It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mandantory passports/Global IDs and how the U.S. Gov't plans on issuing them.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearwater
I don't think it's that big a deal, alot of Canuckistanians already have passports.

I find the iron curtain thing of American's needing permission to leave their country much more disturbing.

What policy of needing permission to leave the country are you referring to?




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

originally posted by Infoholic
Now, I have shot down your every argument. You have nothing to base your argument. Would you like to continue? I sure hope every single American is watching this thread. They all need to see through the lies that you and your type try to sell.

No need to start calling people liars, etc. He was offering his interpretation of the bill, the same as you are offering yours. I personally agree with his assessment of the situation. You are creating a false alarm based upon your paranoia and a bad interpretation of the bill.

Why would you quote me and say there's no need to start calling people liars? I, nor anyone else, have partaken in such debauchery.

You have the right to agree with his assessment, but that doesn't mean you are correct.

False alarm based on my paranoia and bad interpretation of the bill? I don't think so. Read it verbatim...then add in all the little "and any other purposes" they throw in to the law. What do you think they are there for, if not for interpretation? Doesn't that in fact leave the "options" open? You are wrong to assume otherwise.

[edit]Is exercising our freedoms and liberties "paranoia"? Is the desire to be free from tracking "paranoia"? I don't think so.[/edit]


Originally posted by jsobecky
You have taken a bill that is intended to provide a uniform, non-counterfeitable drivers license and tried to turn it into a conspiracy to create a tracking device replete with financial history and DNA profile capable of monitoring our every move. You have shown a total ignorance of and disregard for the problems facing law enforcement and the threats to our nation. Your only proof is to parrot the verbage of the bill and add your own unfounded conclusions. Having failed at that, you now resort to personal attacks.

Read the second half of the title, of the section of the law in question. It's not just about the drivers license, which will have to meet the same requirements of the ID card.


TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

Unfounded conclusions, huh? Here... this was brought to the congressional floor before I even had an inkling of an idea for how these ID's were to be used...


This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

source

Oh my, that means the RFID, DNA, etc. info stored on the ID card wasn't my idea after all.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
well my original point in the first post I made was that there is nothing stipulated in this law that states I must carry it on me at all times, and also present it or face consequences if approached without cause. I went over the section, and the majority of that whole bill from the source you cited, and there was nothing in there confirming such regulations. Of course you responded by saying it will occur as if it is fact, without anything in the bill to back up such claims.


That is called "common sense".

No, it's not written in the bill "you must carry this at all times!!!" That is just common sense. If this piece of identification is required to permit entry to certain places/things that we should be able to enjoy as an American citizen, why would you not carry it? Also, IMO... do you honestly believe that if the government achieves a foothold on this issue with the way it's set now (with the "and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine")... do you think they will stop there? Hell no.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB






...................(facial scans, finger prints, etc..) and so far 27 other countries (as of now) have access to the same network.
................... The U.S., UK, and other countries are already issuing the Biometric Passport to persons renewing or receiving a passport for the first time.





hasn't INTERPOL been operating and info sharing with FBI, CIA, NATO and the miltary CID for several decades already??

the internal and international security's are just ramping up to match the need,
since there's now a escalating war-on-terror going on....which is fast becoming a great deal more energetic than the early 1900s terror strikes by the "Anarchists"
(If, history cycles are realized...a 21st century WW & another revolution is in store in the next ~11 years, & will become a contending superpower much like Russia absorbed satellite nations to form the USSR)

There's a lot at stake here, on many levels,
And there seems enough leeway in the new ID laws to reach a stage where one
will need to "show-me-your-papers" (like the nazi Fatherland did) here in AmeriKa
....or in another diabolical sense-> 'Accept-the-Mark', as without an ID/Mark
one cannot buy, sell, travel, or enjoy the fruits of technology.

The irony of the new ID/Passport thing is that it will cost $95,
but all the 'supporting' evidence that you are who your claiming to be,
and making payment as an 'outsider', is just typical of the 'Money Talks' truism...
once you've paid to be recognized as an 'insider', your OK

~lets see how long it will be to get from 'entry level passport'
to the 'Double Platinum Passport' and several stages in-between !?! ~


happy holiday season all



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
No Infoholic it is not called common sense, it is called you are trying to spread baseless fear as far as I see. If it is not written in law, it is not law. Please tell me exactly how you can state otherwise without being incorrect?

