Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses 389

Posted by Hemos
from the get-together-right-now dept.
berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states. The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network. Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

Comments Filter:
  • by knightmad (931578) on Monday February 05, 2007 @09:48AM (#17888752)
    I wish they could take advantage of the timing and challenge other measures like national speed limit and national drinking age too, putting an end on this bastardized federalism that is not only against the intention of the Founding Fathers but very damaging to the very concept of the whole thing.
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday February 05, 2007 @09:54AM (#17888788) Homepage Journal

    The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.
    Because we all know it's completely and totally impossible for a terrorist or illegal immigrant to have actual IDs from the DMV in their pockets, right?
  • by Heian-794 (834234) on Monday February 05, 2007 @09:59AM (#17888838) Homepage
    Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:00AM (#17888850) Journal
    We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:02AM (#17888878)
    Most people don't think much about the north eastern and north western states. But it's these states that have truly helped retain the last remnants of the freedom the Founding Fathers fought so valiantly for.

    So while the people in a state like Kansas focus all their attention on debating whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes, the people in states like Maine, Vermont, and Washington are defending their freedoms.

    Maybe it's a matter of the level of education of the general populace in those states. No offense to anyone from Kansas, but it has traditionally ranked quite low, often at the very bottom, when it comes to a variety of measures. As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states. Fewer people there have undergraduate or graduate degrees from universities (sorry, Oral Roberts University doesn't count) as compared to the people from other states. On the other hand, university degrees are extremely common in the north western and north eastern states, with virtually everybody having at least attended university for some period of time.

    So while I no longer live in America, I do want to thank those in the north west and north east who are defending the rights of our nation's people.

  • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:03AM (#17888886) Homepage Journal
    I think this is a valid point because several of the "19" had valid passports and other ID.
  • by mikelieman (35628) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:06AM (#17888906) Homepage
    Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:13AM (#17888978) Homepage Journal
    FWIW, the government sloth and lethargy is part of the American ideology of limiting government so it can do the least harm to the people, while doing the most work for us. I'd rather have an inefficient government topheavy with accountability than an efficient totalitarianism.

    Those of us who work with the government (I advise the NYC City Council's Technology committee) know that governments, born to bureaucracy, have the most chance of actually adhering to policies that prohibit invasive DB linking, when the people get involved to stop aggressive officials with Big Brother dreams. They live by those rules and the audits. If they are designed by both policy and info architects, to actually work with the "machinery" of people who run them.

    If you are that fatalistic, and just give up, of course exploiters in government, and the "subcontractors" who love them (and pillaging their data) will track your every move. Only if you do something to engage your democracy will you make it work for you. You are the "dem" in democracy.
  • by HighOrbit (631451) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:14AM (#17888980)
    My understanding is that it makes applicants prove either their citizenship or legal presence in the country (i.e valid permanent resident visa) to get a license. The 9-11 hijackers had real valid Virginia issued drivers licenses, but they were obtained fraudulently. This makes it harder for them to get one. Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.
  • national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?

    but, from a law enforcement id, it provides a comprehensive framework:

    1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
    2. it brings to bear national resources when weeding out the fakes/ questionable ids/ other types of enforcement and vetting

    i understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id

    however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models. so what's the problem? it makes law enforcement's job easier. what, you think there will be more nefarious government activity with one big model? one big model that every privacy group will monitor with a white hot spotlight? you think somehow 50 different little models is going to have less shady activity, more monitoring? oh i get it: crooked law enforcement only goes on in washington dc, it doesn't go on in montpelier or bismarck or sacramento. pfft... get real

    of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government

    don't drink the koolaid: a national model is superior from a security AND privacy stand point
  • by AlHunt (982887) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:14AM (#17888990) Homepage Journal

    We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.

    This is one of the things Americans need to stand up against - the feds holding states hostage.

    Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.
  • by RedneckJack (934223) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:18AM (#17889020)
    The original Real ID Act legislation called for states to sign the Driver License Agreement [wikipedia.org] as written by the AAMVA [aamva.org] which would require states to share their driver license data including sensitive information such as Social Security Numbers not only with other states but also with foreign countries starting with Mexico and Canada.

