National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50 869
charleste writes "CNN is reporting that the US Homeland Security Department has mandated Real ID for drivers licenses. According to the article, this will not include a 'chip', but a list of options by state. Despite legislation passed in various states and objections by groups such as ACLU, this appears to be a done deal. Without one of the new IDs you will be unable to board a plane after 2014 if you are under 50."
Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Funny)
Man in Black Coat in Alley: "Would you like a real fake ID or a fake Real ID?"
Citizen: "Well, I'm only 18 so I need both."
Man in Black Coat in Alley: "Very good, sir. Now, remember when you're buying alcohol, you're a 22 year old student named James Huffington from Rhode Island. When you're boarding a plane, you are Agnes Krakaour, age 51
Citizen: "Thank you so much!"
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
You got a +5 funny but it should have been +5 insightful. I don't care how many smartchips or anti-counterfeiting features they add to our licenses, it will still be possible for people to counterfeit them. In the extreme example, somebody motivated enough to obtain a false id would just pay off the right person at DMV to obtain a legitimate one. Hell, if you think that doesn't happen right now then you are deluding yourself.
I don't recall reading that any of the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs to get onto the airplanes. They obtained them quite legally. Perhaps we should be looking into reforming who can obtain a drivers license, rather then reforming the drivers license itself.
Or better yet: Perhaps we should stop all of this Orwellian nonsense to begin with and just accept the fact that we live in a dangerous world and I'd personally rather have my civil liberties and live with that basic fact then trade them in for the illusion of security.
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you!
I gotta say, I dunno where all this fear comes from. Personally, I'm more afraid of the govt. screwing me over or a glitch in the system, preventing me from doing something (flying, entering public building, banking) than a terrorist blowing me up.
I mean, the odds of something happening wrong with the govt. that I deal with quite a lot throughout my life is much greater than Habib lighting a fuze somewhere near where I'm standing at any given time.
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll give you a hint: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" -Dick Cheney
Seriously. Our own Government has done a lot more to make us afraid of terrorism then the terrorists themselves have done. How depressing that in 60 years we've gone from "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to "Buy duct tape!".
Re:Papers please (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not?
9/11 was a flea bite. It killed fewer people than die every month on the highways, and did less property damage than good-sized hurricane (and *far* less than a major disaster like Katrina).
And let's stick to flea bites, shall we? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the fear of a 3000 casualty hit and loss of buildings... it's the fear of something bigger.
The fact is Al Qaeda is relatively overblown. They may be the only group with a global reach, but their global reach isn't that significant. Think about it, they got 19 guys in to hijack planes when the assumption was don't fight hijackers, they generally let everything go peacefully. They hit two buildings, but before they were supposed to (they obviously wanted to simultaneously hit them after 9 AM to maximize damage), 30 minutes apart, and too high to maximize damage.
The fact is, for all the bluster of Islamic Terrorists, they haven't done anything impressive. The most impressive operation was Hezbollah's holding off of Israel, and even that was a joke. They claimed a military victory, but only in the Arab world can your land be occupied by a foreign power, you hold none of their territory, and your roads and bridges are destroyed yet you are victorious because it took more than a week to wipe you out. That, like 9/11, is overplayed. Israel retooled their military once they had a reminder that "surrounded by enemies" isn't just PR, it's real and requires your military be prepared for an actual war, not just policing malcontents in disputed land, and by the time people heard on the 4th plane that they weren't negotiating, they were blowing things up, the people on the plane took it over and ended the issue.
That said, we should keep an eye on things, because these people do just want to inflict lots of damage... fortunately they aren't that bright. If you haven't noticed, every middle eastern "nuclear weapons program," despite years of effort, somehow is always X years/months away, where X is always longer than the Manhattan project. I have no doubt that the Arab world has it's share of brilliant minds (they were the scientific leaders for centuries), but in the Arab world, decades of oppressive dictatorships have managed to kill or exile every independent thinker, and now they seem incapable of anything impressive, and their government projects are run by total morons.
If Al Qaeda had their act together, 9/11 would have been a start to a wave. Hitting soft targets every week would have caused massive financial collapse in America... if everyone was scared to go to shopping malls because bombs were going off weekly, consumer spending would have contracted and US economic might would have fell apart. Fortunately, the Islamic terrorists aren't that bright, and are more interested in big flashy things to make recruiting videos, not about actually waging war with the US. These movements need a steady supply of naive, bored young teenagers and 20 somethings, so their goal is projects that would be exciting to an upper middle class Arab youth that is bored with life.
