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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I understand the point made in the original post..

but


The back of my card says "ask for ID", Thats how I signed it.
I prefer to be asked.
Yet..90 percent of the time..Nobody asks!

The ones that DO ask, look at my license for all of 1 second, and say thanks.
Speed readers with a photographic memory? or just going through the motions?

on a side note, I was asked for a picture ID, at the polls on election day.
Thats NEVER happened to me. MY wife, who was in line 5 minutes before me, was NOT asked! Weird huh?




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
on a side note, I was asked for a picture ID, at the polls on election day.
Thats NEVER happened to me. MY wife, who was in line 5 minutes before me, was NOT asked! Weird huh?


Weird yes,...

AND TOTALLY ILLEGAL !!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley

Originally posted by chissler
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.


How? Your telling me that your not calling us on our so called, hypocrisy?


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.

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.


Well could you elaborate on this section of your post? My perception is that our hypocrisy frustrates you. If this is not the case, would you mind explaining. I seem to be missing something.


Edn

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I have to ask, do you really have to provide ID in places in America to use your credit card? I've never seen this in Scotland, probably because there is no viable reason to do so.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
I have to ask, do you really have to provide ID in places in America to use your credit card? I've never seen this in Scotland, probably because there is no viable reason to do so.


I live in Canada, and can honestly say I've never been asked.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I remind places that ask me for my SS that the SS# is not to be used as an ID, and it says so on the card.
I go through this every time I have to call the gas company, or whom ever, and I will tell them, if YOU are using my SS# for ID, that is YOUR problem, I will give you any other information you need, but I do not give my SS# out for anything other than tax purposes.
And when I get an arguement, I just say, may I speak to a supervisor, please?
That usually solves the problem there.
Granted, it is an annoyance, but being asked for my SS# to pay a bill, or to check the status of an insurance claim is a bigger annoyance.
As was stated, I d not know how h0onest the person taking this information down is, and I don't know what they do with the information once they have it.
I don't even put my SS# on job applications.
When it is pointed out, I politely tell the interviewer should it get that far, that if I am accepted for the job, I will provide a SS#, but if I am not, then there is no need for then to have it.
I DO usually get the job, by the by.
And some one said something about proving that you were born in the US.. I forget what was said exactly, and I don't feel like looking for it.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that non residents can get a SS card. Perhaps someone can clairfy that?

As for the topic of this post, I don't have a credit card, nor will I ever have one.
The idea of my purchase habits being tracked is repugnant to me, as is the whole idea of credit cards..
Think of this, how much interest would you pay for a bank loan of 1500?
Now how much interest would you pay of a credit card purchase totalling that amount?
And would you pay the bank a fee every month for the purpose of themn giving you a small loan?
The paralles are there.. And because I don't agree, I don't have.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
basically what Ive heard in this thread from the opposing arguement to the thread starter is "Its not your basic right" or "you are just being lazy"

OK so I get it, the rules can be broken, because it would be more convenient to allow them to break the rule then to report them.

Its a minor inconvenience to you, but its still breaking a rule. There are alot of minor inconveniences in this world, that get you tickets or warnings from cops. What is a rule worth if you aren't willing to follow it? VISA made the rule, and anyone who accepts VISA as a way to pay for their items should have to follow that rule. It may be a "minor" rule, but it is still a rule, and since when is the justification of breaking rules "convenience"?

That makes me sick.

Also its not a basic human right, but it is a right when using a VISA card. It is part of the agreement, and if you don't want to show ID, that is your RIGHT, according to the agreement.

If walmart doesn't want to accept VISA period, fine, tell that to your creditcard company that walmart wouldn't accept it. If they want to deny you it because you don't want to show ID, that is breaking the contract they signed.

The size of the inconvenience does not measure the allowability to break the rule.

This is going understand the assumption that it IS a rule, right? Some one said that its part of the users agreement. If not, then disregard this post for this subject.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
It may be a "minor" rule, but it is still a rule, and since when is the justification of breaking rules "convenience"?


Touche.

If this turns out to be an actual rule (and if I ever get another credit card!), I shall have to abide by this because it's a matter of principle.

However, there are some 'rules' that are enforced that I do not agree with, and cannot see a logical reason for. (That being said, methinks this is from my inner rebel, since I was never given a good reason why I had to remove my facial jewelry for that crappy cashier position at the local gas station...)

Considering that some cards have pictures on them, this should not be an issue. And yet, if it proves to be an actual rule...

I shall have to abide by it.

Again, touche.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
Yes, tis the season


Actually it happens all the time, and most everyone thinks its a wonderful thing.

