retrieved 3/17/02 InfoTrac Web: General Reference Center Gold.
 

   Source:  Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, Dec 20, 2001 pK0329.

    Title:  All my papers are in order.(The Providence Journal)
   Author:  Philip Terzian

Electronic Collection:  CJ80993256
                   RN:  CJ80993256
 

Full Text COPYRIGHT 2001 Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service

WASHINGTON _ In the next two years, about 4 million identification cards will
be issued to soldiers, sailors and airmen on active duty, selected reserves,
civilian Pentagon employees and military contractors. The cards, which feature
two photographs, two bar codes, a magnetic stripe and computer chip embedded
in the plastic, will be nothing like old military ID cards or dog tags. They
will plug in to multiple agencies and databases, authorize access to secure
rooms, encrypt the holder's e-mail, and enable him to purchase food and
supplies. If a private first class should check into her base hospital, the
card will summon all available medical records.

According to surveys, the vast majority of uniformed personnel think these
universal ID cards are a great idea, and have no misgivings about the extent
to which such cards would enable Pentagon officials to monitor their lives.
But these same devices are being touted as a model for a national
identification card for all American citizens, an idea that has gained
considerable currency since Sept. 11. This is not such a great idea.

To be sure, there are reasons for some sort of national identification system.
In the war against terrorism, it would be easier for government officials to
monitor the movements of suspicious individuals, or point to such people in
disparate locales. Criminal, intelligence and financial records could be
linked to a central database, making police "checks" considerably faster and
easier. Stakeouts for terrorists and lawbreakers would be tied into an
information clearing house, and deadbeat dads might be easier to track down.
On a daily basis, and several times a day, very nearly every American would
pass through some sort of electronic checkpoint.

To those for whom the events of Sept. 11 are a continuing trauma, such a
prospect might seem comforting. For others, however, it is something else
again. America is not, and is not likely to become, a police state; but it is
worth wondering whether the relationship of government to governed ought to be
grounded in a cop mentality. The vast majority of Americans are not
terrorists, deadbeat dads, tax cheats or criminals on the lam. The presumption
of guilt until innocence is proven is inimical to our oldest constitutional
principles.

Proponents of a national ID card like to say that opposition to the idea stems
from a historic resistance to strong centralized government. There is, of
course, some validity to that, but this is more than militiamen in camouflage
griping about square-jawed FBI agents.

To begin with, the notion of individual sovereignty should not be dismissed,
even in wartime. It is a strength, not a weakness, of our system that citizens
are free to conduct their lives without incessant monitoring by state and
federal agencies, and without the police power to detain and interrogate at
will. The fact that cops in Belgium are empowered to stop anyone at any time
and demand identification, or that Kenyan citizens are required to carry their
ID cards at all times, is a favorable reflection on liberty in America, not a
chink in our armor.

Second, the notion that a national identification system would not be subject
to abuse is absurd. Harvard's Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, a member of the
O.J. Simpson "dream team," recently wrote that "fear of an intrusive
government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands
to see the card." Anyone who believes that, presumably, is convinced of O.J.'s
innocence. There are innumerable criteria governing the behavior of officials,
including the police, toward citizens, and such criteria are violated on a
daily basis. The good intentions of lawmakers must be carried out by human
beings who are only too fallible _ and subject to temptation.

There is also the issue of privacy. Any huge system of electronic
identification, administered by the federal government, would not only put
private information in the public domain, but be vulnerable to hackers and
routine incompetence. Imagine running afoul of such a system by mistake, and
trying to undo the damage that is done. If a national ID card is as
comprehensive as proponents say it would be, one system error could transform
a law-abiding citizen into a nonperson _ unable to withdraw money from the
bank, or cross the lobby of an office building _ for weeks and months at a
time.

In truth, our resistance to centralized government is very nearly as strong as
our faith in new technology to solve complex problems. We do not, at present,
live in a state of anarchy in America, and there are plenty of ways _ perhaps
too many ways _ for cops to do their jobs within the law. To claim, however,
that a national ID card wouldn't be illegally reproduced, mechanically
degraded, subject to misuse, stolen by terrorists, or administered with all
the finesse of federal governance, is to believe that technology can transcend
human nature.

___

ABOUT THE WRITER

Philip Terzian is the associate editor of the Providence Journal. Write to him
at: Providence Journal, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20005.

___

Visit projo.com, the online service of The Providence Journal at

http://www.projo.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

____