×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's 'ID Validation' Is a Joke, But Not Funny

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the your-voice-is-your-password-so-yell dept.

Google 211

An anonymous reader writes "I was curious about the whole profile reporting and ID validation process on Google+ so I decided to do a little experimental work to find out just what is involved. Answer: very little which could be called rigor." Tease: this story involves a form of I.D. only slightly less funny than the 409-eater with a passport in the name of James Tiberius Kirk.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

211 comments

Not The First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063660)

Post To Not Be Banned!

409 += 10 (1)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063674)

...fixed that for you.

Re:409 += 10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064168)

Error: integer constant '419' is not an lvalue.

Re:409 += 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37065000)

If you're going to be pedantic, at least get your constants right.

How about (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063688)

an actual summary?

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063828)

Your full of shit. It's Bash Google day on slashdot, today.

Oh, timothy...

Re:How about (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063992)

It's not just bash google day, of course. A short list of companies that get bashed a lot on slashdot:

Apple
Google
Facebook
MS
Sony
Steam
Oracle
Canonical
Nokia
Motorola
Activision
Comcast
EA

Companies that receive very little hate on slashdot:

Samsung I guess?
Some indie game makers
Appleseed, diaspora, and a bunch of other social networking sites you've probably never heard of
Any company that doesn't actually make anything (except for patent trolls, who we also hate)

Slashdot: news for tech and software hipsters.

Re:How about (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064128)

It's not just bash google day, of course. A short list of companies that get bashed a lot on slashdot:

[deletions]

Companies that receive very little hate on slashdot: Samsung I guess?

I've just put my Samsung Laser MFP in for repair for the second time in a year (for real). It's on a home system and is rarely even turned on. The bastards!

Well, seems you can cross Samsung off.

Summary of what he did (5, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063954)

  • 0 - Gary Walker's a real person with a non-unique name on Google+. Here's what he did:
  • 1 - Made a Google+ account with his real name, some bogus information, and occasional cat pictures. - Worked
  • 2a - Had three friends report it as a "Fake Profile" - No Response
  • 2b - As the real Gary Walker, reported the new profile as "Impersonation".
  • 2b.1 - Google+ requires a copy of a government ID if you report an account as "Impersonation". He used a really bad fake driver's license. - Worked!
  • 2b.2 - Google+ informed him it was blocking the new profile, and also informed the new profile it was blocked. Took about 2 hours - Worked!
  • 2c - As the new Gary Walker, requested reinstatement, using an even worse fake driver's license - Worked!
  • 3 - Wrote up results - Attracted Blog traffic and comments - Worked!
  • 4 - ....
  • 5 - PROFIT!!

Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes. But SHHHHHH!! Don't Tell Them!

Re:Summary of what he did (1)

DoktorMel (35110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064058)

Point of interest: in order to get to step 5, I'd have had to set up AdSense prior to step 3.

Re:Summary of what he did (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064256)

Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes.

The idea that faxing/emailing a copy of an ID somehow validates that you are the legitimate owner of that ID was bogus from the get go.

At best the guy looking at the copy can plug in the name and address (if it is on the ID) into a marketing database to see if it matches what's already in that database. But he can't tell that you aren't a faker who looked up the target's identity in the phone book or even the same database and then put that info on a forged ID and emailed it them.

Even if they wanted to look at your face via video chat, all you have to do is make a fake ID with the real name and address but use your face for the picture.

This stuff provides no security for users, it only makes their lives more difficult while making it even easier for con-men to pull off scams because now the marks will think that since Google/facebook/etc are requiring real IDs that the con-man really is who he says he is.

Utter fail all around.

Re:Summary of what he did (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064290)

I'm curious if one could just type some gibberish in notepad, rename it "*.png" and submit that as their driver's license. There's no way anyone actually looked at the second license and thought it was legit. I suspect Google is just conducting some security theater. Ask for a scanned license, and expect imposters to just slink off with their tail between their legs.

