National Identity Cards and Citizens' Right to Privacy

Voter ID laws in the United States have begun to create controversy since the beginning of its adaptations in the early 2000’s. Voter ID laws in the United States is a law that requires U.S. citizens to have a special form of identification in order to vote in an election. The idea with Voter ID laws is that the state must make sure that the laws do not pose any sort of burden on the voters. These laws have been proposed in order to stop voting fraud. However, the institution of Voter ID laws have made trouble in states, including Texas, regarding to the various amount of identification requirements needed.

It is important to note that the main applications of biometrics are utilized for preventing fraud and ensuring security. The use of biometrics has increased tremendously but so has social, ethical, privacy, practical and even political issues associated with it (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell, 2008). Following is the detail regarding its ethical and privacy issue implications.

There is no doubt that the attacks on 9/11 caused Congress to pass the Real ID Act in order to prevent foreign nationals from fraudulently obtaining a U.S. driver’s license. Congress said the Real ID Act is about security, not stigmas. The law was intended to set principles for states that issue licenses and to procure acceptable documents. However, due to budgets, there are not enough resources to verify the accuracy of these documents from foreign countries. This is based solely on three 9/11 hijackers being able to obtain state identification cards while using fictitious documents. In total, thirty three hijackers acquired state driver’s licenses. Unfortunately, stern stipulations have gradually decreased due to several states and local governments allowing Identification cards to be issued without distinguishing from an authentic driver’s license (Jeunesse, 2015).

I went shopping at the Mall for Christmas gifts over Thanksgiving furlough, and one store that I paid about $60 cash in the floor manger came over and verified the $50 bill using a pen. Furthermore, the store would not accept bills over $50. Additionally, another internal control I noticed was when my sister paid with her credit card at Forever 21, the bill was over $100 (girls and clothes); consequently, they asked her for her identification card.

While the main purpose for voter ID is to eliminate fraud and corruption in the American voting system, it has brought with it consequences that discourage and even prohibit eligible voters to vote. The 2012 election, a vast number of state required a government-issued photo ID. Even the state Indiana required this even though “state GOP officials couldn 't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop” (Berman). Surprisingly, in Wisconsin, they will only except ID’s containing “a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date” that so far

Biometrics is a method of identifying an individual based on characteristics that they possess, typically physiological features such as a fingerprint, hand, iris, retina, face, voice, and even DNA. Some methods of biometrics security even use multiple physiological features or multimodal biometrics to provide superior security than a single form of biometrics can provide. Why are biometrics important in the field of information security? Biometrics provide a remarkable amount of security for information because biometrics are unique to each person, and thus cannot be lost, copied, or shared with another individual. This security allows for biometrics to provide a means to reliability authenticate personnel. The importance of biometrics can be further divided into the history of biometrics and why it was devised, past implementations of biometrics, current implementations of biometrics, and future implementations of biometrics.

A policy formulation has long been underway in the form of national identification in order to supplement the right to vote. The only surefire way to combat this problem would be a Federal ID card that would be given to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote can vote, regardless of their states' laws on the matter (Cohen, 2016). However, this would override the Shelby County v. Holder court case that granted the matter to each individual state (Oyez, 2016). They go on to suggest that the Federal Government step back in and make it a right for all citizens to vote as they did during the Civil Rights Movement (Cohen, 2016). At the very least, the government should fund more programs itself in order to help mitigate the cost of obtaining identification. In Texas, some people have to drive up to 100 miles or more to obtain an identification card. While some groups have aided with this effort, I believe the state of Texas or the Federal government could easily mitigate the stress put on low-income and minority groups by creating a program to help more people vote (Ari, 2016). While other methods have been proposed, the literature review has shown that the Federal ID card is most likely to gain the most traction. Yet again, with the partisanship so divided, it would be hard to pass a bill such as this in a

“Who Am I? Developing Character” by Jodi O’Brien is a secondary source. This piece discusses all the different factors that go into someone’s identity. One of Lyon’s main arguments is the benefits of a nation identification card as it pertains to security, convenience, and efficiency. In addition the benefits they have for enhancing security, Lyon says that national ID cards would make governments run more efficiently.

