Talk:Identity document

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Identity document is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

It also lacks any discussion on non-govermental ID cards, such as ones used by companies and others.

-- atuomi 10:10 30.9.2006 (GMT+2)

THIS ARTICLE HAS A TOTAL BIASE SLANT TOWARDS IT


needs merging with ID card. Morwen 17:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. Merged.

From the article:

Portable documentary identifiers may date from the days of the Roman Empire.

Can we have some cites for this?

-- The Anome 18:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page (Identity card) be moved to the more generic Identity document?

  • The common Acronym "ID" IIRC is short for "Identity document"
  • Many (most) identity documents are not in card form - eg. passport.

--snoyes 18:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't South Africa a common law country? -- Error 01:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to Politics of South Africa, "The legal system based on Roman-Dutch law and English common law." --Josh3736 10 Jan 2005 9:32 EST

Can anyone tell me what this means?

In some countries like Spain, if their identity, age or citizenship cannot be ascertained, laws on foreigners may give them a longer term for pleading or staying, compared to adult nationals of states like Morocco, that have signed fast repatriation agreements.

--Yath 06:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

A Moroccan young man smuggles into Spain. The police captures him. If his documents show that he is an adult, he is expelled back to Morocco. If he carries no documents, the police can't be sure if he is a minor. Minors are not expelled, if not claimed by their families, and remain under the tutoring of the authorities. Actually a X-Ray of the hand cartilagus is used to determine the age of the doubtful minors. -- Error 00:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, my comment about checking the NPOV of my edits to this article is because I must declare an interest, as a campaigner against the current ID card proposals of the British government. — OwenBlacker 13:01, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] ID cards in Europe

Last time I checked, ID cards are non-mandatory in France (except that, as with driving licenses and non-driving IDs in the US, they are de facto very useful for practical living). David.Monniaux 19:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, another user removed Sweden from the list. I think the list should warrant some proofreading. David.Monniaux 22:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Sweden it is not required to own (or carry) an ID card. However, certain operations (such as opening a bank account, or receiving registered mail) are unavailable to people who are unable to present a valid ID card. Also note that a driver's licence and a Swedish EU passport may be used in place of an ID card. Since Swedish driver's licences are plastic cards of the same size and shape as an ID card, people who possess a driver's licence usually don't possess a separate ID card. The Swedish non-EU passports (all of which probably already have expired) are not valid as ID cards. (Stefan2 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

And I also doubt the accuracy of the "Privacy international" linked document. David.Monniaux 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Germany, it is compulsory to have an identity card (Personalausweis), but not to carry it. It's not clear what compulsory means in the article.

All persons have to possess identification documents. This is based on federal and state laws. German citizens over 16 need to possess an ID card or passport. EU and EEA citizens need a passport or valid substitute (such as an ID card, if their country issues them; for children, an entry in one parent's passport is sufficient), non-EU citizens have to possess a passport (and a visa and/or residence permit, depending on country of origin). Neither the ID Card Act nor the Passport Act nor laws on immigration state that ID documents must be carried at all times, only possession is mentioned – the only exception being when crossing borders.
Willicher 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

edited by 84.147.131.40 15:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

An identity card or passport is the mandatory personal identification document for a citizen of Latvia or a non-citizen who lives in Latvia and has reached 15 years of age. I've moved Latvia from the list of countries without identity documents to the list of countries with mandatory identity documents. 159.148.77.222 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too specific

"In some countries like Spain, if their identity, age or citizenship cannot be ascertained, laws on foreigners may give them a longer term for pleading or staying, compared to adult nationals of states like Morocco, that have signed fast repatriation agreements."

Too specific and would have to be checked for accuracy. Rephrased. David.Monniaux 22:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] this page reads like a self-conscious blog

some pov editing is needed: the page is like a two headed man trying to get up the nerve to whup himself


This article is incorrect, it is compulsory in Canada to have ID card on your person. if u are caught by the cops without ID you can be charged for failure to provide ID or something like that.

