Deadline For Saying "No" To National ID 284
cnet-declan writes "If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts: the deadline to file comments on the Real ID Act is 5:00 pm EDT on Tuesday. Probably the best place to do that is a Web site created by an ad hoc alliance called the Privacy Coalition (they oppose the idea, but if you're a big Real ID fan you can use their site to send adoring comments too). Alternatively, Homeland Security has finally seen fit to give us an email address that you can use to submit comments on the Real ID Act. Send email to oscomments@dhs.gov with 'Docket No. DHS-2006-0030' in the Subject: line. Here's some background on what the Feds are planning."
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
In Britain there seems to be no option for registering disgust at our national ID scheme - seems we're getting one and that is that. For all the horrific breaches of privacy and freedom that the Patriot Act etc have brought you over there - at least you do have the right to protest. PLEASE PLEASE DO!!!
If you can regain your freedom, then there's some hope for us over here in Airstrip One - maybe they'll even take down a couple of million cameras - you, know like 25% of them... (sounds like that's a sarcastic exaggeration doesn't it. But it's not, sadly)
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in the neighboring country to the north of the States, we have a log running tendency to blindly follow in their example. Thus, anything being introduced or changed there, will generally always have a direct impact on our laws and society, and when this isn't the case, the big U.S. corps generally see to it that our parliament gets lobbied into submission.
So that is why it matters to us.
Datamining email addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I fail to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
What it means is any power not specifically granted to the US federal government in the Constitution is in the jurisdiction of the various states. Issues like abortion and drug prohibition are to be decided by each state; the founders did this for a reason--you could move to the state whose politics most closely matched your own. The more centralized the federal government has become, the less choice we've had in regards to the policies governing us.
(Not to mention that the Real ID won't help us catch terrorists, but I figured that was a given.)
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to hear actual arguments. Research papers. Something that suggests that a national system would be worse or harder to defend from privacy invasion or theft. I'm certainly more than ready to listen to such arguments, but who did you expect to convince with this?
"Oh gee, if some Anonymous Coward dick is going to call me an idiot on Slashdot, I guess I would be a fool to disagree with him..."
Re:International disquiet (Score:3, Insightful)
If another country decides to follow in the US' footsteps, thats their choice. The US isnt foisting this on anyone else. If its a bad idea, then maybe the other countries that adopt it need their citizens to rethink who they elected last time around and not blame the US for their own weird politicians.
Re:I fail to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, it's not specifically the fact that this ID is federal that is the problem, but I hope you can see that the abuse of power is easier. More efficient is something people are taught is a good thing. We live by the clock. But when it comes to government, more efficient is the opposite of what you want.
Re:I fail to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, it can only hurt (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no groundswell of support for these things -- just a Corporate media that downplays the numbers of American's who protest, and fail to mention that one Bus brought all those "concerned citizens" to Florida to prevent the recount in Florida in 2000.
This is just more of the creeping fascism in America. Just like the "No Child Left Behind" just served to profit one testing company, that had a lot of Bush family money in it.
Now this will be used to track protesters. Why do you think that the FBI has Quakers on it's list to spy on and not violent hate groups?
This is getting really ugly. When not dodging investigations into corruption, evil and vote-rigging, our administration finds excuses to extend their power and intrusiveness into our lives. I feel like they are herding us, and by the time everyone wakes up -- there won't be much we can do.
By the way -- I seriously doubt sending an email to HS will do any good. They already bury office supplies in the desert to keep their budget up -- does anyone know any function of that group beyond being a place to give cronies jobs?
Re:International disquiet (Score:3, Insightful)
Six years ago, that would've made me proud.
Now, it kind of makes me really depressed.
Re:I fail to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing to wrap your head around is that aside from the general issues of your liberty to travel and your privacy, the legislation for the ID contains enabling sections for - as yet - unspecified technologies to be part of the card. The most likely candidate, for quite a few reasons, is RFID, though something with more range might replace that. RFID allows your card to be read without you presenting it. This is a definite escalation from you deciding to show someone your ID in return for, oh, a bottle of wine, or that DVD of Erica Campbell you've been thinking about.
