FC: Rudyard Kipling, the Objectivist Center, Ayn Rand & National IDs

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 13:06:21 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: James Glassman wants national IDs: "We have to give up" privacy"

    Previous message:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02709.html
    
    *******
    
    Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:38:45 -0700
    From: lizard <lizardat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    
    As always, Kipling said it first and best (and Kipling was one of Rand's
    favorite poets, so it fits). Verses 3 and 4 are the relevant ones,
    re:what has become of Rand's legacy under her 'intellectual heirs'.
    
    
    The Disciple
    By Rudyard Kipling
    
    He that hath a Gospel
       To loose upon Mankind,
    Though he serve it utterly--
       Body, soul and mind--
    Though he go to Calvary
       Daily for its gain--
    It is His Disciple
       Shall make his labour vain.
    
    He that hath a Gospel
       For all earth to own--
    Though he etch it on the steel,
       Or carve it on the stone--
    Not to be misdoubted
       Through the after-days--
    It is His Disciple
       Shall read it many ways.
    
    It is His Disciple
       (Ere Those Bones are dust )
    Who shall change the Charter,
       Who shall split the Trust--
    Amplify distinctions,
       Rationalize the Claim;
    Preaching that the Master
       Would have done the same.
    
    It is His Disciple
       Who shall tell us how
    Much the Master would have scrapped
       Had he lived till now--
    What he would have modified
       Of what he said before.
    It is His Disciple
       Shall do this and more....
    
    He that hath a Gospel
       Whereby Heaven is won
    ( Carpenter, or cameleer,
       Or Maya's dreaming son ),
    Many swords shell pierce Him,
       Mingling blood with gall;
    But His Own Disciple
       Shall wound Him worst of all!
    
    *******
    
    Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:48:03 -0400
    From: Robert Levy <rlevyat_private>
    Organization: Cato Institute
    To: rdonwayat_private, dkelleyat_private
    CC: athiererat_private, Ed Hudgins <ehudginsat_private>, lmastat_private,
             declanat_private, weaponsrusat_private
    Subject: National IDs
    
    Roger, David:
    
    James Robbins' support for national ID cards is, I believe, incompatible with
    Objectivism.  Perhaps you will consider re-publishing the following op-ed -- or
    providing a link to the Natl Review Online website where it appears.
    
    Regards,
    Bob
    --------
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-levy102401.shtml
    
    The ID Idea
    Goodbye to privacy.
    
    By Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the 
    <http://www.cato.org>Cato Institute.
    October 24, 2001 10:10 a.m.
    
    
    Martin Anderson, former aide to President Reagan, writes of a Cabinet 
    meeting at which Attorney General William French Smith proposed a national 
    ID card to curb illegal immigration. No ID, no job. Anderson caustically 
    suggested an alternative that would be cheaper, lighter weight, impossible 
    to lose, immune to counterfeiting or theft, even waterproof: Just "tattoo 
    an ID number on the inside of everybody's arm." Naturally, Reagan 
    understood the allusion, and the idea was never again taken seriously — 
    until now.
    
    In the wake of the calamitous events of September 11, Rep. Nancy L. Johnson 
    (R., Conn.) suggested a national ID using fingerprints or retinal scans. 
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) reportedly supports the idea. And in the 
    hallowed halls of Harvard, self-described civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz 
    proposed a "voluntary" card, with a chip that matches the holder's 
    fingerprints. Dershowitz understands the incompatibility of national IDs 
    and civil liberties, so he is promoting his card as "optional."
    
    Optional indeed. Imagine Osama bin Laden's henchmen waiting to sign up for 
    their IDs. That's about as likely as criminals volunteering to register 
    their guns. Moreover, terrorists who are capable of destroying the World 
    Trade Center are surely capable of obtaining forged IDs (even the high-tech 
    variety), bribing officials who issue or check the cards, creating false 
    identities that survive scrutiny, or using persons with legitimate cards to 
    do their dirty work. Make no mistake: The predictable failure of a 
    voluntary system will lead to compulsory IDs. Remember the elective tax 
    check-off to finance political campaigns? Like clockwork, that fiasco 
    spawned unrelenting calls for mandatory public funding.
    
