A Happy One

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Wednesday , March 26 , 2008

Get religion off the ID card, along with Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs, ...

Posted by FelixQui , Reader : 362 , 14:51:31 | Category : Ethics

Now that another blog has brought up the issue of what should be recorded on a person's ID card, another long over due change would be to the habit of stating a person's religion. Teh government has no need and no business even asking people what their religion is. It might be useful to know the percentages in different areas, but an anonymous census can provide all that is required. People's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are their personal concern and should be of no interest to the state. Forcing such private information to be displayed on an official ID card for no good reason is a gross violation of privacy. If people want to make a show of their religious affiliations, they can wear a cross or an amulet or whatever.

Now that another blog has brought up the issue of what should be recorded on a person's ID card, another long over due change would be to the habit of stating a person's religion.

Teh government has no need and no business even asking people what their religion is. It might be useful to know the percentages in different areas, but an anonymous census can provide all that is required.

People's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are their personal concern and should be of no interest to the state. Forcing such private information to be displayed on an official ID card for no good reason is a gross violation of privacy. If people want to make a show of their religious affiliations, they can wear a cross or an amulet or whatever.

Post comment | send mail to friend

Read comment

comment 29
Ian date : 29/03/2008 time : 21.06
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Obey, an excellent idea, in the UK you just get a choice of stock pictures.

comment 28
Obeyno1kinobe date : 29/03/2008 time : 20.46

Ian, before I left home 10-15 years ago when you got a visa credit card, you could pay an extra $10 and send them a photo and they scanned it onto the back of your card as extra security. Much better than a signature that can be copied, or not even looked at by the cashiers.

I'm not sure if they still do it.

comment 27
Ian date : 29/03/2008 time : 17.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I am getting a bit confused here, I thought people were talking about Visa cards as in credit/debit cards, then it appears they have photos on them so are we talking about entry visas?
An increasing problem is identity theft, a screen name and password might be fine for blogging, but I want much higher security for my money.
ATM fraud is high in Thailand simply because they do not yet have chip&pin machines. At Thai supermarkets one's cards are even more vulnerable.
In the West chip&pin is already under attack by criminals, I want to see higher security, I want biometric date which cannot be forged, people are already discussing ways of fooling retina scans.
Basically it is becoming a question of which is more important, my privacy or the security of my money?
As I have nothing I particularly want to hide, money is most important.
I want an ID with foolproof biometric date, which is absolute proof that I am me. People like Felix can opt out at their own discretion.

Incidentally, regarding on-line banking, my English Natwest account has 4 layers of security, my Siam Commercial Bank has just two.

comment 26
narcisuss date : 29/03/2008 time : 15.11
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Ob1. The thing about DNA archives is that it can be construed in such a way that the information about your person that can be extracted from it is minimal (at least that is my understanding).
This means that it would have little function other than comparing samples and establishing how good a match they were.

It would help crime solving and I hardly see how it could be misused. Even if the doomsday scenario of our fellow bloggers would happen and a new hitler came to rise in a country with such an archive; I don't think it would help him much more than the information that governments keep already.

Besides at any point in time a dictator with a grudge against people above the height of 180cm might come to power. Does that mean that we should keep our heights secret as well?

comment 25
Obeyno1kinobe date : 29/03/2008 time : 09.04

Narc do you trust the government and the police with your DNA?

Particulary where corruption is high. And more stable and secure societies don't need so much big brother.

Back home we had photos on visa's 15 years ago. Much better than a signature.

As things go more digital identity theft and cyber crime will become increasing issues. Maybe biometrics will be necesary. When it comes to money it will always be a race between security and fradsters.

Anyway, I guess we need some way to identify ourselves.

Re religion on ID cards, I can't help but think back to the yellow stars the nazi's made jews wear. Us and them.

comment 24
narcisuss date : 29/03/2008 time : 00.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

In fact I support the idea of a DNA archive..

comment 23
narcisuss date : 29/03/2008 time : 00.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

" visa cards and the Visa and Amex systems work perfectly well without state certification" back home, our visa cards (we have pictures on our cards) and driver's licenses are the most commonly used ID cards. We don't have any government issued ID cards that I know of.. But then again the needs of one country may be different from another.
We're 5 million people, we have air tight borders, we all have our personal ID numbers given to us at birth and every single person's basic information, address, phone number etc can be accessed from a computer.
So we don't need cards..