Instead of living on daddies money and getting stoned in college while talking up socialism over the pizza put on the Gold Card, like their American counterparts, they can convinced to blow themselves up to fight the US/Israel/Zionism and martyr themselves. The terrorists #1 goal is recruiting more foot soldiers, actually hurting us is a distant second.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A realistic appreciation of the tragedy would lead us to (a) take reasonable safety precautions (like locking cockpit doors during flight), (b) focus our response on actions that really will make us safer -- largely, more intelligence effort -- and (c) go on with our lives in as unaffected a manner as possible, to avoid giving the terrorists their victory.
Completely agree. The simple action of locking the cockpit doors and training the pilot to immedidately land during an attempting hijacking prevents another 9/11. End of story. No TSA, no "remove your shoes", no "no-fly" lists.
Hell, unless they can bring guns onto the aircraft there's no way terrorists even take over a plane in the United States after 9/11. Look at Flight 93. No American is going to meekly submit to an attempted hijacking after 9/11.
I've always thought we've done more damage to ou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We, the American public, have been duped. Lucky us that it wore off it before the politicians realized it.
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Informative)
Based on reading the article, it looks like most of the changes being made are not changes to the license itself, but to the process of obtaining them.
It appears to me that this is not a "federal ID", but consists of the following:
1) Requirements levied on the process of granting a person a drivers' license, in terms of verifying that that person is who they say they are.
2) Requirements levied on the anti-counterfeiting features of that license.
TFA states that a number of states already issue licenses that meet all of these requirements. For example, California residents will apparently not notice any difference except the point at which their picture is taken during the process of obtaining a license. From the looks of it, this will also not affect me, as my state (New York) already implements all of the process and anti-counterfeiting requirements levied here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Papers please (Score:4, Informative)
That is a federated system - this is a federal ID. Putting quotes around "federal ID" is being either dismissive or ignorant of the ACLU's concerns.
Re:Papers please (Score:4, Interesting)
One big change for me...from what I read, it will now have my Social Security number contained in it. My current license does not. I never showed my SS# when applying for it, and my number does not appear on the front of the license.
From the article, it implies that the SS will be at least encoded on the bar code.
I try not to give my SS out for anything but ss tax related things. Now...why are the Feds requiring it be part of my fscking drivers license?? What does a drivers license have to do with SS taxation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stop being rational about this. Real ID will protect us from terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security says so, so it must be true.
No problem (Score:3, Funny)
hawk
Directions included (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the appendex in "1984" IS an instruction manual.
Read it again (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it's written in a past-tense explanatory manner.
However, it is so thorough and detailed and systematic as to be, for most practical purposes, an instruction manual.
The difference between "how did you do X" vs. "how should you do X" is often negligible.
(And as for "-1 Wrong": sometimes the facts presented in a post are, objectively, wrong. A moderator should be able to facilitate downplaying factually erronious material, rather than having to shout among the masses. The whole POINT of a -1 moderation, whatever the reason, is to prevent crap from floating to the top.)
Internal passport, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Georgia. What is your business here in Moscow?
--dave
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe you are off-base comparing Real ID to 1984...
1984's rigid governmental controls were setup by the Inner Party to keep the rest of the Party in-line. The Proles were free to go about their lives more-or-less uninterrupted. Sure, they were spied upon and the government created nonsensical "shortages" for things like razors. The real spying, though, was upon members of the Party who were employed at the four Ministries (DoD (PEACE), Media (TRUTH), Prison (LOVE), and Wall Street (PLENTY)). These individuals were made to suffer until even the most basic mathematics was a lie. Meanwhile, the vast majority lived in ghettos outside of the insanity.
Thus, to the point that it will constrain everybody... Real ID is very dissimilar to anything in 1984. If you *really* want to cast stones, simply knowing the main slogan of 1984 provides better insight.
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength
And if you'd like to read utopian science fiction *WITH* Real ID... follow the link in my sig. It isn't done, but it is polished enough that you'll get an enjoyable story.
Two out of three... (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength
Well thanks to Mr. Bush the US has managed to achieve 2 out of 3 so I guess now he's working on the 'freedom' angle...
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Papers please (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably emigrated to NZ by that time, if I can squeeze out before the gate comes down.
My poor, poor children...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read B. Traven's novel, The Death Ship, for a perspective on this - among other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What kind of lighter was it? As long as it was not a Torch Lighter [thinkgeek.com] TSA has allowed lighters since April of last year so unless she flew before then it would not have been a problem. You can read more about TSA's lighter guidelines here [tsa.gov] and here [tsa.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this now will be tracked on a national database. Now...all your movements will be tracked starting with air travel. Where you went, how long, etc.
