We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Universal Security Act of 2122
Details
Submitted by[?]: Herut Orthodoxy
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2123
Description[?]:
| In order to enhance the security of the nation, this proposal is introduced. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-issued identity card policy.
Old value:: Citizens are not issued with identity cards.
Current: All citizens are issued with identity cards and are required to carry them at all times.
Proposed: All citizens are issued with identity cards but are not required to carry them.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:03:57, October 08, 2005 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | Let's ignore the fact that identity cards are a fundamental attack on civil liberties, since most people really don't care about liberty. Let's look at the one claim that has been made in favour of this proposal - 'IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY of the nation'. This will not enhance the security of the nation. Even if the proposal made carrying ID compulsory (which it doesn't) it would not enhance the security of the nation. OOC: Let's look at some actual evidence: 9/11 bombings - terrorists were carrying ID and it was LEGITIMATE. Result: terrorism succeeded. Madrid bombings - terrorists were carrying ID and it was LEGITIMATE. Result: terrorism succeeded. I'm not sure whether the Bali bombers were carrying ID, but let's assume that in reality they were not carrying ID and were not required to. In London, ID is not required (yet). Now, let's imagine that your proposal had been in place and all those bombers had been issued with ID cards but were not required to carrying them. How exactly would these events have turned out differently? Let's go a step further and imagine that they were obliged to carry ID cards. Well, if the explosive belts they were wearing weren't enough of a giveaway that these were some bad dudes, chances are that ID cards in their wallets wouldn't have set alarm bells ringing either. Why is it that ID cards are so completely useless at combatting terrorism, especially when SO MANY authoritarian politicians insist SO OFTEN that ID cards are absolutely essential to stop terrorism? The answer is that terrorists generally do not conceal who they are, they conceal their intentions. Unless the ID card has checkbox asking 'do you intend to commit a terrorist act?' (and assuming that the terrorist-to-be answers honestly), it cannot help fight terrorism. Still, I suppose it helps rollback those pesky civil liberties though. |
| Date | 05:07:10, October 08, 2005 CET | From | Radical Conservative Party | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | I don't see the point if they don't have to carry them. Go all the way, or just keep it like it is. |
| Date | 13:58:51, October 08, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | It seems someone's idea of civil liberties is a bit skewed from that of reality. Since you list 'all those authoritarian politicians', it might be a good idea to actually give names. I know your side doesn't like to be called on items and you prefer to be vague, but seriously, every state with a modern economy had identification cards processed at some level. That must mean that either 1) It actually is not curtailing civil liberties, or 2) the world is a totalitarian state. Terrorists do not conceal who they are? You sir, have split from reality. If the terrorist is unknown as being a terrorist, then no they do not have to conceal identities because they have yet to be actually pegged for a crime. If they are known as being a terrorist they do in fact make every effort to fake identies, and to conceal who they are... OR they simply do not attempt to gain access into an area where identification is requred because they understand they will be caught. Londoners were caught quickly because of video cameras and yes, the abiluty to track movements because of who they were and the methods used. I have yet to propose cameras, but since, to you, Id didn't help, then you must be in favor of cameras since they did. The Bali bombers were caught because they made no effort flee after doing the deed. Because of standardized identification, when they used credit cards of their own, or associates, there was a national database based on... identification. Really, you do not understand what acually goes on, this is all open source non-classified, and you should do more to investigate before acting as an authority. The reason they do not need to carry? When they apply for credit cards, there will be a need for proof of ID. The ID card will be used then. Thus, if suspected, subpoenaed records of credit transactions can used and linked. Also, if the ID is linked to biometrics, they card need not be carried either. The idea that someone can stand there and say what works and what does not without so much as an ounce actual evidence is proof of the freedoms of our society, but is also evidence of the lack of societies ability to for rational decision making. |
