[mattmaroon]

The US functionally has it. Your driver’s license goes into a national database, as do your license plates and social security number. I can drive through Oklahoma (several states away) and their system will automatically read my plates at a toll road and a bill will arrive at my home.

Our licenses now need a federal registration for us to board a plane. I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t.

The NSA probably has everyone’s cell number, text messages, and metadata (including location) stored.

With tech being what it is these days anonymity doesn’t exist.

[notepad0x90]

Think of the basic needs of a human being. Buying food and water, paying for shelter and living in a safe environment. For these things, proving one's identity should not be required, nor should a person be required to do business with a 3rd party (banks and credit cards) or have their activity tracked and surveilled. A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate.

Other things like transportation, certain types of employment and participation in government, I can see why a national id would be required for those.

Does the government (any government) have the authority to require identity proof from a person, simply because that person exists?

[kelnos]

> A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate.

Natural/inalienable rights are a fiction. No one has any rights unless someone with guns is willing to enforce those rights. And hopefully the people with guns have some checks and balances on them such that they can't use their guns to violate those rights themselves.

I think it's great that we have (some) governments that have some list of human rights enumerated in their laws and founding documents. But even then, rights are protected unevenly.

> Does the government (any government) have the authority to require identity proof from a person, simply because that person exists?

That depends on what you mean by "authority". If you're talking about moral authority, then I'd probably agree with you that no, they don't. But in the end the authority that matters in reality is the kind you get by wielding a gun; under that definition, governments have all the authority they need to do stuff like that.

[soco]

You are presenting the government as being some external entity, not one chosen by will of the people. We have it like this because apparently most of the people got fed up with wielding their own guns all day long, and preferred to delegate that.

[falcor84]

I don't understand the argument you're making. How does whether you wield a gun correspond to whether you choose your government? Unless you choose your representatives by pointing your gun at people and telling them "be my member of congress, or else".

In any case, I absolutely agree with the parent that rights don't just exist as some platonic ideal, but rather need to be enforced in an organized manner, and I haven't seen any case yet of that being achieved without a representative government.

[vel0city]

> No one has any rights unless someone with guns is willing to enforce those rights

Right? Be in the state of nature. Argue with that lion you have a right to not be eaten. I don't think she will listen.

[notepad0x90]

you're right about force being the ultimate authority, if a government derives it's powers from it's force alone you would be right. but even in dictatorial regimes, the dictator needs support from various underlings and factions. But in the context of western democracy, governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. In that context, no such authority has been given to them.

But still, what I was alluding to was that while governments can alienate rights by force, them doing so is exceeding their authority and resisting their rule is not rebellion in that context. Even if the people voted to alienate such basic rights, the government still does not have legitimate authority. My goal was to take away legitimacy from such governments and their rule.

I stated this in a sibling comment as well but this is the reason by which american revolution (July 4th coming up!) was justified. The english rule under king george used force to restrict and regulate inalienable rights and thus lost it's legitimacy. Without legitimacy, it was possible to organize resistance and revolt against such rule.

[hajile]

The pro private gun ownership argument.

[wruza]

A practical and realistic point of view that you rarely meet today, thanks for writing my comment.

[SiempreViernes]

Funny how you describe the basic need as "the right to buy", what about those without enough resources to buy on their own such?

[mattmaroon]

Then you get into positive vs negative rights. We’re very much a negative rights society and you can’t square the two. Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does. Your positive right is someone else’s lack of a negative right, the opposite isn’t true.

For someone to have a positive right to shelter, for instance, you have to take shelter from someone (or, as we typically do, money from someone to pay for it). Taxation is the one way we’ve managed to get people to at least someone accept positive rights here, but if you ask anyone under 30 who is a Republican why they are, they’ll almost always cite positive rights like welfare. It’s so uncomfortable feeling to us that it becomes the basis of our political philosophy frequently.

It’s never felt comfortable to me to call things like that a right. Public health care is the only sane option, IMO, and we should do it, but calling it a “right“ always feels wrong to me and I think most Americans agree because we’re so strongly in the negative rights camp.

