Slashdot Log In
Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0
Posted by
timothy
on Tue May 10, 2005 09:26 PM
from the shock-shock-horror dept.
from the shock-shock-horror dept.
jeffkjo1 writes "The U.S. Senate has passed the $82 billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill (approved by the House last week), which includes the Real ID act driver's license reform (previously reported here.) The National Governors Association has indicated at the possibility of a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Real ID provisions, which would create national driver's license standards, and a federal database of information from all 50 states."
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: Real-ID, PriceRitePhoto, RIM 75 comments
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including a possible iBill framejob, the first steps towards defying the Real ID act, Peter Quinn continues his support for Open Source, Judge flunks lawsuit against spammers, WinXP on a Mac, round 2, Juniper drops message board suit, Vint Cerf answers questions on TLDs, PriceRitePhoto gets relisted, and RIM goes on the offensive for patent reform -- Read on for details.
[+]
Administration Wants To Scale Back Real ID Law 317 comments
The Washington Post is running a story on the Obama Administration's attempt to get a scaled-back version of Bush's Real ID program passed and implemented. We've been discussing the Real ID program from its earliest days up through the states' resistance to its "unfunded mandate." "Yielding to a rebellion by states that refused to pay for it, the Obama administration is moving to scale back a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was designed to tighten security requirements for driver's licenses... Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants to repeal and replace the controversial, $4 billion domestic security initiative known as Real ID... The new proposal, called Pass ID, would be cheaper, less rigorous, and partly funded by federal grants, according to draft legislation that Napolitano's Senate allies plan to introduce as early as tomorrow. ...the Bush administration struggled to implement the 2005 [Real ID] law, delaying the program repeatedly as states called it an unfunded mandate and privacy advocates warned it would create a de facto national ID."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'm saying this time was a good time for it (though I honestly can't see a big deal with the ID), I'm just seeing your logic as faulty.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't controversial. Not to the congresspeople. Last time a democrat tried to object to provisions of an Iraq spending bill, the republicans screamed "voted against the war before he voted against it" for eight months until he lost an election.
Congressional democrat opposition has been, since then, dead.
Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Interesting)
It's controversial for lots of reasons, and most of them don't have to do with tinfoil hats.
1) It creates MORE government, not less. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government, but this flies in the face of that policy.
2) It's unfunded. The states are supposed to work out for themselves how to comply with these regulations with NO federal funding.
3) Of course, states aren't required to comply, but then a state's citizens will be unable to make use of most interstate transportation (flying).
4) It provides few, if any, clear benefits. Maybe a bartender in Cali won't have to worry about knowing what Vermont's drivers licenses look like with a national ID card, but people with the money and determination will still be able to get fake IDs.
I won't even go into the privacy concerns -- you can read yesterday's article if you're interested.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
If that sort of argument can win an election, it sounds like the people got the quality of representation they deserve.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going the way of the fucking Romans.
Parent
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Letter to my Senator (Score:5, Interesting)
Senator Obama,
Congratulations. The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill passed, 100-0. I hope you're satisfied with your hard day in the Senate.
But I heard that the RealID Act, included as a rider on the bill, creates a national drivers license standard and requires a database containing information on every single person in the United States with such a license.
But I heard that the bill states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
You must be please as punch. The supplemental spending bill went through without a hitch, giving much-needed money to those poor soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfortunate victims of the tsunami in Asia.
I hope somebody is happy, because I sure as hell am not.
Wasn't one of the reasons the United States disliked the Soviet Union too much because the USSR placed horrible restrictions on free travel, and "Papers, please" was a phrase heard at every local border? Well, I imagine you must be thrilled that, under the legislation you just sent to the President's desk, the United States Government will have the power to do the same thing very shortly.
I can picture it now: I'm on my way to visit my brother in Colorado, but because my RealID drivers license has my political history on it, I'm deemed a "security risk" due to anti-war protests I attended leading up to the invasion of Iran in 2007.
"That can't happen here! It won't happen here!"
How naive. When has any government, in the history of the world, willingly given up power after the populace was foolish enough to hand that power over? I'm sure in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia requiring papers to travel within the country was first announced as a 'temporary security procedure,' and would only be in place 'until things quieted down.
You must be so excited that the same thing can be happening soon, at state border near you.
And this gem: "No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
Have you even read the Constitution? I am so angry right now, I can't begin to explain why the above passage is un-Constitutional, a horrible infringement on the liberties of individuals and states' rights, and a mind-numbingly dumb thing to have put your seal of approval on.