I fail to see how nuclear facilities, courthouses, research labs or military bases are places or things that are to be enjoyed? that is what this legislation is targetting. And now you are trying to throw off your initial topic by brignign up HR 418, which from what I have actually reviewed here (number 2) is exclusivley in relation to immigrants, refugees, and the rights of the government to refuse admission. But that is not about the global national id's so I will skip that for now.

In specificially discussing the national identification, there is nothing in the law stipulating the requirement to carry on you wherever you go and be asked for it without warrant or face consequences. likewise, there are no additional locations where this Id will be required. Anywhere you will need a National Id in the future, would be where you use a state or any other kind of ID now. The basis for the Federally acceptable identification as written in this law is for the purpose of having a specific identification to access sensitive areas of Federal Departments, probably due to the fact many state identifications are widely being distributed unauthorized and/or counterfettid. A Federally recognized id would likely be Federally distributed and be held easier for accountability.

You are manipulating the information with your opinions and "premonitions" and trying to pass them off as fact.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearwater
I find the iron curtain thing of American's needing permission to leave their country much more disturbing.


You need permission to enter our country, not leave yours!



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
No Infoholic it is not called common sense, it is called you are trying to spread baseless fear as far as I see. If it is not written in law, it is not law. Please tell me exactly how you can state otherwise without being incorrect?

Baseless fear, eh? hmm... I guess if everyone that reads the actual law gets scared, then the government has won...that's what they want. If everyone that reads the law gets pissed, they must understand it...and that's not what the government wants. I think the point you trying to argue in this section is referencing the difference between being smart and being wise. You're not going to win either of those battles with me.


Originally posted by DYepes
I fail to see how nuclear facilities, courthouses, research labs or military bases are places or things that are to be enjoyed? that is what this legislation is targetting. And now you are trying to throw off your initial topic by brignign up HR 418, which from what I have actually reviewed here (number 2) is exclusivley in relation to immigrants, refugees, and the rights of the government to refuse admission. But that is not about the global national id's so I will skip that for now.

First, I would greatly enjoy exercising my right to venture into to court if the situation warrants it. Especially if I want to have representation contrary to false accusation. We have a constitutional right to use the federal services offered by our government, since after all that's what our founding fathers intended our government to be used as.

Second, please get your facts in order before you come back to argue any further. H.R. 418 is not the law in question. It has not even been signed into law. What you are going to want to look for is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate). That is the actual bill signed into law by President Bush. What you would be looking for begins on page 81 of my provided link. H.R. 1268 is the official bill number. There should be 6 results... look at #6 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate).


Originally posted by DYepes
In specificially discussing the national identification, there is nothing in the law stipulating the requirement to carry on you wherever you go and be asked for it without warrant or face consequences. likewise, there are no additional locations where this Id will be required. Anywhere you will need a National Id in the future, would be where you use a state or any other kind of ID now. The basis for the Federally acceptable identification as written in this law is for the purpose of having a specific identification to access sensitive areas of Federal Departments, probably due to the fact many state identifications are widely being distributed unauthorized and/or counterfettid. A Federally recognized id would likely be Federally distributed and be held easier for accountability.

You are very observant and correct... that's where my comment of common sense comes in.

In the English language (and probably any spoken language) the word "and" means... also, then, added to... Look it up.

In the English language (and probably any spoken language) the word "but" means... unless, if not, except that... Look it up.

In the "official bill signed into law" is says this...

(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE.—The term ‘‘official purpose’’ includes
but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally
regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power
plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.

source
beginning bottom of page 81


Originally posted by DYepes
You are manipulating the information with your opinions and "premonitions" and trying to pass them off as fact.

Nope...just trying to educate with factual evidence. The factual evidence you will be forced to abide by beginning May 2008.


[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by jsobecky

originally posted by Infoholic
Now, I have shot down your every argument. You have nothing to base your argument. Would you like to continue? I sure hope every single American is watching this thread. They all need to see through the lies that you and your type try to sell.

No need to start calling people liars, etc. He was offering his interpretation of the bill, the same as you are offering yours. I personally agree with his assessment of the situation. You are creating a false alarm based upon your paranoia and a bad interpretation of the bill.

Why would you quote me and say there's no need to start calling people liars? I, nor anyone else, have partaken in such debauchery.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined the section where you accused him of lying. I can do no more for you if you slip into denial.