I know that some people might say the states can provide an identification card at free of charge, so the laws will not disenfranchise minorities, students, and people in poverty. However, this is not true. This solution would be a no-win situation for both sides in terms of money. Many citizens would find it hard to get an ID or even if it is free because in order to obtain a free identification, those people still would have to submit some sorts of required papers, like birth certificate, passport or naturalization paper to get a free ID. The cheapest option that is available would be a birth certificate, which would cost about $22. According to the Voting Right Institution, "The report concluded that if these 35 states enact a photo ID law, they collectively will spend at least $276 million, and possibly as much as $828 million, in the first four years alone." The States could have used that money to create more job opportunities and build more government senior housings.

Second business at hand is that what might be required or contained on a national ID card: Citizenship or Immigration status, home address, voter registration, record of felony/convictions, social security number, blood type, medical records, dental records, auto insurance information, employer, digital thumbprint, digital photograph, DNA profile, travel record, record of your phone bills, places you been through, and much more that you can think of that can be used to “keep track” of your life in order to “protect” you.

Since 2000 there has been a rampant increase in the number of states requiring voter identification (ID) for elections. By 2004, approximately 19 states had made it mandatory that some form of identification would be required. As this trend has remained largely consistent, so has the rationale behind implementation of these laws from its proponents. Proponents of voter identification and registration laws argue that these laws are necessary to minimize voter fraud and restore public confidence in elections (Goldstein 2006). For example, a 2005 U.S. Senate policy committee report claimed that “voter fraud continues to plague our nation’s federal elections, diluting and canceling out the lawful votes of the vast majority of Americans” (US Senate Republican Policy Committee 2005:1). On the opposite side of the spectrum, opponents of voter identification and registration laws argue that these laws further marginalize the poor, minorities, and the elderly. They also posit that voter ID laws are useless if their intent is to decrease the amount of voter impersonation fraud because the occurrence of such is so rare. I will argue that if the intended outcome of voter ID laws is a reduction in voter fraud and a restoration of confidence in the public about fair elections, the evidence on this subject is scant and the evidence of the existence of voter impersonation fraud is even more slight. I will then go on to discuss the empirically substantiated effects of what voter ID

Schools putting a tracking device in students’ identification cards is an invasion of privacy. This is a violation of high schools students privacy because they are being watched 24/7 weather ones in school or not. Students

If you ask me ID chips have way more negatives than positives. Because all hackers have to do is use the right equipment and there in. Also as Senator Joe Simitian said “It’s an educational equivalent to an ankle bracelet”. And ID chips take away all privacy. As Michele Tatro said “We could not just let our children be tagged like cans or cattle”. This takes the child’s privacy. But on the other side eye scanners are kind of ok because they keep potential kidnappers out. A con of eye scanners is you have to register. But a pro is it is more accurate than finger which is amazing. But it also might hurt your eyes. In a study 1 out of 3 people got eye cancer from these scanners found at Harvard University. Not only is this bad enough but it is

The less sophisticated thieves have perfected the art of “dumpster-driving” rummaging through trash. Abusing employer’s authorized access to credit reports or some even playing ‘landlord’ has given them unauthorized access to victim’s reports. Some victims have been scammed fro information by an identity thief posing as a legitimate businessperson or government official. In the most recent news from Concord, NC (Aug. 19, 2004), the police have uncovered a more sophisticated case of ID theft. The newspapers stated, “Authorities think a portable credit card reader, or skimmer, was used to read personal information off a credit card’s magnetic strip. Then those details were applied to the strip on the back of a different cared.”

National ID cards have been seen in a controversial light ever since they started. ID cards or some similar form was first invented in France in 1803 in order to streamline the running of central governments. Since then 9/11 has rekindled the argument: Are they worth it? Questions we can judge this by are: Does it enhance national security? Does it help with crime? Is it convenient? Could it help with illegal immigration? National ID cards will continue to be divisive for the country as a whole but I can prove that we don’t need ID cards