Senator Obama, I voted for you this past November. I was hoping to be excited about voting for you again in the future. We both know this bill was going to pass, with or without your support. But your campaigning speeches, your town-hall debates, your keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, all seemed to point toward a man who was smart, idealistic, and would stand his ground against those in this country who would see liberty and justice fade away.
Give the people of Illinois some credit. Sure, the Republicans would start with attack ads, portraying you as having voted against funding the military and tsunami victims. But people like myself, people who knew the whole story, would never let your image be tarnished in such a way. We would spread the truth and make sure that lies and falsehoods were not allowed to be passed around as "truth."
And you went and voted, along with everyone else, for horrible, horrible, un-Constitutional bill.
Thanks a lot. A little bit of my idealism - my belief that our elected officials will do what's right, even when it's hard - just died.
Again, I hope you're happy.
Congratulations.
Parent
Fix the Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.
Parent
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Informative)
Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)
Parent
They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this last legislative session, this got to be a real problem because political maneuvers blocked 100s of bills from being introduced, allowing only several dozen bills through.
Following the rules, the bills should've died. Instead they were attached to the existing bills through "creative interpretation".
Some bills couldn't get handled this way no matter how much bending of the wording they could do. In those cases, they stripped the entire language of the bill out and replaced it with the language of the more important bill. (For instance, Bill xxx "Raise the speed limit from 65 to 70" was gutted and became a bill to enact Daylight Savings Time... but was still titled the "speed limit bill".
So as you see, it doesn't matter what restrictions are put on the process. Politicians will get their way.
Parent
Re:They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Bills are supposed to be DAMN hard to pass. If you can attach some random stuff to a bill that's expected to pass, then the system isn't working. The fact that this got 100-0 is the sickeningly sweet icing on the cake-of-evidence towards this.
Honestly, the one thing at the moment that I wish for in our government is accountability. Legislation that would only allow one fundamental idea per bill would do exactly that... It would make things like this bill pretty hard to pass, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
It'll never happen though, because of the accountability aspect, and because the bureaucrats like it the way it is--easy to pass bullshit when people are desperate.
Parent
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Funny)
Me, I'm going to boycott RealID, just like RealAudio and RealMedia (sorry - couldn't resist)...
Parent
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that sort of like saying "Need to learn Spanish so I can move to the US"?
Parent
Consider please, the current president... (Score:5, Insightful)
and then, line item veto all but the last.
'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives..
I can't believe old, rich, die-hard republicans don't really hate bush & his take on republican politics... it's not what their view used to be.
Parent
Notes about the minority (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to see the real masterminds of this bill, it is the majority party, who according to a few of the minority democrats are abusing their power by passing a bill without having the chance to debate it on the floor of the senate.
Re:Notes about the minority (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah ... just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time? Fine leadership style.
I've come to expect dracononian legislation from the Republikans, but the Democrats should be ashamed. Not so much as a whimper. Spineless, gutless wonders.
Another Green vote in 2008 ...
Parent
Re:Notes about the minority (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, you mean, like, where the people that get elected by the voters are actually shipped to North Korea, and replaced by cyborgs or something?
Or by "you" you actually mean yourself, and mean that you're not feeling represented because you couldn't persuade enough other people to support your preferred representative(s). Perhaps you didn't invest enough time? Maybe your position or message don't resonate with typical people? Certainly you put a lot of your own time and effort into educating people, right?
Parent
Re:Notes about the minority (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario: Congress creates a bill called the "fluffy bunny petting act of 2005, providing (amongst other things) for free cold fusion generated power and eternal global peace"
Sen Dick Shaftus, (R-TX) decides that this is his opportunity, and attaches a rider - "Infant Mulching Federal Subsidies for the Rich".
Principled politician, Molly Naivitus (D-MA) votes against the bill, desparate to prevent the mulching of infants in her state.
Republicans campaign against Naivitus in Massachussets, outraged that she would vote against petting fluffy bunnies and eternal global peace!
Voters, spun by soundbites and browbeaten by O'Reilly, vote Naivitus out of office.
Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.
Parent
Re:Forced to, my ass. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh that's right. Those clean bills already happens when Congress votes itself a big, fat payraise for screwing over the citizens of the country.
Nevermind.
I'm ecstatic. (Score:5, Funny)
What's the friggin point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the Democrats say they were against this "under-the-table" budget push.
Really? 100-0.
Where's Kerry's "I'm all for immigration" leadership now? 100-0.
