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.

 

Tis The Season,.. to WILLINGLY give up Your Rights

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Exactly! Pictures are there simply because they're a good idea. Heck, I think it would also be a good idea to have other important information on the ID we all carry everywhere anyway just for safety purposes e.g. "diabetic" "O-positive" "pacemaker."

Of course I have serious doubts on how valuable our current IDs are in the first place - I mentioned on another thread that my current driver's license has the exact same photo on it that was taken for my "learner's permit" (I got a letter in the mail telling me it was going to expire in 30 days, along with a cardboard provisional license, and given a website to pay for a renewal and a new one would be sent to me - such a joke, and so very open to exploitation!) back when I was 15 years old! I'm 25 now and it's like looking at an entirely different person. I keep my license in my vehicle and am too lazy to check it now, but I believe it should last me at least until I'm 30 or thereabouts. Pretty nuts if you ask me.

Hrm, my current debit card for my checking is from Washinton Mutual and does not have a picture on it... Maybe I should stop by and demand they put a picture on it! That sounds more like something that should be a right (I don't want anyone or thing other than my own stupid spending habits cleaning out my checking account!)




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
...Every single time I go to Wal-Mart I am asked for Driver's License if I use my credit card ...


Must be some local policy. The 2 closest Wal-Marts that I frequent have never asked for any additional ID. I just swipe and sign, the clerks never look at the card anyway.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
... Heck, I think it would also be a good idea to have other important information on the ID we all carry everywhere anyway just for safety purposes e.g. "diabetic" "O-positive" "pacemaker." ...



Well, I hate pimping for a commercial web site, but here is a product I use when out on my bicycle or hiking alone and don't carry my wallet with me:

www.roadid.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
I cannot recall ever having being asked for any other ID.


I am sure many have endured this pain, but I am in agreement with dave_54. I too, have never been asked for additional identification when making a purchase with a credit card.

Maybe I have an honest smile?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Heck, I've seen old people in wheelchairs equipped with oxygen tanks ahead of me in line that were given the obligatory, "May I see your ID, sir," at my local Wal-Mart. Not exactly a "Usual Suspect" haha! Must just be my area, SoFla has no shortage of wackadoos. No biggie, but like I said $5.50 worth of tolietries hardly seems like something someone on a stolen credit-card spree would be purchasing



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
This is dealing specifically with "Unsigned" cards, but applicable no less..


1. Request a signature. Ask the cardholder to sign the card and provide current government identification, such as a driver's license or passport (if local law permits).
2. Check the signature. Be sure that the cardholder signature on the transaction receipt matches the one on the card and the additional identification.
3. Complete the transaction. If the signatures appear reasonably the same and the authorization request is approved, continue the transaction. If the cardholder refuses to sign the card, do not accept the card.
usa.visa.com...


This is from Visa's website..

Semper



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
This thread started, has nothing to do with me, my experience at Walsmart, any experiences I have had with credit cards, or any such related.


Originally posted by smirkley
In summary, this little benign right that one feels so warm and fuzzy and "protected" when they GIVE IT UP, is just an example of how easily we give up our rights for all the wrong reasons.



Alas, this thread is a prime example of the "core" suggestion of my post.

When one looses or percieves to lose some right that they could not have fathomed losing, like as suggested, even constitutional rights, they get all up in arms and cry foul. They state that the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if alive today. They state that democracy in this republic is over becouse of some right they lost somewhere in government legislation.


Yet when given an example of how easily it is done, in a little benign way, in a way that seems so obviously "good" for the general population as protection or whatever, they run to it with open arms and accept it as right.
Regardless of how it actually is.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I can't fathom yet what "RIGHT" you feel you are losing?

Showing or Not Showing an Identification is in no way a "Right."

It is not protected under the constitution nor has it been addressed by the Supreme Court as I can find....

What "Right" is it that you are worried about losing?

Semper



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
We so easily give up our rights because "its too much of a hassle to resist" the rights being taken away. Its just easier and gets you "out of the store" to instead comply with request for "your papers".

Its just easier to succumb than to uphold, for convenience or whatever reason.


This has nothing to do with asking for "your papers" ... those type of references refer to government agencies that are invading your personal privacy ... not businesses whom you can choose not to do business with. Your rights, as outlined in the constitution, are protections from the government not from business.