Any such technology creates a number of very bad potentials; someone could walk through a crime scene with a clone of your RFID (trivial to do, by the way) and thus "establish" your presence at the crime, at the time. You might have been home in bed, but your RFID was out being a criminal. You'll be arrested and then your lawyer can sort it out (after you mortgage your home, of course - criminal lawyers don't work on a "work now, pay later" basis. Or they could clone your card and purchase weaponry, using your good name, which they could then use in the commission of a crime. As far as the police are concerned, you bought those weapons. To prove otherwise, you're going to have to locate the fake card. Good luck with that.
Suppose you go like a good citizen to get your card, and the computer is corrupted, or someone was there first, and they say, no, we've already issued the card that matches your information (birthdate, name, SSN, mother's last name, birthplace and date, etc.) You can't get your card. Now you can't partake of any federal service. Yes, that's written right into the RealID act. Got cancer? Poor? Need your meds? Sorry. You're going to die. No federal services. Period. Of course, they're still going to tax you to pay for them.
Another issue is that tracking everything you purchase becomes 100% practical. So what? Well, let me point out that lately, it has been the habit of the legislature, backed up by the Supreme Court, to create and approve ex post facto laws. This class of laws includes those that make things crimes after they were done. The constitution guarantees your immunity to the four types of ex post facto law, but that has been disregarded and from the government's point of view, is irrelevant. They can, and will, jail you for such things. They've been doing so to others for years. Now. Imagine you buy a Playboy magazine. This is tracked. A year later, fundamentalists get laws passed that make purchasing such a magazine a crime - pornography, etc. Now they can come and get you; all it takes is the knowledge that you made the purchase and an ex post facto law.
Because of the unknown, secretive technological component of these cards, the threat to liberty escalates into a serious threat to privacy and security. Either should be enough to halt the program, expose its exact workings, and then allow evaluation on the basis of precisely known parameters. But they're not offering that opportunity. In 20 minutes, the window for even general objections base don what we do know - which is incomplete - closes.
The only redeeming thing at this moment is that they expect the states to bear the burden of the costs, and some states - Montana, Maine - are refusing. I suspect it is entirely budgetary, despite the high sounding words, but I'll take what I can get at this stage of the game.
Re:I fail to see... (Score:1, Insightful)
What? That doesn't even make any sense. Moving from state to state just didn't happen all that often back then. The founders granted so much power to the states because they were proceeding from the vantage point of allying 13 separate bodies. If they couldn't come to an agreement among the states, there wasn't going to be a United States. They gave the states as much power as they had to to get them to agree to join. Providing our nation with a wide variety of local legal options had nothing to do with it.
...open your eyes. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Sure, they'll promise to only use relevant data appropriately. Right. Governments do not have a good history of using such pervasive data without oppression (up to and including genocide).
3. The more ID is needed to function in society, the more valuable IDs become. A national ID becomes a one-stop-shop for ID theft. Crack one card, and I become you.
4. Without the national ID, you can't participate in government. You can't enter a courthouse, visit your Congressman, etc. because you won't be able to even enter the building - no ID, no entry.
5. Ultimately a national ID is a license to exist. No license shown on demand? You're detained until your ID is found, one is created, or you get removed from society. The fact that you exist means nothing; no card, no you.
6. Corrupted data screws you over. Your file gets marked "deceased"? You're officially dead, and no amount of "but I'm standing here ranting at you!" won't help. At least with diverse cards & databases you can argue "8 out of 9 government databases say I'm still alive; please correct yours!"