| Date | 20:11:31, October 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | OK, here are some names of authoritarian politicians: in the UK, Tony Blair (current Prime Minister), David Blunkett (previous Home Secretary), Charles Clarke (current Home Secretary), in the US, George Bush and his pro-PATRIOT Act chums. I could provide a virtually limitless list of authoritarian politicians, but is there anyone other than you who somehow doubts that these people exist, to justify that use of my time? "I know your side doesn't like to be called on items and you prefer to be vague" You know what, for a party who has been in this country for what, less than 24 hours, you might want to think twice before throwing out these moronic comments. Our party is perfectly content to go into details when it is justified, but since we disagree with most other parties on a fundamental level, the disputes tend to be conceptual rather than practical. Moreover, you started the vaguaries when you requested this law with the highly specific and well-argued case that "In order to enhance the security of the nation, this proposal is introduced." Seriously, even the British government made more of an effort to come up with a reason why they needed ID cards. You just assume that as long as you SAY it will enhance security, we should all accept it. "That must mean that either 1) It actually is not curtailing civil liberties, or 2) the world is a totalitarian state." No, because your 'argument' is a) non sequitur and b) a false dichotomy. "Terrorists do not conceal who they are? You sir, have split from reality." How did you work that out? As I specifically observed in an earlier post, the 9/11 and Madrid bombers were carrying LEGITIMITE ID. They had ID on them that matched their real identities. I'm not sure how I can rephrase that so that you can comprehend that when you carry ID that corresponds to who you are, you are necessarily not concealing your identity. When you show your true ID before boarding the plane you later steer into a skyscraper, you HAVE NOT CONCEALED YOUR IDENTITY. How hard a concept is that? Even the examples you give further confirm my argument: "Londoners were caught quickly because of video cameras" - yes, AFTER THE EVENT. If they had been carrying ID, nothing would have been different. "The Bali bombers were caught because they made no effort flee after doing the deed". Firstly, your argument is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy and secondly, the bombers were only caught AFTER DOING THE DEED. The ID did not stop the terrorism. "Really, you do not understand what acually goes on" If you would actually dispute any of the specific examples above, then I might have to concede that I do not understand what actually goes on. However, the evidence still seems to be that terrorists had ID, terrorists successfully blew stuff up. If I am wrong about either of those points, please correct me. "The reason they do not need to carry? When they apply for credit cards, there will be a need for proof of ID. " OK, let's go through this one more time. What does it matter about credit cards? Unless the the credit card is 'The First National Bank of Terrorist Bombers' the fact that they have applied for credit cards is not going to provide sufficient warning before the fact that the terrorist intends to commit an act of terrorism. As I argued above, and you have not actually disproved, the terrorist is NOT HIDING WHO HE IS. HE IS HIDING THE FACT THAT HE WANTS TO BLOW SOMETHING UP. Therefore, your credit-card owning terrorist is not going to be of any interest until AFTER he has succeeded in his terrorist plans. ID provides NO security against terrorism. All your rhetoric about finding terrorists afterward is totally irrelevant. Finding the terrorist afterwards (assuming that it was not a suicide attack) is an issue of retribution, not security, since the terrorist has ALREADY hit the target and the security has ALREADY been breached. "The idea that someone can stand there and say what works and what does not without so much as an ounce actual evidence is proof of the freedoms of our society, but is also evidence of the lack of societies ability to for rational decision making." Agreed, which is why I began by providing the still-valid arguments about 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali. Moreover, it is your duty to demonstrate why you NEED these additional powers, not my duty to demonstrate why you don't. Your initial unsupported assertion "In order to enhance the security of the nation, this proposal is introduced." is less than an ounce of actual evidence. So by your own argument, this is evidence of your inability to make rational decisions. |
| Date | 20:29:45, October 09, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | I'm sorry to say that it seems I'm arguing with someone who in fact knows nothing about national security in the real world. Thankfully, I feel it's safe to feel that your idea of how things work will only be put into play here, and not the real world. |
| Date | 20:42:24, October 09, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | Adding to what I just posted: Your idea that ID do not stop terrorism is foolish as well since many terrorist who can be identified have been captured and since the actual terrorist activity never too place, you can not actually say it didn't stop terrorism. You name a few times where intel. fails as proof that it does not succeed, which is incongruent. Intel. operations stop terrorism frequently, namely because we can IDENTIFY those who are actors involved with plots. While it may be true that is not a fail proof system, it is a needed step to build upon for future endeavours. Or we can not bother to identify people (you want this), and just hope that leaks in terrorist organizations give us enough breaks to keep us safe. Without proof of intention to actively commit a crime it is impossible to arrest anyone, but if we have leaks, and we know who people are (via ID) then we can trace where they go, with whom the associate (by ID) and then determine next steps and thus gain knowledge of plots and track networks of those wishing perform acts of terror. Without the ability to identify people, the best thing we can hope for is to catch up to the AFTER they blow up others. The choice is yours, obviously. You may not like the legislation because your views of liberty, but you do not know me and I do not know you, so our real lives and what we do in those lives can in fact give us more or less insight as to what is happening in the world. |