Your rights have not been violated. You quote an agreement between VISA and their merchants ... this is not an agreement between Walmart and you. You personally have no rights under that agreement ... it is a document whose purpose is outlining the interaction between VISA and a private company. I couldn't see anywhere where it mentioned what the penalty was for a violation of any of those VISA rules. Are you sure Walmart has the same generic agreement as every other merchant in the US?? You have the right to not shop at Walmart if they have offended you and they have the right to refuse service to you for any reason.

Personally, I appreciate merchants that ask for ID even if it does violate these agreements. I would kind of like them to catch a stolen credit card before there are some charges racked up. I hadn't actually known VISA had policies against asking for ID until reading this post. I see no harm in showing my ID if I've already forked over my credit card ... if I wanted to be anonymous in my purchase I would've paid cash.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I can't fathom yet what "RIGHT" you feel you are losing?

Showing or Not Showing an Identification is in no way a "Right."

It is not protected under the constitution nor has it been addressed by the Supreme Court as I can find....

What "Right" is it that you are worried about losing?

Semper


Semper,... honestly, please read my original posts. Please read my last post.

It is NOT "about" being carded for using a credit card at Walmart.


I suggest something a little deeper if you will.





The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither. - Thomas Jefferson



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I get that....

And I'm with ya on the whittling down and of rights and that we must be vigilant..

I just don't see Entrepreneurs exercising THEIR rights to ask for an ID, as us losing anything...

Really it is the Capitalist system in action at it's best. Heaven knows I'm all for Capitalism.

If one does not like a business asking for ID, one simply goes to another business where they don't ask.

Gotta Love America...

Semper



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I suggest you go to Wal-Mart and refuse to show your ID, video tape it, make a stink about it, get your name in the paper and go from there. Apparently your issue isn't really the showing of ID, but the idea that some people don't recognize when they are volunteering up their private information versus required to give up their personal information. I don't think it will make much of splash...

I think you would have a better point if you could attack all those companies that make us give up our social security number over the phone. That bothers me, even when I know the company. How do I know who I'm talking to isn't doing something inappropriate with my social security number? God knows we hear enough about laptops and databases with soc numbers getting lost. I know mine was lost to some corporate idiot carrying it on his laptop. It would be nice if a class action lawsuit would pop up and scare these guys into taking better care of that info.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
I suggest you go to Wal-Mart and refuse to show your ID, video tape it, make a stink about it, get your name in the paper and go from there. Apparently your issue isn't really the showing of ID, but the idea that some people don't recognize when they are volunteering up their private information versus required to give up their personal information. I don't think it will make much of splash...


Off topic but willing to reply,..

All that isnt necessary Atomic. The only thing you have to do to rectify it if it happens to you, is refuse to show your ID as a signed CC IS ID, and if there is a problem then, just ask for the manager and tell him the request is against THEIR merchant agreement, and he will most likely agree if he has half a brain and is semi informed.



Just like in "real" rights of more important concern, all you have to do is assert YOUR authority as a citizen informed.


But seriously, I do appreciate everyones inputs and feedback. It's an intersting conversation that can be very enlightening when contemplated on serious levels.


Please, read this link and begin to understand a bit more of what I suggest...
(mods-the quantity of my cut-n-paste from this link was necessary to support my point, hope it stands as ok.)
Cooperate, Or Else! - Complicating your right to remain silent




Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification and request consent to search luggage...

In other words, the police are free to approach us and ask us questions, but Americans retain the right to say "No." Indeed, if citizens do not affirmatively assert their right to say "No," the courts will deem those rights to have been "waived." The lesson was that citizens must take responsibility for their own rights. That sounds sensible enough.

But now consider what has happened to Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was standing outside of his truck smoking a cigarette when a cop approached him. Minutes before, policeman Lee Dove had received word of a 911 call from someone who had reported seeing a fight between a man and a woman inside a truck. Dove did what any good cop would do in the situation—he started asking questions. Addressing Hiibel, Dove asked, "You got any identification on you?" Hiibel offered no violent resistance and did not attempt to flee, but he did politely refuse to answer any questions. For that—and that alone—Hiibel was arrested and prosecuted for "obstructing an officer."