Re:Summary of what he did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064800)

yeah the problem is if I am the real Gary Walker and I complain they do this over again and it eventually builds a pretty good database that is actually... correct. The quality of originals will get better as the get more real IDs versus fake ones

Re:Summary of what he did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064776)

Do you really think the guy's they're outsourcing to in india for this work have any clue wtf a real or fake ID looks like?

Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063708)

Why do people give a fuck about social networking web sites? There's nothing special about them. They're basically a less-efficient, less-private form of email or instant messaging most of the time. If you really need to share your photos or whatever other crap you need to share, create your own web site!

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063774)

Except this is free. And you don't have to take up yet another domain name just for you.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064234)

Are we running out of domain names now? I assumed that first.middle.last.me or .com or whatever TLD will always be available to people who want to run a web site.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064266)

If someone already has last.me you're screwed, the first.middle part would be a subdomain.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (2)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064444)

My last.* is taken
My first-last.* is taken
My firstlast.* is taken
as is firstmiddlelast.*, first-middle-last.*, Flast.*, F-last.*, FMlast.*, F-M-last.*, first-L.*, firstL.*, as well as all of those with my shortened version of my first name (think "steve" instead of "steven").

Granted, the ".*" is a slight exaggeration, but * includes com, net, and org, and many others for most of those.
It's also hard as hell to find me on any social site unless you know my email or some other more specific information.

AND, I just tried creating a temp account on yahoo and found out the reverse of my last name, reversed lastfirst, and reversed firstlast are all taken as well (ex. htims, htimsnhoj, nhojhtims) as are most of those reversed name domains! WTF!

If I could get my "firstlast.com", I'd gladly give out subdomains to others with my name.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064030)

I think you need to look up the meaning of "less-efficient"

It certainly doesn't mean a site that allows a person to easily upload pictures from most computer devices with internet access, maintain contact information without needing to inform people in your contact list that your contact information is changing, allow messaging, instant messaging, and billboard conversations with 1 to 2 clicks in a browser.

Creating a website certainly isn't considered efficient since you'd need to add all of that, to make it as useful as most social media websites.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (1, Interesting)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064252)

When IPV6 becomes more widely adopted and we dispose of all this NATting more devices will be on a classless network and this sort of service will be sold at best buy to run on your own mini-NAS build into your year 2014 computer.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (1)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064450)

When IPV6 becomes more widely adopted and we dispose of all this NATting more devices will be on a classless network and this sort of service will be sold at best buy to run on your own mini-NAS build into your year 2114 computer.

FTFY

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064868)

Because unlike you, many people actually have friends. And staying in touch with those friends or relatives who are long distances away through these sites is easy.

Account verification (4, Informative)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063800)

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

Re:Account verification (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063854)

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

Why that's communist! We would never do that here!

Why do you hate America?

Re:Account verification (3, Funny)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063912)

Why do you hate America?

Because of your freedoms, obviously ;-)

Re:Account verification (1)

MomoolaMan (2435622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064210)

Accept life, cherish life, dump on life, don't papoohie on that. What do you think of the scientific butter that awards crack-addicted babies with even more?

Re:Account verification (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065168)

Because of your freedoms, obviously ;-)

So that's the reason our last two presidents have been taking away our rights it's not to protect us it's to make us look better in international affairs.

Re:Account verification (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063994)

OH, hate America? Well there's the whole start wars for bullshit reasons, then there's Wall Street, then Hollywood, then the Tea Party then Fox News.......

No reason at all really.

Wow. Slashdot has really changed. (1)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064476)

In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.

Now 80 percent of /. is just a bunch of script kiddies who think opposition to this kind of thing is rooted in religious crackpottery, or imaginary straw men who just think everything from Europe is communist.

I mean, gosh, Washington, Madison, Jefferson -- How could those guys not understand how much better life would be if we centralized all our power in one big government?

    - aj

Re:Wow. Slashdot has really changed. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064712)

In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.

I am one of those kids that dont understand this (neither about why it is better in short term nor whey bad idea in long term). Someone care to explain?

