Texas wants my thumbprint for a driver's license

[Guest LadyC]

Yes, I most certainly did say that "driving is a right not a privilege". The Magna Carta (which is the root document for the US constitution) guarantees the right of "freedom of movement without molestation". It doesn't say "the privilege of movement magnanimously granted by the state".

the magna carta never said anything about guaranteeing the right of freedom of movement in a car that you are driving. get real. you're interpreting things the way you want to interpret them, not the way they were intended. what was meant by the magna carta is that you are guaranteed the right to go where you want without being unduly restricted. it had nothing to do with means of transportation. it was about your legal right to travel or relocate, not about your so-called-"right" to drive around the corner for a gallon of milk.

i've lived in a small town most of my life, where there were no buses or taxis. ya know what? i managed without a vehicle. as i said, there's no license required for a moped, there's no license required for a bicycle, there's no license required for your own two feet. there's no law prohibiting you from catching a ride with a friend or neighbor or relative. there's no law that says you can't have freedom of movement. there is a law that says to have the priviledge (and it IS a priviledge whether you like it or not) to drive you must meet certain conditions.

by the way, i'd sure like to know where in this country dmv's were issuing only PAPER licenses in 1998. frankly, i find that impossible to believe. i started driving in the early 80s, and we were issued plastic licenses with photos. in fact, it seems to me that my parents had plastic licenses with photos long before i was even old enough to reach the gas pedal.

Please, you've got to be kidding? Surely it is my right not to have to wear gloves and that does not, in any way, mean that I am willingly surrendering my prints to anyone who wants them for any purpose. Do you believe this? Do you believe that if someone, illegally I might add, follows you round lifting your fingerprints off everything you touch and transferring to anything at all to be used for "any purpose", you wouldn't even object?

first of all, of course you have the right to wear gloves 24/7 if you feel so inclined. but you don't, do you? and second of all, it is NOT illegal for someone to lift your prints off anything you touch when you're in public. they can't go into your house and obtain them, but they can certainly lift them off the glass you left on the table at the local restaurant. legally, anything you leave behind in public is fair game... if you set your garbage on the curb, it no longer belongs to you but to whoever wants it. if you spit your gum out on the sidewalk and someone wants to obtain your DNA, they can. it happens all the time. not many people go around collecting prints and dna other than law enforcement officials, but it is legal and doesn't require a warrant.

now, to address something else you said in an effort to make me appear dense, yes i know you can fake fingerprints. i said it would be a neat trick to see you do it in front of a dmv official. not to mention there's no Biblical grounds for committing fraud in this manner. in fact, there is no Biblical grounds that justifies you defying the laws regarding fingerprinting for a drivers license either. you're choosing to rebel against what God has commanded of you, which is to obey the laws of the land providing it does not require you to deny God. so quit trying to justify that which is indefensible (except in your own mind.)

Ladyc you're either getting the wrong end of the stick" or grossly exaggerating what I said, or you simply lack understanding.

none of the above apply to me. however, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding, and an extremely self-indulgent will that you're excusing as "Biblical".... it's not.

[buckthesystem]

Some merchants are beginning to explore fingerprints as a method of payment

Kroger lets Texas shoppers pay by fingerprint

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stor...23/daily21.html

Let your fingers do the paying

Wal-Mart, Costco weigh merits of allowing customers to pay by scanning fingerprints: report

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/magazines/...trics/index.htm

Do not fall for this rubbish! The more people who accept it, the more it is likely to be offered with no alternative.

Talk about a "softening up" process!

A true cashless society! I have a theory that Ezekiel 7.19 is referring to that.

"They shall cast their silver in the streets and their gold shall be removed: Their silver and gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: They shall not satisfy their souls; neither fill their bowels because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity".

You might think it is inevitable, but that does not mean that you have to embrace it. If I am wrong, which I very well may be, there are plenty of other reasons to resist this.

[buckthesystem]

I want to reply to the comments of a lot of you so I will copy and quote here (I can't seem to be able to put multiple quotes like I have seen, the only conclusion I can come to is that my system doesn't allow it). So:

cjrose, quote: "It's an ink spot, you wipe it clean when done, not like a permanant mark. If you want to drive, it's a must and really no big deal. Now if they want to give you a tattoo on your forearm or forehead or plant a chip under your skin, I'd say, run far far away! They fingerprint for records in case you commit a crime. Seriously, don't sweat it".

If you accept fingerprinting (which, perhaps it is my age but I have always associated that with "criminal processing" and not something you surrender to, for daily life) as a "necessity" for driving, what is to say that you will not justify in your own mind something like a tattoo on your forearm or forehead or a subdermal chip implant, later? How about a digital image that is compatible with face recognition technology? As:

http://www.c-vis.com/htd/frt.html

Which, I believe, is coming with the advent of "real ID". Will you say "it is necessary to have this to drive, don't sweat it" then?

