The Threat of National Id

William Safire’s â€Å"The Threat of National ID† Comprehension 1. According to Safire most people are willing to give up their privacy â€Å"in return for greater safety. That’s why we gladly suffer the pat – downs and ‘wanding’ at airports†. Such precautions contribute to our peach of mind. He believes that law enforcement officials are already taking advantage of this situation. He says that Police are â€Å"unconcerned with the sanctity of an individual’s home† and developed â€Å"heat sensors to let them look inside people’s houses. And claims that the Justice department has an electronic bug that the F. B.I can plant on your key board to read every stroke. This is really ironic because Safire has typed his article and must question what infringes of his privacy have already been made that he isn’t aware of. 2. Safire says that â€Å"national ID cards give Americans a â€Å"false sense of securityâ₠¬ . I believe Safire is referring to the security of your identity. Identification cards are supposed to prove who you are: approve purchases, entry, travel, etc. They are used so that another person can not just take your name and replace you. They ensure the safety of your identity, salary, house, and other personal things.I agree with Safire. Although I feel that there should be some sort of way to identify yourself you will only be able to do that if you give up more of your privacy, like providing a â€Å"fingerprint, description of DNA and details of your eye’s iris†. Even with national ID cards it is difficult to ensure its accuracy due to fake ID cards. 3. People will not be able to choose not to carry a national ID card because it is a requirement. The government has made it essential for people to have this source of verification. Without this card you will not be able to â€Å"travel, or buy on credit, or participate in tomorrow’s normal life. Soon enough police as well as employers will considers those who resist full disclosure of their financial, academic, medical, religious, social, and political affiliation to be suspect. He says that Police are â€Å"unconcerned with the sanctity of an individual’s home† and developed â€Å"heat sensors to let them look inside people’s houses. 4. In paragraph 6, Safire says â€Å"But in the dreams of Big Brother and his cousin, Big Marketing, nothing can compare to forcing every person in the United States – under penalty of law – to carry what the totalitarians used to call ‘papers’†.Safire compares the United States government to a totalitarian government if they force everyone to have â€Å"papers†. The idea of having to prove who you are goes against American ideal of living in a free country, or even being able to start over. If you force a permanent identity on someone you revoke their chance of having a brighter future . I believe that everyone has the right to seek a better future. There is a movie where they present the idea of your identity being written in your DNA. The protagonist’s was supposed to die at 31, it was written in his DNA however he wanted to become an astronaut.But because his DNA says that he will die at 31 no one is willing to hire him which forces the protagonist to go to someone who has broken both his legs and pays the man for his DNA. 5. There are advantages and dangers of national ID cards that everyone should be aware of. Having such personal national ID cards would â€Å"speed you through lines faster or buy you sure-fire protection from suicide bombers†. However the disadvantages seem to out way the advantages. With all this important information found on a single card this card has now increased in value immensely.Forcing you to protect the card as a part of yourself. The copy of that card in a national databank supposedly confidential but available to a ny imaginative hacker. The universal use and most likely abuse of the national card will most often trigger personal questions. This card is the ticket to losing much of your personal freedom. Purpose and Audience 1. Safire sees his readers as either friendly or neutral. You can tell because Safire informs the reader so the audience must not be hostile towards his view.However it is very plausible that he is also trying to convince his reader. Forcing you to protect the card as a part of yourself. The copy of that card in a national databank supposedly confidential but available to any imaginative hacker. The universal use and most likely abuse of the national card will most often trigger personal questions. This card is the ticket to losing much of your personal freedom. 2. Safire’s purpose does not seem to be changing his audience’s behaviour but changing their ideas or at least rethinking them.Safire mentions the dreams of Big Brother and his cousin, Big Marketing, nothing can compare to forcing every person in the United States – under penalty of law – to carry what the totalitarians used to call ‘papers’†. Safire compares the United States government to a totalitarian government if they force everyone to have â€Å"papers†. The idea of having to prove who you are goes against American ideal of living in a free country, or even being able to start over. 3. Safire assumes that his readers are well informed about national ID.He believes that they should be well informed about their rights and especially support the fourth amendment. He feels that people should protect their right to privacy and feels that having a national ID infringes on their right of privacy which he mentions many examples. I believe that everyone has the right to seek a better future. There is a movie where they present the idea of your identity being written in your DNA. The protagonist’s was supposed to die at 31, it was writ ten in his DNA however he wanted to become an astronaut. Style and Structure 1.The writer begins his essay with discussion of losing an animal. This strategy is very effective, however I don’t understand why. By introducing the new device animal ID he makes an allusion to identification of people. Safire introduces the idea of implanting a little chip implanted under the skin in the back of the neck so that a shelter can quickly pick up the address of the owner. Safire later mentions having identification in the back of their neck alluding to the beginning of the essay which ties the whole thing together. I cannot think of a better opening.Satire mentions a lot of problems with national ID however he leaves the reader to figure out all the different ways national id could be a problem. He forces you to think about whether you are willing to give up so much information with one sweep or scan. 2. Safire’s argument is primarily appealing to deductive reasoning. Because it is proceeding from general presumption to a specific conclusion. According to the textbook, deduction holds that is all the statements in the argument are true the conclusion must also be true. Thus Safire must not use inductive reasoning to argue his case.Cops of course would insists on a record of arrests speeding tickets, E-Z pass auto movements, and links to suspicious Web sites and associates. All this information and more is being collected already which is very scary and by including all the different possiblilties it only makes having a national ID seem more of a threat. 3. The writer uses various kinds of evidence to support his points. You can tell because Safire informs the reader so the audience must not be hostile towards his view. However it is very plausible that he is also trying to convince his reader. Forcing you to protect the card as a part of yourself.The copy of that card in a national databank supposedly confidential but available to any imaginative hacker. T he universal use and most likely abuse of the national card will most often trigger personal questions. However Safire does not provide a source for his evidence which forces the reader to question whether or not the is relevant. I think that Safire could’ve used more solid evidence to prove his points but it is hard to find that sort of information so its ok. 4. Safire refutes the idea of having National ID. He believes that law enforcement officials are already taking advantage of this situation.He says that Police are â€Å"unconcerned with the sanctity of an individual’s home† and developed â€Å"heat sensors to let them look inside people’s houses. And claims that the Justice department has an electronic bug that the F. B. I can plant on your key board to read every stroke. This is really ironic because Safire has typed his article and must question what infringes of his privacy have already been made that he isn’t aware of. 5. He uses rhetor ical questions as a stylistic device to move his argument along. A few examples of this devise are: â€Å"Think you can encrypt your way to privacy? â€Å"How about a chip providing a complete medical history in case of emergencies? † â€Å"What about us libertarian misfits who take the trouble to try and ‘opt out’? † his entire paragraph 11 asks a bunch of rhetorical questions and the list goes on. By using rhetorical devices Safire forces his readers to think about their answer to the question even though it doesn’t necessarily require an answer it creates an emphasis on the unknown answer that only the reader can provide. 6. Safire basically concludes his essay with a summary. The hospitals would say: how about a chip providing a complete medical history in case of emergencies?Merchants would add a chip for credit rating, banking accounts, and product preferences, while divorced spouses would lobby for a rundown of net assests and yearly expendi tures. Politicians would like to know voting records and political affiliation. Cops of course would insists on a record of arrests speeding tickets, E-Z pass auto movements, and links to suspicious Web sites and associates. All this information and more is being collected already which is very scary and by including all the different possiblilties it only makes having a national ID seem more of a threat.