Re:Account verification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063910)

And that would never work in the United States because:
1) Most people believe that the U.S. government cannot be trusted to run such a system without abusing its power to control or spy on citizens.
2) Some highly religious people believe that any kind of national ID card is a sign that the government has been taken over by Satan (see: "Mark of the Beast").

Re:Account verification (1)

Cramer (69040) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064742)

3) the US .gov would make such a flaming complex incompetent mess of the whole thing -- assuming it was ever completed, billions of dollars and decades later.

Re:Account verification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37063930)

I get tired of hearing about countries that are great places to live where I would move in a heartbeat if only it were possible.

Re:Account verification (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063990)

Here, this'll discourage you :

"Belgium is the OECD country that levies the highest tax [oecd.org] and social security burden on the labour income of single taxpayers, whether they have low, average or high earnings."

Now you know why we produce so much beer, it's to drown our sorrows.

Re:Account verification (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064350)

Now you know why we produce so much beer, it's to drown our sorrows.

Sadly, in the US, we produce more -- and cheaper -- beer. :(

Re:Account verification (0)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37063972)

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

Can you choose not to have one?

Otherwise that sounds like a horrendous plan.

Re:Account verification (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064032)

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

Can you choose not to have one?

Otherwise that sounds like a horrendous plan.

What is it you don't like about it?

Re:Account verification (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064880)

There are a large, large number of government programs that one could ask "what is it, precisely you dont like about it?" I have, in fact, been asked this about the Obamacare plan.

The simple, easy answer to most of these questions is as follows:
A) Most of these cases are NOT the federal government's role, according to the documents (or contracts, if you will) that grant our government its authority
B) This is because a large, expansive, powerful central government was originally regarded as a bad thing
C) Which is because people are not inherently good, but inherently selfish, and / or arrogant, and / or corruptible. The best leaders are the ones who understand that they are not to be trusted with excessive power.

A good policy is to regard any law that is to be passed as being a negative, and then to have to justify its passage. Each law you pass will by its nature remove some freedom from its citizen, and should only be done if there is some much greater pressing need.

Personally, I am on the fence about an ID system. I recognize a need for enforcement to be able to do their job; but at the same time I am not sure there is sufficient justification for imposing such a system on a national level, particularly given that the design of the USA seems to be, from everything I have read, to have been a coalition of independently governed states with a federal arm that performed ONLY those roles that the states could not.

Re:Account verification (2)

Deatzo Seol (1429339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064052)

Well, no, it's compulsory for everybody... on the other hand, and I know this sounds unbelievable, the government generally respects the people's privacy...

Re:Account verification (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064134)

You can keep the ID cards, but would you care to swap governments?

Re:Account verification (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064174)

We would if we actually had a government.

Re:Account verification (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064660)

"Well, no, it's compulsory for everybody... on the other hand, and I know this sounds unbelievable, the government generally respects the people's privacy..."

Wait? Belgium has a Government? I thought the country has been without any real form of Government for over a year. It seems to be a country in the process of completely ripping itself apart.

Regardless... your "government" may be respecting your privacy now, this does not mean that will always be the status quo. Anyone with the tiniest knowledge of European history (and especially that of Belgium) would be extremely foolish to trust their government.

Plus, compulsory ID cards are very expensive, and just do not work. They are simply a way of controlling the passive. Criminals, illegal immigrants etc do better as a result of ID cards, not worse.

Re:Account verification (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064062)

No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.

Re:Account verification (1)

patscii (2425314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064160)

Sounds basically like an American drivers license. We just have a problem with National IDs. It stirs up apocalyptic ideas about 666, one world government, universal healthcare, stuff like that.

Re:Account verification (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064398)

You are not required to have and carry a drivers license. It does however make life more convenient.

Re:Account verification (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064796)

Uh. A driver's license only makes life more convenient if you're going to be driving. If I'm not driving, I have absolutely no goddamn use for the thing. I might have occasional use for a State ID card, but I am absolutely not ever under any obligation (unless I've been arrested, I believe) to produce that identification to anyone at any time. And you aren't obligated to present your license to someone, just because they have a shiny badge on their chest, either -- unless you are engaged in driving a vehicle at the time.