    If I had a say, I would repeal the law and in addition, not allow states to use Social Security Numbers in motor vehicle matters and go as far as returning to the original intent of the SS# as for management of Social Security benefits only and no other purpose. The number would not be used for credit, motor vehicle matters, businesses, etc.
  • by r00t (33219) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:18AM (#17889026) Journal
    The states don't care about you.

    They have eleventy-billion lines of COBOL to care about.
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:19AM (#17889040) Homepage Journal
    it is easy for an illegal to get a fake state dmv license

    that's the point

    50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model

    i would go so far as to say that it might still not be so hard to get a national id

    however, it will be HARDER, without a doubt. no huge bureaucratic system is airtight. but national resources, and one national id card, brings to bear resources on the problem that individual states are ill-equipped to handle. plus. for law enforcement, its easier to vet one card and one database than 50 fractious, differently standardized state models

  • by green453 (889049) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:35AM (#17889180)
    I think you may have a misunderstanding of which regions of the US are likely to defend what. Admittedly, the NE and NW regions generally tend to support much more liberal policies, but I think you should keep in mind that states in the midwest, west, and south are the bastions of small government thinking and states rights.

    If you read the article, you will notice that the coalition being formed to fight the realID was spearheaded by a Missourian. If you don't remember your geography, especially the parts about those backwards midwestern states, then perhaps you have forgotten that Missouri and Kansas are next door neighbors and that Missouri is about as far as you can get from the northern coastal regions.

    In the fight against encroachment by the federal government and the removal of citizens rights in the name of safety, I think it is dangerous to rely solely on the efforts of the NE and NW which don't have quite the same attitude towards protecting their citizens rights as some other regions of the country. I won't lie and say that Missouri, Montana, etc have always done the best job of protecting privacy, but I think midwestern and western states are just as good of defenders of privacy freedoms as other states, especially given the political sway they hold with the GOP.
  • by peragrin (659227) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:39AM (#17889236)
    You are why this country is failing apart. In the 1940's and earlier it wasn't The United States of America. It was These United States of America. The loss of two little letters changed us from 50 states of different people united, to one Nation State who must follow the will of the Party in Control.

    The Constitution clearly states that all rights not assigned to the federal government are rights of the States.

    It is too bad you have never read and understood such an important document.
  • by LM741N (258038) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:40AM (#17889244)
    Its all about money. One more unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.
  • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:42AM (#17889272)

    Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.

    As de Tocqueville said:

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:48AM (#17889332) Homepage Journal

    government can do what it wants because nobody cares
    Well, your fatalistic comment perpetuates that apathy, which is self-perpetuating.

    I lived in SF, where government access was just as open (in the early 1990s). I lived in Albany, NY, in the 1980s, and there was absolutely no access to the government by mere citizens, even under Cuomo "the Great". I lived in New Orleans the first part of this decade, and mere citizen access to N'O/LA government (without a fistful of cash or a cemetery of old boy relatives) was a dream, a joke, a thorough hoax. We'll see whether near extinction has any constructive effect, especially depending on which outsiders (if any) move in, bringing expectations of government with them.

    Interactive government is a culture that varies by region. But the underlying rituals, however vestigal, leave all Americans somewhere to start reactivating citizen access, even if it's a long road to a real republican democracy. It's worth doing. And the only one who can do it is "you", whoever "you" are.
  • by siriuskase (679431) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:51AM (#17889368) Homepage Journal
    The drinking age thing comes up just about every time the Georgia legislature meets. The traditional argument is that people old enough to fight our wars should be able to have a drink, so sometimes, it is tied to being in the military. But, that isn't even the best reason.

    Kids still drink, possibly as much as when I was in college. I got totally plastered a few times when I was a freshman, but I always managed to find my way home. I didn't particularly enjoy it. By the time I was an upper classman, we were drinking maturally in the various restarants all around Georgia Tech, and branching out to the variious night clubs and such where you had to be of age to get in. I talk to kids now, and they still drink, they get stinking drunk, but it's in their rooms, not in public, and it's binge drinking, not responsible. As you might expect when you have a case of beer and a few bottles of other stuff calling you from your own fridge. It is responsible drinking that the laws discourage. I think it is much easier for drinking to get out of cntrol when it is done in the dorm room or frat house. Getting the stuff isn't hard since so many people don't like the law and many of those adults don't mind breaking a bad law.
  • by Magada (741361) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:54AM (#17889388) Journal

    50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model
    Excuse me while I go laugh my arse off. Is the notion of single point of failure familiar to you? The resources of all criminal organizations operating or wishing to operate inside the US would thereafter be focused on compromising ONE database and ONE form of ID, both managed and guarded with all the care and diligence that federal subcontractors have become famous for over the years. In the meantime, everyone and their dog would be relying on that one form of ID, because it's federally mandated and if it's good for the feds, it must be good enough for everyone.