Where's Kos? He's been spewing filibuster stories, but not one major post about the RealID
And the Democrats wonder why they're losing elections. Hint, if you're going to act like a Republican... people might as well just VOTE Republican.
And now you all know the solution, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the American Slashdot crowd is huge and you know how to communicate. Start communicating with the people who will be running against the incumbents for seats in the Senate in the next election NOW. Give them ammunition against their opponents. Start grass roots campaigning and get the message out. Get it on people's minds and keep it there. If you have that much of a problem with this bill as many of you say, then get to work kicking out the idiots who voted in favor of the bill.
It is your duty as US citizens.
Parent
Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Started the shooting?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, and where in the Constitution does it outlaw secession? Keep looking, bucko...
a succession ordinace can't trump it.
Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here [cornell.edu] it is if you'd like to read it.
Regardless, the US government was founded on the principle of self-government, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. For Lincoln to deny it a mere 70 years later was hypocritical and tyrannical.
Parent
10th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
A national ID is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, any authority to issue official IDs falls to the states. Granted, this hasn't stopped the federal government from taking over education, hate speech legislation, search and seizure, etc. And will the Supreme Court rule on the side of the Constitution? They haven't in recent years, why should they now?
Constitution-buster? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Constitution-buster? (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts can not uphold a law if it does not apply. In other words, this bill allows the people making the decisions to exempt themselves from responsibility and even place themselves above the law (granted, some state laws may apply in the case of murder, rape, and other violent crimes which the federal government might not be able to exempt themselves from).
Parent
Re:Constitution-buster? (Score:5, Insightful)
This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.
Parent
I'm glad (Score:5, Insightful)
But challenge our freedom? Time to stop this crap once and for all. Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped... God help us all.
Re:I'm glad (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting Public: Hey, you can't establish national ID card! I don't want to have to show my papers everywhere I go. What happened to States Rights? What slimy politician tacked this on to a bill guaranteed to pass anyway? WTF does RealID have to do with troops in Iraq? What is this, Nazi Germany?
Bush & Co: *clears throat* Terrorism.
Voting Public: Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer! *sound of goosestepping and sheep falling into line*
Parent
Amendments to the Bill.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"121. S.AMDT.430 to H.R.1268 To prohibit the use of funds by any Federal agency to produce a prepackaged news story without including in such story a clear notification for the audience that the story was prepared or funded by a Federal agency."
Why to fear Real ID (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's important to point out why.
While I'm sure it appears obvious to many of us, I think others may be wondering why this is such a big deal. The fact that this bill passed seems to suggest some people (many people) don't know what the implications are.
I'm sure I'll miss some of the reasoning (feel free to add on) but here goes my take on it. As a disclaimer, I am Canadian, but I don't think that changes much:
A driver's license, like a social security number, is unique. This means we can uniquely identify a person through their driver's license.
The important differences are:
(1) A driver's license is often used as a saved form of ID while an SSN is not (except for employment purposes). This means your driver's license can be found in many places, potentially at places like your video rental shop.
(2) A driver's license is used as photo ID. This means it is on you and there are several places where the information can be grabbed. Possibly in places as innocent as a bar.
(3) A universal driver's license introduces the idea of a universal reader. Because of it being the only thing that can be reliably found on 99% of the adult population, it could become an easily scanned item to be used as a membership identifier (among other things). If this is done, a single ID can identify you in literally thousands of establishments with a paper trail that will trounce your credit card trail.
(4) When you tie in "saved everywhere", with "stealable anywhere" with "scannable anywhere/information everywhere" you've got a severe loss of privacy.
The reasoning from (1) to (4) is probably not obvious to a lot of people. That's ultimately what makes it dangerous. You get to give up your freedom but it sneaks up on you in a way that you actually agreed to it (which makes it a lot harder to complain about when it happens).
I feel so sorry for you Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
The time for action is now! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hereby declare that we as citizens need to get involved and also get other citizens involved because this is affecting us all in so many pervasive ways that the slippery slope is starting to look like a cliff we have all just potentially jumped off. You may say to yourself, well, that doesn't affect me, everything I do is legal, but wait until you are sued because you are caught with some illegal mp3s or worse thrown in jail. Wait until you find out that you should have no rights to medical privacy according to the federal government and John Ashcroft. Where does it begin and more importantly, where does it end?
Our rights are gone and in many places we cannot even arm or defend ourselves even in spite of the threat of deadly force. What freedoms do we have left with potentially now the ability for the local, state, and federal governments to all easily monitor our whereabouts and travels?