But guess what, your rights are being violated, and you get a warm fuzzy feeling over it, don't you.

You are being protected, you say.
You feel good that you are being checked.

But in actuality, this simple basic right that is given to you is so commonly removed from you in a way that it makes you feel good.

A small little benign right that most take for granted, but very clearly demonstrates the 'sheeple' attitude of rights being removed.


What am I talking about?

Your credit cards and how they are used.


When you use any credit card as a device of payment, the merchant that accepts your credit card AGREE's to a contract with the card issuer.

Note this agreement... that ALL VISA accepting merchants must agree to and adhere to....




Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
VISA


This applies to MasterCard as well.

Some more info:

CREDIT-CARD SIGNATURE IS USUALLY ALL THE ID NEEDED

MERCHANT CREDIT CARD ABUSES

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.

But I have heard everything from "My manager made the rule to ask for ID", or "this is a high fraud season (ie-Christmas time)". Note the latter I have witnessed in a Walmart just today.


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)



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.


Yes, when my mother was bed-ridden with two broken ankles she would often send me to the store with her debit AND credit cards to buy fast food, groceries, ect.

Even though HER name was on the card, and I was clearly a male--I could simply sign her name and be done with the transaction.

McDonalds now dosen't even require a signature for credit cards, OR a PIN to use a debit card...

Anyone that is able to get their hands on a credit card that isn't theirs, and assuming the card-holder hasn't reported it lost/stolen can have a FIELD DAY with it.

Fred Meyer's (Kroger) has a "U-Scan" setup where you scan your own stuff and can pay up to 50$ with a credit card w/out a signature.

The system is being intentionally sabotaged from within to create a situation where the public will demand tighter, more restricitive measures -- thus taking away more freedoms than we have now.

The government never blatenly takes away freedoms....they create scenarios to scare us, so we run to them for a "convienient sollution" they already have....

[edit on 26-11-2006 by MystikMushroom]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
This is going understand the assumption that it IS a rule, right? Some one said that its part of the users agreement.




It is not an assumption, you are spot-on, it is a fact linked here...


Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
VISA



The thing is, the COURTS were the ones that "enacted" this "rule" thru precident, recalling by memory (even tho I havent yet found the actual case that demonstrates that).

Just like the quotes i used with a previous post I made here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
an example of how one can be arrested and sent to jail for up to a year just for not complying for a request. One step away from "ID Required" to do anything.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by smirkley]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
The system is being intentionally sabotaged from within to create a situation where the public will demand tighter, more restricitive measures -- thus taking away more freedoms than we have now.

The government never blatenly takes away freedoms....they create scenarios to scare us, so we run to them for a "convienient sollution" they already have....


And, again, I hafta say Touche....

We ask for it, and wonder why we got it...

(I've never been able to successfully figure out just how the government creates these situations.. I see now that it's more conveluded than I'd ever imagined! These people play some serious chess!!)



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Ok this is my last blurb on social security numbers since really this needs to go in another thread to respect Smirkley's post...but man does it bug me. Last post on this, sorry Smirkey.

Here's some info from www.privacyrights.org... I'm sure someone has posted about it before, but it seems to be a pretty good website.


A company I do business with recently called and left a message on my answering machine asking for my SSN and date of birth. I've heard one should never give out this information over the phone. Can they do this? Is it normal to ask for this information?



This sounds unusual. You should call the company at a telephone number that you know to be correct and ask them why they want this information. Usually you are not legally compelled to provide your Social Security number to private businesses unless you are involved in a transaction in which the Internal Revenue Service requires notification. Additionally, The Patriot Act requires financial institutions to verify customers' identities, which can involve the SSN. For more information see Fact Sheet 31, available at: www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs31-CIP.htm.


If the company insists on knowing your Social Security number when you cannot see a reason for it, ask to speak to a manager who may be authorized to make an exception or who may know whether company policy or the law requires it. The same should be true for your date of birth. Remember that the company has the right to refuse you service for failing to provide this information. For additional information on protecting your Social Security number, please see our Fact Sheet 10 at www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
No apology necessary Atomic.

Your post is right on topic even though a slight tangent (SS).


It's all a matter of who/what/where is asking for what and when.

We have stores requiring ID for CreditCard use where they are not empowered to do so, we have banks and whoever asking for Social Security numbers for ID or proof of citizenship or just to obtain a loan or whatever, we have semi-verification that VISA and the likes are informing police at the state level that they are requesting stores to violate their merchant agreement without actually changing policy of the merchant agreements. (It is hard for me to understand why the credit card issuers are informing the police about their verbal change of policy and agreement, but I haven't questioned that as of yet).


