The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.(gfintegrity.org)
gfintegrity.org
The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
https://gfintegrity.org/report/the-library-card-project/
225 comments
Interesting historical tidbit: Many libraries had very lax requirements for library cards pre-9/11. The PATRIOT Act forced them to collect more information.
https://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000060501&fullsite=true
Librarians have been defenders of privacy for a very long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoia_Horn
Ironic, since the Ad Council released commercials like these after 9/11 showing someone getting questioned after asking about a book in a library, and ending with "What if America wasn't America?":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmBFb4jfjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmBFb4jfjw
Why is it an unlisted video?
Thanks I was wondering when it changed. I got all my library cards for years with no verification and used fake names on all of them.
Yup. In 2000 or so I was just asked what my address was and my name. There was no verification.
Here's an example of what you need for a Delaware C-corp:
https://www.incnow.com/delaware-corporation/
- Name of the corporation
- Name and address of the Registered Agent of the corporation (usually a mail forwarding service)
- Statement of the type of business that the corporation will engage in
- Number of shares of authorized stock that the corporation will issue
- Par value of each share
- Name and signature of the incorporator
- Indemnification clause for breaches of Duty of Care
- Allowance for Director Amended Bylaws
----------------------------
Library card, i.e., Mountain View, California:
https://library.mountainview.gov/selfreg
- (photo identification)
- (address verification)
- Last Name: *
- First Name:*
- Middle Name:
- Street Address:*
- City, State, & Zip:*
- Phone number:* (XXX-XXX-XXXX)
- Birthdate:* (MM-DD-YYYY)
- Email address:
* Required
----------------------------
Required by: Sections 214-216 PATRIOT Act of 2001
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusa...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/0316...
https://www.incnow.com/delaware-corporation/
- Name of the corporation
- Name and address of the Registered Agent of the corporation (usually a mail forwarding service)
- Statement of the type of business that the corporation will engage in
- Number of shares of authorized stock that the corporation will issue
- Par value of each share
- Name and signature of the incorporator
- Indemnification clause for breaches of Duty of Care
- Allowance for Director Amended Bylaws
----------------------------
Library card, i.e., Mountain View, California:
https://library.mountainview.gov/selfreg
- (photo identification)
- (address verification)
- Last Name: *
- First Name:*
- Middle Name:
- Street Address:*
- City, State, & Zip:*
- Phone number:* (XXX-XXX-XXXX)
- Birthdate:* (MM-DD-YYYY)
- Email address:
* Required
----------------------------
Required by: Sections 214-216 PATRIOT Act of 2001
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusa...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/0316...
At first I thought, this makes no sense. Why would the Patriot Act care more about who's getting a library card than incorporating when the dirty money is obviously flowing through the entity?
And then I realized, the government gets all of the ID information they need about the corporation the moment the entity needs to open a bank account. ID not just for the single corporator, but information about all of the officers and directors, and increasingly, about shareholders and major investors as well.
From the government's perspective, it actually does make quite a bit more sense to gather more (and better) information through the banking system at a later time. It's low risk and the additional information is significantly more valuable.
And then I realized, the government gets all of the ID information they need about the corporation the moment the entity needs to open a bank account. ID not just for the single corporator, but information about all of the officers and directors, and increasingly, about shareholders and major investors as well.
From the government's perspective, it actually does make quite a bit more sense to gather more (and better) information through the banking system at a later time. It's low risk and the additional information is significantly more valuable.
And then I realized, the government gets all of the ID information they need about the corporation the moment the entity needs to open a bank account.
Only if the corporation has a US bank account. A Cayman Islands bank account, not so much.
There's too much tolerance of anonymous corporations. In California, it is a criminal misdemeanor to ask for a credit card number on line before the actual name and address of the business has been given to the consumer. BPC § 17538. Useful to know if you have a dispute.
Only if the corporation has a US bank account. A Cayman Islands bank account, not so much.
There's too much tolerance of anonymous corporations. In California, it is a criminal misdemeanor to ask for a credit card number on line before the actual name and address of the business has been given to the consumer. BPC § 17538. Useful to know if you have a dispute.
There is absolutely _not_ too much tolerance of anonymous corporations. If anything, there's not enough. The majority of them are likely used for lawful reasons. What an absurd, anti-privacy statement.
it's good to hear there are legitimate use cases. Care to share some examples? For me, and likely many others, the nefarious ones are the first that come to mind.
Assuming incorporation benefactor details would be kept private by the state, the only legit use-case I can think of is protection from politically motivated actions by public bodies.
Or is the fear that no list can truly be kept private, even by the state, and it would eventually be hacked or leaked, violating privacy?
Assuming incorporation benefactor details would be kept private by the state, the only legit use-case I can think of is protection from politically motivated actions by public bodies.
Or is the fear that no list can truly be kept private, even by the state, and it would eventually be hacked or leaked, violating privacy?
Corporations are not entitled to privacy as a right.
> In California, it is a criminal misdemeanor to ask for a credit card number on line before the actual name and address of the business has been given to the consumer. BPC § 17538. Useful to know if you have a dispute.
Interesting, never seen anybody doing this..
Interesting, never seen anybody doing this..
California prosecutors sometimes charge companies under that when they've done something else that's harder to prove.
> Only if the corporation has a US bank account. A Cayman Islands bank account, not so much.
Yes but usually the purpose of the nefarious shell companies is to “anonymously” transfer the proceeds of illegal activities to the Cayman Islands. A drug lord or a terrorist can’t just wire the money from their own account.
It’s a moot point anyway. C-Corps aren’t the primary vehicle for laundering money anymore, trusts are. Usually a trust with one or more shell corporations or LLCs as trustee.
Yes but usually the purpose of the nefarious shell companies is to “anonymously” transfer the proceeds of illegal activities to the Cayman Islands. A drug lord or a terrorist can’t just wire the money from their own account.
It’s a moot point anyway. C-Corps aren’t the primary vehicle for laundering money anymore, trusts are. Usually a trust with one or more shell corporations or LLCs as trustee.
For the Cayman Islands, FACTA exists, so they probably in actuality get more data about the company.
Creating a corporation requires more than one form.
https://revenue.delaware.gov/business-tax-forms/doing-busine...
Edit: Step 2 is Obtain a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) from the IRS. I started clicking through that process. The 2nd question the IRS application asked is are the co-founders married. Definitely more information required :-)
https://revenue.delaware.gov/business-tax-forms/doing-busine...
Edit: Step 2 is Obtain a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) from the IRS. I started clicking through that process. The 2nd question the IRS application asked is are the co-founders married. Definitely more information required :-)
For the FBI, CIA, NSA and local police to investigate terrorism and other crimes (also to conduct parallel construction and CIA/NSA/FBI feed no-warrant intelligence gathering under "national security" and "terrorism" banners).
> Why would the Patriot Act care more about who's getting a library card than incorporating when the dirty money is obviously flowing through the entity?
Because the Patriot Act was about using terrorism as a pretext to shove through an authoritarian wishlist, much of which and previously been pushed unsuccessfully on other bases (rooting out Communism, the Drug War, etc.), rather than a rational focussed response to any real need.
Because the Patriot Act was about using terrorism as a pretext to shove through an authoritarian wishlist, much of which and previously been pushed unsuccessfully on other bases (rooting out Communism, the Drug War, etc.), rather than a rational focussed response to any real need.
SELECT * FROM PRIVATE_PERSONS WHERE CHECKOUT_BOOK IS LIKE "%Anarchist Cookbook%"Why not push all these private_persons into a Redis set upon checkout? Anything to save another trip the real workhorse!
> Required by: Sections 214-216 PATRIOT Act of 2001
I looked at these sections, and they do not require the states do anything, nor contain any sort of reference to library cards.
Besides, I don't think they have the authority to order states to collect library users' information, and then compel them to divulge this information to federal authorities, in a blanket manner.
There is a limited set of enumerated powers listed Constitution (and the Tenth Amendment restricts all power to these enumerated ones), and nothing in the Constitution grants the sort of authority that would allow such interference in state-owned state-run public libraries.
I looked at these sections, and they do not require the states do anything, nor contain any sort of reference to library cards.
Besides, I don't think they have the authority to order states to collect library users' information, and then compel them to divulge this information to federal authorities, in a blanket manner.
There is a limited set of enumerated powers listed Constitution (and the Tenth Amendment restricts all power to these enumerated ones), and nothing in the Constitution grants the sort of authority that would allow such interference in state-owned state-run public libraries.
Although I agree with you, the constitution now is largely irrelevant. For the most part, it is generally ignored by all three branches, except for when one political group can club the other with it. And once they do it, It goes largely ignored until it can be weaponized again.
In Chicago the only requirements are a photo ID with address, or a letter with your name and address + an ID with your photo and name.
Enough to comply with the anti-PATRIOTic act. But if that weren't the case, having your name/address/photo seems like a reasonable prerequisite for loaning you materials for free - the system would be very easy to abuse otherwise.
Enough to comply with the anti-PATRIOTic act. But if that weren't the case, having your name/address/photo seems like a reasonable prerequisite for loaning you materials for free - the system would be very easy to abuse otherwise.
