Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 8:53?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters.

Old news - in fact, I posted something about this a couple of months
ago.


You scooped USA Today by a couple of months? Good job. :-)

This is very problematic both in terms of concept and execution.

Ain't gonna happen.

Don't be so sure. There are calls for a "national ID card" from a
number of sectors right now. Lots of people want to know just who the
"real" Americans are.

Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S.
system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely
ridiculous possibility.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find
this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way.

Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD

FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document.

EOD

Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized
certain statements in the proposal as emphatic.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on
the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling
and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows
he has lost.

Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as
10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license.
The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG
is providing "conflicting information".

If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up
your position, please post it.

Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-)

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On 31 Oct 2007 16:03:01 -0700, Chuck Gould penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S.
|system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely
|ridiculous possibility.

Except in busy areas the radar screen would look like a huge blob of
white.... unless they split the area up into a gazillion sectors.

It would be as big a mess as ATC.... both which they would probably
privatize out to the lowest bidding county.....

go figure.....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

Another argument to keep the Electoral College.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Enforce the 10th Amendment.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

On 31 Oct 2007 16:03:01 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 8:53?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters.

Old news - in fact, I posted something about this a couple of months
ago.


You scooped USA Today by a couple of months? Good job. :-)

Actually, yes.

So did you in fact - in 2005.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...eb23c907f2d3f2



This is very problematic both in terms of concept and execution.

Ain't gonna happen.

Don't be so sure. There are calls for a "national ID card" from a
number of sectors right now. Lots of people want to know just who the
"real" Americans are.

Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S.
system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely
ridiculous possibility.

That's all fine and good - you are talking about a huge number of
small boats that aren't even efficiently controlled by state statute
never mind Federal.

A perfect example was the Newport Bridge fiasco. DHS, USCG and Navy
closed off the Newport Bridge to any boat within 500 yards of any
piling and/or abutment. No exceptions.

When it was pointed out that the narrows is only 1,200 yards wide and
that any and all traffic would be prevented from entering or exiting
Narragansett Bay, it kind of went away.

Proposals like a ID card or transponders isn't workable for any number
of reasons including enforcement. They can't enforce the rules now as
they discovered with the Newport Bridge - how the hell are they going
to enforce universal ID or get the money for computer support for
transponders?

And think of the technical challenge with transponders. On any given
summer day, there are thousands of boats with easy access to power
plants, airport runways, bridges, shipping - you name it.

The reasonable approach would be to allow a stop and check ID - which
would be a state driver's license or similar boating license.

Any other approach is just plain silly.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

The reasonable approach would be to allow a stop and check ID - which
would be a state driver's license or similar boating license.

Any other approach is just plain silly.

In other words, count on it happening.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.
Some additional insight on this issue:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...
That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that
is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who
they
are arresting.

Eisboch
I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?


I never knew this before until a week or so ago. There was a show on "The
Military Channel" that was doing a feature on each of the armed forces
academies. The CG is the only one that can make an arrest. The Navy can
stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to
hold the subjects and call for the CG.

There has been a program between the Navy and CG, kind of like an
exchange program, to familiarize the officers with the other services
operations for years. Originally to enable faster integration between
the two during times of war. It appears that this program has evolved
into a program where a CG officer is embarked on Naval warships for the
ability to enable arrests on the high seas.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).
Snipped
I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!


People would be resistant to upgrades.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even
have a birth certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch

Very, VERY bad idea....

I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the
idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at
birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked?

Eisboch


Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's
been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was
revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and
they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody
can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even
remotely connected with terrorism issues.

What right does she have to be here in the first place.

Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's
license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even
have a birth certificate.

It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted
chips at birth is not out of the question.

Eisboch

Very, VERY bad idea....

I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the
idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at
birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked?

Eisboch


Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman
who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her
visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into
it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but
absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't
seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues.

What right does she have to be here in the first place.


Nice try, pulling the word "right" outta your ass, child. Who told you to
say that?