The Cult of ID

At Oxford, where two rivers meet, there is a private stretch of the bank (or there used to be) called “Parson’s Pleasure.” Since Victorian times, this shaded resort was reserved for male dons who wished to swim and sunbathe in the nude. A barrier prevented any stray punts or boats from interrupting this idyll, and women and girls understood that this retreat was off-limits. One day, however, while the river was higher and faster than usual, a ladies’ boating party was swept through the barrier and into the all-male backwater. Shrieks and giggles from the boat, and a sudden, protective downward reaching of the hands on the part of all bathers on the bank. All but one. The late Sir Maurice Bowra, Hellenist and epigrammist, raised his hands to shield his craggy visage. There they all stood or sat until the fair intruders had sailed past, whereupon a general outbreak of sheepishness occurred, punctuated by Bowra saying: “I don’t know about you chaps, but I’m known by my face around here.”

ALL THIS came back to me when I read of the Muslim lady in Florida who wants to remain veiled when she goes to the DMV to be photographed for her license. In one way, I am full of sympathy. The exposure of the female face is such a standing provocation that its concealment except on special private occasions seems positively desirable, if not actually necessary. I can only imagine what it must be like for a strict Muslim visitor to these shores. Never mind that disappearing thong or that cantilevered cleavage: What in the name of all that’s holy is Julia Roberts doing flashing that mouth of hers? There ought to be a law. If there were a law, then just picture the scene. About half way into the movie, and for reasons of artistic integrity that are absolutely necessary for the plot, Julia Roberts slowly reaches up and begins to loosen the left-hand corner of her veil. ... Imagine the revelation. The sensation.

PICTURE THIS

Meanwhile, down at the DMV, all applicants are taken into a booth and ordered to expose their pudenda to the camera. The resulting photograph has to be produced at all security checkpoints and even to enter many buildings. It also must be checked as being an authentic likeness. This would slow things down a bit, admittedly, and place an extra burden — sometimes a heavy one — on the already overstretched security staff. But if it saves even one life ...
Compare the present situation. Several times a week, to enter a TV studio say, or to board a plane, I have to produce a tiny picture of my face. It’s not enough that I show up in person: I have to bring an image of myself along. (This is especially useful when one’s about to appear on Hardball, where they clearly want it to be me rather than someone else but would probably manage quite well with whoever showed up in my place.) I do not remember the last time that the guys at the security desk looked at the picture and then at me and then at the picture again before handing the license back. But if it was a pudenda shot that we all carried, and I was to open my fly for confirmation, they’d know me next time all right.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLASH

Until that day arrives, however, either there should be an end to the basically absurd cult of “ID,” probably the most fakeable artifact in our society, or it should apply to everyone. The ground of objection that should apply the least is an appeal for exemption on grounds of religious belief. In some Muslim societies, the driver’s license is an irrelevance to members of the female gender, because they are not permitted to take the wheel of a car. In a society where any such discrimination would be flat-out illegal, the price of equal protection is a certain uniformity and standardization.

After reading the Judge Thorpe’s decision on Freeman v. State of Florida, I found most of her reasoning persuasive and practical.

There are only two points in her decision that I find distressing:

1. She declares the pictured driver’s license an identity card to be used by police officers as sort of an internal passport, and

2. She admits that her ruling goes against extant case law; nevertheless, she claims that since contemporary police technology is different than 20 years ago, she is free to disregard previous state and US Supreme Court rulings.

I suspected that 9/11 was going to play a great part in this ruling, but I was surprised at her candor admitting that her ruling increases police power over the populace, by claiming that the compelling state interest of safety now includes an electronic database with our pictures, Social Security numbers, traffic record, and criminal record (and soon medical records and credit history, since such items are already easily available from private vendors) to be available to laptops in police cars. Obviously, this case will end up at the SCOFLA (Supreme Court of Florida).

Of course, when the driver’s license was first introduced, it was sold as a license not as a universal picture ID to be linked to our Social Security number, giving easy access to our medical records, school and college records, as well as credit reports.

The Judge declared the pictured driver’s license a universal ID card if I’m reading this decision correctly:

The State called an expert witness who has been employed in law enforcement for almost 40 years and is currently a consultant to DHSMV on security matters. He stated that a facial image is “absolutely essential” to law enforcement officers, because without it, officers conducting traffic stops are at risk during the extra time needed to check identities to “make sure that’s the person standing in front of them.” He emphasized that it is crucial to both criminal and intelligence investigators to be able to identify possible suspects (and victims of crimes or accidents) as quickly as possible, and that this ability has a significant impact on public safety. The witness stressed that currently-available alternatives to photo image identification such as fingerprint verification take too long. He testified that in this “changing world,” law enforcement needs to continue to develop tools to insure public safety. He discussed the DAVID (Driver And Vehicle Identification Database), which is the newest system used in many Florida Highway Patrol vehicles and by other agencies in major Florida cities. DAVID enables police officers to receive transmissions, over their patrol car laptop computers, which show an individual’s driver’s license photo image. The State is making this system fully available to law enforcement throughout the state.
[snip]
The State admitted that anything which aids identification is helpful, but maintained that for computer investigation or when identification must be ascertained or confirmed immediately, the foundation documents are no substitute. Even Plaintiff’s rebuttal witness agreed with the State on that point, and so does this Court. The mere fact that an applicant does not produce a fullface photograph when applying for a license, and may submit various documents to prove her birth date and place, immigration status, etc., does not mean that she is not subject to the additional requirement of having her photo taken to complete her application. Plaintiff’s foundation documents argument overlooks law enforcement’s need to maintain the image database to further its compelling state interest in public safety.
[snip]
Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument about the temporary permits ignores the crucial distinction that all temporary and replacement (permanent) licenses in Florida are issued to people who previously had permanent licenses with photos. Therefore, DHSMV already has photo images of these permit holders in its databanks that are available to field officers who need to confirm identification. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, these are not “exceptions,” and the Court finds Plaintiff’s attempt to equate her situation with that of the thousands of drivers with temporary permits unpersuasive.
[snip]
The State has always had a compelling interest in promoting public safety. That interest is served by having the means to accurately and swiftly determine identities in given circumstances. In the past 25 years, identification technology has advanced greatly and continues to improve. It remains incumbent upon the State that it seek to protect its citizens with the best available technology. The evidence presented shows that photographs and digital images, although not perfect, are still the best available means to make crucial identifications in the shortest possible time. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that law enforcement should be required to use archaic technology just because it worked in 1978 and 1984, when the cases upon which Plaintiff relies were decided.
The Court agrees with the State that today it is a different world than it was 20-25 years ago. It would be foolish not to recognize that there are new threats to public safety, including both foreign and domestic terrorism, and increased potential for “widespread abuse” that did not exist in 1978, when the Pentecostal House of Prayer opinion was issued. In sum, utilizing systems such as DAVID, which, it should be noted, was already being developed before the September 11, 2001, attacks, is essential to enable law enforcement to continue to meet the compelling state interest in public safety. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ insistence that 1978 methods are sufficiently useful is patently unreasonable.

Of course, the mantra “driving is a privilege, not a right” has been rejected by courts previously, but it an urban legend with staying power.

For example, Judge Thorpe refered in her decision to the Indiana case is Bureau of Motor Vehicles of The State of Indiana v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc, 269 Ind. 361 (1978).

The argument of those who oppose religious exemptions is that driving is a privilege, not a right. The Indiana Supreme Court responded to this issue:

The gist of this argument is that there is no "right" to drive in this state, rather, driving is merely a privilege. In other words, the state's position is that no First Amendment problem is raised where a citizen's free exercise right is brought into conflict with a mere privilege. This position was considered and expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner:
"Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's 'right' but merely a 'privilege'. It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege"
Thus the trial court correctly found coercive state action in that the photograph requirement of the statute would operate to deny these appellees the ability to drive, regardless of whether this ability is characterized as a right or privilege

Justice Tolman of the Washington State Supreme Court:

Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the robber barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act such as this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may become completely monopolized.

And...

"Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion--to go where and when one pleases--only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.
The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highway and transport his property thereon, by horse--drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privelege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination, along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly manner, neither interfering with, nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." - 11 AM JUR (1st). Const. L., Sec. 329 (Page 1135).

We PAID for the roads, why does it suddenly become a "mother-may-I" privelege, revocable at legislative or bureaucratic whim just because the police want to establish a "Minority Report" society?

Muslims in the US could take some clues from the Amish

Yes, that's exactly what Muslims did. The Amish are one of the most litigious sects in the US asking for exemptions and special privileges.

What a chutzpah to ride 5 mph on a 55 mph highway with no driver's licenses and no reflectors!

-- Last week, at a district justice's office just north of here, two Amishmen pulled up in buggies, came out of the snow into the warm and were found guilty of failing to mount state-mandated reflective orange triangles on their carriages.
The fine was $100 apiece.
An hour later, at a district justice's office 10 miles to the north, the routine was repeated, this time with three Amishmen, all found guilty, each fined $100.
Nobody paid up, though.
"We don't think it's too much to impose on these people. It's good enough for everybody else," said Ted Farabaugh, a township supervisor in West Carroll Township, home to many of the Swartzentrubers. "Take away the triangle, and people have less chance to see the buggies. Then, there's going to be a head-on collision, with people trying to avoid them."
In Ohio, the largest single Amish enclave in the world, a study done through the state Department of Transportation and Ohio State University branded the orange reflective triangle "the single most recognizable emblem" to mark slow-moving traffic. That's important, Ohio Highway Patrol Lt. Joel Smith said, since the driver of a 55-mph vehicle bearing down on a 5-mph buggy will see the gap between them close from 500 feet to 44 feet in six seconds.
The new cases, and any more that come along, will be joined in a court fight framing a state traffic code provision as infringing on religious liberties of a small sliver of the state's Amish population, said Witold Walczak, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Greater Pittsburgh Chapter. The fight centers on a tiny, 88-year-old branch called Swartzentruber Amish, rigid by even mainline Amish standards. While the rest of the Amish spectrum has adopted, sometimes grudgingly, the orange triangles, the Swartzentrubers refuse.

source

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.