Also: "They fingerprint for records in case you commit a crime". Isn't that reversing the onus of proof? I've always believed that you surrender your fingerprints after you commit a crime, not before, or in case you may commit a crime.

Now, Other one, quote: "I can only speak for the State of Oklahoma, but here it is by statute a privilige...... and that privilige will be removed from you if you don't abide by the traffic laws..... (and pay for your gasoline btw). For the past couple of years you have to prove your citizenship and record your finger or thumb prints and take a picture with your glasses off by a camera that not only records your face, but turns your face picture into a digitized data file that can be checked to prove that you are the person you say you are... Personally I like that....."

I really don't get this. What has paying for gasoline got to do with the RIGHT of driving? So "for the past couple of years you have had to prove your citizenship and record your thumb prints etc....." (I guess you mean face recognition technology which is described above). That, in no way, makes it a good thing. Why do you like that???????? Was this law just foisted on you or did you have any public debate about it? What was the "official" excuse for introducing it?

kittyjo, quote: "Fingerprinting drivers has been done in California and many states for years, it has helped to solve crimes, to preserve justice and vindicate the falsely accused.

In order to work in the gaming industry in Nevada Sherrif or Gaming Cards are required, using photo and fingerprints to I.D., it is a percaution against hiring thieves and to help prevent new hires from theft or violence".

How many years has fingerprinting of drivers been done in California and many states? How has it "helped to solve crimes, to preserve justice and vindicate the falsely accused"?? I would think if anything it very anti-justice, and certainly goes against the constitutional right to privacy and reverses the onus of proof.

It is a good thing that everybody doesn't work in the gaming industry in Nevada. Is there really no protest about this? If it is really a precaution against hiring thieves etc., it assumes that you are a thief when you apply for the job and you have to prove that you are not a thief before they will hire you, do you see how this reverses the onus of proof?

Ladyc, quote: "the magna carta never said anything about guaranteeing the right of freedom of movement in a car that you are driving. get real. you're interpreting things the way you want to interpret them, not the way they were intended. what was meant by the magna carta is that you are guaranteed the right to go where you want without being unduly restricted. it had nothing to do with means of transportation. it was about your legal right to travel or relocate, not about your so-called-"right" to drive around the corner for a gallon of milk".

"Freedom of movement" granted, was originally the freedom to move anywhere by foot, or horse or donkey as that was the usual means of travel at that time, but now we have to put it in a modern context and say that it is "freedom of movement by the usual means" today - which is by motor vehicle. I also said nothing about "driving round the corner for a gallon of milk", I meant "freedom to attend your workplace". I work about 39km away, and I could hardly walk there, go by push bike or moped. That is my livelihood and I have a right to a livelihood, without giving up my other rights - one of which is privacy.

Ladyc again, quote: "by the way, i'd sure like to know where in this country dmv's were issuing only PAPER licenses in 1998. frankly, i find that impossible to believe. i started driving in the early 80s, and we were issued plastic licenses with photos. in fact, it seems to me that my parents had plastic licenses with photos long before i was even old enough to reach the gas pedal".

This one is my fault, I should have explained but somehow I thought you knew. I live in NZ and I first got my DL in 1971 (or it could have been 1972, I'm not 100% sure). Anyway, at that time we had little cardboard books that you "renewed" every five years or so by buying little stickers from the PO for about 50c and sticking them in the book. In 1987, this was changed to "lifetime licences" which were just bits of paper which were stamped by our transport dep't. In 1998, the system of "digi-licences" was dishonestly foisted on us and a lot of people here are still seething about it.

Ladyc, quote: "first of all, of course you have the right to wear gloves 24/7 if you feel so inclined. but you don't, do you? and second of all, it is NOT illegal for someone to lift your prints off anything you touch when you're in public. they can't go into your house and obtain them, but they can certainly lift them off the glass you left on the table at the local restaurant. legally, anything you leave behind in public is fair game... if you set your garbage on the curb, it no longer belongs to you but to whoever wants it. if you spit your gum out on the sidewalk and someone wants to obtain your DNA, they can. it happens all the time. not many people go around collecting prints and dna other than law enforcement officials, but it is legal and doesn't require a warrant."

Well, the lifting of fingerprints may not be technically "illegal" but it is most certainly totally immoral and a gross invasion of privacy. I can understand about the garbage, that is fair enough. You have discarded it, but I would think it highly suspect if (say) someone found a bandaid in the garbage and got a DNA sample out of it. The same with the gum. Do you not believe in the constitutional right to privacy and The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Ladyc, quote: "now, to address something else you said in an effort to make me appear dense, yes i know you can fake fingerprints. i said it would be a neat trick to see you do it in front of a dmv official. not to mention there's no Biblical grounds for committing fraud in this manner. in fact, there is no Biblical grounds that justifies you defying the laws regarding fingerprinting for a drivers license either. you're choosing to rebel against what God has commanded of you, which is to obey the laws of the land providing it does not require you to deny God. so quit trying to justify that which is indefensible (except in your own mind.)"