They also want to know that you live in the area they serve since local taxes are paying for the library. I can get a library card in the town over. They just want 80 bucks a year for it.
I feel like this comparison would be more accurate if you split up the address portion for both of them. The corporation is also going to require payment information which is going to tie into all the identification requirements of the banking system.
This varies extremely across various states and cities. If you live in new York city for example, to incoroerate an llc, you need to take out a section in a news paper to say you created an llc of name so and so, every day, for like a week, within a year (if I remember right) of your incorporation. Across three news papers too.
If you go "OK fine, I will incorporate elsewhere, like Delaware", then NYC views you as a foreign investor and mandates you still do the news paper thing.
Here is the kicker though, the news paper you are allowed to do this in vary based on county. You live in queens? That's a solid few thousand dollars. Brooklyn? Also a few thousand. Staten island? Less than $300.
If you do not do this then the enforcement mechanism is that when you get sued, then a court can take back the corporate veil perk of your llc (llc is void so it turns into a sole proprietorship I think) and go after your personal assets if you loose a lawsuit.
If you go "OK fine, I will incorporate elsewhere, like Delaware", then NYC views you as a foreign investor and mandates you still do the news paper thing.
Here is the kicker though, the news paper you are allowed to do this in vary based on county. You live in queens? That's a solid few thousand dollars. Brooklyn? Also a few thousand. Staten island? Less than $300.
If you do not do this then the enforcement mechanism is that when you get sued, then a court can take back the corporate veil perk of your llc (llc is void so it turns into a sole proprietorship I think) and go after your personal assets if you loose a lawsuit.
> If you do not do this then the enforcement mechanism is that when you get sued, then a court can take back the corporate veil perk of your llc (llc is void so it turns into a sole proprietorship I think) and go after your personal assets if you loose a lawsuit.
This is a common misconception.
In real life there is no actual penalty for not placing the ads. In the event you’re challenged on it, the deficiency could be remedied by immediately placing the ad, but that literally will never happen.
It is, in fact, a special interest giveaway to some local publications, but there’s no teeth to the law.
This is a common misconception.
In real life there is no actual penalty for not placing the ads. In the event you’re challenged on it, the deficiency could be remedied by immediately placing the ad, but that literally will never happen.
It is, in fact, a special interest giveaway to some local publications, but there’s no teeth to the law.
> It is, in fact, a special interest giveaway to some local publications, but there’s no teeth to the law.
So you have to hope no one wants to come after you? What would happen if this were actually in court? Overturned for lack of enforcement?
So you have to hope no one wants to come after you? What would happen if this were actually in court? Overturned for lack of enforcement?
It has actually been in court.
The deficiency can be remedied by publication and it’s fully retroactive.
So there are literally no consequences at all to ignoring it.
https://eminutes.com/what-happens-if-you-ignore-new-york%E2%...
https://www.newyorksmallbusinesslaw.com/new_york_small_busin...
The deficiency can be remedied by publication and it’s fully retroactive.
So there are literally no consequences at all to ignoring it.
https://eminutes.com/what-happens-if-you-ignore-new-york%E2%...
https://www.newyorksmallbusinesslaw.com/new_york_small_busin...
It's a really annoying process, agreed. If you're looking to setup an LLC in NYC, I've heard you can form it upstate and do the newspaper requirement there (where publication is cheaper) and then transfer back to the city.
Went to rent a mailbox at the UPS Store. My drivers license and passport weren't enough identification. I needed something additional. The owner suggested I get a library card and then he could rent me the mailbox. What did the library accept as identification? My drivers license. That was all. Seemed like a weird little bit of bureaucratic red tape that accomplished pretty much nothing.
California DMV wouldn’t take my lease because it was just a printout. Changed my address with Chase from my phone while in line (no verification), walked over to the branch to get a certified statement with the new address, walked it back into the DMV, got the address on my license.
The credential that actually proves where I live is rejected while the one that just repeats my arbitrary inputs is accepted!
I understand there’s a strong deterrent but any reasonably smart person could defraud this. They seem not to be even trying.
The credential that actually proves where I live is rejected while the one that just repeats my arbitrary inputs is accepted!
I understand there’s a strong deterrent but any reasonably smart person could defraud this. They seem not to be even trying.
> The credential that actually proves where I live is rejected while the one that just repeats my arbitrary inputs is accepted!
A lease doesn't prove where you live, though I generally agree with your point here. That being said, I think most people are fine or even supportive of them seeming to not even try.
A lease doesn't prove where you live, though I generally agree with your point here. That being said, I think most people are fine or even supportive of them seeming to not even try.
My personal favourite: Needing to show your drivers license to pick up your passport.
Talk about a Kafkaesque hole in one.
Talk about a Kafkaesque hole in one.
Preponderance of evidence. If you had a fake drivers license and UPS hadn't caught it, perhaps the one at your library could catch it.
Maybe defrauding a library is somehow a more significant crime than defrauding UPS?
Sure you don't need much 'info' to create a corporation. But if said corporation has any income/employees the reporting and maintenance requirements are far greater than maintaining a library card.
> if said corporation has any income/employees
Income, opens a bank account, takes out a loan, et cetera. Incorporation per se has no need to be intensive.
Income, opens a bank account, takes out a loan, et cetera. Incorporation per se has no need to be intensive.
Incorporation requires a bunch of info, plus the step of registering the company. The claim in the headline is wrong as far as I’m able to tell.
Edit: In my original comment I added some links.
Edit: In my original comment I added some links.
I don't see the problem with this.
With a library card, a person can act irresponsibly with public property.
With a corporation, a person can act irresponsibly with private property.
With a library card, a person can act irresponsibly with public property.
With a corporation, a person can act irresponsibly with private property.
If the scope of potential damage were limited to the assets owned by said corporation, perhaps.
In reality, a corporation so isolated would have no reason to exist.
In reality, a corporation so isolated would have no reason to exist.
In reality, a corporation with no documentation or operating history will have a hard time getting access to other people's assets. The requirements to actually operate a corporation are a lot more stringent than the requirements to create one on paper.
The information for California is incorrect. At least in San Francisco:
- you can get a library card without any proof of address (with this type of card, you can only check out one physical item at a time: https://sfpl.libanswers.com/faq/129952)
- Phone number and email address are each optional fields on the application form: https://sflib1.sfpl.org/selfreg
- you can get a library card without any proof of address (with this type of card, you can only check out one physical item at a time: https://sfpl.libanswers.com/faq/129952)
- Phone number and email address are each optional fields on the application form: https://sflib1.sfpl.org/selfreg
A library is loaning you property, usually collateral-free. A corporation is just a placeholder essentially for the activities it will perform, each of which will likely have far more stringent requirements than a library card.
Moreover, the State collects a filing fee... That is, a library card grants you permission to borrow something from the State, while the Corp application entails you giving the State your money.
A library is not loaning you property, it is a public good which you already paid for and have a right to use, the administrative overhead is for the convenience of all library users.
A corporation's activities are unknowable but not being a real person it is not entitled to an assumption of good faith and there is no particular right to create new legal entities. We should definitely know who the beneficial owners of any corporation are to reduce the potential for fraud.
A corporation's activities are unknowable but not being a real person it is not entitled to an assumption of good faith and there is no particular right to create new legal entities. We should definitely know who the beneficial owners of any corporation are to reduce the potential for fraud.
Other people also have a right to use. How do you prevent the tragedy of the commons without knowing who has what?
> How do you prevent the tragedy of the commons without knowing who has what?
Does this exact argument not apply to the "anonymous" corporations mentioned in the article?
Does this exact argument not apply to the "anonymous" corporations mentioned in the article?
Registering a corporation doesn't deny others utility of a communally owned good.
It does if that corporation is used to conceal income in a way that reduces the local tax base, which could negatively affect the utility of nearly all communally owned goods/services.
Corporations still have to file taxes, unclear how corporate registration requirements lead to tax fraud.
Tax avoidance, not tax fraud.
The article was about the ease of setting up series of shell companies, which can easily move money around the world in a hard-to-detect way in order to conceal profits made by people, with no way to determine who those people are or what their tax obligations are.
The article was about the ease of setting up series of shell companies, which can easily move money around the world in a hard-to-detect way in order to conceal profits made by people, with no way to determine who those people are or what their tax obligations are.
I'm not arguing against library cards. I'm showing how any rhetorical argument can be deployed with equal facility in the opposite direction.
I'm fairly certain most libraries would consider "loaning books" as one of the services they provide. The public good paid for by taxes is that they loan for free.
Part of the administrative overhead is making sure they get the books back.
Part of the administrative overhead is making sure they get the books back.
If you don't pay local taxes, you haven't paid for it.
You don't even need a library card to use materials as often as you want; you only need a card to remove materials.
You don't even need a library card to use materials as often as you want; you only need a card to remove materials.
> which you already paid for
Unknowable without knowing who you actually are
Unknowable without knowing who you actually are
Care to elaborate? Are you referring to taxpayers versus non-taxpayers, perhaps?
Not just taxpayers vs non-taxpayers, but WHERE you pay taxes. My taxes don’t pay for public libraries in other states or even other areas of my own state.