It all sounds so benign and safe and reasonable, and yet, driving to an end that I am really not liking at all.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I don't see what the big deal is at all.

They already know your name from your credit card, and they know what you look like. What is the problem with giving them ID to verify that someone hasn't stolen your credit card? It's not like anybody is going to bother to write down your address and phone number while checking your ID.

If you knew how freely available all of your personal credit information was, you would be a lot more paranoid. Banks and any organization that wants to pay a fee for it can see every purchase you have ever made along with your personal info.

So if you are really that worried about it, don't use credit or debit cards at all. Just pay everything with cash. Then nobody can track any information about you, except that you are being watched on camera the entire time that you are in the store.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Yarcofin]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
These people play some serious chess!!)

Yes, and they've been doing so throughout all of known human history...It's how they "maintain control" over their positions of power. It's always been a matter of who controls information & how they control who can access it.
For as brief as I could get it, this "War for Information" was summed up way back in 2003, right here.

They use information to enslave you...In as many ways as they can think of.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
So here it seems is the clue to what is really going on, no?

On one hand we have VISA having their merchants agree to not make asking for additional ID a condition for a sale, in order to maintain a merchant account...



Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
VISA




Then we have it on fair assumption from one of our own that VISA commonly involves the police on a statewide if not national scale, when VISA VERBALLY advises their corporate partners to request ID on every purchase.


Originally posted by semperfortis
Visa and Mastercard have contacted all of the Police agencies I know and advised them that they were advising their corporate partners to request ID on any purchase...
Came right to our Department and we are a State Agency..




Now why would VISA inform the police on this?




Originally posted by smirkley
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.

-snip-

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"?

-snip-

The awful truth is that the police have now acquired the de-facto power to demand identification from just about anyone.

-snip-

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.

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.







Well, in my opinion, it is because the police are doing the work for VISA, and if you refuse ID and even show a little flinch while at Walmart trying to pay for something with YOUR money via credit card, the police will be contacted likely, and you will now HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF. Or face being charged with a crime.

This is full circle now imho, where the rules/laws, are being used for corporate America inappropriately and quite possibly illegally. And do nothing to protect the right of it's citizens. The police are the muscle for the credit card companies, where the credit card companies on their own right, have no moral, ethical, or legal grounds to do what they are telling their merchants to do, against their own policy and rules. (and quite possibly law)



Surely you see this is not just a "little minor inconvenience", or minor pain, do you.



edit-typo

[edit on 29-11-2006 by smirkley]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I've reached the point where I am more than willing to agree to disagree.

This is a non-issue for me. I have no problems with showing my identification on request. I have nothing to hide, and if it means it will get me out of the store quicker, I will do what I have to do. I respect your rights here, and the fact you take offense to this request. I respect the fact you choose not to show your identification, as you should not be obligated to. But the fact remains, we live busy lives. I don't really have time to bother with minor details like this.

I understand the facts you have stated, but I still am more than willing to show my identification. Nothing to hide, allow me to get back to living my life.

But I do ask that anyone who does resort to this, do not take it out on the middle man. The poor individual who is working the counter at, let's say Wal-Mart, does not deserve to take the brunt of your scrutiny. They do not make the rules, they are just expected to enforce them. Your problems are with the company, not the middle man.

Agreeing to disagree.




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
They do not make the rules, they are just expected to enforce them.


One last rebuttal chissler, I dont interface with the corporate ceo when I am trying to buy something. The 'unfortunate soul' that runs the register should not allow him/herself to be a stooge for the store manager/owner who wishes on their own accord to break the rules or laws.

I myself would not break any law just because my boss told me to. I'd find a new job.







Agreeing to disagree.



Agreed and I do thank you for your thoughts.





[edit on 29-11-2006 by smirkley]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

I myself would not break any law just because my boss told me to. I'd find a new job.


Could you PLEASE find me what law you would breaking by asking for an ID...

I have been doing this for 20+ years, Law Enforcement I mean, and I personally have never heard of any Local, State or Federal Statue.....

Semper



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
semper I believe they would be breaking contract. If they sign the papers that they are under walmart rules and regulations, and walmart signed a legal document that says "we will not ask for ID for VISA card unless its specified on the VISA card", then walmart asks for ID without specification, they are breaking a legal contract with VISA.

Im sure you know there are laws against that.

I have no problem IDing myself, it the principle of the matter though. Im saying "Well fine, I will do it. I'm going to allow you to break the contract you signed, but only because it is more convenient for me to just allow it then bring it up."

Thats the fact of the matter, and I am a person that holds principle above convenience. If that means taking time out of my life to do so, then so be it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join