You are absolutely right. I am sorry for being rude. My only excuse is that my dog cut his foot when I was walking him and before I bandaged his foot he left bloody footprints on the carpet which I had to clean up and this put me in a bad mood, mainly because I realised that it was my fault. I apologise again for being horrible to you.

Finally Ladyc, quote: "none of the above apply to me. however, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding, and an extremely self-indulgent will that you're excusing as "Biblical".... it's not".

Again, I have to apologise for this attitude. However, I am not excusing anything as "Biblical", it is all because I see being made to be fingerprinted as a severe invasion of privacy and totally unconstitutional and I can't understand why others don't see it that way too.

[Guest man]

When you make ref. to NZ I am assuming you mean New Zealand.

You can't compare NZ to the U.S.

NZ population...4,147,403

U.S. population...299,604,490...and that's not counting the over 11 million illegals within our border's. The population of New York alone is over 8 million.

In land area the U.S. is almost 36 times the size of NZ.

The illegal population here is 3 times that of NZ. And those are just documented illegals.

There is a need for security within our border's that you don't understand. There are thousands of people sneaking across our border's everyday. Many of those people are criminals and I'm sure there are a few terrorists amongst the group. I don't think you have this problem in NZ. I could be wrong...if I am, correct me.

I'm not ripping on your country...I'm just saying there's a big difference. The security needs for the U.S. are much different then that of NZ.

[rollinTHUNDER]

We just moved from Mississippi (where a thumbprint is not required for a driver's license) to Texas. I recently went to "swap" my Mississippi license for a Texas license, and was told I would have to give a digital scan of both my left and right thumbs. I looked at the little scanner box and the name on the side was "DigiMarc". This reminded me too much of "the mark" spoken of in Revelation. I refused and am currently still using my Mississippi license. It is Texas law that I get a Texas license within 30 days of moving to Texas. I assume I will get a ticket if I have Texas plates on my truck but still have a Mississippi drivers license. So what do I do? I have already bought land in Texas and have a job. I am still paying Mississippi income tax right now and Texas has no state income tax. I considered claiming Mississippi as my state of residence (using relative's address) and claiming that I am working in Texas, but I don't know how honest that would be. Does anyone know if there is a loophole around this fingerprint requirement, based on religious beliefs? I considered talking to a lawyer, but most lawyers would think I was nuts if I even mentioned this. I guess all states will eventually require fingerprints when the national ID card goes into effect(http://www.nonationalid.com/). But this threw me for a loop. I guess i should have checked this out before moving to Texas. We are actually considering moving back to a state which does not require fingerprinting. I would greatly appreciate any advice.

I don't know if fingerprinting is the actual mark. But it is getting closer. I think the mark will be a chip or barcode, but you never really know what John saw in his vision. Perhaps he saw a photograph & thumbscan and described it best he could?? Either way, I think that giving up your prints is a BAD thing.

Revelation 13:16-17

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

(17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Biscuit,

There is nothing to worry about here. The Bible makes it very clear. The mark of the beast will be one that is placed in either your right hand or forehead. They do not want to mark you with your own thumb print, but rather, they want to keep a record of your prints, probably put on a piece of paper. This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.

Remember, the mark of the beast will have to be placed on your physical body. There's a big difference between taking the mark, and letting them have yours.

[Guest LadyC]

buck, thank you for the apologies, they're accepted... and i must also apologize for being so snappy back at you. i do recall someone having been from NZ, but i never remember who is from where. i bet i remember now though!

i don't imagine any old joe blow would go around collecting fingerprints or dna from drinking glasses or band-aids... it would be an expensive thing to do just for kicks. but 'reasonable expectation of privacy' doesn't apply to public places, so no, i don't see it as an invasion of privacy. i see it as a useful tool. many fugitives under surveillance have been caught this way.

i don't see this as a softening up that will have anyone too desensitized to recognize the dangers of being forced to accept a tatoo or a chip. a fingerprint as means of identification is something we were born with, something that identifies us uniquely, something given to us by God. it's vastly different from having to accept something we weren't born with being made a permanent part of our body as a means of identification.

the photos on i.d. in digital format serve a very useful purpose. i remember when photos were not digital. it was a relatively simple procedure (and done by many underage teens in an order to be able to enter clubs and purchase alcohol) to separate the lamination holding someone else's ID together, slip a photo of yourself in over it, and seal the laminate back. ID theft in this manner was very common. the digital IDs used today are not laminated.... the photo of you is digitally printed on a piece of plastic, much like you could simulate on any inkjet printer at home... except that you couldn't duplicate the watermarks in the plastic like the DMV uses. digital photos on ID is no biggie... it's just advanced technology to prevent falsifying who you are.