Aha, that's a good point.
A corporation creates a fictitious person. Allowing the beneficial interests to be hidden is disgusting and not compatible with a free market.
Long ago, a corporate charter required an act of the state legislature to authorize it. Obviously that’s a heavy handed approach, but the idea that any agent of any person or other entity can anonymously create a company is ridiculous.
Long ago, a corporate charter required an act of the state legislature to authorize it. Obviously that’s a heavy handed approach, but the idea that any agent of any person or other entity can anonymously create a company is ridiculous.
A corporation is not a fictitious person. You can't get a corporation a passport, or a welfare cheque, or enroll it in school. You can own and freely erase a corporation, you can't own or erase a person.
A corporation is a legal entity which can engage in some of the same contracts as people can, because its entire purpose is to serve as a legal framework for organizing economic activity. In primitive societies, economic activities must be organized around flesh and blood people, like nobility. Corporations are much more flexible and efficient in achieving these aims. This legal structure, like many others, has massively improved human welfare since its invention by allowing people to pool and deploy resources and power in flexible ways. It beats depending on a rich guy to finance and organize everything himself.
If having this legal status makes a corporation a person, a country would also have to be a fictitious person. So would the UN, and the EU, and the AU. So would every government agency and every province and state in every country. A whole world of fictitious people! Except they're not, any more than my dog is a child because she has a birth certificate and an immunization record, just like a child.
Please, let's let this 'corporations are people' myth die.
A corporation is a legal entity which can engage in some of the same contracts as people can, because its entire purpose is to serve as a legal framework for organizing economic activity. In primitive societies, economic activities must be organized around flesh and blood people, like nobility. Corporations are much more flexible and efficient in achieving these aims. This legal structure, like many others, has massively improved human welfare since its invention by allowing people to pool and deploy resources and power in flexible ways. It beats depending on a rich guy to finance and organize everything himself.
If having this legal status makes a corporation a person, a country would also have to be a fictitious person. So would the UN, and the EU, and the AU. So would every government agency and every province and state in every country. A whole world of fictitious people! Except they're not, any more than my dog is a child because she has a birth certificate and an immunization record, just like a child.
Please, let's let this 'corporations are people' myth die.
The notion of an enterprise as a fictitious person is a well established idea that has existed since at least the Roman Empire.
Many government entities are fictitious persons. All public authorities are, and many agencies. I’m unsure of how a sovereign state compares to a corporation legally.
Your dog is entirely different. It is a chattel, or your personal property. Your dog has no agency, ownership of anything, etc.
Many government entities are fictitious persons. All public authorities are, and many agencies. I’m unsure of how a sovereign state compares to a corporation legally.
Your dog is entirely different. It is a chattel, or your personal property. Your dog has no agency, ownership of anything, etc.
If we understand 'fictitious person' in the limited legal sense, you're right. It becomes wrong when laypeople start to think that this means a lot more than it does, because they take the literal words out of context and attach a bunch of meanings that aren't present in the legal meaning.
Also why having a Library Card for certain IRS forms like an I-9 is a valid form of identity. Which at first I thought was crazy, but given this article, I suppose it's valid. I just hope all states make getting a Library Card complicated enough.
I don't see where a library card is valid for any of the three columns of the I-9:
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents
If I missed something, can you point me to it?
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents
If I missed something, can you point me to it?
Ah I think I misread the form, I didn't use that as a proof but maybe I got confused with the School ID as a proof.
This feels like post hoc rationalization.
Read page 4 for an actual side by side comparison.
You’ll see that all you really need to get a library card is present a form of identification, and perhaps a utility bill to prove your current address. Whereas for registering a corporation:
” No state requires any information about the person(s) who directly or indirectly own or control the company (often referred to as a beneficial owner)”
... along with many other similarly surprising statements that establish not even a low bar, but the absence of a bar at all.
How does that make any sense when, as the report highlights, those shell corporations - that is corporations whose placeholder status is used in itself to realize some gain, and thus never have to meet “more stringent requirements” - can then be used for “tax evasion, shady campaign contributions, cigarette smuggling, and weapons dealing”?
Read page 4 for an actual side by side comparison.
You’ll see that all you really need to get a library card is present a form of identification, and perhaps a utility bill to prove your current address. Whereas for registering a corporation:
” No state requires any information about the person(s) who directly or indirectly own or control the company (often referred to as a beneficial owner)”
... along with many other similarly surprising statements that establish not even a low bar, but the absence of a bar at all.
How does that make any sense when, as the report highlights, those shell corporations - that is corporations whose placeholder status is used in itself to realize some gain, and thus never have to meet “more stringent requirements” - can then be used for “tax evasion, shady campaign contributions, cigarette smuggling, and weapons dealing”?
As the parent said, just setting up a Delaware corporation isn't going to be much protection for most criminal enterprises. If they want to, the ATF will get you for tobacco or gun smuggling whether you have Articles of Corporation or not.
And in the US, to continue that example, there are multiple agencies and thousands of pages of regulations overseeing tax accounting and campaign finance. Sure, tons of shady shit still happens... but not because the criminals happened to file as an LLC instead of as sole proprietors.
And in the US, to continue that example, there are multiple agencies and thousands of pages of regulations overseeing tax accounting and campaign finance. Sure, tons of shady shit still happens... but not because the criminals happened to file as an LLC instead of as sole proprietors.
This isn’t true.
Here are the instructions for incorporating in Delaware: https://corp.delaware.gov/howtoform/
A form an cover sheet are required. Plus, there is an obligation to submit an annual tax filing with lots of information.
Here is the online application for a library card in Orange County, CA: https://web.ocpl.org/n/LibraryCardApplication/
I’m sure things vary state by state, but I’ll leave that for others to comment.
Here are the instructions for incorporating in Delaware: https://corp.delaware.gov/howtoform/
A form an cover sheet are required. Plus, there is an obligation to submit an annual tax filing with lots of information.
Here is the online application for a library card in Orange County, CA: https://web.ocpl.org/n/LibraryCardApplication/
I’m sure things vary state by state, but I’ll leave that for others to comment.
reminds me of other reading from today. You can get a US National (healthcare) Provider Identifier (NPI) without any verification:
> @Aetna @Cigna @UHC 27/ Medicare officials declined to be interviewed about Williams. But in a statement, they acknowledged that the agency doesn’t verify whether an NPI applicant is a medical provider or has a criminal history.
https://twitter.com/marshall_allen/status/115224361495057612...
> @Aetna @Cigna @UHC 16/ He kept getting new NPIs. For every application, Williams also obtained a new employer identification number, used for tax purposes.
But he never hid who he was, using his real name, address and phone number on the applications.
Medicare gave him 20 NPIs! https://twitter.com/marshall_allen/status/115224148431540633...
edited: provided the NPI meaning.
> @Aetna @Cigna @UHC 27/ Medicare officials declined to be interviewed about Williams. But in a statement, they acknowledged that the agency doesn’t verify whether an NPI applicant is a medical provider or has a criminal history.
https://twitter.com/marshall_allen/status/115224361495057612...
> @Aetna @Cigna @UHC 16/ He kept getting new NPIs. For every application, Williams also obtained a new employer identification number, used for tax purposes.
But he never hid who he was, using his real name, address and phone number on the applications.
Medicare gave him 20 NPIs! https://twitter.com/marshall_allen/status/115224148431540633...
edited: provided the NPI meaning.
I'm a doctor. This is insane. Usually I prescribe electronically, but there have also been times I had to call a pharmacy or just walk in and in either case all I have to do is verbally give my NPI number. (not for controlled substances)
All those years of study... /s
All those years of study... /s
NPI: National (healthcare) Provider Identifier.
https://www.asha.org/practice/reimbursement/hipaa/NPI/
https://www.asha.org/practice/reimbursement/hipaa/NPI/
thank you, I’ve update with the acronym meaning
Preface: I keyword searched for 'county' & 'counties' on this page & didn't see my point raised.
The article compares library cards state by state. However, I've never heard of a state issued library card, only county, city or other local municipality.
My point is I'm not clear where the researchers found 50 sets of state library card requirements.
There's ~3000 counties and at least 4000 cities in the US. Somewhere in those numbers ought to be how many different sets of library card requirements, there are in the US.
The article compares library cards state by state. However, I've never heard of a state issued library card, only county, city or other local municipality.
My point is I'm not clear where the researchers found 50 sets of state library card requirements.
There's ~3000 counties and at least 4000 cities in the US. Somewhere in those numbers ought to be how many different sets of library card requirements, there are in the US.
> To obtain a library card in any state in the U.S., the applicant must be the person who will ultimately be controlling/using the card, and a significant amount of identifying information must be provided by the person to the state in order to obtain the library card.
This is nonsesne, or at least was here in Sunnyvale California. I walked in with a phone bill. No ID, nothing else. In hindsight it probably could have been anyone's bill, or even a fake.
This is nonsesne, or at least was here in Sunnyvale California. I walked in with a phone bill. No ID, nothing else. In hindsight it probably could have been anyone's bill, or even a fake.