Next, who is to say what information is tracked? National healthcare? Maybe you are penalized in healthcare...since they now know you go to a bar 3 times a week. Cashing checks? Well, they can now associate what you buy each time...tsk tsk...you're still smoking, eh?
Do you now have to swipe it each time you use a credit card? Why not...not an infringement...just 'proves' you are the person on the credit card. Heck..why bother with a separate card at all? The credit card companies just start using your swipe to assoc. with an account with them. Then all the nice databases are hooked together nicely, and a great picture of your life can then be assembled.
But, what problems would that cause?? I mean, we've known the govt. doesn't make mistakes, especially ones that are near impossible to get cleared up in a reasonable amount of time, if at all. We all know there hasn't been anyone misuse their govt. powers to personally screw with someone life before...so, no worries there.
I guess think of it this way. Have there been many laws passed for one reason, that haven't been used for other things? RICO laws used to be just for gangsters...they're being used in creative ways these days for numerous other prosecutions. Patriot act laws were just for terrorists, right? Haven't we seen slashdot articles already alluding to them now being used for less dangerous domestic infractions?
Sure, I paint a slippery slope picture with what the RealID could lead to, with its national database...but, is it THAT far fetched? Who is to stop the next administration from adding a 'little more' functionality to the system?
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way: if Canada was supplying the South with weaponry to stir up tensions again to force another civil war in the US while at the same time decrying the London bombings, wouldn't you be a little pissed at Canada?
Now imagine that, but stretched over decades from the United States, and hundreds of years from multiple European monarchies throughout the last thousand years.
Am I trying to justify it? No. However, a bit of understand would go a long way to improve out relationships abroad.
Sorry to rant.
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you buy into that load of crap that you just spewed, how does imposing new restrictions on Americans and granting the Government sweeping new powers help towards that goal? I'd like to think that my drivers license bears no relationship to the military strength of the United States.
And I'll address your theory that we need to exterminate them with a quote from one of my favorite movies: "He seems to have a serious weed up his ass and a legitimate gripe, always a dangerous combination" -Captain Ramsey from Crimson Tide [imdb.com].
Point being, that the Muslim World has several legitimate gripes with the Western World. We can kill all the terrorists we want but until we address those gripes we'll just be creating more of them to fight us. Unless you plan on exterminating them all?
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. If (and that's a highly unlikely if,) this is 'managed to be done', what's to stop those doing the ordering from targetting the next group for elimination? And who is that group going to be? Catholics? Anglicans? Any so-called Christian sect that doesn't speak in tongues, handle snakes, consider Evolution and science to be a tool of the devil and that all knowledge outside of one book needs to be suppressed for 'everyone's own good'?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By grouping an entire religion due to certain tactics of fanatics who claim to follow those beliefs, and then assuming that that same problem does not exist within another, doesn't sound quite right to me.
Here in the US you have groups claiming to be Christian who for decades would burn crosses to terrorize an entire section of the population... and perfor
Re: (Score:3)
Muslim World ... Unless you plan on exterminating them all?
Anyone have a problem with this?
Yes. If (and that's a highly unlikely if,) this is 'managed to be done', what's to stop those doing the ordering from targetting the next group for elimination? And who is that group going to be? Catholics? Anglicans? Any so-called Christian sect that doesn't speak in tongues, handle snakes, consider Evolution and science to be a tool of the devil and that all knowledge outside of one book needs to be suppressed for 'everyone's own good'?
I agree, only because not all Muslims are evil head-hunters. The vast majority of them are peaceful, kind people who are simply trying to live their lives and provide the best for their families.
However, comparing Christians with Muslims is not a fair comparison at all. I don't see the Pope or any other Catholic calling for the genocide of people of other religions. I don't read about Christian fathers killing their daughters because they wear makeup or date outside of the religion. I don't see Anglicans hijacking planes full of unarmed civilians and flying them into buildings filled with more unarmed civilians. These activities are pretty much owned Muslim based groups today.
The western world is not at war with Islam, but parts of Islam is at war with the west.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that NI really is a nice tool in shutting out the undesirables (you can't get a job, you can't travel, you can't use banks, can't rent or even pay a lot of your bills unless the Govt says you can).
So yes, unfortunately National ID really does work against criminals. The question we should be asking is who decides who is a criminal (and can they be trusted).
