U.S. National Identity Cards All But Law

CompSci101 writes "News.com is running a story about the RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage. How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ? The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away." From the article: "Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."

Whoa!

[Colin Smith]

Where's the debate on this?

The "New Labour" government got back in the UK (with a reduced minority) so are going to try to introduce ID cards here, but at least there's going to be a hell of a debate on it now they won't be able to steamroller it through.

http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]

What the hell.

[j14ast]

Never mind the facist asking you for your papers for now, I'm 20 and I don't have a license(nor do I want one, I live in a city for a reason). Do I not exist?

Abuse

[Ctrl-Z]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves?

Probably about as quickly as emergency military spending bills have been abused to pass RealID Card legislation.

As a non-US citizen...

[MarcoAtWork]

... could somebody please explain me how exactly this whole concept of 'rider' bills got started and, most important, how it continues without being made illegal?

Who exactly has the authority to 'attach' things to a bill? If I was a politician and was sure that a bill had a 100% chance of passing (say, one of these 'emergency, need money for our troops' bills), what would prevent me from attaching to it a few pork projects for the people who elected me for example?

You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[Colin Smith]

Here's some prepared earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834 [bbc.co.uk]

http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Xzzy]

The race is on: Submit a patent for a faraday cage wallet.

Shielded wallets already exist I suppose, but they lack the punch of saying "faraday cage" to people. It just sounds better.

Makes sense...

[bsquizzato]

I can see why they want to do this though. Currently every state has it's own different standards for the drivers license system, and it is a nationally acceptable means of identifying oneself (although I'm sure there are federal requirements on what absolutely must be on a driver's license...)

There's been a lot of stories in the news about how ridiculously easy it is to get a driver's license in different states. I know here in North Carolina it has appeared in the local papers quite often since illegal immigrants (mostly Hispanics) end up obtaining them all the time.

It gives the government a centralized form of identification to "keep track of people" for "security." Whether or not this is a good thing is for someone else on here to discuss...

On a side note I can see the possibility this card being overused for everything, kind of like the social security number. Name one form you don't have to use your social security number for these days.

Re:1984

[harley_frog]

True, frighteningly sad but true. While I'm far from being a member of the tin-hat crowd, I am very, very afraid of what our goverment, and the right, have been done over the past four-plus years. I can't help but think back to my history classes and what I learned about Germany during the 1930's and the rise of the Nazi Party [wikipedia.org] and the Third Reich [wikipedia.org].

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Funny/scary ACLU "movie" that's relevant to this..

[dagnabit]

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ [aclu.org]

What's really wrong...

[vistic]

...and needs to be fixed is the way legislation works in this country where things can keep getting tacked onto bills so various things can be snuck in. There should be some committee that make sure bills stay focused and on task.

New bill going through to prevent the government from beating up your dear, sweet grandma... (and we snuck on legislation that allows us to sneak into your home and rummage through your stuff for any reason we decide, without informing you)... can't vote that down, think of all the grandmas!

Re:National ID was Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember well, when Communists used to say, that in the face of massive attack on socialism by imperialist powers it was inevitable to introduce national ID, travel restrictions, the amount of currency everybody would be allowed to keep, beside other things.

I also remember one of my collegues who was badly beaten up and arrested by police because he could not show his national ID, he had left accidentally at the office.

I can't escape the horror that somehow bloody Stalinism is in the making of resurrecting in America.

We've been moving in this direction for years

[Anitra]

When the younger brother of my husband (my boyfriend at the time) came to visit a few years ago, he had trouble buying a bus ticket to get home, because he didn't have a state- or federally-issued ID. They didn't care that he was 14, and too young to have a driver's licence. In the end, we had to give a bunch of our own personal information to Greyhound so that this kid could ride a bus from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. No one would argue that he was too young to ride by himself, but they wouldn't accept a school ID, which was the only identification he had.

Since that day, I've been expecting a bill like this to come up. Eventually, you'll need an ID to take any form of long-distance public transportation - if you don't already. I'm still not sure what they're going to do about people too young to drive - will the states start issuing IDs when you turn 13? 10? 5? Or if you're a "child" like my brother-in-law, will you need a passport just to take the bus?

Re:For the . . .

[Colin Smith]

"This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?""

Actually, yes I do. I think they will do it again and again and again until they have all the cards they need.

