Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In License Photo - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

VirFighter · 06-09-2003, 01:58 PM

Wow, what a post so far. When I first read this article I really didn't expect it to grow into 3 pages.

What I'm about to say has already been said for the most part but just thought I would throw my words into the mix as reinforcement.

Driving is a not a right. If driving were a right then a license would not be required. If she cannot meet the requirements for a license in her state then she doesn't get the license, plain and simple. No one is forcing her to unveil herself at anytime so her religous beliefs are still being guarded. If her religous beliefs are more important to her than a license then so be it. She won't be driving. Plain and simple.

On the note about a photo not being required in some states, I think this needs some clarification. I think this is referring to the fact that you don't need a photo ID in order to obtain a license. That said though, I'm 97% positive that every state in the union has a picture on their respective driver's license. North Carolina does not require a photo ID to get a license. I show them my birth certificate and social security card (I think just one of those will do), pass the test, and they take my photo for my license. Simple as that. No photo ID required to get one but my license still has a photo ID on it.

I'm not sure if people were confused about that but that's the way I understood it from the article.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
Can I get my picture taken for my motorcycle license with my helmet on? What about sunglasses and a baseball hat?

Or a wig, fake nose, and lens-less glasses to purposely disguise your identity?

I want to get my drivers license photo taken while wearing a carrot costume with orange face-paint. That would be great.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
The DMV made special provisions to take her photo with no men present. She refused and demanded to not remove the veil, which in that state is unreasonable. That should really be the end of the issue.

That pretty much was the end of that issue.

Then comes another issue, if the case a religion forbids it's members to be photographed at all, and there is an alternate form of identification that is as good, should the state allow the use of such a form of identification?

izzzzy · 06-09-2003, 02:02 PM

hey 4th i dont like your opinion or your attitude either this lawsuit is frivolous and the judge did the right thing you dont like george bush either i bet

gibber71 · 06-09-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

I want to get my drivers license photo taken while wearing a carrot costume with orange face-paint. That would be great.

Ha ha ha,..first belly laugh of the day,..Very funny

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by denim
You're not dealing with the same reality we are. The federal government is God, and can do anything to us serfs. Didn't you know that?

They can steal our property (drug raid! eminent domain!), they can stop us on the street and take us to jail w/o actually charging us, and they HAVE. Recently.

Go read the 8th Article of your Constitution. It quite clearly limits the powers oif the Federal Government.

Quote:

Or a wig, fake nose, and lens-less glasses to purposely disguise your identity?

May I ask people to please refrain from making comment such as these? They are only ruining the discussion.

james t kirk · 06-09-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate

Here's how simple it is. I don't care what a persons religious views are. It shouldn't give them special privileges over others. It's a fucking drivers license and it's not like the fucking picture is gonna be all over TV or something. Now her face is all over TV and the internet because she feels like she should have special privileges. Good job dumb ass. Fuck her. If she doesn't like the way things are done here then get the hell out of the country and go find one that you like more!

Laws apply to all people no matter what their religion may be.

[/B]

I agree 100% (that makes twice i have agreed with sixate)

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 02:10 PM

Is it in any way possible to open your eyes and see that the laws have been based on Christian values, and that as a result an effort could be made to make life a little easier for those of other religions?

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
May I ask people to please refrain from making comment such as these? They are only ruining the discussion.

I'm not attempting to "ruin" the discussion, merely questioning why any sort of disguise of your identity -- of religious basis or not -- would be allowed on a photo ID. It makes no sense to me at all.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
Is it in any way possible to open your eyes and see that the laws have been based on Christian values, and that as a result an effort could be made to make life a little easier for those of other religions?

A reasonable attempt was made to take the picture in accordance to her religion -- without men present -- and she refused. To compromise the rules any further would be stupid.

edit: I just realized that I and others have said the above response at least three times on this thread. Is it really that difficult to understand, or am I stating it unclearly?

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 02:21 PM

There's a reason for her to veil her face, and a good one, other than disguising herself for illegal or humourus purposes. And I wasn't going only after you seretogis, I just used that as an example. I was a bit annoyed with 20ish posts of non-contribution.

And if you read up, you'll see that I too have, on several occasions, tried to explain my view that she has been given her opportunity and that the judges ruling was correct.
But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue. But for the most part this has been thwarted by people who have not (seemingly) read our full posts (or the thread for that matter) and only made comments to a small part of one of the last posts.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue.