    Yes. I can see how that would be harder than having to piece together identities for people from lots of disjointed sources - afaik right now as a citizen of the US you need a ssn, a valid address(though what constitutes a valid address is debatable), a state driver's license, a bank account with a good credit score and possibly a gun permit to be able to pass off as a respectable citizen - that adds up to five different systems to bypass/hijack, of which at least one is run by operators who have real money riding on the correctness and accuracy of their data.

    The point you make about vetting is similarly flawed, but I won't bother to elaborate.

    Also, please consider that once such a system is deployed, any flaws it may have will tend to persist due to the huge upfront costs of making nationwide changes.
  • by TheGavster (774657) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:54AM (#17889400) Homepage
    There are two reasons I support state's rights:

    - The likelihood of a public policy being agreeable to 300 million people is much less than it being agreeable to 3-30 million people. Additionally, there is a tendancy for the 'rich' states to be forced to subsidize the 'poor' states. Before you say it's the poor states' right to be subsidized, is it the right of say Kosovo to be subsidized by Lichtenstein? Coming together for a common defense and free trade doesn't mean coming together for the giving of ones resources to the other.

    - Representative governments lose touch with their constituents as the number of constituents rises. My US congressman represents me ... and approximately 1 million other people. My state congressman represents a few orders less. Having laws passed by a group whose majority doesn't come from within 1000 miles of my home does not give me a warm fuzzy. What does the Congresswoman from California know of the needs of Connecticuters?
  • by Goose3254 (304355) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:58AM (#17889438)
    Then we track all purchases via national ID numbers (we just got an alert that a licensed driver purchased 4 drinks in an hour, and the master control programs reports his GPS phone is moving outside the public transportation grid, better dispatch a pursuit car)...
    Then we socialize medicine...
    Then we use the info from the purchases to determine if you get healthcare (cigarettes and fast food, no doctor for you my friend)...
    Then we see who are buying fast expensive new cars...
    Then we investigate them cause they're obviously not paying enough in taxes or insurance...
    Then we start tracking all gun and ammo purchases, cause anyone with a gun is obviously a terrorist...

    The modern push for federal control in what is and should be states rights started in the modern day with the speed limit...at the time it seemed sensible, there was an energy crisis. Then helment laws, it only affected a small part of the population so what's the difference, next drinking age, it makes sense after all to protect the children. But the real starting point was in the mid-1800's and tarrifs on cash crops from the south...the northeastern states wanted the products but the overseas market was paying more. How to solve the dilemma? Get the House (populated by the densely concentrated north) to pass a tarrif that canceled out any profit.

    Next we'll hear how cool it is to have an RFID implant that makes accessing your now national information so fast and easy...Not hard to do if you think about it...we require newborns basically to have a social security number now when they are YEARS from being on the tax roles...

  • by pla (258480) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:01AM (#17889474) Journal
    Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world.

    Those of us who work everyday with databases should also know the reliability, performance, and interoperability of a large collection of databases all independantly designed, implemented, and maintained by different people, running on different platforms, and intended for different purposes.

    Good luck pulling out anything meaningful - You might have a lot of "data", but I'd trust an appropriations bill for an Alaskan bridge before I'd rely on anything you could query from a multi-state DB monstrosity.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:01AM (#17889484) Journal
    Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy??

    How does this invade your privacy? Is there a camera on these things?

  • by finkployd (12902) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:07AM (#17889544) Homepage
    If a national ID card could be created that was truly impossible to counterfeit, that couldn't be used for identity theft, and that you could use for your driver's license, banking, passport, employment identification, and various other situations that require some other form of legal documentation (such as birth certificate, etc), I'd rather just have that than have to carry a dozen other things.

    In a perfect world, yes. However in this world what will happen is that it will be counterfeitable (I think I made that word up), but everyone will believe it is not. So rather than do anything productive about identity theft, it will simply place the burden of proof on the victim.