[edit] De Jure & De Facto

By my count, this article mentions "De Jure" and "De Facto" three times. It's rather repetitive. Can someone please simplify this? There's also repetition in other sections, but I'm too tired to mention it now.

What do you mean? Those are legal terms of art. Yes, one could take out the latter usages, but then one would have to replace them with plain English alternatives that would be much less concise and far more confusing. The problem with identity documents is that their importance arises from the law (otherwise they're just pieces of paper or plastic like any other), so their significance has to be explained with reference to the law. In my opinion, de jure and de facto get the distinction across quite well. --Coolcaesar 13:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral?

I do not believe this article is entirely neutral with regards to ID, especially with regards to ID in the USA. It seems that a proportion of comments regarding the US focus on how inconvenient it is to lack an ID system.

"In the absence of one, government agencies and businesses have had to improvise with a clumsy patchwork of documents."

The information regarding the RealID act is tucked away at the end of the section on Driving Licenses, not countering the previous claim that "All legislative attempts to create one have failed" as it ought to be.

And then the repetition of the first quote, as shown, "In the absence of a national identity card, the typical American citizen is forced to carry a bewildering number of documents issued by many different legal entities."

Overlooking that at least the following,

"Credit cards and debit cards, Membership cards issued by private clubs (social, athletic, educational, alumni, etc.), Membership cards (called loyalty cards) issued by private companies (supermarkets, warehouse club stores, etc.), Membership cards issued by professional organizations, Membership cards issued by private associations"

And probably the following,

"Internal identification card issued by one's employer, university or school, Proof of professional certification (for members of regulated professions), Access documents issued by private or governmental organizations, such as a press pass, or a stage pass"

Would still be separate from any ID card scheme, and are thus not meritable arguments for the ID system, as is implied.

Have you ever actually lived in the United States? Most Americans (like myself) endure numerous irritating bureaucratic hassles on a daily basis because we do not have a nationwide identification card, and thus have to carry around wallets bulging with dozens of documents. For example, there is the hassle of having to bring out the Social Security card (which most people keep in a safe place most of the time for security reasons) just to verify identity for the standard I-9 immigration form that everyone has to fill out when they start a new job. The form requires two forms of identification from two categories;
Actually, a passport is sufficient. If one presents a US passport, no second document is needed to prove citizenship and eligibility to work.
I carry my driver's license and credit card. My work access badge clips on my belt instead of going in my wallet. I carry my library card as well because I'm a frequent borrower. Aside from these, I don't have to carry any other "ID" documents on a daily basis. Getting my Social Security card when I change jobs is less hassle than having to retype my resume information into a potential employer's database...
Septegram 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

this is so that illegal immigrants seeking employment have to commit the crime of counterfeiting twice.

Every year, newspaper columnists and pundits point out that if we had a standardized national identification card with tight security (and backed by draconian data privacy laws), nearly all of those documents could be consolidated together onto a single smart chip on a single card.
However, you are correct that the article is slightly inconsistent as to the issue of how the U.S. has no national identification card. In response to your criticism, I have changed the article to make it more coherent. --Coolcaesar 01:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Didn't this article used to say something about how virtually no one in countries that have ID cards complain abou them? I mean, in removing the obvious bias, that might be helpful.

[edit] Sale to private companies

The bit about the Britain selling the ID Card database to private companies is factually wrong, I know it was just a link to a newspaper article but it was an extremely partisan one and has been firmly denied by the Government.

