NOW HERE'S A FIGHT CARD WE REALLY LIKE Counterpunch: IDs are a good idea

AT MANY BRIDGES and tunnels across the country, drivers avoid long delays at the toll booths with an unobtrusive device that fits on a car's dashboard and sends a radio signal that records their passage. They are billed later. It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience: the toll-takers know more about you but you save time and money.

An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined more closely.

As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool against terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms - especially racial and ethnic profiling - that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

I can hear the objections: What about the specter of Big Brother? What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures? What about fears that such cards would lead to increased deportation of illegal immigrants?

The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card. Even without a national card, people are always being asked to show identification. The existence of a national card need not change the rules about when ID can properly be demanded. It is true that the card would facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants. But President Bush has proposed giving legal status to many of the illegal immigrants now in this country. And legal immigrants would actually benefit from a national ID card that could demonstrate their status to government officials.