OH NOES!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:4, Insightful)
You asked what is the benefit. For 9/11 there would have been none that I know of.
But there is a real benefit to better ids that can be checked and trusted.
As I pointed out it could help with check fraud and any other crime that someone would commit using a fake idea. I didn't say it had any benefits at stopping a 9/11 copy cat attack.
You are making a common mistake. You are fighting the last war.
The benefits may have little to do with preventing terrorism but then it may. But a good secure id does have some benefits.
BTW a 9/11 copy cat attack is now pretty much impossible.
1. It is harder to sneak any weapon on a plane.
2. The cockpits are more secure.
3. Passengers will not just sit there any more.
So if you are worried about stopping 9/11 again don't. That is pretty well taken care of.
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Worse, ALL that data will be easier accessed. How many reports did I read just last year where government agencies "lost" millions of records on laptops. Just imagine ONE such failure with the REAL ID data and all the hope that it might prevent fraud goes right out the window.
I agree that the 9/11 scenario is taken care of -- which is why I'm tired of our HS folks using it to scare folks into this REAL ID thing.
My fear these days is corrupt and police-state like government agencies that will arrest you on rumor, hold you indefinitely without evidence or chance of trial and if you're lucky enough -- you won't get tortured while your held indefinitely. Basically, the protections of the Constitution are all but gone. And that means we'll head even faster to a fascist state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RealID from what I read just make sure that the information you give matches the truth. If you have a drivers license you already have given the information.
Did you read what they are going to do?
" Among other details of the REAL ID plan:
# The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected for failure to
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
And just like bars today that swipe ID's, instead of making it harder to create a fake ID, It makes the people checking the ID's less observant and allows them to easily just rely on the technology. IOW's... It's another great way for the public as a whole to pop their head in the sand and say we are secure when in reality we've not really improved anything and possibly even removed some of the accountability people once had in preventing the fraud.
In a related bit..... Think about this.. What do you need to get a state issued ID? Social Security Card? Birth Certificate? Well.... What do you need to get a replacement Social Security Card? Not much other than filling out some paperwork and your Birth Certificate. Soooooo, what do you need to get you birth certificate? In many areas, you just need to go down to the local dept of health and request a copy of it. Not very hard to do at all. Even easier, you could use a service like VitalChek and not even have to show up in person to request the Birth Certificate......And that's assuming that you are using a real Birth Certificate. There isn't really any system set up where the DMV can verify that the certificate your giving them is officially issued. The only thing on them that "proves" they are real is a simple notery-style Official Seal crimped in the paper.
An ID system is only as strong as it's weakest link. And right now we have a MASSIVELY weak link in the process for birth Certificates which this is not changing. All this does (not including potential privacy concerns) is give everybody a warm fuzzy cause they think they are doing something to better the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
All Mohammed has to do is get a job at the DMV.
Haven't you even seen the Simpsons?
This only slows down and complicates things. We're not exactly
dealing with a bunch of camel buggering primitives here. They
can adapt to these hurdles just like any other national
intelligence service would.
People are just trivializing the enemy if they think these
sorts of things will so easily stop them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point:
I was going to travel outside of the country in November 2005. I applied for my passport in September 2005.
No problem, right?
Wrong! I was born in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
Katrina, for those that need the memory jog.
I had never needed my birth certificate before this. I had gone through school, joined and served in the military with only my California Drivers License prior to this. The Postal Service balked at first but eventually just caved in and granted me a Pas
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it perfect? No. Is it in the interest of civil liberties? Nope. Is it a good step in a world full of people who would love to see you and I dead simply because of the country we were born in? You betcha.
Congratulations. The terrorists have won.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's "Give me liberty or give me death!" not "Do what you want, just don't hurt me!".
Seriously, how can the most powerful nation on earth be so full of pansies?
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
When people are denied freedom of movement by the gov't when they don't have one is when it becomes a problem.
Also, exactly which problem is this designed to solve? And how is this the least intrusive method of the gov't achieving its goals.
In 2014, about 40% of the US population will be over 50. Even better, Osama Bin Laden himself would be excluded from this requirement.
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The only bright side to this whole thing is that 6 years is plenty long enough for this to get repealed. We're due for a new president here fairly soon and with any luck it will be somebody who won't go along with this crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You joke, but (from a story I've found many places, most recently here [reason.com]):
The campaign for a national ID card is not new. It first got serious consideration early in the Reagan administration, when Attorney General William French Smith suggested it during a Cabinet meeting. At first there were murmurs of assent. Then presidential assistant Martin Anderson (husband of Annelise) spoke up.