Based on the title, I thought this was going to be a hackeresque how-to style thing, distilling techniques that the rich use and getting them into the hands of every day people. But no, rather it's a call for legislation that will stifle less-moneyed actors, keeping the privilege reserved for the elite. The end result would undoubtedly contain a loophole akin to FACTA's directly-held art exemption.
> To form a company in any state in the U.S., it is not necessary to identify or provide any information about the person(s) who will be ultimately be controlling the company. In some cases it isn’t even necessary to provide information about who will be managing the company and, where some information about managers (i.e. officers or directors) is required, it is very limited.
That's actually great!
That's actually great!
[deleted]
Creating companies should be as frictionless as possible. You shouldn't need to provide much information at all, and it should be extremely cheap. Some states do this pretty well, others not so much.
I'd rather a library card take almost no information as well, but you could run into issues with stealing, so it makes sense that it would take more.
I'd rather a library card take almost no information as well, but you could run into issues with stealing, so it makes sense that it would take more.
Starting a business should be something anyone in the US can do without hiring lawyers and wading through complex paperwork.
In Massachusetts you can even download a fill-in-the-blank articles of organization and look up the filed articles for any existing company online if you want to see how others are doing it.
In Massachusetts you can even download a fill-in-the-blank articles of organization and look up the filed articles for any existing company online if you want to see how others are doing it.
One pays to become a corporation. One gets a service from a library card. Makes some sense.
It says "significant" amount of info for a library card. Yet every library I've ever registered at just needed a piece of mail with your name on it. That's it.
Great, I'll get my kids corporations for their 7th birthday.
This could actually be a really fun project to do with your child. It's a pretty inexpensive way to teach them about how companies work, the basics of organization, and even introduce them to the idea of taxes.
Registering a simple company in your local state, issuing stock, designating your board, doing your meetings and minutes, filing your $0 tax return, then dissolving it would probably only cost you ~$100 - $200 in supplies and fees.
Registering a simple company in your local state, issuing stock, designating your board, doing your meetings and minutes, filing your $0 tax return, then dissolving it would probably only cost you ~$100 - $200 in supplies and fees.
Yea that was my thought process as well. First idea was to use Stripe Atlas. https://stripe.com/en-ca/atlas. Costs more than your estimate but seems pretty turn key and it's a good segway in to building simple web applications and hosting them on product hunt.
[deleted]
The reasons for requesting robust identification for those filingbfor incorporation, dismissed by several comments here, are given in the first parafraph of the linked report:
In early April 2016 the largest cache of private documents in history were leaked to journalists and subsequently exposed the shadowy world of offshore tax fraud, money laundering and corruption that hides behind anonymous shell corporations. The documents, which included email, incorporation papers and other private communications, were from a little-known Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca and were released by the nternational Consortium of Investigative Journalists which had received them from a whistleblower. The ensuing scandal followed two others before it – Lux Leaks and Swiss Leaks which were related to bank-enabled tax evasion – but dwarfed them in the sheer amount of data involved.
https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.149.159/34n.8bd.myftpuploa...
The Securities Act of 1933, setting among the few national registration requirements in the USstates as its basis, following an episode of history in which such need was established:
To provide full and fair disclosure of the character of securities sold in interstate and foreign commerce and through the mails, and to prevent frauds in the sale thereof, and for other purposes.
http://legislink.org/us/pl-73-22
The history of Delaware incorporation law makes clear at numerous point obligations for good-faith dealings and power to pierce the legal fictions of incorporation:
It is well settled that a court of equity may disregard formalities and break through the shell of fictions in order to prevent, or undo fraud. ...
Directors of a corporation are trustees for the stockholders, and their acts are governed by the rules applicable to such a relation, which exact of them the utmost good faith and fair dealing, especially where their individual interests are concerned."
"A History of Delaware Corporation Law" http://www.djcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-History-of-...
(Though concern for general public trust is notably absent.)
See also KYC. (know your customer) laws in banking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
Note that incorporating is not necessary to run a business -- sole proprieterships and partnerships exist. Incorporation extends specific legal protections by the state in return for net social benefit. In theory.
In early April 2016 the largest cache of private documents in history were leaked to journalists and subsequently exposed the shadowy world of offshore tax fraud, money laundering and corruption that hides behind anonymous shell corporations. The documents, which included email, incorporation papers and other private communications, were from a little-known Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca and were released by the nternational Consortium of Investigative Journalists which had received them from a whistleblower. The ensuing scandal followed two others before it – Lux Leaks and Swiss Leaks which were related to bank-enabled tax evasion – but dwarfed them in the sheer amount of data involved.
https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.149.159/34n.8bd.myftpuploa...
The Securities Act of 1933, setting among the few national registration requirements in the USstates as its basis, following an episode of history in which such need was established:
To provide full and fair disclosure of the character of securities sold in interstate and foreign commerce and through the mails, and to prevent frauds in the sale thereof, and for other purposes.
http://legislink.org/us/pl-73-22
The history of Delaware incorporation law makes clear at numerous point obligations for good-faith dealings and power to pierce the legal fictions of incorporation:
It is well settled that a court of equity may disregard formalities and break through the shell of fictions in order to prevent, or undo fraud. ...
Directors of a corporation are trustees for the stockholders, and their acts are governed by the rules applicable to such a relation, which exact of them the utmost good faith and fair dealing, especially where their individual interests are concerned."
"A History of Delaware Corporation Law" http://www.djcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-History-of-...
(Though concern for general public trust is notably absent.)
See also KYC. (know your customer) laws in banking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
Note that incorporating is not necessary to run a business -- sole proprieterships and partnerships exist. Incorporation extends specific legal protections by the state in return for net social benefit. In theory.
they should just mail a library card to everyone who is entitled to it? or maybe just check your id when you try to borrow a book
from a "which has greater social liability" the title makes sense, in that the circumstances are counter intuitive.
haha...knew what state would be the focus without even opening the link.
I'm not even in the US and we see a ton of Delaware entities.
I'm not even in the US and we see a ton of Delaware entities.
Can a corporation get a library card?
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them.
https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them.
My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school.
A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised.
In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vote in the absence of identification was to sign an affidavit stating that I am who I say I am. The people at the polling station could ask for ID, but they couldn't require it. It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not.
A lot of that is changing these days as the concept of being constantly tracked, monitored, and tabulated becomes normalized in America.
Just a generation ago we made fun of the Soviet Union and various totalitarian regimes for having police stop people for no reason and demanding, "papers, please." Now there are people who think it's perfectly OK to require domestic passports ("Real ID" and similar) just to walk down the street.
I wonder if two generations from now people will think we're old and crazy because we don't think it's OK for the government to require a chip be implanted in our brains so our thoughts can be monitored by bureaucratic minders.
It's sounds like tinfoil hat sci-fi slippery slopism, but so would today's facial recognition in airports to people just 50 years ago.
My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school.
A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised.
In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vote in the absence of identification was to sign an affidavit stating that I am who I say I am. The people at the polling station could ask for ID, but they couldn't require it. It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not.
A lot of that is changing these days as the concept of being constantly tracked, monitored, and tabulated becomes normalized in America.
Just a generation ago we made fun of the Soviet Union and various totalitarian regimes for having police stop people for no reason and demanding, "papers, please." Now there are people who think it's perfectly OK to require domestic passports ("Real ID" and similar) just to walk down the street.
I wonder if two generations from now people will think we're old and crazy because we don't think it's OK for the government to require a chip be implanted in our brains so our thoughts can be monitored by bureaucratic minders.
It's sounds like tinfoil hat sci-fi slippery slopism, but so would today's facial recognition in airports to people just 50 years ago.
Your thoughts are not old school at all. The Constitution initially left it up to the states to determine who was eligible to vote and most states restricted voting to white, male, property owners - thus requiring a deed of property to register. NJ was pretty progressive allowing women to vote if they had property.
Identification and Soviet papers are two completely different things. In the Soviet Union and in China until very recently even your travel was restricted by your papers. They weren't just identification, they literally defined where you could go. There is no comparison with a simple, national ID system like the one used in India.
Our voting system was largely based on community to enforce voting rights. Meaning you live a small town, everyone knows who you are, and if you aren't supposed to vote you won't get away with it because everyone knows everyone. Today even in small towns many people have no idea who their neighbors are.
Your notion on voting rights runs contrary to the concept of citizenship in general, is quite recent, and radical. There is nothing old school about it.
I believe the minimum criteria to vote is citizenship. To ensure that only citizens are voting, some paper, ledger, or row in a database must exist somewhere and a means to check that criteria must exist.
Oh and letting politicians decide after the fact whose votes count is recipe for disaster.
Identification and Soviet papers are two completely different things. In the Soviet Union and in China until very recently even your travel was restricted by your papers. They weren't just identification, they literally defined where you could go. There is no comparison with a simple, national ID system like the one used in India.
Our voting system was largely based on community to enforce voting rights. Meaning you live a small town, everyone knows who you are, and if you aren't supposed to vote you won't get away with it because everyone knows everyone. Today even in small towns many people have no idea who their neighbors are.
