Replies

Thanks for clarifying, and to be honest perhaps I could be convinced to go along with your approach. At least more so than people who want to create a whole new card and federal database and bureaucracy and so on.

I still just bristle at the term "voluntary", however. I don't see the need to call it "voluntary", and find it slightly misleading, especially when presumably it would be de facto necessary to get them (in the form of state Driver's Licenses, or whatever) to live any sort of ordinary existence. Of course, I have much the same problem with calling Driver's Licenses "voluntary", so maybe it's just me... :)

As for your concerns about "clean slates" and so on - while warranted I'm sure, I thought this was supposed to be about fighting terrorism, in particular. And to be quite honest I'm not convinced that any new, expanded "ID" proposal will help us do that.

I appreciate the way you handle disagreement...I wished more people that disagreed with me did so as respectfully..

As for the "multiple identity" problem, the reason a standardized system would fix that problem, is because current technology allows a photo (or whatever means of positive ID is used) to immediately "flag" an existing "match" on an ID issued by another state, at which time the individual would be asked to "clear up" whatever issues exist with the previous state before asking for another ID from another State... ONLY if their are OUTSTANDING extriditeable warrants issued by the previous state would a person be taken into custody..

Does this clarify my position, or provoke further debate?

David