In general, a photo id of any kind should have a recognizable photo of the person represented. Wearing a veil which obscures all of your face but the eyes does not constitute a recognizable photo, and so should not be acceptable photo identification.

If you are a member of an African tribe that firmly believes that cameras steal a part of your soul (seriously - link) and you refuse to have one taken of you, fine, but you have no photo identification and are restricted because of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
Then comes another issue, if the case a religion forbids it's members to be photographed at all, and there is an alternate form of identification that is as good, should the state allow the use of such a form of identification?

It is not the state's responsibility to determine the authenticity of other forms of identification, and so I would have to say no to this. As is, it is currently possible (in MN at least) to get a photo-less drivers license which is essentially just a piece of paper with your personal info on it and a stamp by the DMV to certify that you are able to legally drive. It is not a photo id, and doesn't pretend to be, but it allows you to drive.

gibber71 · 06-09-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno

Then comes another issue, if the case a religion forbids it's members to be photographed at all, and there is an alternate form of identification that is as good, should the state allow the use of such a form of identification?

Well I don't know.What is it that you have in mind? The only other proof of identity I'm thinking of other than a photo would be DNA testing or fingerprinting, and I think that opens up a new can of worms with many pending problems.

denim · 06-09-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VirFighter
Wow, what a post so far. When I first read this article I really didn't expect it to grow into 3 pages.

Hey, we're just gettin' warmed up!

denim · 06-09-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by izzzzy
hey 4th i dont like your opinion or your attitude either this lawsuit is frivolous and the judge did the right thing you dont like george bush either i bet

Hey meester! Calm down and get literate.

For all you know, he might be playing devil's advocate. This is just a discussion.

denim · 06-09-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
Go read the 8th Article of your Constitution. It quite clearly limits the powers oif the Federal Government.

Yes, now tell the DEA and John Ashkroft that. I'm talking about what they've done. Recently and not so recently.

denim · 06-09-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
fingerprinting, and I think that opens up a new can of worms with many pending problems.

And finger print reading is not so easy, either. Eventually, DNA checking might become reasonable, but meanwhile we've got visual verification.

Yes, it's not perfect: a person can be horribly disfigured in an auto accident (y'all know what I'm referring to) and still be "them", but not match their driver's license at all. Or the person processing the transaction or whatever it is could be blind, and there you are again.

It's not about the optimal solution yet, but only about one that's as good as we've yet found that's easy to use. That may change later.

Here's another thing: once we manage to use DNA-based checking, someone will figure out a way to get around it...

denim · 06-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue. But for the most part this has been thwarted by people who have not (seemingly) read our full posts (or the thread for that matter) and only made comments to a small part of one of the last posts.

See my comment before this one. What it comes down to is (1) ease of use, (2) cost. We could check everyone NOW based on DNA, if we had a few years to blow on each check each time we needed one.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 02:55 PM

For gibber:

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Another option - one of several
I do not suggest that Jane Doe should carry around nine forms of ID. I suggest:
- Jane Doe be required to visit her driving licence registry office.
- She must bring four forms of quality ID: birth certificate, national insurance card, wage slips, utility bills, passport (if she has one), bank statements. These are all accepted for other government purposes and can be accepted here.
- She will give her fingerprint, which is stored on a computer database with all the other fingerprints
- She registers the details of her cars.
- In return she is given an ID card that lists her name and details along with the details of her cars.
- In the unlikely event she is ever pulled over by the police (I know of noone who ever has been) she will show the card. They will ask to see a credit card or other form of ID (I think they do this in UK). They will check her car registration matches her ID card. They will, if they have any doubts, take her fingerprint and check it back at the station.
- Any cost for the registration process will be charged to Jane Doe in the form of a special registration fee.

denim, try and place all comments in 1 post?