i agree with you that society is conditioning us to be more accepting of things, that it desensitzes us to things, particularly in our social attitudes towards sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, etc. but scripture is still pretty clear on the fact that when the mark of the beast begins being implemented, it won't be something we accept unaware. those who know God will recognize it for what it is.

so really, i think being afraid of fingerprinting, or worrying about the motives of the government, are futile. in fact, given that scripture tells us NOT to worry about things and tells us that satan is the author of fear and confusion, i'd say it's more than just an excercise in futility.

i watch a lot of forensics shows on television... not the fictional dramas, but the shows on A&E, CourtTV, and similar channels. fingerprints (and DNA) are often used to exhonerate suspects, and to identify victims who have been rendered unidentifiable by other means, whether they are murder victims or victims of a tragic accident in a car, boat, or plane. many victims go unidentified forever if they had never committed a crime, because they have no fingerprints or dna on file in some national database. so personally i think that having a database that includes these records on non-criminals is a wonderful thing. i can't tell you how many times i've considered collecting bloody tissues or bandaids from my family members to store in case of such a tragedy... but in the end, i have never been able to bring myself to keep bloody bandaids in my freezer!

i'm a former texan, now living in nevada, and as yet, we don't have to give thumbprints on our licenses here. i won't mind a bit when the day comes though. if i ever turn up missing, i'd like my fingerprints to be on file so they could be compared with that of deceased... i want my family to have closure.

[LadyRaven]

Seems to me that this is a matter of misplaced faith: Faith in the fear of conspiracy vs, faith in the victorious power of our Lord, our refuge.

Fingerprinting drivers has been done in California and many states for years, it has helped to solve crimes, to preserve justice and vindicate the falsely accused.

In order to work in the gaming industry in Nevada Sherrif or Gaming Cards are required, using photo and fingerprints to I.D., it is a percaution against hiring thieves and to help prevent new hires from theft or violence.

I have no fear in any of this, because the Lord is my strength; my refuge; He protects, preserves and provides for me.... For you too!

I'm not "afraid" of tyranny, however, I will stand against it. I respect what the too-long arm of the law can do to me much more than what it can do for me. The best form of government is self government and I have the right to be treated as if I've done nothing wrong until, in fact, I have done something wrong...not IN CASE I've done something wrong. I have the right to liberty, and the right to privacy. The fact that any state or federal agency thinks that they can regulate that over and above preventing me from hurting you does not mean that it actually has the right to do so. It doesn't.

[LadyRaven]

When you make ref. to NZ I am assuming you mean New Zealand.

You can't compare NZ to the U.S.

NZ population...4,147,403

U.S. population...299,604,490...and that's not counting the over 11 million illegals within our border's. The population of New York alone is over 8 million.

In land area the U.S. is almost 36 times the size of NZ.

The illegal population here is 3 times that of NZ. And those are just documented illegals.

There is a need for security within our border's that you don't understand. There are thousands of people sneaking across our border's everyday. Many of those people are criminals and I'm sure there are a few terrorists amongst the group. I don't think you have this problem in NZ. I could be wrong...if I am, correct me.

I'm not ripping on your country...I'm just saying there's a big difference. The security needs for the U.S. are much different then that of NZ.

Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders.

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

[Guest man]

Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders.

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

Advocating the killing of another human being is not very christianlike.

Tell me...how many deaths do you suppose Christ was responsible for? To my knowledge, none...but then I could be wrong.

[buckthesystem]

When you make ref. to NZ I am assuming you mean New Zealand.

You can't compare NZ to the U.S.

NZ population...4,147,403

U.S. population...299,604,490...and that's not counting the over 11 million illegals within our border's. The population of New York alone is over 8 million.

In land area the U.S. is almost 36 times the size of NZ.

The illegal population here is 3 times that of NZ. And those are just documented illegals.

There is a need for security within our border's that you don't understand. There are thousands of people sneaking across our border's everyday. Many of those people are criminals and I'm sure there are a few terrorists amongst the group. I don't think you have this problem in NZ. I could be wrong...if I am, correct me.

I'm not ripping on your country...I'm just saying there's a big difference. The security needs for the U.S. are much different then that of NZ.

First off I must state absolutely categorically I DID NOT, IN ANY WAY, COMPARE NZ TO AMERICA!! I merely mentioned it to explain my comment about paper licences and point out that a "digi-photo'" on a DL always means that it can be used for face recognition technology which - last I read which was a couple of years ago - was not only highly illegal and banned everywhere, but extremely dangerous and very innacurate.

However, the main point is: Certainly I understand the need for security in a country so large, but are you saying that taking the fingerprints of everyone in the country is for "security"? And if so, how will that provide security against these thousands of people sneaking across the borders?