I don't have a clear impression of what the argument is here. I agree with the notion in your post that the government shouldn't force people to paste their belief system on cards.
That a government might require some form of standardized ID means for its citizens is understandable.

comment 22
FelixQui date : 28/03/2008 time : 22.30
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Cards or other items that certify something to be true are very useful, but there is no need for the state to be the certifying body. My visa cards and the Visa and Amex systems work perfectly well without state certification, and teh banking system got along perfectly well without state interference. If non-state bodies can be trusted with running the worlds financial system, and verifying who owns what funds where and is who is authorised to access what, it would appear somewhat difficult to argue that anyone particularly needs state certification to know who they are, or that such certifiaction is any more reliable than non-state certifications. I would have more faith in a certificate from Harvard than a document from the Thai government certifying that it's Ministers all possess intellignece and education.
This website certifies that I'm the person authorised to write on this account, and for the purposes of this Blog site the verification process in place seems to work perfectly well, without any state interference of backing.

On the whole, I think a professional physician's certification of my health, good and bad, would be at least as reliable as any state document. It is also false to think that state power is not abused by officials. The best protection is to allow the state and its minions as little power as is truly needed for them to serve teh citizens, not to lord it over the citizens.

comment 21
Obeyno1kinobe date : 28/03/2008 time : 22.08

I'm with you Felix on C16.
I'm going to tear up the first ID card I see in protest.
Which won't be mine, because I'm id cardless.

ID cards are a reflection of the type of government and society.

Having religion on the card is a symptom of the society.

I hope Atheist is an option, or no religion, or evolutionist if they must have a tag, or jedi.

comment 20
narcisuss date : 28/03/2008 time : 19.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Id cards are in use partly becuase of what was said in comment 16 and partly because it is a service to its owner.
It's a certificate of certain pieces of information that is guaranteed by the state to be accurate. It enables you to prove various facts to whomever requires you to do so, be them private or public institutions or individuals.

comment 19
Ian date : 28/03/2008 time : 09.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, when I say optional I still mean that the information I have provided on that card is certified as true by the State, namely some form of foolproof smart chip technology. Otherwise anyone could produce a DIY card claiming to be me or whoever.
Incidentally, opening a bank account in Thailand just required a passport, however in the Uk a passport is not regarded as sufficient proof for this purpose, yet strangly the wholely online banks require no proof, just your money

comment 18
FelixQui date : 27/03/2008 time : 20.23
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
I would certainly be a lot happier were it optional, along with most bits of information.
If people feel a need to publicly proclaim their religious convictions or other private matters, including their age, whether for medical or other reasons, they are of course free to wear an amulet with the relevant facts inscribed, or carry a note in their wallet, or tattoo it on their foreheads if that appeals. However, the state has no need for knowledge of those personal details and should not be permitted to ask, except for anonymous census information, for which there are legitimate reasons, or for a specific reason that gives cause, such as an application for an age pension or a driver's licence. Actually, I don't have any particular problem with a record of births and deaths being maintained by the state, but I do have a problem with citizens being forced to carry that information around on a card for strangers to peruse.

Does a card prove who you are? Or does it prove that you have a card that makes certain claims about you? Or, rather, that you have a card that makes certain claims about a person who might be you? Or none of the above?

My credit cards work because they allow the merchant to verify that the bearer, whose entitlement is verified by a PIN, or a signature or an appearance that matches a photo on the card, is good for the amount requested. No other information is normally needed by the merchant: not how much I have in the account, not my religion, not my age, not even my name. I use them in Tops everyday - I don't think the cashiers have ever looked at the name or other details, the proper beep after a swipe, and a matching signature is all they normally need. Teh proper beep says I have the money, and the matching signature says that Visa will honour the payment. The wrong beep says that there isn't enough credit or that the card has been reported stolen (I haven't tried such cards, but I presume there is such a beep or message.) The cards do NOT prove who I am, they prove that the money will be forthcoming for the groceries piled in the basket.

Similarly, my passport doesn't prove who I am. It proves that the bearer, provided he matches the photograph, is entitled to cross the border. It has other uses, like satisfying a bank that the bearer can be allowed to open an account - although this is only because of coercive state interference in how the bank runs its business. Banks were once less interested in customers' personal affairs and more interested in money. Now, the state forces them to ask about age, name, address, and so on regardless of whether the bank wants those personal details or not and regardless of whether is has any use for them other than to satisfy snooping government interference.