UK anti-ID card pages:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834 [bbc.co.uk]
and
http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]

i certainly dislike this, but....

[carambola5]

OK, so the idea of a national ID card being attached to the emergency military bill sucks.

And requiring such a national ID card to fly in an airplace sucks.

And a lot of other things about this ID thing suck.

But there is one upside to this: reduction of election fraud. If you're required to scan in when you vote, voter disenfranchisement should plummet... assuming Diebold doesn't get it's slimy hands on the system, of course. Sorry Chicago, no more "Vote early, vote often" of yore.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Matthias Wiesmann]

At least, you still have three years...

Two years ago, the US have imposed that all foreign passport have to be machine readable for people from countries in the Visa Waiver program. In Switzerland, this forced a lot of people to get new passports, which caused a huge backlog. Now that most people me including have new passports which are machine readable, they want passeport with biometric information, so expect biometric information on US ID card within six years.

Going to conferences in the US is really getting needlessly complicated, but at least the US are protected from those nasty Swiss terrorists...

A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[JimBobJoe]

I *just* got this posted on Politech...I'm reposting it here on Slashdot as a Call to Arms.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] House approves Real ID Act;one Democrat's
objections [priv]
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:50:32 -0800
From: James Moyer
To: Declan McCullagh

Declan,

With the approval of the REAL ID Act, I believe it's time to place blame
of it passage and make sure that Congress knows that there are people
who still believe in liberty and care about their privacy.

For this reason, I believe that we (those who care) should begin a
campaign against Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, to make sure
that he loses the September 2006 Congressional Primary.

We must make it clear, to the people of the 5th Wisconsin district, that
Rep. Sensenbrenner, is directly responsible for the creation of the
National ID Card, through his sponsorship and work on the REAL ID Act.

We must make it clear that Rep. Sensenbrenner is putting American's
identities and lives at stake, by fomenting the introduction of RFID
based passports (a result of his "leadership" as chair of the House
Judiciary Committee.)

And finally, we must make it clear to people of faith in his district,
that he is *most* responsible for paving the way toward the Mark of the
Beast, as predicted in the book of Revelations, and that, like the Mark
of the Beast, no American shall be able to "buy or sell" without one of
Jim Sensenbrenner's "REAL IDs." There should be no doubt his work on the
REAL ID Act is entirely unchristian.

By aggressively targeting Jim Sensenbrenner next year, we shall make it
clear to leadership that we are demanding that they take liberty and
privacy needs into account. We can further awake the sleeping giant of
Christians who are concerned about National ID card issues, but haven't
found a medium for voicing their concerns.

Now's the time to begin such a campaign, so that everyone is well aware
of Sensenbrenner's dastardly REAL ID act. By September 2006 every
churchgoer in the Wisconsin 5th shall be aware of it as well.

Anyone who wants to work on this project is more than welcome to get in
touch with me.

James Moyer

But why?

[EtherAlchemist]

I really, 100%, no trolling, no flamebaiting, but actually REALLY want to know: Why do you care. Why does anyone care, for that matter? You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

Unless you are illegally in this country (and if you are, hint: you're here ILLEGALLY) this doesn't matter to you.

Yes, the way they attached it to a bill that of course will pass is stupid and wrong (and frankly, they did it because it couldn't stand on it's own merits) but it happens. All the time. And not just for stupid things like this, Tsunami relief was also attached to that same bill. Why? Because somebody lobbied for it.

I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am honestly asking you all why, why do you care?

Do you think the government will find sonething out about you they don't already know? Are you afraid you'll be watched somehow in a way you already aren't being watched? Are you afraid it violates your rights? Which ones?

I see a lot of "they shouldn't have made it a rider" and "damn those dirty apes in Washington" but not a lot of actual reasons why it, in and of itself, is bad or wrong.

I know one reason, the infrastructure isn't in place to make sure the cards being issued today aren't fraudulent. Another is that without some kind of national checking system, there's no way to prove a card is valid. Some might say it's a way to identify people who are in this country illegally. (see note above).

So, why do you care?