Your notion on voting rights runs contrary to the concept of citizenship in general, is quite recent, and radical. There is nothing old school about it.
I believe the minimum criteria to vote is citizenship. To ensure that only citizens are voting, some paper, ledger, or row in a database must exist somewhere and a means to check that criteria must exist.
Oh and letting politicians decide after the fact whose votes count is recipe for disaster.
What changed such that nobody knows anybody anymore, even in small towns?
There are way more people nowadays than there used to be. To make things harder, people can easily move from one place to other very far ones in a short notice, nearly instantly, and with no quarantine period when they will be distrusted by everyone.
Speed of transportation and speed of communication - when ideas and capital move at light speed instead of horse speed, society changes in correspondingly massive ways.
Umm the 1700's in America were the era of needing to have land ownership to vote (more than half of white men couldn't vote), poll taxes, exclusion of blacks, native Americans, and women, religious tests, and so on. The 15th Amendment that changed some of that wasn't even passed until 1870.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. (as parent said, "A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation.") It is a dramatic improvement that the people with the right to vote has been expanded since the 1700s, but what you said doesn't actually speak against the basic idea that documentation is not relevant to the exercise of ones rights.
As an aside: once documentation is required, we enter a position where we do not have our rights until proven otherwise.
As an aside: once documentation is required, we enter a position where we do not have our rights until proven otherwise.
It's orthogonal, but if you don't see how the shift in (the orthogonal) political power structures has affected the exercise of basic rights, then you probably won't see future violations of rights coming as effectively because you're not fully alert for them.
> However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right.
According to whom exactly?
As others have pointed out in this discussion, that's not how the US system was designed. There is no inalienable right to vote.
According to whom exactly?
As others have pointed out in this discussion, that's not how the US system was designed. There is no inalienable right to vote.
Amendments to the constitution have establish the right.
As a society, we decided that tenants, people of non-white races, women, and 18-20 year olds should be allowed to vote. We also eliminated odious standards like counting then-slaves as 60% human.
As a society, we decided that tenants, people of non-white races, women, and 18-20 year olds should be allowed to vote. We also eliminated odious standards like counting then-slaves as 60% human.
I'm no expert and could be missing something. But it doesn't look to me like we have an "inalienable" right to vote. Various amendments do say that our right to vote can't be revoked for certain specific reasons, e.g.,:
- The 15th amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on certain grounds (race, color) but doesn't go beyond that. - The 19th prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. - The 24th prohibits denying the right to vote (in certain federal elections) based on outstanding tax bills. - The 26th prohibits denying citizens over 18 the right to vote based on age.
But this seems like a weirdly specific list. If the reason isn't on the list, is it still fair game? For instance, AFAIK some states don't let convicted felons vote.
- The 15th amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on certain grounds (race, color) but doesn't go beyond that. - The 19th prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. - The 24th prohibits denying the right to vote (in certain federal elections) based on outstanding tax bills. - The 26th prohibits denying citizens over 18 the right to vote based on age.
But this seems like a weirdly specific list. If the reason isn't on the list, is it still fair game? For instance, AFAIK some states don't let convicted felons vote.
I identify strongly as an advocate for democracy.
We have a second amendment that talks about well-regulated militia broadly interpreted to mean all sorts of things, some I agree with, some I do not.
Likewise, we have multiple, progressive amendments to the constitution with a clear goal of enabling voting to the broadest possible scope.
I live in a state that requires that you be a citizen, age 18, and not be in prison or on parole. I think that’s a fair compromise over disqualification of felons, as you create 2nd tier of citizen by denying that right.
We have a second amendment that talks about well-regulated militia broadly interpreted to mean all sorts of things, some I agree with, some I do not.
Likewise, we have multiple, progressive amendments to the constitution with a clear goal of enabling voting to the broadest possible scope.
I live in a state that requires that you be a citizen, age 18, and not be in prison or on parole. I think that’s a fair compromise over disqualification of felons, as you create 2nd tier of citizen by denying that right.
According to whom exactly?
The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
How do you prevent fraudulent voting without being able to tie a vote back to a real, documented person?
How is it irrelevant to their point? Property deeds and literacy tests are documentation, yes?
Yeah, "old school" was very much for extensive voter qualifications like assets and literacy tests.
In fact, that's the whole purpose of the now-awkward electoral college: state legislatures choosing knowledgeable electors to vote for president/VP.
---
This an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think there's something to that.
My state political party operates on a caucus system, where I don't directly vote for local, state, or federal candidates in the primary (ironically, president is the exception to this); rather I elect a district representative to attend the convention, speak with the candidates, and vote the best one. I don't have time/choose not to have time to do this same level of diligence, and like in many other areas, I am happy to delegate it to one of my known, trusted neighbors. I believe it produces a better, more intelligent, less hysterical media outcome.
This is also why I'm not necessarily against non-pathological obstacles in voting. In 2018, my county did a (inexpensive) mail-only election. I wouldn't be surprised is the deadlines, etc. proved to be an obstacle. But....is it really that bad to have that small hoop for people to participate? I don't think so.
---
P.S. You know poll taxes aren't taxes at polling stations, right? It just means "flat (non-proportional) tax".
In fact, that's the whole purpose of the now-awkward electoral college: state legislatures choosing knowledgeable electors to vote for president/VP.
---
This an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think there's something to that.
My state political party operates on a caucus system, where I don't directly vote for local, state, or federal candidates in the primary (ironically, president is the exception to this); rather I elect a district representative to attend the convention, speak with the candidates, and vote the best one. I don't have time/choose not to have time to do this same level of diligence, and like in many other areas, I am happy to delegate it to one of my known, trusted neighbors. I believe it produces a better, more intelligent, less hysterical media outcome.
This is also why I'm not necessarily against non-pathological obstacles in voting. In 2018, my county did a (inexpensive) mail-only election. I wouldn't be surprised is the deadlines, etc. proved to be an obstacle. But....is it really that bad to have that small hoop for people to participate? I don't think so.
---
P.S. You know poll taxes aren't taxes at polling stations, right? It just means "flat (non-proportional) tax".
Poll tax in context of this topic refers to one of the barriers in the Jim Crow south used to prevent black people from voting.
> It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not.
You'd really rather have your vote nullified behind your back rather than just be told you can't vote? That sounds like a recipe for a lot of abuse doesn't it?
You'd really rather have your vote nullified behind your back rather than just be told you can't vote? That sounds like a recipe for a lot of abuse doesn't it?
If votes weren't anonymous, maybe. But they are.
Wait, you're assuming anonymity and the ability to "decide later if my vote was valid or not"? How would that work?
The process will vary by jurisdiction, but one approach is to identify if a voter has questionable eligibility when they arrive to the polling place, allow them to fill out a ballot, have them seal it in an envelope, and then label the envelope with the voter's information. You can then take the time to verify the votes validity before the envelope is reopened and the ballot is counted with the other votes. And just like with traditional ballots you can have the process observed by representatives of multiple candidates/political parties to ensure both transparency and that no vote is maliciously discarded.
Oh I see. That makes sense if you can get the government to use paper ballots everywhere (best of luck in the US). It does make me wonder how well it would work out in practice though. If verification happens at the same time as the vote, then you can try to correct any issues that come up right then. (Maybe bring additional documentation right then? I don't know.) Whereas if you introduce a delay in between... how many people are actually going to go through the hassle of dealing with it later (especially imagine having to take days off work) to work through the legal bureaucracy and have their votes counted? I feel in the US it seems a little bit too optimistic that it would work out fine, but maybe I'm just pessimistic...
There is zero reason a voter can’t be given a provisional paper ballot in a jurisdiction with electronic ballots.
You don’t want to verify eligibility before voting because it slows the process down. The longer it takes to vote, the fewer people vote. You just collect the voter’s information and then the responsibility for the rest of the verification is on the government. It occupies the government’s time to verify the vote and not the voter’s time.
You don’t want to verify eligibility before voting because it slows the process down. The longer it takes to vote, the fewer people vote. You just collect the voter’s information and then the responsibility for the rest of the verification is on the government. It occupies the government’s time to verify the vote and not the voter’s time.
> My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school.
A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised.
How do we ensure non-citizens aren’t voting? We accept many visitors - refugees, H1B, tourists, F1/I-20, etc. None are granted voting rights.
How do we ensure non-citizens aren’t voting? We accept many visitors - refugees, H1B, tourists, F1/I-20, etc. None are granted voting rights.
We make it a felony.
"“She can own property; she can serve in the military; she can get a job; she can pay taxes. But she can’t vote, and she didn’t know that.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-te...
"“She can own property; she can serve in the military; she can get a job; she can pay taxes. But she can’t vote, and she didn’t know that.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-te...
In case it was not obvious: the vote is for adult U.S. citizens; not for permanent resident aliens, not for visitors, not for illegal aliens, not for children.
It is a tragedy that this was not made abundantly clear to this woman, assuming she truly believed that she was permitted to vote.
It is a tragedy that this was not made abundantly clear to this woman, assuming she truly believed that she was permitted to vote.
NB: Non-citizens have historically been allowed to vote in local and regional elections.