Hiibel's attorneys appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an arrest could not stand. In a shocking ruling that was authored by none other than Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Because it is obviously useful for the police to know the identity of suspects, the Court concluded that it is equally obvious that jailing people who decline to answer questions is a constitutionally permissible policy. But what happened to our right to say "No"?

Constitutional and criminal law experts are now coming forward to defend the Hiibel ruling, arguing that the decision is "narrow" and does not grant the police the power to approach any pedestrian and to demand identification. That is only true in a very technical, legal sense. The awful truth is that the police have now acquired the de-facto power to demand identification from just about anyone. With the Hiibel precedent on the books, here is the legal situation for anyone who might consider rebuffing a cop's demand for identification.



1. A person can still refuse to give his name if he is confident that the particular jurisdiction has no law requiring individuals to identify themselves to the police during "Terry stops." (A Terry stop is a situation where a police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred. The officer can briefly detain or stop a person to investigate.) In addition to the state code, one must be confident about county and city ordinances. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, an error on your part means you could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for up to one year.

2. Cops do not approach pedestrians with announcements like, "This is a Terry stop!" Thus, in a sudden confrontation, one can gamble that the officer is not conducting a Terry stop and is instead simply seeking your voluntary cooperation. Of course, if you are wrong, you can be arrested and jailed for up to one year.

3. A person can decline to give his name if the cop is attempting to make an illegal Terry stop. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the stop was illegal. If you lose, you could be jailed for up to a year.

4. Even in situations where the Terry stop is perfectly valid, you can still withhold your name on Fourth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, you must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the police officer's demand for your name was not "reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop." If you lose, you could go to jail for up to one year.

5.One can also decline to give one's name on Fifth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a court that divulging the name would have given the police a "link in the chain of evidence" needed to convict you of another offense. If you lose, once again, you face up to one year in jail.


Given the risk and uncertainty, nearly everyone will be deterred from traversing this legal minefield in order to rebuff an illegal police demand for identification. And the demands will hardly end with people's names. Many jurisdictions already have laws that require people to explain their conduct to the police (e.g. What are you doing? Where are you going?). That will be the next battleground in this area of the law.

The key point is that in a free society, the criminal laws are supposed to be clear so that citizens will know what conduct is prohibited. With the Hiibel ruling, the Supreme Court has created a situation where ordinary Americans cannot be sure if they are invoking their constitutionally-guaranteed rights or whether they are committing a crime. If that is not a travesty for American justice, what is?






And even here on ATS it has been noted in post, the net result of the core basis ...
UCLA Police Taser Student For Not Showing ID



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I happily show my idea to retailers when they ask for ID. It save me hassle and save them hassle. even tho my card has fraud protection i dont want someoen gettin a hold of my card and running amuk and then I hav eto speed countless hr.s on the phone trying to fix everything.

I dont see it being such a big deal. I have worked retail and it is good especially during the holidays when you have alot of theft and fraud goin on to catch a few of these people using other peoples cards.


and a side note....
And also the signing of teh back of the card has everything to do with it. Even "ASK FOR ID" is considered a signature and mean you dont have to show id. Craszy and sometimes stupid world we livve in



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
On a marginally related note, how many people realize that no one other than an official federal agency can demand to see your social security card or require you to tell them your SSN.

And yet, how many people willingly give up their SSN to a privately owned bank just to open an account? The only reason a bank asks for your SSN is because they're insured through the FDIC...But that's only to protect the bank from losing your money! However, they still have the right to refuse opening an account for you because the FDIC insurance they have requires them to get your SSN.

I wonder if it's possible to contact the FDIC to give them your SSN, bypassing the bank? Since the bank is insured through FDIC, you should be able to tell the FDIC what your SSN is but not let the bank know (or the FDIC tell them) your SSN.
Hmmm...This sounds like an idea that someone should check...


[edit on 26-11-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
Basically, Walmart on down to mom-n-pops stores often ask for ID when they have NO legal basis for asking. There are ONLY two other conditions when additional ID may be asked for,... unsigned on the reverse of the card, or signed as "Ask for ID", the latter is used when a card holder prefers to be asked on a regular basis.
[snip]
You already have fraud protection as a cardholder, and to ask for ID is just plain harassment as that kind of action ONLY protects the merchant from losses. (which wouldn't occur if they were to follow normal authorization procedures)


That's all well and good, but I worked at a local gas station for almost a year. We were under obligation to ask for ID, or we had to refuse the sale - under penalty of losing our jobs.