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[Tycho]

In Minnesota at least, riders are unconstitutional. Bills have to cover one subject and unreated items cannot be on the bill or else the rider item is declared unconstitutional. Two years ago gun rights extrememists in the Republican controlled Minnesota House attached a conceal carry law to a natural resources technical bill, alone the conceal carry bill would have never passed the Democrat held Senate. The rider itself may have even been written by the NRA. Last month the Minnesota Appeals Court ruled the rider unconstitutional. The courts have declared riders unconstitutional many times before for other riders. At any rate, new concealed carry bills have been introduced in the House and Senate, but the bills seems to have a tough time ahead of them. The Senate in Minnesota is still held by the Democrats and since last year's election the Republicans only hold a two seat majority in the House.

Re:Blank Reg

[CheeseTroll]

One of the major issues to cause tensions between North and South, leading up to the Civil War, was the right of northern states to grant protection to runaway slaves. The (Federal) Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 overrode the northern states' laws that offered such protection. So it wasn't just the Southern states that used the States Rights issue to get their way before the war, and subsequently got steamrolled by the Federal gov't. The power of "States Rights", as a whole, was greatly diminished in this time.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Texas is the only state with a right to secede from the from the union (it's in their contract). Frankly, I think we'd be better off without them. We could dig a giant trench and fill it with plauge infected crocidiles.

Oil be damned!

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[rnelsonee]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'd define an "internal passport" as a document that is used to allow citizens to pass through areas within their own country.

Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.

Flying will require this, but really, is it any different than how you fly now? Flying is not a right, it's a priviledge, and although I don't agree with the government's ability to force you to show your ID (remember, I'm playing devil's advocate), I would have no problem if the airlines themselves took the initiative and demanded ID. It's their planes, and the safety of their customers (and equipment) is a justifiable concern.

Anywho, I just wanted to point out this isn't some ID card we'll have to have on us at all times, and I don't envision checkpoints every 100 miles so big brother can track our movements.

Re:I fail to see the problem here...

[udowish]

Well, glad its happening to you then and not up here. The thought of being stopped by a cop or some other government body and then "may I see your papers?" remindes me of the USSR. You may think this is just an id paper or card but I am sure it will lead to many other rights being erroded. NOWHERE does it say you MUST carry ANY form of ID in Canada unless you are operating some form of motor vehicle. And it sure as hell better stay that way!

Re:Blank Reg

[cayenne8]

"You're wrong. Every state has the right to kiss the Federal government's butt and it might get some money. Of course what it gives away for that money is another matter."

This is EXACTLY what we have got to stop allowing them to do!! We send tax dollars to the Feds...in order to enable them to extort us with these funds?

That, and something needs to be done about allowing them to tack irrelavent legislation onto any bills that go through. Only relavent items should be allowed on a bill...!!!

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with any claim that slavery wasn't the core issue of the civil war is that the secession of the southern states was a reaction to the election of an abolitionist president. Slavery was an issue so divisive that discussion of it was forbidden in congress since the arguments frequently became so severe that congress could not get anything done.

Throughout the history of the United States the argument for states' rights has almost always been used by those not in power. Those who are in power tend to overlook this idea.

Re:As a non-US citizen...

[bill_mcgonigle]

fuzzybunny already handled what they are... why is a more sad story.

Basically, this is how Senators get wasteful and special interest spending passed as political favors to the people who funded their reelection campaigns.

Now, it gets even more sad when you realize that the only thing that a candidate needs to do to get elected is to greatly outspend his opponent. Darth Vader would win over Jesus Christ if Jesus spend $2000 and Vader spent $2,00,000 on his campaign. It's works because the populous is so easily manipulated and can't work past the voices-of-authority they hear from the media.

Now, who is it who educated the populous and failed to teach them critical thinking skills? Aye, there's the rub.

National ID Cards

[IDOXLR8]

I'm one of the older /.'s that hardly post. I'm, appalled that the government that we elected is willing/going to ignore our constitutional right to privacy just to justify their short comings. Bush F***ed up and took our sons and daughters into a war that we should not be in. I know that my Karma will go down for posting this but... His(Bush) reason for invading Iraq was to rid them of MWD(Mass weapons of destructions) and therefore protecting us Americans from some sort of world domination scheme that... If you stand back and take an open minded look at the entire situation(Bush's Iraq War / Why are we targets for terrorists(Google It)) you might... and I say might...see how the USA is becoming exactly what we are at war for. Ok The Senate passes a bill... A bullshit bill... Do we have the same rights as we had before 9/11? Just because we have a shitty President does that mean that we have to rewrite the constitution? BTW Yes I'm one of the older /.'s and I live on Social Security and No... I do not want my right to privacy to be violated... The United States Of ... What Now?