    Dershowitz disagrees. "It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience," he 
    says. Look at drivers who avoid long delays at tollbooths by acceding to 
    electronic billing, triggered by a device on their dashboard. Well, yes, 
    but terrorists, who plan their odious crimes years in advance, aren't 
    likely to mind a few minutes of waiting in line to dodge electronic 
    tracing. Furthermore, the dashboard device affords a real choice: Give up a 
    little privacy, and save a lot of time. That's not what proponents of a 
    national ID have up their sleeves. Their choice is: Give up some privacy by 
    showing your card, or give up yet more privacy by subjecting yourself to 
    surveillance, search, detention, or worse. If too few people go for the ID, 
    the government will simply raise the ante — making its searches 
    progressively more insufferable until the ID is less repellent by contrast.
    
    True, we use identification cards every day — for, say, driving and 
    check-cashing. But the primary purpose of a driver's license is to affirm 
    that the holder is qualified to operate an automobile. And when you show an 
    ID to cash a check, you're doing it to prove you are the payee. By 
    comparison, neither specific skills nor a particular identity are required 
    to engage in the majority of day-to-day transactions. Even our Social 
    Security cards may be used only to track payroll taxes; federal law forbids 
    their use for purposes of identification. We must not be compelled to "show 
    our papers" every time we want to buy goods or services.
    
    For security purposes, photo IDs are already required at airports. If the 
    national ID were limited to name, address, photo — even fingerprints — and 
    its use were confined to airports, few would object. After all, passports 
    must now be exhibited for all international travel, despite the obvious 
    implications for ethnic profiling. But the ID scheme is far more insidious.
    
    First, the card will be effective only if scores of activities require its 
    display. Terrorists are not stupid. They will select forums like theaters 
    and sporting events, which are not as easily protected. Consequently, the 
    number of ID-restricted activities will increase, and the card will become 
    more burdensome and invasive. Constraining its use means limiting its 
    effectiveness. Expanding its use means violating more privacy rights. And 
    you can rest assured that the ID will remain with us long after the need 
    for extraordinary security has receded.
    
    Second, to target terrorists, a national ID must be linked to a central 
    database of personal characteristics and private records and transactions. 
    That data will be maintained by the federal government — unlike the 
    information on car drivers, which is kept by 50 separate states. The 
    pressure to include ethnicity as a factor will be irresistible, thereby 
    exacerbating the profiling problem. No doubt, government officials will 
    make the case that the ID and its linked database should not be limited to 
    foiling terrorists. How about the drug war? Immigration? Gun registration? 
    The potential for abuse is boundless. Keep in mind, it's been only four 
    years since Congress rejected legislation to add photos, fingerprints, and 
    retina scans to our Social Security cards; and only seven years since 
    Hillary Clinton urged a national health card containing our lifetime 
    medical records.
    
    The keepers of the data will promise confidentiality, of course. But tell 
    that to the Japanese-Americans who were interned after U.S. census data 
    were compromised during the 1940s. Tell it to taxpayers whose personal 
    records were illegally snooped by IRS agents in the mid-1990s. But none of 
    that seems to concern Dershowitz, who asserts that no right to anonymity is 
    "hinted at in the Constitution." Of course, that turns the Constitution on 
    its head. The Ninth Amendment tells us we have an untold number of rights 
    that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The question is not whether we 
    have a right to anonymity, but whether government has the power to take it 
    away.
    
    When it comes to political writings, for example, the Supreme Court said in 
    1995 that "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It 
    thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First 
    Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from 
    retaliation." An extension of that doctrine to cover oral speech will be 
    tested this coming term, when the Court decides whether door-to-door 
    canvassers for Jehovah's Witnesses can be required to display a permit with 
    their name on it.
    
    To be sure, the right to anonymity is not absolute. But before stampeding 
    toward a national ID, we should listen to Justice William O. Douglas, who 
    cautioned a half-century ago: "To be let alone is indeed the beginning of 
    all freedom."
    
    *******
    
    From: Alan <alanat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: The Objectivist Center applauds national IDs, 
    torture,  snooping?
    Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:50:45 -0700
    
    I would patent the process of powering large cities off of the spinning
    corpse of Ayn Rand, but it would probably conflict with the one by the Disney
    Corporation.  (They are using Walt to power the electrical light parade at
    Disneyland during the power shortages.)
    
    *******
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 25 2001 - 13:28:44 PDT