    "You have a government certified ID card which we are assured cannot be counterfeited, so your little claim about identity theft must be false, all those charges must have been by you, so pay up or go to jail."

    That is the best case, the worst case is that something illegal is done in your name and you have no way of defending yourself, because a foolproof ID card was used. Believe me, the financial institutions would LOVE to be able to blame everyone else for identity theft and not have to eat the costs of it on their own. The government just wants people to think they are doing something productive about both identity theft and terrorism, but as usual this does absolutely nothing for either.

    Finkployd
  • by Thunderstruck (210399) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:09AM (#17889568)
    Actually, the federal law for witholding funds, 23 USC 158, only calls for a 10% reduction in funding, not the loss of all federal highway funds. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this section in South Dakota v. Dole. It held (arguably) that witholding all funds might constitute coercion and be impermissible, but a 10% sanction was within congressional spending authority.

  • by Sesticulus (544932) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:19AM (#17889686)
    I recently moved from Florida to Pennsylvania and DL databases are already linked, having national database and national drivers license would actually be a really nice thing.

    To get my car registered in PA I needed to get PA insurance. Figuring I'd do it all in one trip I got PA insurance, canceled my FL insurance and headed down to the DMV. Because my FL insurance was canceled, FL suspended my DL. Because FL suspended my license and PA checks that with their already connected DBs, they won't issue me a license.

    FL won't reinstate my license without insurance or returning the plates and waiting a few weeks. I can't get PA to register the car and get plates from them without a PA license. My insurance company won't issue me FL insurance without a Florida address (i.e. I could do it, but it would be fraud).

    Finally an email to the guy in charge of DMV Florida (who reports to Jeb Bush) got a response and someone who would work with us. Funny enough the exact same thing happened to the daughter of the woman who called us back.

    This is the problem with having 50 distinct (but already connected) databases. It shouldn't be such a pain to move.
  • by Lloyd_Bryant (73136) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:20AM (#17889700)

    the fight for state rights is a red herring, a shell game. its a front for social conservatives to, ironically, push agendas which damage personal liberties more than anything that could go down in washington dc

    when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could
    I have no choice but to disagree. The issue of "states rights" is, of course, not necessarily in line with the notion of individual rights. But while a state can erode individual liberties, it can only do so within a limited region. In contrast, when the federal government does the same, the entire nation is affected.

    I'm not sure who originated the term "laboratory of the states" (Sandra Day O'Conner?), but it summarizes the reason that states rights are important. Instead of having federal bureaucritters and congresscritters arrogantly deciding what's best for everyone, we should be having different states try differing methods to solve problems. When one state hits upon an effective solution, then the other states can adopt it.

    Those with agendas spend little time in state capitals. Why should they, when influencing a few hundred individuals in DC can accomplish what they want, rather than influencing the many thousands it would take to accomplish the same at a state level.

    but i do know this: there is a bright hot spotlight pointed at washington dc. i think the bulb pointed at augusta is a lot dimmer. people studying washington dc for erosions in personal rights probably outnumber those doing the same in augusta by orders of magnitude, don't you think?
    Because there is little or no effort being made by those with agendas in Augusta. The watchdog groups spend their effort where the agenda advocates are working. Move the power away from DC and back to the state capitols, and you'll find that the spotlight changes focus to follow.

  • by Spazntwich (208070) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:22AM (#17889724)
    Wow. The fact that you were upmodded to +5 for such a pedantic troll is a testament to the fact that the moderators think they're a lot smarter than they are.

    Your post's most obvious and absurd fallacy is that states only worry about one issue at a time, but I have a funny feeling Kansas has never put the majority of their resources into debating evolution.

    Second on the list is the false premise that the northern states are fighting for "the last remnants of freedom." They're fighting for their last remnants of freedom from the feds.

    This isn't an altruistic action. The states will always fight for their own rights because if they don't, their jobs get made harder, and the fact that we happen to occasionally benefit doesn't do much to make it more noble.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:25AM (#17889766) Journal
    Being age 47, I can remember when the drinking age was 18 in wisc. and 19/21 in ill. We use to drive 2 miles to get into Wisc and drink. This encouraged a large number of drivers from Chicago to come out our way (by lake geneva). Big mistake. I have no desire to see differing age limits again.