Oh my, that means the RFID, DNA, etc. info stored on the ID card wasn't my idea after all.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]

The paranoid ranting of one legislator of what is possible to store on an RFID chip does not a fact make.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I bolded, italicized, and underlined the section where you accused him of lying. I can do no more for you if you slip into denial.

Thank you for pointing that out. I overlooked that particular statement as I was caught up in the rest of the discussion, and for denying such, I humbly apologize.


Originally posted by jsobecky
The paranoid ranting of one legislator of what is possible to store on an RFID chip does not a fact make.

I do not believe his "rantings" were paranoid... I think they were and are intelligent questions.

However, wouldn't you agree that if the options are in fact being discussed on the congressional floor, that would in fact make them an option? They are not considered "paranoid rantings" when they are debating the pros and cons before agreeing to the bill's language.

Again, we venture to the realm of "common sense". I believe most of anyone today that uses a computer understands what kind of information can be programmed onto their computer. It is in fact limitless. A RFID Chip is in fact a "programmable" chip. With that being said, why would you believe for one second that the RFID chips could not be programmed with "sensitive" information, if in fact the sole purpose of having it is "personal identification" that is unmistakable? How would you unmistakably identify someone? What characteristic of a person is different from everyone else...

1. DNA
2. Fingerprint
3. Retinal images

I believe that's it, right? Did I miss something? What else could be "unmistakably" personally identifiable?

Now, if the law states the "readable device" (RFID) should be used on the Drivers license and/or ID Card with "with defined minimum data elements", what would that encompass? I believe the "defined minimum data elements" would be to the sole discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and I believe they wish to have the "unmistakably personally identifiable" information programmed onto the RFID chip.

So... as Congressman Ron Paul stated, as a possibility... "the retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology" would actually be a "factual possibility". Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Thank you for pointing that out.

No problemo. nobody can remember every word they ever typed.



However, wouldn't you agree that if the options are in fact being discussed on the congressional floor, that would in fact make them an option? They are not considered "paranoid rantings" when they are debating the pros and cons before agreeing to the bill's language.

Well, I would agree that they are a possibility, esp. given today's technology. I think that where we disagree is the probability that they would ever be implemented. But we can agree to disagree, no?

There was some description in the bill of what info should be included in the chip. The only bio data I remember seeing was a fingerprint. But that would be necessary to make it more difficult to counterfeit, imo.

What is more troubling to me are sub-dermal implants. Did you know that Mexico is already using chip implants in some of their officials? And Britain is using them in criminals as part of an early release program.

The idea is beginning to take hold here in the US also. VeriChip is an American company. Chips are being voluntarily used to store medical data in some patients.

We must be diligent, for sure. But we must also be smart when it comes to using technology. I'm against bigger gov't., but we really do need a Technology Dept. to act as a watchdog agency.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, I would agree that they are a possibility, esp. given today's technology. I think that where we disagree is the probability that they would ever be implemented. But we can agree to disagree, no?

There was some description in the bill of what info should be included in the chip. The only bio data I remember seeing was a fingerprint. But that would be necessary to make it more difficult to counterfeit, imo.

If we were to disagree about the probability of use, which yes we can agree to disagree... but I would refer you to here...

(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

source - #6 is the official version of the bill that Bush signed into law.


What are the defined minimum data elements? Through the bill, there is no mention of "fingerprints", just "defined minimum data elements". Through the bill, as well, the ideal is left open for "Secretary shall determine". That tells me, what the secretary of Homeland Defense wants to have on there, we'll have on there.

IMO, the bill is written to include these "defined minimum data elements", it's just that Congressman Ron Paul was brave enough to speak against what they "possibly" would include. Probability of being included, 100%.


Originally posted by jsobecky
What is more troubling to me are sub-dermal implants. Did you know that Mexico is already using chip implants in some of their officials? And Britain is using them in criminals as part of an early release program.

The idea is beginning to take hold here in the US also. VeriChip is an American company. Chips are being voluntarily used to store medical data in some patients.

We must be diligent, for sure. But we must also be smart when it comes to using technology. I'm against bigger gov't., but we really do need a Technology Dept. to act as a watchdog agency.

I had no idea. Thanks for the interesting reads though. I'll look into it.

Info

[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join