Consider that there are towns in rural California with majority noncitizen residents. In cases upwards. of 90%.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/noncitizens-are-gain...
Consider that there are towns in rural California with majority noncitizen residents. In cases upwards. of 90%.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/noncitizens-are-gain...
If you’re physically in a jurisdiction, you are subject to its laws. Isn’t the supposed point of democracy to give people a voice in the government that rules over them?
Democracy is also an expression of self-determination of a people. Meaning they don't have to let anyone who visits their country sway their decisions.
Who decides what “a people” is? You have a bunch of people in a geographic region, and some of those people get to decide that they are “the people” and that only they get to vote? Sounds pretty blatantly undemocratic.
> a bunch of people in a geographic region
You make it sound as if they just happened to wind up there at random, and have nothing else in common.
Geographic proximity is incidental to belonging to a group. The land they live on is merely one of their possessions. Allowing visitors does not mean they must share their sovereignty with them.
To answer your question, in democracies, each person can vote to influence their own nation - their demos, even while abroad. You think demos should be decided purely on current location, but most countries disagree - they use mostly jus sanguinis, with the exception of jus soli in the Americas.
You make it sound as if they just happened to wind up there at random, and have nothing else in common.
Geographic proximity is incidental to belonging to a group. The land they live on is merely one of their possessions. Allowing visitors does not mean they must share their sovereignty with them.
To answer your question, in democracies, each person can vote to influence their own nation - their demos, even while abroad. You think demos should be decided purely on current location, but most countries disagree - they use mostly jus sanguinis, with the exception of jus soli in the Americas.
I understand the historical reasoning for some of this stuff, but as long as the laws apply to everyone in a physical location, I think the only way to claim to be democratic is to let everyone in that physical location vote to influence those laws.
They clearly said that was someone else’s problem, to be handled at some later point in the processing where options for deciding the question are more limited.
Do we need to do more than we already do? Despite the baying of certain political hounds there is no evidence that this is an actual problem.
Do you think voting should be limited to citizens of the country? Or that each person should only get 1 vote? If so that seems impossible to implement without requiring identification, if not that seems tantamount to infringing on people's right to vote, if someone can vote twice against me while I only get 1 vote because I'm following the rules then that means my vote effectively wasn't counted.
Voting across the United States is registered, and voter registration requires identification. In Cook County, where I vote and election judge, voters are assigned to relatively small precincts, which track votes during the day on paper and electronic ledgers. If Judy Blue comes in and votes in the morning and you try to come in and vote for her later, you won't be able to check in. If the reverse happens, Judy makes a stink and there's a process for going through the ledger and checking identification. In practice, neither thing ever actually happens: "retail" voter fraud in the United States is practically nonexistent. It's an expensive crime with stiff penalties that is extraordinarily unlikely to impact the election.
The people who object to voter ID laws don't also object to voter registration ID laws? I thought they were worried about people who never had ID, but how would they register?
It varies widely by state but registration is typically not limited to 'show up at place X on day Y with a photo id in hand'.
Instead of just assuming that requiring ID leads to better representation, shouldn't we objectively analyze what choices lead to the best representation?
Requiring ID has the obvious tradeoff that it prevents some people who should be allowed to vote from voting. Furthermore, it can potentially lead to a system where people's votes are unfairly discounted because of administrative "errors" (e.g. interstate cross-check). From the evidence I've seen those problems are more significant than double voters or non-citizen voting.
Requiring ID has the obvious tradeoff that it prevents some people who should be allowed to vote from voting. Furthermore, it can potentially lead to a system where people's votes are unfairly discounted because of administrative "errors" (e.g. interstate cross-check). From the evidence I've seen those problems are more significant than double voters or non-citizen voting.
> Do you think voting should be limited to citizens of the country?
Oddly, I’m not aware of any state that requires you to prove citizenship to register to vote.
Oddly, I’m not aware of any state that requires you to prove citizenship to register to vote.
The voter ID requirements gather enough info so that a person can be identified, putting them at risk of fines, prison and deportation if their citizenship is challenged later on. That's not perfect but it creates an incentive to not vote fraudulently.
> A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation.
All rights exist independent on the government, because the government doea not grant rights.
The government infringes on rights for the purpose of governing, and the limits to what it is allowed are the US constitution.
None of that means that there isn't a legitimate interest, of the government and public at large, in ensuring that elections are conducted fairly.
All rights exist independent on the government, because the government doea not grant rights.
The government infringes on rights for the purpose of governing, and the limits to what it is allowed are the US constitution.
None of that means that there isn't a legitimate interest, of the government and public at large, in ensuring that elections are conducted fairly.
Parent is a factual statement about how the Anglo-American legal system works. Other systems may work differently.
Walking down the street and voting are not the same thing.
ID's are common, the vast majority already have a passport or driver license. You need this much to even be employed so bringing it with you for an election is not an onerous requirement, it's actually completely reasonable.
EDIT: It seems HN has rate-limiting for comments now.
ID's are common, the vast majority already have a passport or driver license. You need this much to even be employed so bringing it with you for an election is not an onerous requirement, it's actually completely reasonable.
EDIT: It seems HN has rate-limiting for comments now.
In most countries where an id is a requirement for voting they have systems in place where you can easily get a national id card. In the US Republicans make it as hard as possible for poor people to get an id then are asking to make it mandatory as they are aware most poor people don't vote for them.
If they want to enforce id checking for voting then they need to make sure people can easily get an id.
Difficulty should not overrule importance when it comes to federal elections.
> " need to make sure people can easily get an id"
I agree. I don't think it's as simple or generic as a single political party preventing it though. Is there a clear example of what is stopping people from obtaining these IDs?
> " need to make sure people can easily get an id"
I agree. I don't think it's as simple or generic as a single political party preventing it though. Is there a clear example of what is stopping people from obtaining these IDs?
When a single political party has the most involvement in curtailing voting hours number of voting booths the opening hours when a person is able to get an id etc. Then it paints a picture.
Though I agree its not as simple as that and there are multiple reasons apart from the above but the major reason is the peoples distrust of the government in the US which results in inadequate funding to fix the above problems.
Sure, I think major federal elections should be a federal holiday to ensure time availability. I don't see how that's the same as requiring identification though.
In the US Republicans make it as hard as possible for poor people to get an id then are asking to make it mandatory as they are aware most poor people don't vote for them.
While the Republicans take heat for it on the national level, when you examine the issue at state and local levels there's plenty of it on both sides.
What disappoints me is that the Democrats rarely push back on these proposals, and when they do it's half-hearted.
Republicans used to be the party of freedom as in pioneer guy with a cabin and a mule. Democrats used to be the party of freedom as in ACLU. These days neither is willing to stick their necks out in any tangible way for freedom.
While the Republicans take heat for it on the national level, when you examine the issue at state and local levels there's plenty of it on both sides.
What disappoints me is that the Democrats rarely push back on these proposals, and when they do it's half-hearted.
Republicans used to be the party of freedom as in pioneer guy with a cabin and a mule. Democrats used to be the party of freedom as in ACLU. These days neither is willing to stick their necks out in any tangible way for freedom.
If you're voting on matters of public policy, you should be in a position where the outcome of that policy affects you as if you are part of that community. Part of that is being... part of that community. Having an ID is a pretty good proxy for that.
Having an ID is a pretty good proxy for that.
Having an ID doesn't show someone is part of a community. All it does is provide a way for systems to exclude people.
Having an ID doesn't show someone is part of a community. All it does is provide a way for systems to exclude people.
Then communities should be able to decide who's eligible to vote rather than having that decided at the top and promulgated downwards.
Hopefully we get self driving cars you don't need a license for ASAP, so the expectation of every adult constantly carrying around an ID decreases.
> Hopefully we get self driving cars you don't need a license for ASAP, so the expectation of every adult constantly carrying around an ID decreases.
I'm sorry but how would I get into a self-driving car? I'd probably not own one. I'd ride in a Waymo, Uber, or some other provider's self-driving car which would mean they'd need to be authenticate who I am and check to see if I am authorized to get in the car...
I'm sorry but how would I get into a self-driving car? I'd probably not own one. I'd ride in a Waymo, Uber, or some other provider's self-driving car which would mean they'd need to be authenticate who I am and check to see if I am authorized to get in the car...
> authorized to get in the car
I don't know what you mean. In the U.S. you don't need a drivers license to ride in a car. Uber does not currently require any state issued ID for riders and I'm not sure why they would in the future.
You might need the Uber app but that isn't tied to any government ID.
I don't know what you mean. In the U.S. you don't need a drivers license to ride in a car. Uber does not currently require any state issued ID for riders and I'm not sure why they would in the future.
You might need the Uber app but that isn't tied to any government ID.
Not if you want to buy cold medicine, get a library card, get some beers, buy some legal pot, air b&b, zip car, U-Haul , getting a job, etc. So, you will still need to carry it --unless you want to risk having to go back home in order to do any of the above.
Not if you want to buy cold medicine, get a library card, get some beers, buy some legal pot, air b&b, zip car, U-Haul , getting a job, etc. So, you will still need to carry it --unless you want to risk having to go back home in order to do any of the above.
