Reply #17: Why the "papers please" yelling

[Gormy Cuss]

If you're over 40 you remember when you could go about your business most days without anyone asking you for an ID. Driver's licenses were used to verify who you were to law enforcement only. They were available as ID verification for the government but not required. In many states there was no photo, only a physical description. Your Social Security card said explicitly that it was not to be used for ID. You could refuse to supply your SSN to anyone who wasn't involved in an income relevant transaction (paying you wages or interest, for example.) You could rent an apartment and sign up for utilities without supplying an SSN (you may have been given a choice of placing a deposit or allowing a credit check, but it was your choice.)
You remember when VISA and Mastercard touted that one of the advantages to using credit cards over checks was that it was simple, just present the card without further ID. In fact, both VISA and Mastercard had provisions in their contracts with vendors requiring this. Here's the thing: ID theft was quite rare.

The ID phenomenon became bad with the proliferation of computerized recordkeeping in the '90s and the relaxing of banking and lending rules. Advantage: small to consumers, huge to private business. It became disturbing when the government chimed in with the PATRIOT act.
The government used to have very stringent confidentiality rules for its own data. For example, individually-identifiable program data maintained by one agency (DOL, for example) could not be shared with staff at another agency (HHS, for example) without extensive review and sign-off straight up the chain to the Secretary, and consent was rare. As is often mentioned these days as a failure, the FBI wasn't required to share info with the CIA either.

The lack of privacy safeguards under the PATRIOT act is something you know if you're here so I won't waste the space. The major limiting factor in the PATRIOT act were the sunset provisions. Without them I'd like to think that most congress members would have had the spine to say no.

Are we safer with the current level of intrusion? No. Are we less safe because of the greater availability of machine readable data on everyone? Probably.

As to the pea brains who repeat that silly "I've got nothing to hide" argument, see Tahiti Nut and other posters here. I always say, good for you, but don't make the choice for me.