Anyways, my opinion is that a licence should carry some form of identification, but that the form of identification need not be photo if this violates someone's beliefs in some way.

gibber71 · 06-09-2003, 03:05 PM

Perhaps an even better idea would be eye recognition( The correct name fails me).That would be very expensive especially for portable units.But it would be accessable to and for everyone, and much quicker to know exactly who the person is. But then again,people will complain that Big Brother has to much info on people.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 03:13 PM

Hehe, just have some code (magnetic strip or whatever) on the licence that describes the iris pattern (that's what they use, no?) of the owner. But I don't think we're quite there yet

SecretMethod70 · 06-09-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
Perhaps an even better idea would be eye recognition( The correct name fails me).That would be very expensive especially for portable units.But it would be accessable to and for everyone, and much quicker to know exactly who the person is. But then again,people will complain that Big Brother has to much info on people.

Retinal scans aren't nearly as intrusive as DNA scans. I have no problem with retinal scans or fingerprint scans, but the fact is that they're too expensive to be a viable solution right now. When fingerprint scanning or retinal scanning becomes cheap enough we can switch over to those. But until then all you're doing is beating a dead horse. Unless, of course, you want to foot up the HUGE tax increase that would be required to implement these things in such a portable manner as wuold be needed.

YourNeverThere · 06-09-2003, 10:50 PM

they let me wear a bandana for mine, not remotly the same thing at all, but still we got in a big fight at the place

roothorick · 06-10-2003, 12:34 AM

Ok, I'm going to do my best to decipher what's going on here.

In the red corner!
Photo ID has been a definite requirement of many, many things across a wide variety of platforms. You can't walk into a bar and ask for a drink without being expected to produce a photo ID to verify that you're 21 or older. If a police officer pulls you over, you need to a) show him your driver's license, and b) be able to prove that the license is valid. In the current system, that's just not possible short of photo ID.

In the blue corner!
Yes, her religion restricts showing her face in public. Most people, when coming here, blend with the decidedly unreligious (NOT atheist) culture and abandon their religions entirely. She begs to differ, and I always pray for the underdog, so more power to her. Besides, a lack of religion is a bad thing, there are a lot of very rational theories about the world's problems being the result of a lack of religion in today's first-world society.

And now, the part you've all been waiting for... the Nonsense's decision.
It has often been said that religion is in the eye of the believer. In other words, your religion is what you say it is. (Debate it all you want, you cannot come up with a rational argument against this that I cannot strike down easily.) By this rule, if she says that she cannot be photographed unveiled, then she cannot be photographed unveiled. HOWEVER, just like with freedom of speech, when it comes to freedom of religion, you have to draw a line somewhere; much as you can't run into a crowded theater screaming "fire" unless there really is a fire, you can't kill someone because your religion says you have to. So the real debate is, where do you draw the line? Specifically, does photo ID fall under the category of making compromises with religion in the name of public safety? Hm. I think that having a common ID is important for public safety; it is not easily enforced unless a public official can identify beyond a reasonable doubt any person they come across, which is nearly impossible short of having a common ID system. And I don't think there is an affordable, reliable form of ID that we can use except for photo ID. Thus, until someone steps up and PROVES that there is a common ID system that is affordable and reliable besides photo ID, the judge's ruling stays. (I'm really looking forward to magnetic strip iris scanners though

)

Take or leave my argument, do your best to shoot it down, whatever you want. BUT, the next person to debate whether or not her religion permits her being photographed, and I'm going on record by saying this, will be shot in the foot. Repeatedly, if needed. And that's after I shoot down their argument in the most humiliating way possible.

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 02:00 AM

OK, I'll go for that

(On a side note though: I doubt she would have much need to prove she's 21 to buy alcohol. And she never "came here" she always was there."

4thTimeLucky · 06-10-2003, 03:15 AM

Well I think this has pretty much run its course. roothorick has even begun the post-thread analysis

I am glad that Atanvarno has been able to seperate the case from the principle and between us we may have made some small stand for reasoned debate. To those who disagreed with us, but still engaged with us on this level, thank you. If you do not try and question what your government does in the name of security or cost or practicality then you will one day find yourselves living in a country where the state dominates your lives without check or balance.

I have during my time lived in China and the UK.
In China you must always carry around an ID card and show it on demand to the police. Failure to do so will lead to a court appearance and possible imprisonment.
In the UK I am required to carry no such identification. In fact if I wanted - and was willing to stay in England and not claim state benefits - I need never own a single piece of ID in my life. I can drive freely and do not carry ID with me. My driving licence has no photo and if a policeman wants to see it they must ask me to bring it into a police station.
These are two ways to run a country. In one, it is the individual who must bend to the state. What freedom people have is granted to them by the government. In the other, the state must bend to the individual. It is considered that I am a free person going about my innocent business - which I am. If the police or state wish to check up on me or control me then it is they who must go out of their way to prove the necessity and must go out of their way not to tread on my toes in doing so.