"Mr. President, I would like to suggest another way that I think is a lot better," he counseled. "It's a lot cheaper. It can't be counterfeited. It's very lightweight, and impossible to lose. It's even waterproof. All we have to do is tattoo an identification number on the inside of everybody's arm."
Reagan snorted. "Maybe we should just brand all the babies," he jibed. The idea was never again taken seriously. Until now.
For those who aren't aware, tattooing identification numbers on the inside of the arm was how prisoners were identified in the German concentration camps.
Seriously. (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory of valid ID may perhaps be arguable but the practice of what is done with it is very very different.
Post 9-11 there was a push both for RealID and the idea that "for our protection" police should be able to demand id at all times. The place where this and other activities has been exploited the most is in watching anti-war groups. Google it and you'll find a host of nonviolent noncriminal groups that have been catalogued, followed, identified, simply because they oppose the war. I myself have watched the (not so subtle) undercover cops infiltrate gatherings I was at and have probably been videotaped a few times. Add to this the "right" for them to demand my papers at all times and all of a sudden we have national tracking that does nothing to actually protect us.
This may sound like ranting to you but I assure you that it is not. The simple fact of the matter is that if the information is being gathered then it can be used against us by anyone in power or anyone with access. Leaving aside the fact that the biometric requirements of "RealID" are an invitation to identity theft (all info in one handy place).
Let us not also forget that on 9-11 the hijackers had valid ID. Not forged, not illicit, they had the real thing and they would have easily qualified for RealID. When boarding the planes they took their ID, the made no attempt to hide themselves under false names. They were not on the "no fly" lists. They simply walked through security with real drivers licenses and killed thousands. No "beefed up" card will change that.
Give it time (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you need that ID to fly.
Then you need that ID to leave the country.
Then you need that ID to get into the country.
Then you need that ID to vote.
Then you need that ID to cross state borders.
Then you need that ID to buy gas.
Then you need that ID to be a legal citizen.
Slowly but surely, it will become a 'Show me your papers' issue. Imagine just walking down the street, a cop sees you, maybe he's having a bad day, maybe you roughly match the description of a wanted criminal, he approaches you and asks for you national ID. You don't have it though, because you were just going for a walk. Next thing you know, you're heading down town, handcuffed in the back of a crown vic. Sure, they'll let you out, once you can get a friend to bring your ID in, or go through the red tape to get the State to produce the paper work, but by that point you've been printed, your arrest has been recorded, and you're out a few hours to a few days getting everything straightened out.
Fear mongers will use it as a tool against illegal immigrants first. By requiring the national ID to be able to do the most mundane of things, they'll push aliens further out of the legal realm. Then all it would take is another attack to spur off a series of knee jerk reactions that lead to certain racial/ethnic groups having their cards pulled, leaving them as 2nd class citizens, virtually outlaws because they have no ID to prove their legitimacy in the US.
Yes, it's a paranoid delusion. But so was the idea that the US would use black site prisons, suspend habeas corpus, and invade a sovereign nation on manufactured intelligence. Given enough time, the system will be abused, and civil liberties will be eroded.
And the whole time, this card will do nothing to make our country more secure.
-Rick
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several things wrong with this,
- Adds another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy to the monstrosity that is the US federal government.
- 10 years down the road the Federal government (needing health care funds) will sell/lease the database to the highest bidder.
- The database is subject to abuse by Federal employees.
- The war on the Islamic radicals is supposed to be temporary. Why restrict what your citizens can do permanently?
- The Government workers will somehow screw up the identities of John Smith in Oregon and John Smith in Georgia. And neither John Smith will be able to clear his name.
I was born here, I pay taxes (property, sales, federal), I own a home, I have kids. I think thats proof enough that I'm not a radical bent on destroying the United States. I should be able to go/do what I God dammed like without further proof. The Feds can kiss my Ass.
Enjoy,
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a fellow holder of a NYS license I don't generally have a problem with the way our license is designed -- we have 2D encrypted barcodes (similar the ones on our insurance cards, which I used to have the software to make when I worked in the business) that contain all of the information. No problem with that.
I do have a serious problem with the concept of centralizing all of this information, which is part of what REAL ID purports to do. This concept that all levels of Government need to share information and be totally integrated scares the hell out of me. It's supposed to be difficult for the various levels of Government (and even agencies within the same level of Government) to share information. Personally, I don't think the Feds should have a right to look at ANY of the information contained in my DMV file without due process of law (i.e: a warrant or an arrest for a crime committed).
