Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II

[Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>]

>>But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United 
>>States for ageneral form of identification. Non-drivers need not 
>>have any form of I.D. And as we have seen in court cases, a la 
>>Lawson v. Kolender (where a blackman in dreadlocks used to like to 
>>walk the streets of San Diego...the copsstopped him many times and 
>>jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the court ruled that people 
>>don't have to present credentials issued by the state to walk the 
>>public streets). 
>
>  In New Jersey there is a criminal offense called "failure to
>properly identify" ... I don't know if its ever been tested, or if it
>is still on the books, but as of ten years ago it was there. I think
>it was a misdemeanor (in NJ the term is "petty disorderly persons
>offense) I cannot imagine it as a felony.

There's an important distinction between a requirement that you identify
yourself accurately, and a requirement that you carry a particular form of
identification. It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your
name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if
you lie. It is not, however, constitutional to require that you keep or
carry identity cards or documents. (Modulo, of course, participation in
activities like carrying a concealed weapon or driving. There are some
people who believe that carrying special credentials should not be required
when undertaking those activities, but very few or none of those people sit
as judges, so their beliefs are comforting or pleasing but also
insufficient to prevent conviction.) 


--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | Export jobs, not crypto.
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com