For those who are interested in why I am so passionate about this persons freedom and am so concerned by the ease with which the posters here want to limit it, I have quoted part of an Observer (the weekend Guardian) article and attached a link to the whole thing. It only touches on the ID aspect and not the religious freedom aspect but is insightful nonetheless:

Quote:

Nick Cohen
Sunday June 30, 2002
The Observer

On 7 December 1950 Clarence Henry Willcock, a 54-year-old manager of a dry cleaning firm, was ordered to pull into the kerb of Ballards Lane, in Finchley, north London, by PC Harold Muckle. In the subsequent court hearings the prosecuting authorities never suggested Muckle believed Willcock was driving dangerously. PC Muckle nevertheless demanded to see his identity card. Willcock refused. Muckle handed him a form which stated that he must produce his card at a police station within 48 hours. Willcock threw it on the pavement saying, 'I will not accept this form.'
Willcock was duly convicted by Hornsey magistrates. The law requiring all citizens to carry identity cards had been rushed through Parliament in September 1939 and remained unrepealed after the war. Willcock had no legal defence, but he had moral and practical arguments and, in a sense, a patriotic case against the cards.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, supported all three in the Court of Appeal. He reluctantly concluded he had no choice other than to uphold the conviction but said: 'The police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. To demand production of the card from all and sundry, for instance from a woman who has left her car outside a shop longer than she should... is wholly unreasonable. To use Acts of Parliament passed for particular purposes in wartime when the war is a thing of the past tends to turn law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. In this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling which exists between the police and the public.' Random demands to see identity cards, he continued, 'tend to make people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of assisting them.' The following year, Winston Churchill's Conservative government abolished the cards.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

It is perhaps a tribute to the success of the American state machine, John Ashcroft and his predecessors that it is an Englishman and a Norwegian who are now trying to convince Americans to uphold freedoms that they do not believe they hold.

SecretMethod70 · 06-10-2003, 04:48 AM

I am not a fan of Ashcroft - he does indeed take things too far. That said, I don't like the situation you described in China OR the one described in the UK. I believe in moderation. Not requiring some sort of ID - at least for specific tasks - seems silly to me. I personally think it makes perfect sense and is right that we are required to carry a photo identification when we drive which says we are capable of driving (and says a lot of other things as well in other situations as secondary purposes). Unlike China however, a police officer cannot just simply demand to see ID - there must be a reason. In driving, that reason is being puled over - which by your description apparently happens a LOT more often in the US than the UK. Being that it happens so much more often, I think that may be the basis of some of our disagreement over how required it is. Police here simply do not have the kind of time required in a long, drawn out identification process which, at the moment, is the only option other than photo IDs.

To sum up my relation of this to religion, it comes from the fact driving is not a right but a priviledge. Protecting people from persecution because of their beliefs is there to protect people from persecution BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS. This woman - and anyone else who is opposed in any way to a photo on a driver's license - are not victims of something set in place specifically to victimize them and others like them. They are simply realizing that having religious beliefs - especially those not shared by a significant number of people - is hard. Do I think it unfortunate that their beliefs cause a situation where they can't drive? Sure. Do I think we should try to use a system that allows people with such beliefs to drive without compromising the speed and relative accuracy of our current system? Absolutely. However, at the moment, such a system doesn't exist. In fact, I'm not so sure - upon further thought over the idea of fingerprint scanning and retinal scanning - that a better one can ever exist. Any other system requires the government to have MORE personal information on database than they do now. Photos that are used on driver's licenses, if I'm not mistaken, are not entered into some mega-database spanning the state or country. They are simply taken, printed, and removed. In order for retinal scans or fingerprint scans to work, it would require a state or country-wide databse of all drivers' retinal or fingerprint information. I'm all for the government not having any more information than is reasonably necessary, and when photo IDs can accomplish, to acceptable accuracy, definitive identification on the spot, retinal and fingerprint data is not necessary.

denim · 06-10-2003, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
Perhaps an even better idea would be eye recognition( The correct name fails me).That would be very expensive especially for portable units.