Most of the time, the person was who the said they were. A few times, they weren't. In either case, we had to ask for additional identification because, even though the individual person(s) are covered by their credit cards, we were liable because we accepted it. Same thing with debit cards - which can be used as credit cards in some cases.

I do not consider it harassment when they're double checking that this card is mine. I'm used to being carded for smokes and booze. I'd rather they asked -- because they are enforcing the laws. Because if my credit card was stolen and used, and no one questioned it -- I'd be one ticked off ex-customer.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
dave_54, thanks for the link. You just gave me another idea for a stocking stuffer.



originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
On a marginally related note, how many people realize that no one other than an official federal agency can demand to see your social security card or require you to tell them your SSN.

Are you sure about that? I remember hiring on to a hi-tech company and they asked for it as proof of citizenship.

Back to the topic:

I sure am glad that merchants cannot ask for ID when using my credit card. I don't mind that someone could steal my card and I'll only be liable for the first $50 or whatever it is. Those big companies like Wal-Mart and VISA can afford to eat the losses anyway.

Oh wait... you say that we all end up paying for it in the form of higher prices? Uh.. ummm...



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
When one looses or percieves to lose some right that they could not have fathomed losing, like as suggested, even constitutional rights, they get all up in arms and cry foul. They state that the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if alive today. They state that democracy in this republic is over becouse of some right they lost somewhere in government legislation.


The drama. I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges here. You speak of hands being thrown in the air over the loss of rights. If I may, lets use freedom. If the man were to deny our freedom, we would throw our hands in the air and scream "Foul!". Your damn right we would. Now what you are attempting to do is put merchants asking to view some additional identification on the same level of our freedom. Then when we do not agree, you call us on hypocrisy. Yes you did not use the term, but the message is loud and clear.

It is all about priorities, and what is important to us. You know what's important to me around the holidays? Time! I need as much time as I can get. Wasting my time by confronting a teenager over the fact he/she has asked for additional identification, calling 1800 numbers, or fighting with store managers is not something I am prepared to do. My time is more important to me than retaining my ego and refusing to show identification.

My other problem is who ends up taking the criticism for most of this. The middle man, which is going to be the senior citizen trying to make ends meet by working at Wal-Mart, or the high school student trying to get a few bucks for the weekend rather than hitting mommy and daddy up for it. I'll gladly do whatever I have to do to make their day a little easier. Their pay check at the weeks end is certainly not enough to have to deal with arrogant SOB's, like myself, who would create a fuss over store policy.

Take it out on the corporation, not the middle man.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by chissler]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Midnight is right about the Social Security number. I used to sell cell phone service and we had to have the customers SS to process the credit check to get them their phones. Bad thing is that the SS stayed on record and was used as verification most of the time.

The cell phone companies were demanding it for service but fell in the legal loophole of just not offering service for those who didnt provide it.

I dont know how many people i helped with cell phones in the 2 yrs. of doin that that were soo willing to give tehir social security number to a 18yr. kid without even batting an eye. Hell sometimes they even wrote it down left it with me andwalkedaroudnthe rest of teh store. I guess i havea trusting face or they are just stupid.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
The drama.







Then when we do not agree, you call us on hypocrisy. Yes you did not use the term, but the message is loud and clear.

Not at all chissler.



Now, think about the fact that a higher and higher percentage of your money is being spent THRU credit cards.

Now, I guess it's OK to ask for identification for you to simply spend your money someplace from what I gather by consensus here.

You are protected by VISA for up to $50, and commonly for 100% of any fraud, so you stand to risk little if any of your money.

Yet we all willingly, apparently, embrace the idea of helping to "protect" a store that is contractually obligated to process the transaction anyways, and only suffers losses when their poorly trained employees do not know how to process a transaction properly, that when processed properly would automatically protect themselves.


Yup, so,.... "show us your papers". (in my best sgt shultz voice)
"Vat are you spending your money on, we need ID."


Just another step (as demonstrated by my prior post suggests), where anything and everything you will do will require "your papers", and even if you are completely innocent of anything, you are guilty by not complying and providing.



[edit on 26-11-2006 by smirkley]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join