You need to have it for those things. You don't need to "carry" it for those things. Nobody does all of those things all the time every day. Going to buy some beer? Bring your ID. Going to walk the dog? Feck off, cop. I'm a citizen minding my own business.
You need to have it for those things. You don't need to "carry" it for those things. Nobody does all of those things all the time every day. Going to buy some beer? Bring your ID. Going to walk the dog? Feck off, cop. I'm a citizen minding my own business.
You don't need an ID for many of those things, and you shouldn't.
I like your thought framework but only as it exists within the electorate system. Without that system, a single city in a single state can jeopardize the entire system.
> In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vote in the absence of identification was to sign an affidavit stating that I am who I say I am. The people at the polling station could ask for ID, but they couldn't require it. It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not.
And this is precisely the problem I have with people who jump up and down screaming that it’s “impossible” for non-citizens to vote because “they have to register.” Clearly there is potential to exploit the system — it’s just the plain old honor system, after all. Maybe it’s just the software developer in me, but I would never ship software that I knew had a critical vulnerability but then rationalize away that it’s so unlikely that anyone would ever exploit it.
And yeah, states could follow up on invalid voter registrations, but will they really? One state in particular prides itself on being a “sanctuary state”, yeah I’m sure they’re right on top of making sure illegal aliens aren’t slipping through the cracks and voting after the DMV automatically registered them to vote upon issuing them a license.
I also find it funny how the same people that rationalize things the US “should” do because “every other country does it” conveniently ignore that “everyone else” requires ID to vote, but for some reason we’re a special case that can’t possibly accomodate that.
And this is precisely the problem I have with people who jump up and down screaming that it’s “impossible” for non-citizens to vote because “they have to register.” Clearly there is potential to exploit the system — it’s just the plain old honor system, after all. Maybe it’s just the software developer in me, but I would never ship software that I knew had a critical vulnerability but then rationalize away that it’s so unlikely that anyone would ever exploit it.
And yeah, states could follow up on invalid voter registrations, but will they really? One state in particular prides itself on being a “sanctuary state”, yeah I’m sure they’re right on top of making sure illegal aliens aren’t slipping through the cracks and voting after the DMV automatically registered them to vote upon issuing them a license.
I also find it funny how the same people that rationalize things the US “should” do because “every other country does it” conveniently ignore that “everyone else” requires ID to vote, but for some reason we’re a special case that can’t possibly accomodate that.
To the contrary: There were only four known cases of voter fraud in the 2016 elections[0]; more stringent voting requirements suppresses voting, especially by poor, black and/or Latinx voters.[1]
It certainly seems the case that more damage has been done to society via corporations to which no human person can be associated than by voter fraud.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/1...
It certainly seems the case that more damage has been done to society via corporations to which no human person can be associated than by voter fraud.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/1...
It's pretty circular reasoning to argue against methods for detecting voter fraud on the basis that we haven't detected voter fraud.
If there is voter fraud, it might go away if we got reliable detection. Fraud is less likely when being caught is certain, and it is far more likely when being caught is about as likely as getting hit by lightening.
Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. That needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to have a means to prove that there is no voter fraud.
If there is voter fraud, it might go away if we got reliable detection. Fraud is less likely when being caught is certain, and it is far more likely when being caught is about as likely as getting hit by lightening.
Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. That needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to have a means to prove that there is no voter fraud.
GP isn't arguing against detecting voter fraud. They're arguing against making the registration process harder in order to prevent (basically nonexistent) voter fraud.
The reason people in the U.S. are worried about voter fraud is that one side of the political spectrum is pushing the narrative — without any real evidence — that voter fraud is rampant. We shouldn't make it more difficult to vote in order to fix a made-up problem.
The reason people in the U.S. are worried about voter fraud is that one side of the political spectrum is pushing the narrative — without any real evidence — that voter fraud is rampant. We shouldn't make it more difficult to vote in order to fix a made-up problem.
How do you know if its non-existent if you cant even measure it from lack of proper identification?
How does an ID enable you to measure voter fraud?
Because you can check and measure who is actually eligible to vote before they vote.
Let me ask, why do we have identification for joining a company? Checking employment status? Boarding a flight? Starting a business? Opening a bank account? Getting government assistance? Why would that be necessary but not for voting?
Let me ask, why do we have identification for joining a company? Checking employment status? Boarding a flight? Starting a business? Opening a bank account? Getting government assistance? Why would that be necessary but not for voting?
I'm not asking about prevention or why voter ID makes sense in general; I'm asking how it enables measurement of voter fraud. We already have a record of everyone who voted and their address and identifying information such as driver's license number or social security number. What additional information does an ID provide?
How do you know that information is accurate and matches the individual? For example, for all those situations I described, why is ID required when you can also just provide the information instead? Can you walk into a bank and provide your info without verification?
Requiring ID allows us to measure when fraud is occuring by individuals attempting to submit votes and data that is not theirs. Otherwise, there is no "truth" to compare to. I guess we can always call every single person and verify their vote, but then is that not the same thing as an ID check?
Requiring ID allows us to measure when fraud is occuring by individuals attempting to submit votes and data that is not theirs. Otherwise, there is no "truth" to compare to. I guess we can always call every single person and verify their vote, but then is that not the same thing as an ID check?
[deleted]
> Requiring ID allows us to measure when fraud is occuring by individuals attempting to submit votes and data that is not theirs.
No, it doesn't; it is neither necessary (as such fraud can be detected by other means) nor sufficient (as even with an ID requirement fraud can be performed without detection) for that purpose.
No, it doesn't; it is neither necessary (as such fraud can be detected by other means) nor sufficient (as even with an ID requirement fraud can be performed without detection) for that purpose.
Ok, I guess I still haven't seen any clear details on this so can you please answer the questions I asked in this thread?
Why are other situations not an issue for requiring ID but voting is? How can we detect fraud by other means, and why can't these other services also do that? Does the fact that nothing is infallible mean it shouldn't be used? If you didn't vote but someone used your information, how do you catch that without some form of verification?
Why are other situations not an issue for requiring ID but voting is? How can we detect fraud by other means, and why can't these other services also do that? Does the fact that nothing is infallible mean it shouldn't be used? If you didn't vote but someone used your information, how do you catch that without some form of verification?
Because:
(1) There is no evidence of an actual existing problem to be addressed by voter ID requirements.
(2) Because voter ID requirements in the US, past and present, have a history of being introduced as part of efforts, often by the admission of their own sponsors (though usually in venues they didn't expect to become public) to suppress voting by legal voters of particular demographic groups disfavored by those pushing the measures, particularly African-Americans.
(1) There is no evidence of an actual existing problem to be addressed by voter ID requirements.
(2) Because voter ID requirements in the US, past and present, have a history of being introduced as part of efforts, often by the admission of their own sponsors (though usually in venues they didn't expect to become public) to suppress voting by legal voters of particular demographic groups disfavored by those pushing the measures, particularly African-Americans.
Well, we do have evidence that voter fraud - in the form of preventing people who can vote from voting, through imposition of onerous voting requirements is rampant.
Denying the vote to someone who has the right to vote is mathematically just as problematic as granting it to someone who does not have the right.
Denying the vote to someone who has the right to vote is mathematically just as problematic as granting it to someone who does not have the right.
True both situations are not good, however right's are still subject to legal requirements when being exercised. For example, the right to bear arms still requires a background check to ensure you can own a weapon. You can also lose your right to vote if you commit a felony but this significant
disenfranchisement affecting millions gets no coverage.
Why is voting, which is critical to a democracy, considered onerous for requiring identification when driving, employment, banking, business and govt. programs all require it? Isn't that a strange balance?
Why is voting, which is critical to a democracy, considered onerous for requiring identification when driving, employment, banking, business and govt. programs all require it? Isn't that a strange balance?
foreach9885(2)
It's that effective voter manipulation is vastly more effectively accomplished by means *other8 than bussing tens of thousands of bodies (or corpses) to polling booths.
Depress voter turnout, run third-party, identity-appealing, or confusingly-similarly named candidates. Print confusing ballots. Run complex initiatives or propositions with little or no discussion. Leverage majorities in one domain (Senate, statehouses, governor's mansions) to achieve, retain, or negate majorities or minorities elsewhere (vacancies are often filled by gubernatorial or state legislature votes, redistricting is often controlled by statehouse majority, a GoP Senate nullifies much of the power of a Dem House). Have a highly partisan secretary of state certifying statewide elections, including for national office. Have a Supreme Court structure based on few judges, narrow and long-lived partisan majorities, full-bank hearings, and obstructed nominations. Non-trasnsparent, un-auditablre, readily-hacked, and highly partisan technical voting systems. Grossly manipulated media.
Individual voter fraud simply isn't where it's at.