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[operagost]

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The most abused part of the Constitution. Basically no states honor this part except when it's extremely impractical not to (drivers and marriage licenses, for example). Just try to carry your firearm into another state using your home state's permit, unless they have an explicit reciprocal agreement. Same for certifications such as electrical licenses: some states will limit or ignore your license completely based only on the fact it was obtained in another state and not because of training or code variations.

Re:But why?

[Obfuscant]

Just a few nits...

Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.

Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.

Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em.

Yep. That's the clincher.

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity.

Unless such anonymity iterferes with any of the powers the government does have. For example, anonymity and paying taxes aren't compatible. I'd be surprised if regulation of interstate commerce could work very well if too many participants were anonymous. And I'd sure as hell not want anonymous search warrants.

Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting sick of folks saying the South fought for "states rights". The "state right" they were fighting for was slavery, plain and simple.

Read the Dred Scott decision, where the US Supreme Court pulled a ruling out of its collective ass to keep Dred Scott a slave.

The 14th Amendment, which specifically overruled the Dred Scott decision, contains the "equal protection" phrase. IIRC "state's rights" was central to the reasoning in the Dred Scott decision, and the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment was aimed directly at that reasoning. The "state right" in Dred Scott was that a state could say someone was a slave and federal law couldn't do anything about it.

So when someone says "state's rights" with respect to the US Civil War, they're referring to the Southern state's attempt to make keeping slaves their "right".

(And don't just think Dred Scott was a poorly-reasoned decision. The basis of Brown v. Board of Education was lame, too. For some reason the USSC in that case didn't have the guts to call "separate but equal" inherently wrong.)

Rider amendments constitutional?

[bloodstar]

Simple and to the point, has there been any efforts to sue to declare the act of creating rider amendments unconstitutional. I don't think it'd fly, but it'd be worth a shot to claim that without each individual provision having an up or down vote, you are effectively passing a bill without voting on it. Yes I know that Congress votes on the entire measure, but did each rider get a seperate vote to be included into the origional bill?

Then if each rider is in fact a seperate item, why can't the Senate simply pass the bill without the offending rider and kick it back to the House and say, here, pass this measure without the rider.

Maybe the second idea would have a shot if someone can get the ear of the senate and suggest the idea. Anyone got any movers and shakers that can get the ball rolling?

Just some thoughts...

Re:Blank Reg

[ErikZ]

Just curious, what country *wasn't* tainted with slavery?

Even the Native Americans kept slaves.

And if you're honestly upset about slavery, well do something about it. Slavery is more widespread now than ever before.

And it's not a play on the word "Slavery". But honest "I bought and paid for your ass and your life is mine."

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[UberGeekEdward]

What about that President that has the authority to ban travel between states in a time of "emergency". What about when he decides that "in the interest of national security" any person wishing to cross state line shall present a valid National ID to an officer at the border. This officer is equipped with the means to scan your identity and decide if you are allowed to proceed. He can check you for warrants, credit history, and medical records. He tells you that you are not allowed to proceed because you are on some mysterious "no travel" list. We already have the beginning of this in the "no fly" lists that have stopped such worthies as Ted Kennedy and Cat Stevens from flying, and turned back a flight that was not even landing in the US. Once we surrender a "right" we will NEVER get it back.

Re:Not too late, call your senator, here's a form:

[Alsee]

Well while we're wishing for impossible laws, I have one to contribute.

Any legislator who has voted for an excessive number of bills later struck down as unconstitutional should be barred from holding any further public office for violating his oath to uphold the constitution.

"Excessive number" of unconstitutional bills is a bit vague, but I'm sure something reasonable could be worked out. I am sick and tired of the legislature knowingly passing all sorts of unconstitutional crap and knowing they won't / can't be held accountable for it.

-

Re:For the . . .

[koniosis]

In the UK the ID Card system will be biometric based, I'm not saying that it isn't forgable but it is a hell of a lot better than a signature! If Osama wanted multiple ID cards he's going to have to have different hand/finger/face and iris prints for each one, since the nation ID database will of course stop people with the same biometrics getting additional ID cards and most likley flag that person to the correct authorities. Yes, making fake finger prints isn't hard but there are now scanners that use finger-vein scanning which requires the veins in fingers to match as well as the pattern (much harder to fake). You don't think these things have been tought of?