On 5/7/2011 18:47, Alain wrote:
> In practice, almost nobody have the right to ask you that card, and it's not

To clarify, I haven't had a social security *card* since like 
1980-something. I got a passport, misplaced the "card", and never needed a 
new one. One needs to give the number to the employer to have taxes taken 
out of wages, but one doesn't need to show the actual card if one has proof 
of citizenship in the USA.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course, you need a passport to get back 
> into the country if you leave(*)

  That would be unconstitutional here. You can't stop a citizen from
entering the country.

  (Of course if you try to enter the country with some other form of ID
than your passport, it will probably take longer than the usual 10 seconds
it takes with a passport. I don't know what it would involve, but probably
more scrutiny, perhaps even paperwork. If you don't have *any* form of ID,
it will probably take a lot longer to prove your citizenship in some other
way. However, constitutionally you are allowed to enter the country as a
matter of course, if you are a citizen. The constitution does not mention
passports as a requirement.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 May 2011 23:28:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 5/7/2011 19:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> or not (like buy cigarettes or alcohol), having your identity verified
> 
> No, that's my point. You only have to prove how old you are, not who you
> are.

But one's age is one property of one's self.  If your identity can't be 
verified, then how does one know the information on this 'ID' is yours 
and not somebody elses?

> Now, in practice, there isn't really any ID that can prove how old you
> are without also saying who you are, but there's no theoretical reason
> there couldn't be an ID that gives your age and your photo without your
> name. And for this sort of thing, people check your ID but don't record
> who you are, so it's pretty much the same thing.

I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.  To issue a state ID, 
you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is meaningless 
and the state won't issue it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 9:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 23:28:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 19:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> or not (like buy cigarettes or alcohol), having your identity verified
>>
>> No, that's my point. You only have to prove how old you are, not who you
>> are.
>
> But one's age is one property of one's self.  If your identity can't be
> verified, then how does one know the information on this 'ID' is yours
> and not somebody elses?

That's why I said "in practice"...

> I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.

If they don't record your name or address, then the ID isn't needed to do 
what you're doing. Just proof of age. They're using the card not to identify 
you, but to determine your age. They haven't identified you if 5 seconds 
after they look at your ID they don't remember your name, any more than 
they've already identified you by looking at your face.

 > To issue a state ID,
> you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is meaningless
> and the state won't issue it.

Oh, well, sure. But you don't have to prove who you are to buy alcohol. You 
only have to prove how old you are. You don't have to prove who you are to 
drive - you only have to prove you have a driver license. In practice, 
nobody is going to issue a photo ID with only your age on it and not your 
name and address, but the *law* doesn't say you have to provide ID. But if a 
state issued ID with just your picture and your birthday, you could buy beer 
with that. And other IDs can be used instead. (I can imagine, for example, a 
grocery near a college taking college ID with a photo as proof of age to buy 
beer.)

Contrast with, say, immigration control, where you actually *do* have to 
prove who you are.  Or (getting back to the original point) countries where 
the police can ask you at any time to prove your identity.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 0:48, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Of course, you need a passport to get back
>> into the country if you leave(*)
>
>    That would be unconstitutional here. You can't stop a citizen from
> entering the country.

Well, that's probably the case here. And given our national nuttiness about 
terrorists, it's possible you wind up in some sort of trouble for not having 
your passport.

My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was 
"the purpose of a passport is to get in." Each ID is issued for a particular 
purpose, and there are very few forms of ID issued as "this is ID that 
doesn't come with anything more than just ID."  States will issue this sort 
of thing if you ask for it, but it's a convenience for dealing with places 
(like bars) that might want to see ID that don't issue their own.

>    (Of course if you try to enter the country with some other form of ID
> than your passport, it will probably take longer than the usual 10 seconds
> it takes with a passport. I don't know what it would involve, but probably
> more scrutiny, perhaps even paperwork. If you don't have *any* form of ID,
> it will probably take a lot longer to prove your citizenship in some other
> way. However, constitutionally you are allowed to enter the country as a
> matter of course, if you are a citizen. The constitution does not mention
> passports as a requirement.)

I would guess it's similar here, even tho our constitution doesn't 
specifically provide for that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was 
> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."