Depress voter turnout, run third-party, identity-appealing, or confusingly-similarly named candidates. Print confusing ballots. Run complex initiatives or propositions with little or no discussion. Leverage majorities in one domain (Senate, statehouses, governor's mansions) to achieve, retain, or negate majorities or minorities elsewhere (vacancies are often filled by gubernatorial or state legislature votes, redistricting is often controlled by statehouse majority, a GoP Senate nullifies much of the power of a Dem House). Have a highly partisan secretary of state certifying statewide elections, including for national office. Have a Supreme Court structure based on few judges, narrow and long-lived partisan majorities, full-bank hearings, and obstructed nominations. Non-trasnsparent, un-auditablre, readily-hacked, and highly partisan technical voting systems. Grossly manipulated media.
Individual voter fraud simply isn't where it's at.
Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections.
One side is deliberately leveraging it for that purpose, and it's the same side that has consistently blocked legislation to increase election security, set standards for voting machines, and more, so as far as I am concerned they're forfeited the right to have their arguments taken seriously after years of bad faith politicking.
One side is deliberately leveraging it for that purpose, and it's the same side that has consistently blocked legislation to increase election security, set standards for voting machines, and more, so as far as I am concerned they're forfeited the right to have their arguments taken seriously after years of bad faith politicking.
In [current year], arguably every US citizen should have some form of photo ID. It's pretty useful for a lot more than just voting. For example, more and more banks / financial institutions are using automated systems + a picture of your photo ID in order to confirm your identity when opening up a bank account, etc.
Seems like we should focus on making sure poor/minorities have easy/free access to IDs, rather than keeping the voting process lax.
Seems like we should focus on making sure poor/minorities have easy/free access to IDs, rather than keeping the voting process lax.
The proponents of voter ID always want to put the requirement in place first but not the resources to make it happen. Until that changes, I am deaf to their 'concern'.
Great, do that, then require an ID to vote. The other way around is taking away peoples' fundamental rights.
Why not both at the same time?
I wish I could read the second link, but not interested in bypassing their income (and not interested enough to pay them :) ) I'd like to know their research.
I had to sign up with my address, and I have to prove my identity when I vote. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even a low-tech ink mark used by some places seems perfectly fine. The law is full of tradeoffs, and I think proving you have voted only once and where you are allowed to vote is perfectly legitimate.
I had to sign up with my address, and I have to prove my identity when I vote. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even a low-tech ink mark used by some places seems perfectly fine. The law is full of tradeoffs, and I think proving you have voted only once and where you are allowed to vote is perfectly legitimate.
Side topic on bypassing their income.
If you are not going to pay them, and not going to view it -- then they lost the income -- you might as well bypass the pay wall..
If you are not going to pay them, and not going to view it -- then they lost the income -- you might as well bypass the pay wall..
Are you saying poor people and brown people don’t know how to get a state ID? That’s pretty ridiculous and in the latter case racist.
Voting is a constitutional right, forming a corporation or getting a library card is not.
What about purchasing a firearm?
Depends if you interpret the right to keep arms (i.e. not have them taken away) to equal the right to obtain arms in the first place.
An example: it’s legal to “keep” a pre-1986 machine gun but it’s not legal to obtain a new one for most people in the US.
An example: it’s legal to “keep” a pre-1986 machine gun but it’s not legal to obtain a new one for most people in the US.
How was that relevant to the conversation?
jdoliner's comment: voting should require ID stricter than library/corporation
lutorm's comment: "Voting is a constitutional right" (implying that is isn't OK to require an ID)
sneak's comment: "purchasing a firearm" (clearly a constitutional right, so it isn't OK to require ID to purchase one???)
That is perfectly relevant. What sneak's comment does is point out that lutorm's argument implies that we can't have an ID requirement to purchase a firearm. Since this conclusion seems a little crazy, it suggests that lutorm's argument is no good.
I'll add that at least for presidents, the constitution only makes voting a right for 538 specific people. States are not required to let the rest of us participate. Voting is clearly not more of a constitutional right than firearms.
lutorm's comment: "Voting is a constitutional right" (implying that is isn't OK to require an ID)
sneak's comment: "purchasing a firearm" (clearly a constitutional right, so it isn't OK to require ID to purchase one???)
That is perfectly relevant. What sneak's comment does is point out that lutorm's argument implies that we can't have an ID requirement to purchase a firearm. Since this conclusion seems a little crazy, it suggests that lutorm's argument is no good.
I'll add that at least for presidents, the constitution only makes voting a right for 538 specific people. States are not required to let the rest of us participate. Voting is clearly not more of a constitutional right than firearms.
Yeah the latter is the nail in the coffin for my argument when it comes to the United States of America. Many other countries do have the individual right to vote written into their constitutions, though.
It serves as an argument as to what sort of requirements might be reasonable to ask for in order to exercise a constitutional right.
If asking for ID to buy a gun is reasonable, then the argument of whether it’s reasonable to ask for ID to vote can’t be one of principle, but has to be one of degree.
If asking for ID to buy a gun is reasonable, then the argument of whether it’s reasonable to ask for ID to vote can’t be one of principle, but has to be one of degree.
The degree seems pretty large, though, since it's the difference between an unclearly worded constitutional amendment that does not in any plain reading say that "buying a gun" is a constitutional right, to literally the right to have a say in how your nation is run.
I think of it this way: If you think that you're being unconstitutionally prevented from buying a gun because you don't have an ID you can at least vote for people who would change that. If you can't vote because you don't have an ID, though, you're SOL.
Edit: The second amendment even refers to "well regulated", which to me seems to imply that the intent was to, well, have some regulation of the matter.
I think of it this way: If you think that you're being unconstitutionally prevented from buying a gun because you don't have an ID you can at least vote for people who would change that. If you can't vote because you don't have an ID, though, you're SOL.
Edit: The second amendment even refers to "well regulated", which to me seems to imply that the intent was to, well, have some regulation of the matter.
While I tend to agree with you that it's a fairly large gap, I can see how others might not see it as a much smaller difference.
The meaning of words changes with time, but that can't be allowed to change our laws. Here, "well regulated" is about being reliable, high-performing, and accurate. The term also applies to mechanical devices; one could have a well regulated clock.
How much identification is needed to exercise one “constitutional right” versus another? Should there be a difference? Though one might legitimately take the question to be flame-baity, I think it’s a valid question in light of the original statement.
He's pointing out that if one believes you should be able to vote without ID because it's a civil right, then you should also be able to buy a gun without ID because it's a civil right.
My guess is that he or she is saying that it's reasonable in both cases to require ID.
My guess is that he or she is saying that it's reasonable in both cases to require ID.
You don’t need ID to buy a gun in the US.
Private transactions are completely paper and record free. (Unless you are from some non-flyover state.)
It’s only when you sell guns as a dealer that you are required to get ID and whatnot from the purchaser. (Even then, there is no penalty for BUYING the gun without ID; the penalty attaches to the SELLER.)
It’s only when you sell guns as a dealer that you are required to get ID and whatnot from the purchaser. (Even then, there is no penalty for BUYING the gun without ID; the penalty attaches to the SELLER.)
Quite the opposite. I think it is unreasonable to demand government paperwork as a prerequisite for basic human rights.
If it is not reasonable to demand an ID to blog or to vote, it is not reasonable to demand an ID to obtain arms.
If it is not reasonable to demand an ID to blog or to vote, it is not reasonable to demand an ID to obtain arms.
It’s not, but people who don’t like the idea of others voting like to obfuscate the conversation with red herrings and non sequiturs.
That’s the difference between a right and a privilege. Borrowing a book is a privilege.
You have a right to vote. Rights come without condition. Many municipal elections only require residency, and the state cannot compel you to have an identification, be literate, or participate in society beyond voting. A hermit living in a cave, a software engineer, or a person who just moved to a place are all humans and all subject to the same rights.
You have a right to vote. Rights come without condition. Many municipal elections only require residency, and the state cannot compel you to have an identification, be literate, or participate in society beyond voting. A hermit living in a cave, a software engineer, or a person who just moved to a place are all humans and all subject to the same rights.
I increasingly think the US should look into adopting something akin to Estonia's voting system. Perhaps with some added zero-knowledge proof layer so that it can be known that all votes were valid, but not exactly who voted which way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia
foreach9885(1)
I see voting as the sandbox/turf of politicians, with huge battles for all ground gain or lost.
As it should be.
Can you expand on this? I'm wondering what your reasoning is for requiring more or less info in either case.
Commerce is good and barriers to it should be minimal. Libraries are community property, paid for by tax payers. If you are going to borrow community property it is not a small thing.
Almost anyone can walk into a library, pick up a book, and read it there. So there is still relatively good access to information. It is the borrowing part that creates the red tape.
Even if it is simpler to create a company than get a library card, I guarantee as soon as that company tries to borrow money there will be plenty of paperwork :-)
Almost anyone can walk into a library, pick up a book, and read it there. So there is still relatively good access to information. It is the borrowing part that creates the red tape.
Even if it is simpler to create a company than get a library card, I guarantee as soon as that company tries to borrow money there will be plenty of paperwork :-)
This comparison is stupid. Corporate registration is explicitly public information. Librarians are notorious for the fervency with which they protect the personal information of library patrons.
If information is collected then it can be stolen. Even if it is not permanently (or even temporarily) stored.
Irrelevant, but even if I humor you: The PATRIOT act does not require libraries collect any more personal information than the government already has. The comparison is utterly meaningless.