the RealID act. All of the "Conservative" Supreme Court justices sided against Hiibel. Frankly, my experience has been that Republicans talk a lot of smack about liberty and personal responsibility but in practice are no better then the Democrats. I'd love an example of why I should hold a different view. I like Thomas's opinion in the case over anonymous pamphletting, but its the exception rather then the rule.

RE: UnRealID.com