[StockHuman]

> Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does.

The lack of positive rights infringes on a society’s own fabric, however. The right to a lawyer or legal counsel is a positive right born from the ideal of fairness under the law; I’m not sure framing the American (conservative?) character as so staunchly against positive rights is correct. Police protection is very popular with the right, and that necessarily involves the labour of others.

Society ensuring some minimum standard of health so that one may properly navigate life (and enjoy the rest of their rights) is framed as a right as health is a general precursor to everything else: it’s not that odd a framing, no? “You have the right to vote, but not to live long enough to get to the polls” is the outcome of categorizing essential societal functions as somehow out of scope of what society should do. I think the average Republican gets that, though a lower tax bill is always the priority.

[hajile]

In the US, the police have NO legal obligation to help or protect you.

"Rights to healthcare" ultimately means "rights to enslave healthcare workers". If healthcare workers refuse to serve you, you have no healthcare unless you force them to serve you which makes them your slave.

Positive rights always end up in some form of forced labor aka slavery.

The lawyer question is different. The government is given the right to enforce laws, but the responsibility to provide legal council to counterweight the force of government. Lawyers aren't compelled to be public defenders, but if no public defender were available/willing, the government would not be allowed to imprison and try someone, so it is a negative right.

[StockHuman]

The comparison to slavery is rather distasteful. Both by recognizing actual slavery and by the simple reality of public service being a profession, not a sentence. Your right to health compels tax resources to be spent caring for you, not enslaving people into free cardiology.

The practice of healthcare already comes with the understanding that all who seek treatment (resources permitting) will be treated, and the interrelationship between patient, hospital, doctor, and the duty to care is foundational to the right to healthcare. It is however not the point. EMTALA in the US could be further reading if you’re interested in how refusal of care works in practice re: funding.

As per law, in the hypothetical where no lawyer could be found to take the case and no public defendant compelled to, the situation merely continues with rights violation, instead with a delayed trial or excess imprisonment. Like all rights in general, the loss of one weighs on the rest as if a ball on a net.

[robertlagrant]

> The right to a lawyer or legal counsel is a positive right born from the ideal of fairness under the law; I’m not sure framing the American (conservative?) character as so staunchly against positive rights is correct.

This is a negative right: the state cannot prosecute you without a lawyer on your side.

> Police protection is very popular with the right, and that necessarily involves the labour of others.

Police protection is not a right. The police will come and investigate and follow up, maybe, but you can't assume they'll protect you. They might be far away and unable to do so.

[mattmaroon]

You have the right to live as long as you want to, you just don’t have the right to make me pay for it. Those are two very different things, both ethically and practically. (I am, as I said, pro public health care anyway.)

You are correct that police and attorneys for the indigent are a couple positive rights. I didn’t mean we don’t have any. We just don’t have a culture of them.

[mattmaroon]

Put another way, something that didn’t even exist 100 yrs ago can’t be framed as a right. Saying I have a right to an iPhone is the same as saying I have a right to health insurance.

[mattmaroon]

Well, technically you can do those things without ID. People do. There are people who survive without it. We have millions of undocumented immigrants who simply can’t have IDs but they get by. I really don’t know how. They’re breaking laws doing it and we lack the political will to do anything about it. (And also our economy would crumble if we somehow stopped it entirely, we are highly dependent on them.)

But man, good luck. It’s really hard to economically participate in modern society without it. Most of our country is really hard to get around in without a car. Your job opportunities are really limited without a social security number. Etc.

Whether right or wrong, we functionally have national ID and my point really was that lack of something specifically called that isn’t going to save us from the barbarians at the gate.

[ReptileMan]

>A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate.

No it is not. All rights are created by the state and enforced by it.

[notepad0x90]

Rights are one thing, their protection is another. Most rights are granted by the state, some rights though are beyond the state's authority to grant. This belief and concept is the literal founding cornerstone of america as a nation.