Please read my last post on the last story about the Real ID. We need to respond with at least *something*. We need to take the stand. I'm sure that if half of the americans really knew what was going on in their congress (or even cared to know) those that are holding power would certainly not keep getting reelected. I know that there are not really many easy solutions in the sheer complexity that is modern society, however this has become a reflection of what should not be implemented in a national government and we still have the power to effect change.
Come on Slashdot! Create a Slashdot effect on the feds for chrissakes! You all echo in a chorus that what we are doing is dangerous and potentially has drastically negative consequences. You all seem to hate patent law, industry regulation, war, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, the FCC, the broadcast flag, and this truly sad piece of legislation.
Seriously, can't we just play nice for a day and decide to do something about this trite? Is it that hard? We could have Liberty Day and get together in our cities and towns and meet, geek to geek. Surely the geeks are at least smarter than anyone else, right? Can't we brainstorm some better ideas while where at it and figure out how to wrestle control away from two political parties? Revolution Day?
THE REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED
Let us hope there is some sanity left in this world, right?
Re:100-0 (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:100-0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Your Papers Please (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the measure itself, but the method behind it. Since 9/11 there has been an enormous extension of authority on the part federal police and intelligence officials. There seems to be an attitude in Washington that they need to assume control over all critical information pertaining to anyone in the country to combat terrorism.
This is not only demonstrably unnecessary, but may serve to create a menace even worse than the terrorists of today in the long run if we are not careful.
Parent
Re:Your Papers Please (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why Vegas has legalized gambling and prostitution. This is why Nebraska has a speed limit of 75, Pennsylvania 65, WV 70, and a few years ago Montana had no speed limit (during the daylight).
Many people don't realize that the federal law makes the legal drinking age 18. "But why is it 21 in every state?" They deny funding to states that don't make it 21. It works the same way with many rules so the federal government can extert control over the states (including the speed limit).
Now they are going to extert control over state IDs and make them federal. Now you will have a US drivers license...basically. That means most of the traffic rules will need to be merged.
The US was founded on state rights, hence "The United States of America". If you don't like a state's rules, move to another state. The federal government is heading toward "monoculturing" the US. Pretty soon we'll be "Former United States of America".
Parent
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts:
1) There's nothing in state motor vehicle licensing databases that a federal investigator can't get to anyway
2) A consistent set of standards by which people (notably, of course, immigrants - legal or not) need to prove who they are before they get an item as enabling (in terms of access, banking, and so on) as a driver's license is.... well, not crazy, or draconian, or anything other than reasonable.
That's it... I quit voting
That'll fix it! Or, really, it gives you even more room to whine, I guess. How about making a more persuasive case that we should let some states issue official IDs (which are then honored in other states) without worrying about who the person actually is? Tough sell? Yes, it is... and is why you don't see our representatives acting like it's an inherently bad idea to smooth out the discrepancies in the process. Streamlining and further validating the process will save money, lives, and time. The downside would be... let's see, a situation where it's harder for liars to get mainstream IDs?
Parent
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to America, where common sense is second fiddle to political correctness.
What's even funnier is that IIRC the hijackers all had legit IDs, which were legitimately obtained.
No matter what kind of fancy, high-tech shit they stuff into IDs, as long as there are greedy people in charge of doling out those IDs, [bradenton.com] people who want fraudulent ones will be able to get them.
What's worse, anyone with fraudulent Real-IDs will not get the scrutiny they deserve-- people will just swipe the thing, see it comes up as valid, and not question it.
It's just the illusion of security, just like all the horseshit they put into place at airports after 9/11. Window dressing, nothing more.
~Philly
Parent
Re:This Idea doesn't bother me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even:
(Redundant, but necessary)
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Doesn't patriotism mean exactly that -- being bothered by un-American acts, not excluding those un-American acts of law by Congress? Since when does Congress -- or ANY branch of government, for that matter -- have authority to circumvent the system of checks and balances we have in place?
If our Supreme Court aren't pussies they'll strike this down faster than you can say the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Parent
Re:Hate to say it - it's constitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:FWIW (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it 2/3 correct: it's a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic."
democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
That's a disgusting and backwards metaphor. "The People" aren't the aggressive wolves seeking to devour the poor innocent sheep, The People *are* the sheep. The wolves are the rich and powerful, and have been ever since the beginning of civilization. The US Government was founded on the idea that the government derives its power from, and should provide benefit to, The People.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
Parent