Re:Account verification (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065182)

You are wrong. At least in California and Oregon and Washington, you are required to carry a state issued ID card at all times. Driving, walking, whatever, you are supposed to have a state ID card. I'm also pretty sure many many other states feel the same way.

Oh, and that bit about not being obliged to present your ID to police... good luck with that. I'd say let me know how it goes, but you'll be in lock up so you won't be able to. In fact, in most states, the ONLY thing you are obliged to do in regard to a police officer is identify yourself.

Re:Account verification (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064894)

And the whole "its not the federal government's place to enact such a law" thing, that has something to do with it as well.

And the potential for harassment and abuse, that too, though that argument is losing some weight as it is increasingly irrelevant whether or not you have an ID.

Re:Account verification (0)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064786)

No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.

Uh. It would be a big deal, because America is a free(-ish) country and citizens don't need to "show zee papers" at the whim of whatever "authority" feels like hassling you. Even requiring on IDs on airplanes is a new and controversial issue for just this reason.

Re:Account verification (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064862)

"Papers Please"

Re:Account verification (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065102)

Yeah : Stop And Identify Statutes [wikipedia.org]. Or you know, excercise your right to remain silent and be photographed, fingerprinted and thrown in the hole. I'll just show my ID thanks, all that's on those papers is my name and where I live. if you are being given a ticket or being arrested they're going to ask you that anyway.

Re:Account verification (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065074)

No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.

It's a "big deal" because the state doesn't own you, you own the state. They should have no right to force you to carry ID at all times. If you are a private citizen minding your own business, why should you be forced to identify yourself to the authorities? If the need for identity legitimately arises (hopefully via due process) then you can always produce appropriate proof then.

Interesting that Europe - which should, more than any other part of the world, appreciate why tight state control over citizens is a bad thing (Nazis/Stasi/USSR/etc) - has this type of setup.

Re:Account verification (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065254)

Europeans do not, in general, believe that strong state is bad. They believe that strong state is bad when used for nefarious purposes. That is why there is "hate speech" and other similar kinds of censorship in Europe - it is there to prevent the bad guys from taking over. For a more specific example, it's why Germany has a law banning political parties that promote things directly contradicting the "democratic order" - i.e. parties which are against democracy, secularism, human rights etc.

o/b Papers Pleassse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064040)

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification in this way. Quick, painless.

Just the way that Mr. Hilter down the road wanted it.

And we all know that such systems are never broken.

Good luck with the illusion.

Re:Account verification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064046)

If only it worked properly in Linux. I find that the BeiD packages in Ubuntu are always broken come tax submission time.

Americans are a free people: No Identity papers. (-1, Troll)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064264)

We in America, a free country, do not have identification papers. That is what sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064368)

We are also a free country, there's no checkpoints in the streets.

I really don't get it, if I :
deal with the bank, I prove my identity with a debit card,
deal with the library, I prove my identity with a library card,
deal with traffic cops, I prove my identity with a driver's license,
and if I deal with the government, I prove my identity with an ID card.

What's the big deal ? I mean look what's on this thing [wikipedia.org] and tell me what exactly about that is supposed to enslave me ?

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (0)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064432)

The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064488)

The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.

You don't need anything to prove you exist as individuals ? I think I know someone on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who'd disagree with that.
And it's not proof of existence, it's just identification. You'd think geeks of all people would understand the value of proper identification during interactions with service providers.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (0)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064538)

He's talking about the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.

You're talking about "the value of proper interactions with service providers."

He's talking principles.

You're talking expedience.

    - aj

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064616)

I freely admit I'm a pragmatist. I can see the philosophical reasoning but I'll take the real benefits over the purely theoretical loss of dignity. There's no sense in ending up with half baked systems (like the US social security card, which from what I understand relies on security by obscurity) or basically outsourcing identification services to the DMV or worse, the banks (who famously even send credit card offers to dogs.)

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064874)

Mate, I'd give it a rest.

