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

On 12/15/97 11:13 PM, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com)  passed this 
wisdom:

>>>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.) 

  I guess I am curious about being required to identify yourself ... if 
the cops have no probable cause to arrest you then what right do they 
have to know who you are? ... and should they have probable cause, why 
should you have to help them know who you are. I could see circumstances 
where forcing you to identify yourself would come under 
self-incrimination. I am sure they have ways of dealing with this ... 
what legal precedents are there concerning this?



Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr
 For PGP Keys  <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key>

  "One of the deep mysteries to me is our logo, the symbol of lust
   and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with in the colors of the
   rainbow in the wrong order. You couldn't dream of a more 
   appropriate logo: lust, knowledge, hope, and anarchy."
   -- Gassee - Apple Logo

[Tim posted his article on identity, etc. to cypherpunks and nym;
the discussion I'm replying to is primarily on cypherpunks.]

>> There's an important distinction between 
>> a requirement that you identify yourself accurately, and 
>> a requirement that you carry a particular form of identification. 

A third category of requirement is displaying the particular form of 
identification if you're carrying it - for instance, if you're driving,
and carrying a driver's license, you're obligated to display it,
but if you're walking or a passenger, you're not generally required to,
but some states (in particular California) require that 
if you're carrying a driver's license you're obligated to show it to 
any cop who asks.  I don't know if the requirements include 
handing it over or just displaying.

>> 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.

But lying and refusing to cooperate are different; 
"You can call me John Doe if you'd like" is not a lie, 
and Supreme Court cases like Brown vs. Texas have determined that you 
don't have to tell the police who you are even if they're booking you.
On the other hand, the Supremes let police hold you for up to 48 hours
for no particularly good reason (they have a more formal definition 
than that :-) so exercising your rights may have a cost.

Tim brings up the issue of identity papers for jury duty -
even if you feel like confusing the poor court bureaucrats
by not bringing the PhotoID with SSN, Thumbprint, and DNA sample,
there's probably a requirement to bring the jury duty summons.
(Depending on your motives, your FIJA membership card is a good backup
ID, or your ACLU card if you've got one - don't leave home without it.)



				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 5:42 PM -0700 12/19/97, Bill Stewart wrote:

>Tim brings up the issue of identity papers for jury duty -
>even if you feel like confusing the poor court bureaucrats
>by not bringing the PhotoID with SSN, Thumbprint, and DNA sample,
>there's probably a requirement to bring the jury duty summons.
>(Depending on your motives, your FIJA membership card is a good backup
>ID, or your ACLU card if you've got one - don't leave home without it.)

I'd guess that either an FIJA or ACLU card is a pretty good "Get Out of
Jury Duty" card, if the jury consultants (if any) learn about it.

(In small, local cases, they won't. Other means of evading that $5 a day
wonderjob are advised.)

On a loosely related note, I've wondered about the constitutionality of
some of the exhaustive "jury questionairres" which potential jurors in
famous cases are expected to spend several hours carefully filling out.
>From what I've heard of some of the questions used in the OJ trials, the
questions seem incredibly invasive and personal.

And the questionairres are hardly kept confidential enough (not that I
would trust the court not to forward to the local justice officials some of
the _honest_ answers I would be tempted to provide). In several high
profile cases (OJ, McVeigh, Menendez, Wm. Kennedy Smith, etc.), it was
possible to deduce that "Juror #7" was the one who said she was a
drug-experimenting lesbian single mother of three who has religious
objections to the death penalty and whose father raped her.  And "Juror
#19" is the recovering alcoholic who wets the bed and can't keep a job. The
reporters were able to put the clues together easily enough. (And of course
those who are in the courtroom can (usually) see the jurors and their
numbers and deduce who is who.)

I can't understand how a person can be compelled to answer questions about
their personal views on abortion, on the death penalty, on blowing up
Federal buildings, and so on. Seems to me one ought to be able to take the
Fifth, or to say, "That's my private view."

(Their claim will probably be that since one is not facing prosecution,
taking the Fifth is not allowed.  This is the logic used to compell
testimony, even if it is later useful in a prosecution, criminal or civil,
of the witness.)

I last served on a jury in 1973.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."