""The Government has no plans whatsoever to sell individuals' details to private companies," he said. "The legislation we have introduced to set up the scheme will ensure that the ID cards database will be secure and confidential. Private companies will not have access to the information held on it and any unauthorized disclosure will be a criminal offense."" Tony McNulty Home Office Minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/27/nid27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/27/ixnewstop.html

  • "Never believe anything to be true until it has been officially denied". The Government also promised that the ID Card scheme would be voluntary, and that they wouldn't get involved in sleazy acts like selling peerages. Besides, the unparlimentary executive powers the Home Secretary is arrogating to himself will allow ad-lib changes to legislation, so even if they genuinely at the time of speaking had no plans, they can't promise that this or other governments won't later tweak the law in whatever way they like. SleekWeasel 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested vs detained

It makes no sense to arrest a person that doesn't have an ID card, since you don't know who is it that you're arresting. (Assuming here that going without an ID card is not a criminal offense anywhere in the world.) Such persons may only be detained until their identity is established. GregorB 15:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument; in California, the cops arrest people all the time even before they have verified the identity of the suspect. That is, they say, you are "under arrest," they read the Miranda warnings, and they handcuff the suspect. Most Americans (especially criminal defense lawyers) would call that an arrest, not a detention. They would limit the use of the word detention to describe the Terry stop as outlined in the case of Terry v. Ohio.
Also, in California, a person can be arrested if they commit any violation of the California Vehicle Code (whether in a vehicle or not) and fail to present identification. For example, the Supreme Court of California in 2002 upheld the conviction of a teenager for methamphetamine possession, where the only reason underlying the arrest and subsequent search for drugs and weapons was the fact that the kid was riding on the wrong side of a public street, and then could not produce a driver's license when the officer attempted to issue a citation (the teenager was 16 years of age). In California it is an infraction to ride a bicycle on the wrong side of the street.
The reason for this harsh rule is to prevent people from giving the name of someone else; otherwise, innocent people would get speeding tickets when they were nowhere near the location of the alleged infraction. The justification is that people are under no legal obligation to carry identification as long as they are careful to avoid committing any violation of the Vehicle Code (for example, by staying in their own home). --Coolcaesar 17:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries with non-compulsory cards

Just a few references:

Austria: http://www.help.gv.at/Content.Node/3/Seite.030900.html Canada: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/transporters/Appendix2-2.html Netherlands: http://www.bprbzk.nl/echtheidskenmerken/kenmerken_1997_2001/2001/gb/nlreisdocumenten/indexID.htm

[edit] POV problems corrected or Removed

The anti-arguments regarding totalitarian government comparisons seem to have been written in POV fashion favoring the pro side. A statement like "Some hard-line opponents resort to extreme comparisons with totalitarian governments..." is not NPOV as "resort to" and "extreme" are POV in this context. Also the following statement would need to be clarify who considers them "extremistic and tantamount to paranoia" for it to be NPOV. "However, these argumentations are considered extremistic and tantamount to paranoia, and disregarding that actually most democratic countries had and have identity cards." " As such I have removed it now.

I removed the quote below as it address totalitarianism in general and not national identity cards and thus is out of place in my opinion. "One of the fundamental contrasts between free democratic societies and totalitarian systems is that the totalitarian government relies on secrecy for the regime but high surveillence and disclosure for all other groups, whereas in the civic culture of liberal democracy, the position is approximately the reverse." - Professor Geoffrey de Q Walker (Dean of Law at Queensland University)

--Cab88 14:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identification in Germany

PersAuswG, § 1, Ausweispflicht: (1) Deutsche im Sinne des Artikels 116 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes, die das 16. Lebensjahr vollendet haben und nach den Vorschriften der Landesmeldegesetze der allgemeinen Meldepflicht unterliegen, sind verpflichtet, einen Personalausweis zu besitzen und ihn auf Verlangen einer zur Prüfung der Personalien ermächtigten Behörde vorzulegen; dies gilt nicht für Personen, die einen gültigen Paß besitzen und sich durch diesen ausweisen können. ...

Translation: ID Card Act, Section 1, "Compulsory Identification": (1) Germans (in the sense of Section 116, Paragraph 1, Basic Law) who have attained 16 years of age and are subject to mandatory registration (following the obligations of State Registration Laws) are obliged to possess an identity card and to submit it, upon request, to an authority which has been authorized to check people's personal details; this does not apply to persons in possession of a valid passport, who can use this to identify themselves. ...