I also have a problem with the mandate that all licenses display your home address. Mine currently has my PO Box on it. Why should it display my home address? DMV has my home address on file. Law enforcement can obtain it easily enough. I'm more comfortable using my license in day-to-day activities (businesses that want to see it) without my address being on it. The day they put my home address on my license is the day I stop carrying it. Hell, I'll use my fucking passport instead.
Hehe, does New Jersey still do that? We loved New Jersey IDs back in the day before any of us were 21......
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although I do not like the idea of someone who had their license revoked (or almost did) or got caught drunk driving in another state getting a clean ID in a different state. Linking traffic violations/points between all 50 states would be a real advancement IMO
Re:OH NOES!! (Score:4, Funny)
Man, that, that is so ... 1984!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With their valid identification, they were able to receive pilot training. It has yet to be shown that the scheme being discussed could prevent the same exploit.
The larger discussion is the continuing distraction of the population of these United States by the federal government. Civil liberties are being removed in the name of security, with the flim
Headline/summary is slightly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless, if we don't want this then the states need to be firm in their opposition to it.
If every state (or nearly every one) opposes it, the DHS can't really do anything, unless they want to be the agent of the economy's collapse because no businesspeople can travel. If enough states do not oppose it strongly, then the ones who do will be forced to capitulate eventually, similar to the 21 drinking age.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably want to wait the extra time so more of the baby boomers will die off, thus saving them the extra expense of equipping them all with a Real ID. I can seriously see someone in the upper echelon of government suggesting that as a way of saving money.
I won't even bother quoting Ben F
Re:Headline/summary is slightly misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone tells me that they think the country is headed in the wrong direction and they're leaving, what reason do I have to listen to their thoughts on the matter? If they're so uncommitted to the country they're obviously not invested in the future of the country so their opinion means nothing to me.
If the Vietnam War had been protested by this generation, it seems that the country would have emptied out and the war would have continued. Enough with the mindless talk of leaving because you disagree with what's going on. Either leave or start to do something about it.
Re:Headline/summary is slightly misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
That is ridiculous. Guess what? Between 50,000 and 125,000 people left the US for Canada alone because of opposition to the Vietnam War (source [www.cbc.ca]). Full-scale protests and majority opposition to the Vietnam War started in 1967, and the US withdrew in 1973. So looks like those protests did a hell of a lot of good.
I apologize in advance for the flame, but I am so sick of this nostalgic backwards-looking bullshit from the baby boomer generation. Just because your generation talked about free love and had some protests while they were in college doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Most of the people gave up trying to change things, took a job with a multinational, became a born-again Christian, voted for Reagan 15 years later, and fucking ruined everything. And now they're buying mutual funds [youtube.com]. The only legitimately successful social change that came out of the 60's was the Civil Rights Movement. Everything else is self-congratulatory bullshit.
They should do over-50 first as a means of testing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some states are not going to bother opposing this at all.
The reason? It doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Why? Because they already implement all of the requirements the law will impose.
For example, apparently the only difference for California will be that the drivers' picture will be taken at the beginning of the license application process instead of at the end.
For NYS residents like myself, it will apparen
Tag this article 'showmeyourpapers' (Score:2)
Even more reason to get out and vote in November.
Re:Tag this article 'showmeyourpapers' (Score:5, Insightful)
And BEFORE THEN. Vote now! Otherwise we usually get stuck with a lesser of two evils thing in the general election.
Re:Tag this article 'showmeyourpapers' (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more reason to get out and vote in November."
Why? Which candidate has come out against the Real ID act??
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would be against it, but, who of the candidates with a realistic chance of being elected has come out against the Real ID act?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
sheeeesshhhh
What a pain.
Unfunny funny in related comments (Score:2)
Even so, I still think this will have to survive court challenges.
sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Security is when everything is settled. When nothing can happen to you. Security is the denial of life.
Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
Enormous Security Hole (Score:5, Insightful)
But here's what's particularly egregious about this plan: nobody over 50 will have to get a Real ID for nearly 10 years! If Real ID is so unbelievably necessary to our national security, how can we allow this segment to not have an ID? Should we stop scanning older individuals at the airport because they are "less likely to be a terrorist"?
The Bush administration has repeatedly refused to comment on waterboarding because they say they do not want the terrorists to know which interrogation techniques we use. Well, DHS is telegraphing to the world what sort of security techniques we use: Pssst! We only check people less than 50!