The rebellion against english rule was justified because the state exceeded it's authority to regulate rights by restricting inalienable rights.

[mattmaroon]

A lot of them have proven this. Including the one this article is about. Everything is alienable.

[rootusrootus]

> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t.

Some have. Oregon, as a single example, will let you opt for a non-Real ID card.

[Spooky23]

RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote.

Data exchange between DMVs or for other non-law enforcement purposes is coordinated through AAMVA. You can see what states exchange data here: (https://www.aamva.org/it-systems-participation-map). There are loopholes that people exploit - for example NJ registered trucks won't be subject to registration action in NY... so you can accumulate lots of tickets in NYC with no consequence.

Some Canadian provinces exchange data between individual states as well.

A system called Nlets connects every jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes.

[davchana]

In California, you need social security (number only, not card), only if you are eligible for one, or has one. If you are on a non immigrant non work visa, and thus are not eligible to work/ssn, you still can get REAL ID.

Not every REAL ID holder is a citizen & thus eligible to vote. Real ID needs only proof of legal status (citizen, permanent resident, tourist, work permit, study vis etc) and address.

[Spooky23]

Thank you for clarifying a corner case.

A US citizen requires proof of SSN, either a social security card or W2. This is a heavy burden for many people.

[kelnos]

> A US citizen requires proof of SSN, either a social security card or W2

That is incorrect. For example, see California's REAL ID checklist[0]. I got my REAL ID in CA by presenting my birth certificate and two forms of address verification.

It's possible that some states require proof of SSN, but that does not appear to be an absolute requirement for the feds to sign off on the state's process.

[0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification...

[davchana]

You are welcome.

This is not a corner case (SSN required, not card). I would say its more like 90%. Since 2021 nobody needs proof of SSN, they just need the SSN number itself.

To quote CA DMV website:

> Applying for a REAL ID requires proof of identity, proof of California residency, and a trip to DMV. You will be asked to provide your Social Security number on your REAL ID application (exceptions may apply).

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification....

[rootusrootus]

I just got a RealID myself a couple weeks ago. I did not have to prove anything about my SSN. I gave them a copy of my birth certificate, my old driver's license, and a piece of mail delivered to me at my home address. That's all.

The only thing on that list that takes any effort to get is the birth certificate. And everyone really ought to keep a copy of their own anyway. Even before RealID we used birth certificates for ID at the DMV, so it is not a new requirement (for Oregon at least).

[vetinari]

Why it is a heavy burden for a citizen?

(I'm not an US citizen, but even I have SSN).

[kelnos]

Proof of SSN might be difficult for some people. I know lots of people who have lost their Social Security Card, or at least have no idea where it is.

(Regardless, the GP is incorrect; proof of SSN is not a REAL ID requirement, at least not in every state. If a state requires proof of SSN, they're going above and beyond what the feds require.)

[davchana]

OP is wrong. Only the number is required, not proof. OP was right in 2018.

[thatcat]

RealID is about biometeric collection. The requirement date keeps moving because if it is not required, but seems like it will be soon, then more people will consent voluntarily.

[jonathankoren]

> RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote.

Bruh. If you don't have a social security number, you can't even work legally. Also, 99% of people born in the US[0] get them at birth.

What are you talking about?

[0] I on the other hand, didn't get one until I was about 8 years old, because my parents wanted to hide me from the draft, but that's now the draft works, and you need a social security number for all sorts of stuff now, like tax deductions.

[Spooky23]

There’s a difference between having a social security number and a social security card.

You need a number to work. You need the card for real id. Replacement of a lost card is onerous. For a minor, incredibly onerous - you need a healthcare provider to sign a statement identifying the minor. (Good luck with that)

[elcritch]

I got a real id compliant drivers license last year and didn’t need my SS card.

[Muromec]

Maybe you are not in the target demography for this particular enforcement bias if the agenda mentioned by the person bringing up the theory is legit.

[jonathankoren]

You're just making things up. Nothing you've said is true.

