Forget being checked for ID. If you travel with a phone you constantly broadcast where you are.
Travel in the USA Requires ID
121–130 of 144 posts
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#122The author of the article implies that he used to be proud of not having to do so because it differentiates his country from the Soviet Union. How will having to carry ID turn a country into an authoritarian dystopia? Is it just an American thing? I ask because I live in a country with an authoritarian past and we still have to carry ID everywhere and people just don't see anything wrong with that. Should I try to pe…
Perhaps it's a small thing, but I remember as a young boy, probably in the early 70s and the Cold War, my mother telling me about the USSR. I specifically recall her saying "over there you need to have papers to travel, so we couldn't just go visit your grandparents like we're doing today". For whatever reason, that stuck with me for 40-odd years, so the differences today really do resonate with me.
I agree there is a superficial similarity, but it seems strange to focus on that little detail.
What prevented people in the USSR from visiting their family wasn't the requirement of ID per se. It was the fact that the government could confiscate all your documents and basically turn you into an unperson.
In my country, which had a recentish authoritarian past, the Constitution (we made a new one when we changed the form of government) says that everyone has a right to an identity, and nobody can take that away from you.
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how the US was founded on that idea of "freedom unless it impedes others freedoms," since, at its most basic level, the US government has always restricted people's movements. If you "own" property, I can't freely walk onto that property. Your "ownership" places a severe limitation on my ability to exercise the freedom to move about freely. It seems specious to claim retroactively that the US somehow care…
Your premise is invalid. It'd be the same as claiming that by existing and occupying physical space, combined with my not having a right to murder you, you're preventing me from accessing the physical space you're occupying and therefore denying me freedom. The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. T…
If you employ the violence of the state to keep me from walking on so-called "private" property, then absolutely my freedom is impeded.
What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
15 years experience with living in Europe, I've been asked for my ID only a few times, while boarding planes. Never in the streets, at cafes, being 'carded' for wanting to buy a beer, or drink a beer outside if I want to, freely .. without requiring ID. Like, if you think that Europe is all 'citizens, comrade', those days are over. Schengen is awesome!
As European, I can confirm that I have seen it happen a few times, once even happened to me. Plus not all European countries are part of Schengen.
True, not all. But there is a pretty big swath of population between Netherlands/Spain/Italy/Hungary/Poland/Denmark ..
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, do you see that checking even your ID means the police can deny travel based on who you are? The 'travel papers' are then in the government computer. No, its essential you do not even present ID to travel, for personal freedom to be ensured.
If you have a warrant for your arrest, they will detain you. Or if you are under house arrest or something. They can't stop you on mere suspicion, though. I don't mean to say "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". It's more like "if you weren't literally convicted of a crime, don't worry".
Today. But that can change whenever some politician decides.
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was advised, by Germans, to always have my passport on my person when in Germany, as police are empowered to and will randomly stop people and demand identification. One German friend told me that once he was caught out without his ID, and police literally escorted him home to retrieve and show it. Also had to show ID (passport, in my case, as a visitor from the US) to board planes in Europe. While traveling on tra…
Different things. 1) "Have your passport on your person": Yes, unfortunately this country requires you to be able to provide some ID. No, you don't need to carry it with you. If you DON'T have one though, it might cause issues/trouble/cost money. [1] I assume the Germans were misinformed and scared, the anecdote was probably not true. 2) You have to show your ID or passport at the border (aka. the airport in this cas…
On the train: entering Germany from the Netherlands, so trip was entirely within Schengen (and in fact Germany had been my point of entry on that trip for the Schengen area; I was returning to Germany after traveling around France, Belgium and the Netherlands a bit). Train stopped at German border, German train crew came on board, and an officer wearing a jacket labeled POLIZEI required me to show my passport and asked some immigration-type questions ("how long are you staying in Germany", etc.). Other passengers in the compartment were also required to show identification. A companion in a different part of the train said she was also required to show her passport and answer questions.
This occurred on 21 July 2014, aboard IC 147, Amsterdam Centraal - Berlin Hbf.
At this point I am simply more amused by the number of people who've insisted that what happened, doesn't and can't happen, than I am annoyed by it.
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was advised, by Germans, to always have my passport on my person when in Germany, as police are empowered to and will randomly stop people and demand identification. One German friend told me that once he was caught out without his ID, and police literally escorted him home to retrieve and show it. Also had to show ID (passport, in my case, as a visitor from the US) to board planes in Europe. While traveling on tra…
Sorry, but that is BS. Traveling on trains does not require an ID. You are not stopped randomly in Germany to show your ID. It never happened to me in the 40 years I am living in Estern Germany and Western Germany. In Germany it is required that you own an ID (or Passport). But you are not required to have it on you. That said, if police has a reason to identify you, because of suspicious behavior, police can have a…
See my other comment:
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the blog states, you actually don't need an ID to fly, you just need to prove your identity (and be ready for a huge hassle).
Is "proving your identity" different in any meaningful way from "having an ID"?
In Anglo-American common law, your identity is basically whatever it is you call yourself, provided that you are not doing so with intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate unlawful activities. Most U.S. states still recognize a common law name change or assumed name.
If James McGill uses the name "Saul Goodman" openly and notoriously in the course of his business, he could reasonably use either name, or both, to identify himself. It is literally just that simple. Your name is whatever you use as your name. If you are a corporation, you may need to file a "doing business as" document with the state business registration authority, but natural persons can merely start introducing themselves with the new name. I could start calling myself "Master President Jack Redbull Walks-Away-From-Explosions Cartman the 42nd", in addition to my birth name and my HN handle, and lo, that would be my name.
As such, the "proof" would be as simple as solemnizing an affidavit that you are not using the name for any malicious purpose.
Requiring an ID--or more specifically, a state-issued ID--is much more burdensome. The state, you see, has a selfish interest in being able to link all of the names a person may have, such that it is easier to enforce its laws upon that person.
I could not go to the state's ID-issuing agency and get an ID card featuring the name "Master President Jack Redbull Walks-Away-From-Explosions Cartman the 42nd". The bureaucrat on site would rather tiresomely insist upon knowing the boring old name that my parents gave to me, and adamantly maintain that the state will officially recognize only one name at a time, that requires a form to be filled out and authorized by a probate judge, and the new name wouldn't fit on the card anyway, and would have to be abbreviated to "[Mr.] Master P. Cartman, 42nd".
This common law tradition allows a person to use an assumed name or pseudonym for travel, without the expectation that the traveler be authorized in any way. But the state (apparently) has an interest in tracking the whereabouts of criminals and those who appear to have criminal intent. So it institutes ID requirements to slide around the common law right of people to avoid name-based tracking regimes.
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#129I often use my family bible when going across borders. it's always worked as proper identification, and is always accepted.
Re: Travel in the USA Requires ID
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your premise is invalid. It'd be the same as claiming that by existing and occupying physical space, combined with my not having a right to murder you, you're preventing me from accessing the physical space you're occupying and therefore denying me freedom. The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. T…
If you employ the violence of the state to keep me from walking on so-called "private" property, then absolutely my freedom is impeded. What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?
Why do you keep putting "private" in quotes? Do you seriously believe that you should be able to walk into my living room and grab a seat on the couch? Do you seriously believe that you're not "free" if you cannot do so? Should I then be "free" to kick the crap out of you when you take a step into my lawn? Your notion of freedom seems to only work in your favor and completely disregards everyone else.