Stupid stupid stupid! Hypocritical, hypocritical, hypocritical!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can almost make a case for what the government is saying, there is a
"Who goes Nazi?" by Dorothy Thompson (Score:5, Interesting)
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/0020122 [harpers.org]
-theGreater.
under 50 (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice...
ZOMG NINEELEVEN!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The September 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.
First of all, I'd be willing to bet most people who lost someone dear to them in the tragedy of 9/11 is downright insulted by the constant abuse of the memory of their loved one as a tool to cudgel the American public into accepting laws which have no point other than to increase the power and pervasiveness of the Federal government. The 9/11 attackers all had legitimate IDs, so what possible purpose would this have served back then? We might have known the names of the guys that did it sooner after the fact? Yeah, I'm sure that would have come in real handy.
Frankly, I know there's nothing anyone can do to stop the REAL-ID ball from rolling, so I'd just be happier if they came out and admitted they just want the power trip.
So foreigners not welcome? (Score:4, Informative)
So how do you get on a plane or into a federal building if you don't have a REAL ID compliant license, like um
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Mind you, I have been on the list for four years and in that time they have processed six months of applicants. Maybe by the time I get to the front of the queue the country will be cool again, who knows.
Done deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
An executive action (a set of regulations) that doesn't have its first deadline until near the end of the next presidential term, doesn't have its main effect until a year into the following term, and doesn't have its full effect until the end of that term is hardly a fait accompli.
There is plenty of time to push for executive modification of the regulations or legislative modification (or outright repeal) of the underlying law, and elections in between to focus that pressure around.
Outlaw ID, Say Swedish MPs (Score:3, Informative)
Oh , the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Here you go
Airport Security : This is not a real ID, sir
Me: But I'm over 50.
Airport Security : No, you're not. You look like you are 15, not 50.
Me: But, my Id says I'm 50.
Airport Security : But its not a Real ID, could be a fake we only trust Real IDs.
Me: So I need to get a Real Id saying I'm 50 in order to prove to you that i don't need a Real Id?
Airport Security : Please Sir, step into this room and remove all clothing.
Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK.
The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing.
Well, yes, it is.
Once upon a time, driver's licenses were for driving (and social security numbers were for social security.)
In Hiibel v Nevada, Hiibel was arrested for not showing his standing-by-the-side-of-the-road license.
In Indianapolis, they won't let me vote anymore, because I won't show my voting license until they get a warrant.
They like to pretend that you need an airline passenger l
Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowhere does this plan call for citizens to carry ID, nor does it affect anything other than driver's licenses.
That's a relief (Score:3, Funny)
No (Score:3, Interesting)
I will never carry one of these things. Their intent is evil.
I would rather be dead than live my life as a slave, even a tiny bit.
Baby Boomer Tyranny (Score:3, Insightful)
This fake Terror War is really just Baby Boomers attacking the next generation even harder than they did the previous generation when they first started to grab power in the 1960s. Now that they've got all the power, they're the worst tyrants the country has ever had.
If they're so afraid, they should just stay home.
Part of it makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if it would be possible to do a physical equivalent to openid?
Chicken Run (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I want to commit criminal acts ? Well, I don't know, *yet*. What is criminal tomorrow may be something that is perfectly legal to do today. Even if it is illegal today, I may find myself in a situation where I am compelled to commit a criminal act, for whatever reason, be it for my own safety or liberty. Laws, after all, are formulated for the masses, they are not suitable for imposing on 100% of the people 100% of the time. That sounds elitist, but every person is an elite of one.
Take drugs for instance. (I don't want to get into specific examples, because they detract from the main principle, but)- If I grow and smoke my own cannabis, who exactly am I harming ? I am not financing terrorists, I am not financing columbian warlords or the Taliban, and as I consume all I grow, I am not corrupting schoolkids, by hanging around the playground trying to push it on others. The only "crime" is that I am not paying tax on my pleasure. But because the law works in respect of the masses, I am penalised for a purely personal action, because you can't trust everybody to be so honest and responsible. Why should I suffer the loss of my freedom because others can't be trusted ? (This is why I don't want to get into examples, there will be loads of posts spouting crap about we all have to give up certain freedoms for the good of society).
To get back to the main point, my ability to break the law. Freedom includes the ability to break the law, if I so choose. If we are to have a moral society, it must be at the choice of that society, not imposed upon it. I don't murder, steal, rape etc, not because they are illegal, but because I have no inner drive compelling me to do so. I don't need a law to tell me not to do these things. The law is not designed to prevent me from doing these things either, it exists to provide a framework in which those who do commit such acts can be punished. Remember that part, it's important - Law provides a framework for punishment.