Courts have always ruled that this law does NOT imply an obligation to CARRY an identity document at all times.

84.147.140.164 12:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is wrong. German police forces have always the right to ask for identification. Therefor you need the Personalsausweis. --Willicher 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not wrong. While police officers may ask you for your identity card or passport under certain circumstances, you are NOT obliged to carry it with you everywhere you go (the law ONLY mentions possession–an obligation to CARRY your document with you would have to be explicitly stated). If the police think it necessary to see your document, they can accompany you to the place where you have it (home, office, etc.), or can oblige you to bring it to the police station within a few days. Besides, police officers may well be satisfied if you identify yourself with a driving licence, student ID or similar document. If you do not believe me, it is worth reading http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalausweis, "Gerüchte und Legenden" (Rumours and Legends, unfortunately only available in German) 84.147.167.225 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The Netherlands is listed under the compulsory ID catagory as well as the non-compulsory catagory.

I assume this is a mistake, if not it requires explanation. <Unsigned>

From the website linked
"You must submit your identity document upon the police’s request. You must therefore have it on you. If you are unable to identify yourself, you might be taken along to the police station. Your identity will then be checked at the police station. You may also be fined."
So I guess it is compulsory. Fixing. 219.77.98.22 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As does France Mucky Duck 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. But it should be it its own article. 219.77.98.22 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds like BS

removing. if you wnt to put it back you might reference it first and explain why a policeman who checks ID would want to know this

[edit] Intro Paragraph

I'm having trouble with this sentence:

"Unlike other forms of documentation, which only have a single purpose such as authorizing bank transfers or proving membership of a library, an identity document simply asserts the bearer's identity."

it seems to be self-contradictory. It says "Unlike other IDs, an ID simply asserts identity." So it has one purpose, that of proving identity. So how does that fit with the statement that other forms of documentation "only have a single purpose"?

I propose changing the sentence to something like: "Unlike other forms of documentation, which have additional purposes such as authorizing bank transfers or proving membership in a library, an identity document simply asserts the bearer's identity." any comments or concerns? YggdrasilsRoot 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments in Favor

"DNA could reveal one's genetic health defects, sexual orientation as well as true paternal blood-lineage, as unwanted side-effects. (For example, the latter of these arguments had been deemed crucial in France, where an estimated 12% of the population were not in fact conceived by their legally registered fathers, thus the issue could become socially disruptive.)"

I removed this. How does DNA reveal sexual orientation? Why does the risk of revealing "true paternal blood-lineage" need to be discussed at all? If someone wants to expound on the DNA drawbacks, that's one thing, but this stuff is just silly.

[edit] One Sided Article

The article suffers from being to much ID Cards and not enough ID Documents. It needs significantly expanding to include passports, Driving Licences etc etc etc Spartaz 11:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French ID cards

I just deleted the following:

In France, it is forbidden to walk around without one's ID, a remnant of the anti-vagabond laws which were voted during the 19th century to fix in some location workers).

According to a Guardian article of 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1047628,00.html) French ID cards are not compulsory (or, at least, they weren't compulsory in 2003).

The article states this too, so it was self contradictory. I'm not sure what the truth actually is... Jim (Talk) 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info

This page needs more info like which famous people wore pendants, lots of stories and LOTS OF INFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Sorting of countries

I don't understand why France, UK and US are all in 3.3 :

3 Identity cards worldwide 
3.1 Countries with compulsory identity cards 
3.2 Countries with non-compulsory identity cards 
3.3 Countries without an identity card system 
3.3.1 France 
3.3.2 United Kingdom 
3.3.3 United States 
3.4 Other non-sovereign state ID cards

Apokrif 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Identification

I was looking for the year and place where identification documents started and i couldnt find it in this page. Am i looking in the wrong article? If not, i think it would be useful to add ID history to this article. (24.242.221.231 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/d/e/Talk%7EIdentity_document_949c.html"