[aidenn0]

> Replacement of a lost card is onerous. For a minor, incredibly onerous - you need a healthcare provider to sign a statement identifying the minor. (Good luck with that)

Huh?

All you need for a child of yours under 12 is:

1. Birth certificate for child

2. Proof that you are a parent (usually #1 plus a government issued ID covers this; an adoption order may be needed if you aren't on the birth certificate)

3. Proof that the child was alive recently. Either medical or school records will cover this; it needs to have parent and child's name on it.

If the child over 12, you need the above, plus the child must present themselves at an office, preferrably with a photo ID (it need not be government issued; e.g. a school ID is fine). If your child doesn't have a photo ID, the individual officer may be a bit persnickety in this case, so having both medical and school records are good, though may not be required.

As an aside, if the child has a passport (possibly even a recently expired one) you're basically good to go, since it establishes both identity and citizenship.

[jackson1442]

Washington doesn’t even officially offer a RealID. Instead they have the “Enhanced ID” which functions as a passport card but does not have the security features required on a RealID (though it does have some additional features like RFID).

[_caw]

Can you expand on that? The Federal Government[0] seems to think the EDL[1] is a RealID.

[0] https://www.dhs.gov/real-id

[1] https://dol.wa.gov/id-cards/real-id

[joecool1029]

All EDL's are RealID complaint, not all drivers licenses are. NJ issues 'not for Real ID purposes' drivers licenses still with the option to get the realid yellow star licenses DHS shows on your first link. They keep pushing back the enforcement date due to various ACLU and state lawsuits as well as COVID-19 backlog.

[bobthepanda]

sure, but saying that EDLs are Real ID compliant directly contradicts the grandparent comment saying that WA does not issue a Real ID.

[Spooky23]

Not true. Proof of citizenship for Enhanced ID meets and exceeds the RealID requirement.

[Spooky23]

We have it explicitly as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport_card

[joecool1029]

I wouldn't FUD the passport card, it's a good alternative for age proofing that doesn't include home address information. Unless you like businesses collecting that information....

[Spooky23]

It’s not FUD! Personally, I don’t think it’s a negative thing at all.

[soco]

From what the comments added to this, I would say the best (only?) privacy-favoring aspect in the States is that personal identification is in chaos. Not that you wouldn't have some identification features, but every little corner handles them differently. Nevertheless, the security organs seem to have found effective ways around this chaos, so I'd say that with or without national ID those who need to know know, and the only ones left in chaos are the regular people.

[seethishat]

How much storage would you need to store every text message ever sent by everyone on earth indefinitely? Has anyone done the math on that? I'm not sure it's possible without some infinite storage system (that obviously does not exist).

[lotsofpulp]

> I can drive through Oklahoma (several states away) and their system will automatically read my plates at a toll road and a bill will arrive at my home.

I’ve driven a car with USA license plates through tolls in Canada and gotten a bill at home.

Also, passports have existed forever.

[InCityDreams]

Good history here (and, you're not incorrect) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport : modern passports 1920s.

"While the United Nations held a travel conference in 1963, no passport guidelines resulted from it. Passport standardization came about in 1980, under the auspices of the ICAO.

ICAO standards include those for machine-readable passports.

Such passports have an area where some of the information otherwise written in textual form is written as strings of alphanumeric characters, printed in a manner suitable for optical character recognition.

This enables border controllers and other law enforcement agents to process these passports more quickly, without having to input the information manually into a computer."

[skissane]

A lot has changed about passports even in my lifetime (I’m in my early 40s). I remember my mother showing me one of her old British passports, which had my younger brother on it.

The UK abolished family passports in 1998, so since then it has been impossible for a person to add their spouse or minor child to their British passport, your spouse/child needs a British passport of their own-even a newborn baby

Whereas, our other nationality, Australian (I, my mother and my siblings are all dual Australia/UK citizens), I’m not sure if it ever had family passports, but if it did, it must have abolished them significantly before the UK did

[blendergeek]

> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t.

A lot of states still issue the non-federal ones. They are much cheaper and easier to obtain (at least where I live).