Americans really do not trust their governments. Maybe they have a good reason for it ... I dunno. It seems you are happy to trust your government and I am happy to trust mine. Oddly enough, your country and mine are high on a voter turnout list while USA has the lowest voter turnout on this wikipage [wikipedia.org].

Could be purely coincidental.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064808)

What's the big deal ?

Have you forgotten what the occupation was like during WW-II?
Papers please!

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064390)

There are lots of good reasons but you don't have to agree with them as is your right. Personally I'm just fine using a photo ID to travel via commercial air transport, rent a car and hotel at will, qualify for credit lines as needed so as not to expose my own wealth to scanners and frauds - at home or abroad.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064434)

Unless of course you're an immigrant in Arizona. Then you need papers, or you end up in prison.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (2)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064506)

I guess I don't understand.

If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.

If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?

Please clarify.

    - aj

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064674)

The point is that people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times. If they lose them, or forget them at home, or whatever, then they get tossed in jail until they can present them. So the statement "Americans are a free people: No Identity papers" doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1, Insightful)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064724)

I don't think you've thought this through very well. Your reply does not seem to be based on fact.

(1) "people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times."

I've just been reading up on Arizona's SB 1070. It makes no mention whatsoever of "brown skin." The law seems to apply equally to all colors of immigrants. I.e., it certainly discriminates between nationals and foreigners, but does not seem to discriminate between *types* of foreigners.

Not trying to be disingenuous here. Arizona clearly has a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, not from Romania. But that doesn't mean Arizonans don't like *Mexicans*; it just means they don't like *illegal immigration.*

(2) "'Americans are a free people: No Identity papers' doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white."

This seems obviously false as well. The people you're referring to -- i.e., immigrants, whether legal or illegal -- *aren't Americans.* I certainly hope we treat non-Americans well, but whether we do or don't seems to have little bearing on whether Americans "are a free people."

  - aj

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064856)

Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant. The fact is that the law will be used against anyone with brown skin, and pretty much no one else.

As to your second point, anyone living long term in this country is an American. That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. That we take people from all over the world, mix the cultures together, and come out with one super culture (which we then sell back to the world). Perhaps you're thinking of native Americans -- confusing I know, given that some American Indians prefer to be known by that term.

Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry. That may not be the intent, but it's an unacceptable side effect. Anyone who values freedom should oppose it. The fact that Republicans support it shows that all their talk of small government is a facade.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (3, Insightful)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064936)

You seem to know a thing or two about ridiculousness.

(1) "You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant."

Are you aware that the law explicitly forbids arresting a person of *any* color on "suspicion of being an immigrant"?

(2) "Anyone living long term in this country is an American."

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe a long tenure of living here automatically grants you American citizenship, though of course you can apply. But what if you choose not to? What if you don't consider yourself an American? Are you one anyway? And do you mean living long-term here legally? Or illegally?

You are obviously speaking from the heart here, but that doesn't mean what you're saying makes any sense. Often, the opposite.

(3) "That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. "

I'm sorry, but this is objectively incorrect. What made this country great was the unprecedented application of liberal values: Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and thought; government of, by and for the people; equal justice under law; etc. In other words, all those things we call "liberty." How long people lived here had nothing to do with it. Simple racial diversity is a nice plus -- I like it as much as you do -- but even the most cursory review of history will show that it's hardly critical, or even necessary. Plenty of relatively homogenous civilizations have achieved great things.

(4) "Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry."

ALL LAWS are eventually abused, by politicians, prosecutors or cops who are incompetent, ignorant, racist, etc. This law is no different. Victims of abuse are free to sue for giant settlements, just like in any other case of wrongful arrest/imprisonment.

    - aj

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064704)

I guess I don't understand.

If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.

If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?

Please clarify.

In America, citizens don't need to carry identification papers, nor do they need to justify brown skin with proof of legal residency. The original version of SB1070 required police to check the residency status of anyone they came into contact with when there was "reasonable suspicion" (what does that mean?) that the person might be here illegally, and to imprison that person (possibly a U.S. citizen!) if they could not immediately produce proof of legal residency. See the problem?

