Via CNET: House backs major shift to electronic IDs

The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver’s licenses.

Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don’t comply, which could curb Americans’ access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.

It has long been an article of faith (and I use those words on purpose) by civil libertarians and those of a generic libertarian/small government conservative perspective that a national ID card is anathema and to be avoided at all costs.

Indeed, in days gone by I, too, held that view. However, for some some time now (and yes, pre-911) I have wondered as to exactly what the big deal is. For one thing, despite the fact that it isn’t supposed to be one, one’s Social Security number is currently used as a type of national ID (albeit a lousy one, since it lacks a photo, amongst other problems). Further, it isn’t as if in the internet age that one’s driver’s license number, passport number, credit card numbers, fishing license and membership number in United Geeks of America aren’t all in numerous computers and easily accessed. As such, the idea that we can function in anonymity is simply false. I don’t see how a national ID card actually alters the existing situation all that much.

As such, I really don’t know what the big objection is, or how it is that the government (which I am generally distrustful of, so this isn’t an opinion generated from rose-colored glasses) would somehow be able to radcially abuse national ID cards in a way that they cannot currently abuse information about me.

Since ID is required for a host of actvities, such as flying, entering the country, etc., I can actually see the argument that a unified database would be preferred to the current system and enhance our ability to police terrorists.

Now, of course, some disagree with me. For example, Jim Pfaff of the Opinion Times objects, calling the concept “anathema to civil liberties.”

He notes:

It is hard to imagine that our Founding Fathers could have countenanced such a thing had such technologies been available at the time, and more to the point; had they been available, they most certainly would have been employed by Great Britain to require compliance to, say, The Stamp Act and the regulation of importation of goods. Would it not also be evident that personal ID’s would have been employed after such dastardly acts as the Boston Tea Party?

To be honest, I am not certain how national ID cards would have made it easier to enforce the Stamp Act, which was a tax on printed materials and really had nothing to do with who you were, nor do I see the relevance to the Boston Tea Party–insofar as it they didn’t know who you were, it would be irrelevant if you had a national ID card in your pocket, and if they did know who you were, they wouldn’t need to check your pocket for ID. I mean, either you dumped the tea whilst disguised and no one caught you, or you got caught/seen and identified by a witness. How an ID card helps the authorities in either case is beyond me, but perhaps I am missing something.

Jeff is correct, however, in raising the issue of federalism: Congress arguably does not have the power to impose a national ID card on the states. This is an argument that I am somewhat sympathetic to. Although, if the goal is to require the cards for access to federal facilities and holdings (parks, federal courthouses, etc.) then they have that authority. The issue would be whether they can make the states bear the brunt of the cost or make it apply to drviers licenses, not so much whether they can require a national ID card.

However, I really don’t understand the civil liberties arguments at this stage. Feel free to enlighten me, however.

Update: This post is lurking at the OTB Traffic Jam.