    With that said, I do think that we should change the drinking age to 14. Allow kids to get past this PRIOR to driving, so that they do not regard it as a big deal. In addition, change the driving so that at age 16-18, it is one child in a car, unless a 21/over is with them OR if a special license (for work/school only). If the teen is caught drinking and driving than the license is revoked until age 21.

    We need to teach our children that having a drink is NOT a big deal but that drunkness will not be tolerated.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:46AM (#17890018)

    state versus nation != individual versus government

    True.

    anyone reading your post above would get the distinct impression that when the state of maine fights washington dc, they are fighting for your individual rights

    In a way that is true. Laws like one restricting 18 year old people from drinking are anti-freedom. They remove the rights of an individual to choose for themselves. When the federal government imposes such a restriction, it restricts at least as many and perhaps more people than a federal restriction. As such, making this an issue of states rights, instead of a federal mandate results in no more, and quite likely less restriction of freedom.

    seems to me that the state of maine is fighting for the rights of the state of maine

    I take it you don't see the benefit of moving more power to the states.

    why in a million years should i trust that the government in augusta to be a better guarantor of my rights than washington dc?

    You shouldn't trust them and that isn't the reason to support state rights. Why do extremely socialist countries turn into authoritarian regimes? Many of them have a democratic process that is completely subverted, but started off very similar to our own. So why is it that those countries so commonly fail in that way? The answer is quite simply, consolidation of power. The more power you put in fewer hands the more motivation and risk of that power being seized by an individual or group. The more centralized your decision making and the more people you have answering to a single authority, the greater the risk.

    The founders of our country understood this risk. They broke up the federal government into competing branches and spent a lot of time specifically writing own all the powers the feds should never have and trying to bolster state rights as much as possible. They knew the less power was concentrated in one place, the harder it would be for a single group to control that power for personal gain and to the detriment of the people. Also they understood an important facet of human nature. Power tends to consolidate. People who seek positions of power are the same sort who tend to want accumulate more power. Unchecked, they would take more and more power until they were an authoritarian system. That is why it is important to decentralize power and have multiple factions competing.

    i am firmly of the opinion that my individual liberties are better preserved by undermining state's rights

    On a case by case basis, this can be true, but in the grand scheme of things, every power the feds get increases the risk that the US will be completely taken over by a small group.

    state capitols, it seems to be, always seem to be rotten with more corruption and social conservative agendas (agendas always at odds with personal liberties and freedoms) than what goes on washington dc

    Sometimes, but the damage they can do is limited because it only applies to one state. As such, there will always be reform movements and people can always vote by walking to a new state. When it gets too bad, there are the feds to step in and clean house. If we instead centralize all power with the feds, who steps in and cleans house?

    what goes on in montpelier or sacramento or bismarck is no better, and often a lot worse, and often a lot less scrutinzed

    Actually the more localized an issue, the more likely people are to both get involved and feel that they can make a difference. Ask the average person if they think their vote in the general election matters. Now ask them if they think their vote on state constitution amendments matters. Now ask about the local school millage. Notice a trend? The individual would be right to. It is possible to become active and get a Green party or Libertarian party candidate elected mayor. It has even happened that they have been elected to control a state. The same sort of reform on the federal level is unlikely to ever happen beca

  • please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:50AM (#17890078) Homepage Journal
    so ebay, amazon.com, google, etc.: they should all subdivide into separate companies for the sake of database integrity? what a red herring. there is no single point of failure. look into some rudimentary concepts if basic IT work
  • by garcia (6573) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:56AM (#17890170) Homepage
    Good luck pulling out anything meaningful - You might have a lot of "data", but I'd trust an appropriations bill for an Alaskan bridge before I'd rely on anything you could query from a multi-state DB monstrosity.

    What *you* trust and what the Government is told to trust are two different things. Everyone knows data is skewed. They just want to make sure it's skewed to support their interests and pet projects. If it is, the data is published.
  • by C10H14N2 (640033) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:01PM (#17890246)
    Constitutionally, your state can pretty much trample all over you and you have little recourse. At least with the federal government, as in this case, the states, on your behalf, can blow raspberries. The federal government really can't do much to you without the active participation of your state. So, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, since your state is not just your protection from the federal government--it is also the colluding executor of its will.
  • by gfxguy (98788) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:26PM (#17890608)
    Isn't it ridiculous how often our SS numbers are required? We keep forgetting the promise that they wouldn't be used as national ID numbers, that they'd only be used for social security.