Not everyone has eyes? Granted, there aren't too many eye-less people who'll need a driver's license.

denim · 06-10-2003, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by YourNeverThere
they let me wear a bandana for mine, not remotly the same thing at all, but still we got in a big fight at the place

They shouldn't have, unless the bandana is welded to your head.

denim · 06-10-2003, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
denim, try and place all comments in 1 post?

Provide a mechanism for that, and I'll consider using it. As it is, it'd require too much effort.

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
upon further thought over the idea of fingerprint scanning and retinal scanning - that a better one can ever exist. Any other system requires the government to have MORE personal information on database than they do now. Photos that are used on driver's licenses, if I'm not mistaken, are not entered into some mega-database spanning the state or country. They are simply taken, printed, and removed. In order for retinal scans or fingerprint scans to work, it would require a state or country-wide databse of all drivers' retinal or fingerprint information.

Not really necessary, the data could simply be stored on your licence (magnetic strip or a small chip). But of cours ethe equipment isn't up there yet, unfortunately. But this is also a much safer method of identification. Identifying someone from a picture is not a fool-proof method.

denim · 06-10-2003, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
Photos that are used on driver's licenses, if I'm not mistaken, are not entered into some mega-database spanning the state or country. They are simply taken, printed, and removed.

Yes, you're mistaken, at least in some places. They're working on a national database for such things. I'm not certain what they already have.

The last time I went to school, they took a b&w digital picture and printed it on my student ID. I protested, but it was either that or not go to that school.

4thTimeLucky · 06-10-2003, 05:48 AM

Denim

The "all comments in one post" request means that when you want to say something you put it in a post. Then if you want to add another comment (and no one else has said anything since your last post) you should click "edit" at the bottom of your last post rather than typing in the big white box or clicking "post reply".

If you knew this already (and I suspect you did as you are Insane) then I apologise, I missed your sarcasm.

denim · 06-10-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
If you knew this already (and I suspect you did as you are Insane) then I apologise, I missed your sarcasm.

You appear to have missed my comment about the lack of a mechanism. The only way to comment on a vB is to a message. There's no given way to comment to more than one. I'd have to do it by hand, making sure to get attributions right and appropriately set up quote and b commands.

It's not worth my time. If the people behind vB want to come up with a way to do this, more power to them. I can think of a way, but I won't bother to code it: that's their problem.

repeat until out of messages:
read a message
specify, maybe with a button, an interest in commenting on it.
end repeat
Press "comment" button
all messages are included, with attributions, in a comment dialog as per normal.

I could see working with that, but it's not there yet.

(edit) while they're at it, they can add a "nested list" capability. Hey, HTML can do it, why can't vB?

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 06:30 AM

denim, we're happy with just a copy-paste of the text you comment with [.quote.] [./quote.] around

Which in the end is less time consuming than clicking send, waiting for page to load, waiting for redirection, clicking quote, erasing unwanted text.

And you could of course go to vB site and look for a hack, maybe they have one ready

spectre · 06-10-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by denim
You appear to have missed my comment about the lack of a mechanism. The only way to comment on a vB is to a message. There's no given way to comment to more than one. I'd have to do it by hand, making sure to get attributions right and appropriately set up quote and b commands.

When I want to quote multiple people in one post, I open a text editor, click the quote button at the bottom right of their post, then copy and paste everyone that I want to quote.

denim · 06-10-2003, 08:34 AM

Yuck!

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 09:06 AM

Thanks for the amazingly insightful comment

denim · 06-10-2003, 10:28 AM

Hey, it was very to-the-point, wouldn't you say?

roothorick · 06-10-2003, 11:06 AM

No offense, but 4thTimeLucky amazes me. I never thought that with my views, I would ever run into someone I can honestly consider to be "too liberal". I certainly stand corrected.