| Date | 20:54:22, October 09, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | Also, as I re-read your post more can be seen as completely off base. Finding a terrorist after a terrorist attack is NOT an act of retribution. This is another incredibly uninformed statement. You have many of these, and I'm curious to understand how it is NOT an act of security. See, what we know is that terrorists who do one act WILL almost without fail, attempt another. So yes, getting them is in the interest of security. Retribution? Whatever. There are public, non-classified, open source information sources that detail how many people are in fact denied access to the United States based on... You got it, ID. No, they do not work perfectly, either. The reason sometimes people get put on the list who should not is because other nations who issue only rudamentary ID do not have enough specific information to focus any closer, usually. There are purely clerical errors too, but technology does not stand still, so the process will get better. Oh well, I appologize for making this more personal than it needed to be, but it gets frustrating to hear simple ideas put for as facts when they are not. If you do not agree based on some sort of concept of civil liberties, that that's one debate, but IDs do in fact help. |
| Date | 22:20:56, October 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Universal Security Act of 2122 |
| Message | "but it gets frustrating to hear simple ideas put for as facts when they are not." Well, it seems we agree on something. "If you do not agree based on some sort of concept of civil liberties, that that's one debate, but IDs do in fact help." I should point out that even if I accepted that IDs *did* help with security, I would still oppose on libertarian grounds. Nonetheless, I think the practical problems are significant enough that even those of you who oppose civil liberties should still oppose ID cards because they DON'T WORK. "Your idea that ID do not stop terrorism is foolish as well since many terrorist who can be identified have been captured and since the actual terrorist activity never too place, you can not actually say it didn't stop terrorism." As I have previously observed, this is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Your argument seems to be 1) terrorists had *state issued* ID, 2) terrorists were captured, 3) therefore state issued ID significantly assisted law enforcement in capturing the terrorists. "You name a few times where intel. fails as proof that it does not succeed" Actually, I wasn't addressing the issue of intel at all, I was looking solely at ID and showing that ID seldom IF EVER actually stops a terrorist action from taking place. Moreover, EVEN IF it had such a potential, the only effect would be that terrorists would change their tactics to compensate for the ID. In this case, mandatory state ID is actually a gift to anyone who wants fake ID because the system represents a totally trusted single point of failure. Once you get a convincing fake ID or a legitimate ID with false details, you can subsequently get any other form of ID. No one will question it because it is supposedly secure. On a more general note, a true example of something failing is by definition an example of it not always succeeding. "Intel. operations stop terrorism frequently, namely because we can IDENTIFY those who are actors involved with plots." So by that argument, since the UK currently does not have ID cards, it is impossible for the British to identify people? Those London bombers who you observed were captured really quickly - how is that possible if the UK does not have ID cards? I don't mean to be cynical, but why is it that EVERY TIME a government exploits a terrorist action to renew their demands for ID cards, it happens to be a terrorist action where ID would not have helped. Why are we not hearing governments give us examples of times when a state-issued ID card would actually have made a difference? "but if we have leaks, and we know who people are (via ID)" What is your evidence that you need state-issued ID in order to know who people are? Or let me put it another way, are you arguing that every country that does not have state-issued ID is incapable of knowing who anyone is? "then we can trace where they go, with whom the associate (by ID)" Again, what is your evidence that state-issued ID is a necessary component of this? "There are public, non-classified, open source information sources that detail how many people are in fact denied access to the United States based on... You got it, ID" You're absolutely right, the US does a great job of stopping undesirables getting into the country. If I recall, folk music star Cat Stevens recently couldn't get into the US. Still, the border controls weren't quite as successful in preventing the NINETEEN terrorists who successfully committed the 9/11 atrocities from entering the country. Finally, here's a question for you: YOUR proposal means that people don't have to carry ID cards. Let's imagine I'm a terrorist and don't want to get caught. How about I just leave my ID at home and never use it? You suggest that I might need it to get a credit card, but why don't I just not get a credit card? Now I'm not a terrorist, I haven't spent any great length of time in terrorist training camps or anything like that, but I'm pretty confident that the not-using-the-ID approach defeats the whole ID system. And if I can think of that without the support of a terrorist network or training, maybe the terrorists can think of it too? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 555 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "When strangers start acting like neighbors, communities are reinvigorated." - Ralph Nader |