    When I bought my house, I couldn't believe how many times I had to give out my number to people. Moreover, less than six months after moving into my house, someone used my SS number to open a credit card account and had already defaulted.

    After getting really pissed off about it, the next time someone asked my SS number (a membership at Sam's club), they refused to allow me to use a credit card (not theirs, just a plain old Visa or Mastercard), I had to use cash. I said "fine."

    But you simply can't avoid it. I go to a new doctor, and I have to fill out a form with my SS number because I'm the responsible party for my family. If I refuse there, it's not a mere annoyance, it's being shown the door with a hearty "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out."
  • a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id
    No it doesn't. State ID information is limited to your state, national ID isn't. The fewer people who have your information, the more private it is. Besides, you're (supposedly) giving up your privacy to the state DMZ for the limited purpose of getting permission to drive on their roads. There's no such "bargain" with a national ID. And federal agencies are making a point to share information, combining it with credit information and who knows what else. Your State probably doesn't do that.

    You're probably more secure under a national ID, but you certainly aren't more private.

  • by trianglman (1024223) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:51PM (#17890934) Journal

    It invades our right to privacy by requiring this card for any action we might take, thus allowing the government to track every thing we do. These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets), when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc. Currently, no single government agency has the legal right to get this information without dozens of search warrants; once all of this is grouped together, one agency will have full, unmitigated access to do all the data mining they might want.

    Now, you might say, "But thats not what this legislation is for, its to prevent fraud." The fact remains that privacy will be lost and we will face these consequences. Even if the current administration shows restraint with these powers (fat chance of that) others could in the future.

  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:23PM (#17891528) Journal
    It invades our right to privacy by requiring this card for any action we might take, thus allowing the government to track every thing we do. These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets), when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc. Currently, no single government agency has the legal right to get this information without dozens of search warrants; once all of this is grouped together, one agency will have full, unmitigated access to do all the data mining they might want.

    How is this different from existing state ID's?

    Am I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?

  • by bogjobber (880402) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:31PM (#17891658)
    Being age 47, I can remember when the drinking age was 18 in wisc. and 19/21 in ill. We use to drive 2 miles to get into Wisc and drink. This encouraged a large number of drivers from Chicago to come out our way (by lake geneva). Big mistake. I have no desire to see differing age limits again.

    This was one of the main arguments used for the minimum drinking age act, and it's complete bullshit. It definitely was a problem, but its effects were severely exaggerated. If you have a problem with drunk driving, increase law enforcement near the border. Sometimes allowing people to have freedom results in them making bad decisions. Tough shit. Forcing states to adopt a law they mostly don't want by blackmailing them with their own tax money is wrong no matter what the issue at hand is.

    I agree with you that we need to teach people that alcohol is not a big deal, but I seriously doubt that will happen anytime soon. Even now, when most people drink at least occasionally, alcohol is still viewed as somewhat taboo. Some people completely lock their kids away from alcohol, so when they move out of the parents' control they go crazy. If people learned how to drink in a comfortable atmosphere and with positive support, they would learn how to drink responsibly. As it is now, too many people learn how to drink at high school house parties or college keggers. That's not a very good way to build healthy habits.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:47PM (#17893988)
    It happened over a DECADE ago when Commercial Drivers were restricted to using ONLY the license they are issued from their home state. It was made a federal felony for a commercial driver to possess more than one drivers license...the one issued that driver in their home state. Later, it became law that 'civilians' became covered under the same statute. [Don't believe me? Go to another state and try to get a second drivers license and see what happens.]

    When was the last time you renewed your DL? Did you have to provide your STATE ISSUED birth cerificate (or documentation proving where you were born if you were born outside the USA), SS card, RECENT bill sent to your HOME address, etc. to "prove" who you are? If so, your state already has Real ID intact!!!!!

    What insidious thing that the national ID act wants to evolve into is everyone having to have RFID chips implanted within their person for tracking purposes. THIS is the thing we REALLY need to worry about.
    RFID chip manufacturing companies are already starting to try to entice ppl into volunartily allowing "long distance" RFIDs to be installed into cars so that when that car passes a billboard a 'personalized/vanity' "message/advertisement/warning/etc." can be flashed at the owner of said vehicle.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Working...