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (2)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064870)

Yes I do. But it's not relevant -- the "original version" is not the one that passed. According to Wikipedia, the one that passed stated that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

I don't particularly like this law. Could it be abused? Oh, totally. But it only came about because of the federal government's politically motivated failure to even try to live up to its obligations.

(ARTICLE IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.")

- aj

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064990)

Just to clarify, the original version of SB1070 did pass and was signed into law. It was amended a week later after the massive outcry began. The amendment was a very good idea: in particular, witnesses to or victims of a crime should not arrested for being here illegally just because they reported a crime. Otherwise, since we have millions of illegal immigrants here who aren't going away anytime soon, we'd be creating a class of perfect victims.

I agree that an arrest should entail a full identification, and that immigration laws should be enforced at that point. The "lawful stop" part is gray area, though. I worry about scenarios where a citizen with an accent or a "foreign" appearance could be legally stopped (which doesn't imply an actual crime occurred) and then imprisoned until they proved their identity; I think it's safe to assume that this would not happen to a white person with a standard American accent.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064438)

We in America, a free country, do not have identification papers.

Yes, America truly is the land of the free. And Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

You don't get out much, do you? (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064530)

Failure to identify yourself to a police officer can result in arrest and imprisonment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43867449/ns/us_news/t/mystery-prisoner-has-utah-jail-authorities-stumped/ [msn.com]

But, aside from that, are you serious about Belgium being a totalitarian regime? That's just plain nuts.

Re:You don't get out much, do you? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064838)

Misleading. You'll note that the man was arrested on minor charges; not failure to present identification. You are not required to carry or provide identification in America unless you are driving a vehicle or flying a commercial airline. A few municipalities have enacted very controversial and constitutionally grey laws that require you to identify yourself if an officer believes you are engaging in a criminal activity and you are of course always required to provide identification if you have been *arrested*.

Now, can an overzealous cop say "you were sitting on this park bench reading a book and you refused to provide me with your papers when I asked you for them" and decide to arrest you on that alone? Sure. A cop can also decide that you being a bit mouthy is justification to hit you in the head with a baton or taze you. That doesn't make it a legal action on the cop's part. That's what the legal system is for (never *ever* fight or debate with an officer, even if your rights are being violated. Just shot the fuck up and deal with that when you speak with a lawyer so you don't make things worse for yourself).

But, what they can do and what is legal and right is not the same thing.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID [flexyourrights.org]

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065078)

As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.

So what two forms of identification did you use to get any of the jobs you have had in your life?

Yes you can be an american citizen, natural born, and not have any form of universal identification. Though you would find your life to be very restricted. Just proving your citizenship would be down right impossible. In reality practically all US citizens have a Universal ID, and though you can not be required to reveal that ID, you can be restricted from service for not doing so.

Hey. What say you warn people next time... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064048)

before enticing them into clicking on a link that's actually a 50-page pdf with (potentially underage) pornography and a photo of an open leg wound in it by mentioning Captain Kirk?

DON'T CLICK on that 419 eater link at work! (5, Informative)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37064076)

If you're at work, DO NOT CLICK on that link to 419eater!

It is funny, yes, but it has several pornographic and at least one medically disturbing/disgusting image.

Save it for viewing at home.

Re:DON'T CLICK on that 419 eater link at work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064328)

at least one medically disturbing/disgusting image.

That is correct, the Kirk passport has him being from from Maryland, MD. This is indeed medically disturbing/disgusting.

Re:DON'T CLICK on that 419 eater link at work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064458)

Get a better workplace, wage slave.

Re:DON'T CLICK on that 419 eater link at work! (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065154)

Or use an ad blocker? I didn't see any on my visitation.

mod Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37064586)

aboUt half Of the sling, return it to

Moral of the story (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065088)

GIMP works! Eat that, Photoshoppers.

"I was able to get an account with no particular infringing information or activity suspended by providing a GIMP'ed version of the McLovin ID from Superbad."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...