Now while I may not commit murder, I do quite often break the speed limit, or watch a downloaded movie. These are not unspeakably evil acts, but they are breaking the law. There are other situations in which I could conceive of breaking more serious laws. The point is, until I reach a situation, I have no way of knowing what I might have to do. To voluntarily submit to laws which restrict my freedom of action now, without knowing how that will affect my future freedom would be dumb.
I use Linux. One of the main reason for that choice is, Linux is not Microsoft. If there were a law passed which made the use of unauthorised operating systems illegal, then you can bet MS would be the legal choice. Windows is already one of the most controlling environments available, so if it were influenced by govt. then all sorts of horrible scenarios present themselves. Under such a system, Linux (or another free OS) would be the only sane choice. But of course it would be illegal. Oh dear, I'm a criminal.
Now we come to REAL ID and other such governmental record keeping. This kind of lawmaking serves no purpose other than to make the lives of those in power easier. That is to say, they get to consolidate their power over the rest of us, by closing off all avenues of escape or evasion. Well if you haven't paid taxes for 5 years and the govt. is chasing you, then the law makes sense. But if you just want to remain quietly anonymous, the the law works against you. You are part of the system, whether you are a criminal or not. And don't give me any of that "if you've got nothing to hide" crap. That's a childs argument to trick you into showing your hand. How many people who use that argument walk around naked ?
Maybe I'm getting old, but
It's your reality, not mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty is not having to prove who you are, unless faced with a probable-cause affidavit. We have an additional presumption of being not-guilty; having mandatory ID thwarts that presumption based on identity.
Your presumption that the world of liberty is dead because you feel there's a need to finger everyone is fallacious. You deserve what you get.
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin. Fie on your suggestion.
even better - an actual working solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not a whole lot different from the current state of things as far as I know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides the fact that the Real ID Act is a clear violation of the 10th amendment, I shouldn't have to prove who I am to board a plane (they aren't required for trains, cars, busses, subways, etc) and the bank should accept any reasonable proof that I am the owner of the account I am attempting to access (except for tax reasons they don't even need to know who I am, as long as they know I own the account).
If Social Security Numbers have tought us anything it is that any national means of identification will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, they weren't stopped, but they were postponed for a year.
Give up much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pull your heads out of your asses you fucking Yanks.
Yup, us Yanks have done a pretty good job of planting our heads up our collective asses recently. Sometime back after WWII we just sort of gave up on personal responsibility, we gave up on taking care of ourselves, we gave up on trying to keep our republic. And look where it has gotten us. We decided that we didn't want to be responsible for ourselves anymore, and we asked the government to do it for us. And, as is its nature, the government was willing to do anything to allow itself to expand.
It has been a death spiral ever since. The more bad things which happen, the more we run to the government to fix it; the government expands to try and do so, and fails because the solutions for most of our problems can only come from the people themselves taking responsibility for themselves and their communities. Undeterred by the continuous failure of government to actually solve social problems, the people keep running back to it and screaming, "fix it!" And the government continues to grow. Eventually, this will come back to haunt us. Eventually, the next step in government growth will be a police state and actual tyranny, and the US people will cheer its coming. It will be to later generations to suffer and die to throw it off again, but at least those with their heads up their asses will have a few brief days of serenity, believing that they are safe. Until the jackbooted thugs show up at their door in the night for thinking the wrong things.
We have a chance to stop this, and the time is now. It will be far easier to stop the growth of a police state, and deflate the government and put it back in its little box before it reaches the critical mass of tyranny. Right now, we still have some dregs of liberty left. We can still dissent, we can still speak our minds and we can still try and change things without the jackbooted thugs arriving in the night. How much longer that will last no one rightly knows; but, the time to fight is not when the boot is on your neck, the time to fight is when you are still on your feet and have a chance.
RealID is not, by itself, much of a threat. It is, though, a small piece in a much larger puzzle of out of control government tyranny. We don't resist it, deride it and try to stop it just because of itself. We do so because we can step back and see the much larger picture which is coming together, and it scares us. Stopping RealID won't stop that picture altogether either, but it will make it harder, it will create a disruption and that is good. Keeping our republic is not a matter of winning any one fight, it is a matter of a continuous struggle against anything which threatens any small piece of it. It is exhausting and will only end when we give up and let our republic die.
"Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic if you can keep it." --- Benjamin Franklin