|
|
Revelations 13:16-17
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Although the idea is nothing new, national identification systems are now on the rise around the world.
Technological advances are making them easier and cheaper to implement. And some of the potential benefits are enticing. "Smart cards" and centralized databases might simplify your personal finances, save you time, and make your health information immediately accessible to your doctor. "Smart chips" implanted by veterinarians can make it easy to find your pet if they get lost.
On the other hand, some of the dangers of central databases and ID systems are frightening. Central storage of financial data could lead to theft and a variety of abuses by those who have access to retrieve and enter it. Health care privacy could become impossible to maintain. And the same chips that are being used to track animals could be used to track people - in fact, some companies have already issued ID badges with tracking devices so that they can verify the locations of their employees.
If private use of ID systems is frightening, government use is downright terrifying. Can anyone trust their government with the ability to monitor financial holdings and transactions, check health care records, and track physical movements?
In 1996, two separate laws were quietly passed by Congress to enable the U.S. government to create national ID systems. A law to reform health insurance authorized a Unique Patient Identifier that would enable the government to track everyone's medical care histories. An immigration reform law requires that all U.S. states incorporate Social Security numbers into driver's licenses. Neither law was proposed as a national ID system, but they both clearly authorize one, along with punishments and penalties for those who don't comply.
Privacy activists were outraged by the laws. Groups and individuals as diverse as libertarians, patriots, the ACLU, Pat Robertson, and arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly all spoke up. And so far they have managed to keep the laws from being implemented. But they still remain on the books.
In this Policy Spotlight we have collected some of the most interesting contributions to this privacy movement. For those of you who want to dig deep into the topic, we offer dozens of references and links. If you want to get a read on how the mainstream media has been treating the national ID controversies, see J.D. Tuccille's Media Spotlight. And when you have questions or contributions to make, add them to the discussion forum.
Free-Market.Net Partners
Citizens' Council on Health Care
CCHC has done a lot of work fighting for patients' rights to privacy and against the national health ID. A wealth of resources on Patient Privacy and information on the National ID Card are available at their website.
CCHC president Twila Brase, R.N., also testified on the Unique Patient Identifier before a recent National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics hearing in Chicago.
Miscellaneous comments on various ID proposals are also available in the Public Comments section.
Sheldon Richman's article on the national health information database entitled Invasion of Medical Privacy is available on the IHF website.
Brief information on a proposal to eliminate the health ID comes from a September 3, 1998 press release from U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
The December, 1997 Identity Crisis by Daniel W. Sutherland looks at the prospect of using a national ID to curb illegal immigration. It is a summary of a paper published by the Center for Equal Opportunity under the title Big Brother Flunks a Test: Monitoring the National ID Program.
Stuart Anderson examines a proposal to include retina scans or other "biometric" information as part of a national ID program in the 1995 article Retina Scans All Around.
This September 1995 Cato Policy Analysis on A National ID System, authored by John J. Miller and Stephen Moore, argues that the government's proposal would cost the taxpayers money and endanger their liberties, without much effect on immigration.
In 1997 Stephen Moore testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration on a proposal to make the Social Security card more secure. The proposal specifically said that it was "NOT A NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD," yet would mandate that a laundry list of everyday activities could not be done without the card. Moore opened his testimony by saying, "If it looks like a duck. If it quacks like a duck. If it walks like a duck. It's a duck."
Around the same time as his testimony, Moore also authored an op-ed piece entitled The National ID Card: It's Baaack!
The Liberty Round Table offers a file of Frequently Asked Questions about the National ID, and is sponsoring a "NO-NID" Internet campaign.
The International Society for Individual Liberty provides a copy of Claire Wolfe's article Amerika, Amerika, on the restrictions on our liberties through "land-mine legislation."
In December 2004 this page was modified significantly from its original form for archiving purposes.
Free-Market.Net, founded in 1995, is now a part of ISIL.
 |