Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security

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.

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).

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

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

The IDs help from impersonation and that makes a lot of people confidence in the election process. They feel that it is important that voter’s proof of identity requirements is essential to avoid voter fraud and protect election honesty. By doing that many Americans don’t have the requirements to obtain a government voter Id because of low income. Many Americans don’t have the funds to pay for the mandatory documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID. The people has the right to vote because its protected by more constitutional amendments. By putting restriction such as requiring Ids when many Americans can’t afford them leaving them out from voting

The Department of Homeland Security website explains the basic information of the REAL ID Act that was passed by congress in 2005. The web site provides important dates such as implementation dates and the dates that all states are required to be in compliance with the Act. It states that the United States Congress feels that the Act sets the standard for regulating new state identification cards and establishes minimum security regulations for the new identification card regarding security enhancements on the identification cards themselves. There is also information pertaining to the phases where citizens without an enhanced driver’s license will not be able to access certain facilities such as restricted areas, nuclear power plants, and

There are thirty states in the United States that require some form of official identification in order to register to vote and to vote for federal, state, and local elections. Voter identification laws ensure the integrity of elections by deterring impersonation fraud at the polls. Requiring a government-issued ID to vote will prevent voting under fake names or under the names of deceased voters, which according to The Pew Center of the States “more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters”.

The necessity or redundancy of voter photo identification is a prominent topic in the news as the presidential election approaches. Multiple states in America require proper photo identification in order to vote, but not all agree with these laws. “Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote” by PBS argues that photo identification laws prevent millions of Americans from voting due to the often difficult process of obtaining one. “Voter ID Should Be Required for Voting” by Chris Freind supports the opposite view, believing that photo identification laws ensure only American citizens are allowed to

White uses parody to persuade government official that using numbers to identify is dehumanizing. For example Through the whole article E.B. White use number to narrate his article. In modern day, number seem intimidating. whether it's looking a computerized code or looking a check. This will make government official think about how crazy and dehumanizing it is because. Back then looking at number never were never scary, people now a day have to give away address, credit card information and even date of birth. Filling these information feels intimidating and seem unsafe, having a file with every information about a person is terrifying. Government officials will be persuaded to change to a better source to identify a person because, Just having these number are not safe, FTC states in America over 20 million identity theft were committed in the last 5 years. Complete stranger can become anyone they wanted to be if they have the correct information. E.B. White would have never thought anyone would steal White identity. Identity theft doesn't stop from stealing credit card or debit Identity fraud has grown to include theft of cell and landline phone service, cable. Identity thieves will also use stolen identities to obtain employment and to deceive police when arrested. Just knowing a few number can cause so much trouble. After reading this article, government officials will definitely change their their number system to identify a

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

There are many places that use Social Security numbers as a primary key to identify individuals. If you think about it, almost every place that adds you into a system requires you to submit your Social Security number. I feel indifferent about this topic. Yes, the use of Social Security as a primary key imposes a huge risk to an individual's security but it's so common for it to be asked these days that a Social Security number loses it's "security" purpose. There have been many data breaches that resulted in theft of personal information such as Social Security numbers. Social Security numbers don't feel like something that needs to be private anymore just because every organizations asks you for it and put you in risk of identity theft.

I appreciated the way that Ehrenhalt began his argument by stating his social security number, bold statement that made me pay attention. Personally, I tend to fall in line with his thinking. We already provide social security cards to every person in the United States along with a large amount of us having state issued identification cards or driver’s licenses. Therefore the cost of implementing a national identification card does not seem to be out of reach. This is a very complex topic with so many variables. Who would have access to the system? Would it be used solely to track criminals in that way that DNA is used? What would be the consequences for corruption by those who use it or the consequences for those who hack its data?

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

I would support the requirement for everyone in the United States to carry a national identity card containing a fingerprint and a photograph. I believe that the importance of the preservation of security within the United States is more important than the minor cost in terms of time and perceived loss of privacy for people to obtain such identification. In addition, such a requirement would not be significantly out of step with current forms of national identification required for everyday activities, such as banking, or applying for a loan. I anticipate that the most significant opposition to such a measure will stem from the argument that the requirement for such a form of identification would make discriminatory law enforcement more likely, and that undocumented individuals might be unable or unwilling to obtain such forms of identification. To address these concerns, I would propose a restriction on the national identification program that separates it entirely from immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The program would be solely focused on law enforcement, and not on the enforcement of immigration law. Virginia Held, in “Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals” argues for restrictions on counterterrorism measures in order to avoid the undue encroachment of security into the realm of civil liberties (Held, 2005). I am in agreement with this position, and believe that a national identification program should be structured to preserve these fundamental values.

A “Who are you?” question has a very broad meaning and cultural identity here is to define who we are other than just our name. Each person has their own physical identity where they can find it on their IDs, but the cultural identity is the thought, mindset, or perspective that define someone. There are things like our religion, gender, sexual orientation, or many other things that cannot be defined on the government’s document. For example, in my country, Indonesia, you have to put religion that you hold on your IDs. Since my whole family is a Christian, I put Christian as my religion on my IDs but I personally do not really hold any religions. The physical identity tells the people that I am a Christian but my cultural identity says that