06-09-2003, 01:58 PM	#81 (permalink)
VirFighter Insane Location: Raleigh, NC / Atlanta, GA	Wow, what a post so far. When I first read this article I really didn't expect it to grow into 3 pages. What I'm about to say has already been said for the most part but just thought I would throw my words into the mix as reinforcement. Driving is a not a right. If driving were a right then a license would not be required. If she cannot meet the requirements for a license in her state then she doesn't get the license, plain and simple. No one is forcing her to unveil herself at anytime so her religous beliefs are still being guarded. If her religous beliefs are more important to her than a license then so be it. She won't be driving. Plain and simple. On the note about a photo not being required in some states, I think this needs some clarification. I think this is referring to the fact that you don't need a photo ID in order to obtain a license. That said though, I'm 97% positive that every state in the union has a picture on their respective driver's license. North Carolina does not require a photo ID to get a license. I show them my birth certificate and social security card (I think just one of those will do), pass the test, and they take my photo for my license. Simple as that. No photo ID required to get one but my license still has a photo ID on it. I'm not sure if people were confused about that but that's the way I understood it from the article. __________________ "The South is gonna boogie again" - Disco Stu

06-09-2003, 02:10 PM	#88 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	Is it in any way possible to open your eyes and see that the laws have been based on Christian values, and that as a result an effort could be made to make life a little easier for those of other religions? __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 02:21 PM	#91 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	There's a reason for her to veil her face, and a good one, other than disguising herself for illegal or humourus purposes. And I wasn't going only after you seretogis, I just used that as an example. I was a bit annoyed with 20ish posts of non-contribution. And if you read up, you'll see that I too have, on several occasions, tried to explain my view that she has been given her opportunity and that the judges ruling was correct. But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue. But for the most part this has been thwarted by people who have not (seemingly) read our full posts (or the thread for that matter) and only made comments to a small part of one of the last posts. __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 03:13 PM	#101 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	Hehe, just have some code (magnetic strip or whatever) on the licence that describes the iris pattern (that's what they use, no?) of the owner. But I don't think we're quite there yet __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 10:50 PM	#103 (permalink)
YourNeverThere Practical Anarchist Location: Yesterday i woke up stuck in hollywood	they let me wear a bandana for mine, not remotly the same thing at all, but still we got in a big fight at the place __________________ The Above post is a direct quote from Shakespeare

06-09-2003, 02:02 PM	#84 (permalink)
izzzzy Crazy Location: SW NEW HAMPSHIRE	hey 4th i dont like your opinion or your attitude either this lawsuit is frivolous and the judge did the right thing you dont like george bush either i bet

06-09-2003, 03:05 PM	#100 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	Perhaps an even better idea would be eye recognition( The correct name fails me).That would be very expensive especially for portable units.But it would be accessable to and for everyone, and much quicker to know exactly who the person is. But then again,people will complain that Big Brother has to much info on people.

06-10-2003, 12:34 AM	#104 (permalink)
roothorick Upright Location: Wisconsin, US	Ok, I'm going to do my best to decipher what's going on here. In the red corner! Photo ID has been a definite requirement of many, many things across a wide variety of platforms. You can't walk into a bar and ask for a drink without being expected to produce a photo ID to verify that you're 21 or older. If a police officer pulls you over, you need to a) show him your driver's license, and b) be able to prove that the license is valid. In the current system, that's just not possible short of photo ID. In the blue corner! Yes, her religion restricts showing her face in public. Most people, when coming here, blend with the decidedly unreligious (NOT atheist) culture and abandon their religions entirely. She begs to differ, and I always pray for the underdog, so more power to her. Besides, a lack of religion is a bad thing, there are a lot of very rational theories about the world's problems being the result of a lack of religion in today's first-world society. And now, the part you've all been waiting for... the Nonsense's decision. It has often been said that religion is in the eye of the believer. In other words, your religion is what you say it is. (Debate it all you want, you cannot come up with a rational argument against this that I cannot strike down easily.) By this rule, if she says that she cannot be photographed unveiled, then she cannot be photographed unveiled. HOWEVER, just like with freedom of speech, when it comes to freedom of religion, you have to draw a line somewhere; much as you can't run into a crowded theater screaming "fire" unless there really is a fire, you can't kill someone because your religion says you have to. So the real debate is, where do you draw the line? Specifically, does photo ID fall under the category of making compromises with religion in the name of public safety? Hm. I think that having a common ID is important for public safety; it is not easily enforced unless a public official can identify beyond a reasonable doubt any person they come across, which is nearly impossible short of having a common ID system. And I don't think there is an affordable, reliable form of ID that we can use except for photo ID. Thus, until someone steps up and PROVES that there is a common ID system that is affordable and reliable besides photo ID, the judge's ruling stays. (I'm really looking forward to magnetic strip iris scanners though ) Take or leave my argument, do your best to shoot it down, whatever you want. BUT, the next person to debate whether or not her religion permits her being photographed, and I'm going on record by saying this, will be shot in the foot. Repeatedly, if needed. And that's after I shoot down their argument in the most humiliating way possible. __________________ You shall not listen to me, and you shall not ignore any nonsense before me, nor make any idols representing my nonsense, for I AM THE NONSENSE, and there is no other nonsense besides me.