  I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
*convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 9:54, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was
>> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."
>
>    I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
> need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
> *convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

The visa lets you go somewhere. The passport lets you come back. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:25:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.
> 
> If they don't record your name or address, then the ID isn't needed to
> do what you're doing. Just proof of age. They're using the card not to
> identify you, but to determine your age. They haven't identified you if
> 5 seconds after they look at your ID they don't remember your name, any
> more than they've already identified you by looking at your face.

Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at 
stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment 
call).

>  > To issue a state ID,
>> you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is
>> meaningless and the state won't issue it.
> 
> Oh, well, sure. But you don't have to prove who you are to buy alcohol.
> You only have to prove how old you are. You don't have to prove who you
> are to drive - you only have to prove you have a driver license. 

But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo ID), 
then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person using 
the ID.  So you do have to prove who you are in order for the ID to be 
useful.  I couldn't use my wife's ID to prove that I'm her age any more 
than she could use mine to prove that she's my age.

> In
> practice, nobody is going to issue a photo ID with only your age on it
> and not your name and address, but the *law* doesn't say you have to
> provide ID. But if a state issued ID with just your picture and your
> birthday, you could buy beer with that. And other IDs can be used
> instead. (I can imagine, for example, a grocery near a college taking
> college ID with a photo as proof of age to buy beer.)
> 
> Contrast with, say, immigration control, where you actually *do* have to
> prove who you are.  Or (getting back to the original point) countries
> where the police can ask you at any time to prove your identity.

Like Arizona. <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 11:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at
> stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment
> call).

OK.   I never saw that before.  But then, I haven't been young enough to 
card since long before the whole terrorist thing started.

> But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo ID),
> then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person using
> the ID.

Sure. There could be a card with nothing but your photo and your age. It 
doesn't prove who you are any more than standing in front of the person does 
with your bare face hanging out.  I don't need to provide ID to prove I'm 
old enough to buy beer. Balding and starting to grey is sufficient.

The photo ID only proves who you are because it *also* includes demographics 
unrelated to your age. Your driver's license not only proves your name and 
address to the guy carding you, and provides your age, it also proves you're 
allowed to drive, and says whether you're an organ donor. None of those 
features are relevant to the transaction except the age.

> Like Arizona.<scnr>

I think the law there, while it may be being applied in a way at odds with 
what it actually says, is not unreasonable. It basically says if you don't 
have a driver's license, the cops get to check if you're an illegal 
immigrant. Since illegal immigrants can't legally get driver's licenses, 
driving without a license is a good sign that you're an illegal immigrant, 
at least there.  In theory, if the cops stop you and you *do* show ID, 
that's the end of the matter. But they don't get to stop illegals just to 
ask for ID any more than they would be allowed to stop me. (Which isn't to 
say they wouldn't sometimes be allowed to, but they'd actually need a reason 
in both cases.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:42:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 5/8/2011 11:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at
>> stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment
>> call).
> 
> OK.   I never saw that before.  But then, I haven't been young enough to
> card since long before the whole terrorist thing started.

Yeah, and here that is fairly new as well; they changed the drivers' 
licenses and state IDs about the time they removed the private club 
requirement for most places serving alcohol.

>> But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo
>> ID), then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person
>> using the ID.
> 
> Sure. There could be a card with nothing but your photo and your age. It
> doesn't prove who you are any more than standing in front of the person
> does with your bare face hanging out.  I don't need to provide ID to
> prove I'm old enough to buy beer. Balding and starting to grey is
> sufficient.

Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't create 
an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a trusted 
authority.

> The photo ID only proves who you are because it *also* includes
> demographics unrelated to your age. Your driver's license not only
> proves your name and address to the guy carding you, and provides your
> age, it also proves you're allowed to drive, and says whether you're an
> organ donor. None of those features are relevant to the transaction
> except the age.
> 
>> Like Arizona.<scnr>
> 
> I think the law there, while it may be being applied in a way at odds
> with what it actually says, is not unreasonable. It basically says if
> you don't have a driver's license, the cops get to check if you're an
> illegal immigrant. Since illegal immigrants can't legally get driver's
> licenses, driving without a license is a good sign that you're an
> illegal immigrant, at least there.  In theory, if the cops stop you and
> you *do* show ID, that's the end of the matter. But they don't get to
> stop illegals just to ask for ID any more than they would be allowed to
> stop me. (Which isn't to say they wouldn't sometimes be allowed to, but
> they'd actually need a reason in both cases.)

I have to admit that the law has been tempered a bit since the initial 
proposal, but mostly I was making a joke. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message