And Thai ID cards do not prove who people are. It would be rather sad if anyone needed a card to prove they were themselves.

comment 17
Ian date : 27/03/2008 time : 18.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, would you accept this compromise? I sometimes find it useful to have a card which proves who I am, a card which will fit in my wallet like the part1 driving licence. How about an ID card which is official but optional, then I could carry one and you need not:-)

Incidentally, once in China I visited a National park and asked for the senior discount, they asked for ID, I did not have my passport with me so bluffed them with my English library card, just my name, the library logo and a bar code. They were happy with it

comment 16
FelixQui date : 27/03/2008 time : 16.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

I think ID cards are required because intrusive, power hungry states think they have a right to keep tabs on their citizens.
The lame excuse given is usually something like "to help prevent crime", which the comparative crime rates for different countries show to be as complete a lie as reason suggests it would be.
There is no good reason for a government forcing its citizens to have and carry an ID card.
That the same card forces the public disclosure of personal information about beliefs and marital status is even less excusable.

comment 15
Obeyno1kinobe date : 27/03/2008 time : 15.25

Why do you need an ID card anyway?
I have never had one.
A DL a PP, but never an ID

comment 14
Ian date : 27/03/2008 time : 10.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

What do you suppose would be the possible religion of someone who's given name was Mohammed?

comment 13
sven date : 27/03/2008 time : 02.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sven

Correction: I re-checked my passport, and it has got the gender column (fillable with M/F) !

So, for countries like Thailand where I have to show a passport, I have to disclose my gender, whereas in the EU and some neighbouring countries like Switzerland and Turkey, ID card can be shown instead of passport, so I don't have to disclose gender. Religion is mentioned in neither document.

comment 12
naive date : 27/03/2008 time : 01.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/naive
Narrow and wide by "Naive" point of view. ...................................*v*....................................................................For Thai reader visit http://www.oknation.net/blog/wickedgirl

I come back to read this again and think twice "Why" they have to identify the religion in our ID..
Hmm... Will ask them the next time i renew my id!
and as i have - in my religion once the Pub security just simply asked me .. Are you really has NO religion? .. I just say.. doubt that!

comment 11
naive date : 26/03/2008 time : 23.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/naive
Narrow and wide by "Naive" point of view. ...................................*v*....................................................................For Thai reader visit http://www.oknation.net/blog/wickedgirl

You can just simply not fill in the religion blank and you religion type will be just -
(I really do this for my id)

comment 10
sven date : 26/03/2008 time : 22.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sven

Ian, you would have to argue this with the local register office. At least in case of birth registration, with the names you propose they would most probably deny this registration. There have been cases going to court, e.g. parents wanting to name their offspring Pinnochio

So, gender IS registered at the office, but under disclosure. You can however officially change gender in the register and, in that case, your given name, too.

comment 9
Ian date : 26/03/2008 time : 21.26
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Sven, can Hilda, Grechen etc be male names then?

comment 8
sven date : 26/03/2008 time : 21.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sven

BTW, you see that religion or gender is NOT published in German passports.

comment 7
sven date : 26/03/2008 time : 21.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sven

On my ID card, as well as my passport, there is:
Surname
Given Name
Birthday
Place of Birth
Nationality
Current address
Height
Eye colour
a face picture
my signature

I don't have to carry my ID card around with my, but I do, because in case police has doubts about the information I provided verbally, they could take me to the police station to officially establish my identity -- by asking register offices, witnesses and such ... I can envisage more useful or funny things to do instead of this 1-3 hour procedure...

comment 6
Ian date : 26/03/2008 time : 20.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I actually think a picture on an ID could be useful. Again using the extreme example of a DOA person with severe facial injuries, it might be useful to have a picture to show potential witnesses.

comment 5
Poomjai date : 26/03/2008 time : 19.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/poomjai

Felix,

Another characteristically didactic missive.

I don't have strong views either way. Religious information may be useful in disaster or emergency medical situations where a casualty's religion may impact on treatment regime or indeed handling of remains. But that is a long shot.

Marital status I see as less relevant, although gender should probably be kept on there for the same reasons (victim identification). Makes me wonder, given Ian's blog, how katoey's should be recorded?

comment 4
narcisuss date : 26/03/2008 time : 18.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

I was going to say the same thing as Ian.

Maybe the best solution would be to make certain pieces of information compulsory (like name and birth date). In addition there could be a short list of additional information you are free to provide, like religion.

comment 3
Ian date : 26/03/2008 time : 17.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I can think of a few minor situations where it might be useful:-) For example in a hospital to establish what food you cannot eat, or if DOA to establish what funary rites you receive.
Incidentally I wonder, can a Moslem receive a donor organ from someone who has eaten pork all their life?

comment 2
Obeyno1kinobe date : 26/03/2008 time : 15.39

Felix, I guess some people including the government think religion is not a personal concern.

I had a little run in with HR when I first transferred about religion being on the recruitment forms, employee records etc.

comment 1
catch22 date : 26/03/2008 time : 15.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

I might be completely wrong, but I think their is also a requirement for a woman to use the prefix 'nang' in front of her name if she's been married before.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree, what's a person's religion have to do with anything or anyone?

Comment

"If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

member sign in | member register

name :
email :
website :
comment :

		back top

<<	March 2008					>>
s	m	t	w	t	f	s
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31