06-10-2003, 02:00 AM	#105 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	OK, I'll go for that (On a side note though: I doubt she would have much need to prove she's 21 to buy alcohol. And she never "came here" she always was there." __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-10-2003, 04:48 AM	#107 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I am not a fan of Ashcroft - he does indeed take things too far. That said, I don't like the situation you described in China OR the one described in the UK. I believe in moderation. Not requiring some sort of ID - at least for specific tasks - seems silly to me. I personally think it makes perfect sense and is right that we are required to carry a photo identification when we drive which says we are capable of driving (and says a lot of other things as well in other situations as secondary purposes). Unlike China however, a police officer cannot just simply demand to see ID - there must be a reason. In driving, that reason is being puled over - which by your description apparently happens a LOT more often in the US than the UK. Being that it happens so much more often, I think that may be the basis of some of our disagreement over how required it is. Police here simply do not have the kind of time required in a long, drawn out identification process which, at the moment, is the only option other than photo IDs. To sum up my relation of this to religion, it comes from the fact driving is not a right but a priviledge. Protecting people from persecution because of their beliefs is there to protect people from persecution BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS. This woman - and anyone else who is opposed in any way to a photo on a driver's license - are not victims of something set in place specifically to victimize them and others like them. They are simply realizing that having religious beliefs - especially those not shared by a significant number of people - is hard. Do I think it unfortunate that their beliefs cause a situation where they can't drive? Sure. Do I think we should try to use a system that allows people with such beliefs to drive without compromising the speed and relative accuracy of our current system? Absolutely. However, at the moment, such a system doesn't exist. In fact, I'm not so sure - upon further thought over the idea of fingerprint scanning and retinal scanning - that a better one can ever exist. Any other system requires the government to have MORE personal information on database than they do now. Photos that are used on driver's licenses, if I'm not mistaken, are not entered into some mega-database spanning the state or country. They are simply taken, printed, and removed. In order for retinal scans or fingerprint scans to work, it would require a state or country-wide databse of all drivers' retinal or fingerprint information. I'm all for the government not having any more information than is reasonably necessary, and when photo IDs can accomplish, to acceptable accuracy, definitive identification on the spot, retinal and fingerprint data is not necessary. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

06-10-2003, 05:48 AM	#113 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Denim The "all comments in one post" request means that when you want to say something you put it in a post. Then if you want to add another comment (and no one else has said anything since your last post) you should click "edit" at the bottom of your last post rather than typing in the big white box or clicking "post reply". If you knew this already (and I suspect you did as you are Insane) then I apologise, I missed your sarcasm. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-10-2003, 06:30 AM	#115 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	denim, we're happy with just a copy-paste of the text you comment with [.quote.] [./quote.] around Which in the end is less time consuming than clicking send, waiting for page to load, waiting for redirection, clicking quote, erasing unwanted text. And you could of course go to vB site and look for a hack, maybe they have one ready __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) - Last edited by Atanvarno; 06-10-2003 at 06:32 AM..

06-10-2003, 08:34 AM	#117 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Yuck!

06-10-2003, 09:06 AM	#118 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	Thanks for the amazingly insightful comment __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-10-2003, 10:28 AM	#119 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Hey, it was very to-the-point, wouldn't you say?

06-10-2003, 11:06 AM	#120 (permalink)
roothorick Upright Location: Wisconsin, US	No offense, but 4thTimeLucky amazes me. I never thought that with my views, I would ever run into someone I can honestly consider to be "too liberal". I certainly stand corrected. __________________ You shall not listen to me, and you shall not ignore any nonsense before me, nor make any idols representing my nonsense, for I AM THE NONSENSE, and there is no other nonsense besides me.