7. Pervasiveness. No card, you can't function. Without that one centralized ID card, which you don't get unless everything is in order, you can't drive, fly, ride, vote, own property, get married, file suit, work,
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
I care because totalitarianism is insidious. "It's only an ID card" becomes "you have to carry the ID card at all times" becomes "the RFID chip (or whatever) allows us to track you, wherever you are" becomes
I care because the state is our servant, not our master.
And I do not have to tell you good folks that it will be expensive, and it will be insecure, and it will not prevent crime or terror or social disintegration.
I care, becase it won't work - and it is dangerous.
As something from a country with a mandatory ID... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country it's mandatory to carry a (real, state issued) ID wherever you go. No matter what, when a cop stops you and asks for your ID, you have to be able to prove that you're you. And they can do that whenever, whereever and for whatever reason they want. Failure to comply results in an arrest.
If you want that, don't write. It's what you'll get.
Re:International disquiet (Score:2, Insightful)
If another country decides to follow in the US' footsteps, thats their choice. The US isnt foisting this on anyone else. If its a bad idea, then maybe the other countries that adopt it need their citizens to rethink who they elected last time around and not blame the US for their own weird politicians.
Note: When I say US I really mean W's administration, because believe it or not the other 49% of us are half way intelligent. (The implication that voting for W makes you a moron was intentional.)
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, thus showing the abstract value that anonymity brings to the table, and not just on slashdot. There are parallels here to anonymity in meat-space as well; an anonymous member of a protest group (in order not to blow one's standing in the community); an anonymous withdrawal of a book on anarchism or bomb-making because you want to understand the threats, but don't want to have the ATF come visit you with handcuffs; an anonymous objection to the will of the masses with regard to any number of topics, such as religion, sexuality, the drug war, etc. Anonymity is valuable. That's the darned point! RealID is a program designed to strip anonymity from us, and that is one (of many) reasons it is a bad thing.
I was debating the poster's opinion. I took the post seriously, and I responded with what I considered to be content that rebutted the posted opinion. So what is your objection to this? Does "embrace" mean that I have to agree? I don't think so!
Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:5, Insightful)
IF you wanted to blacklist someone, you might enter anything into a database about that person. Everyone paying attention to how much fun we've had with the Credit Score companies and how long it took to force them to tell us what the damn score was without spending $40 for the privilege of correcting their errors?
And, who is going to bet me $10 that you won't be allowed to know what data gets on your ID card? As well as medical health, and most like genetic data, you might even have job history, traffic accidents -- think of all the baggage a corporation would want to have about you. All this data gets sold right now to private corporations -- did we vote on that? Please, by all means google it. Yes, the Bush administration takes info from your tax forms, or from Homeland Security, and sells it to private companies that do things like identify issues for politicians to campaign on -- or probably anything someone will pay for.
I'm sure future employers will consult the National ID card when they hire you. What sort of information will be on that card? Well
No, the national ID card isn't to identify you -- it's to track you, and to build a database on you. It's to make you a citizen at the level that they think you deserve to be. What happens to a traveling salesman who gets on the "Do Not Fly" list?
It might be your SAT score or it might be some government information that decides what college you or your kids go to. "Not corporate friendly" might keep you out of Yale. I'm sure my voting record would be useful, so that they could keep me out of Political debates -- who needs a loyalty oath when you can actually determine if someone is the "right sort."
You may call me paranoid. I just think if you don't imagine what the abuse could be -- you are being naive.
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you haven't been charged with something, or spied on, or in some other manner had your rights compromised because of this nasty product of the Bush administration, doesn't mean you won't. By then, though, it will be too late. Keeping control of government is all about keeping the horses in the barn- trying to get them back after they've escaped is a very long and arduous process.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having to have a birth certificate as ID is my biggest opposition to it. If I loose my birth certificate I will have to get a new one from a hospital in a city that no longer exists. The hospital or the city. I'd like to think that they pulled all of my records out from under the 6 feet of volcanic ash, but somehow I doubt it. And I don't want to spend 17 hours in the DMV explaining that to someone.
You are correct in that nothing MAY happen, and this MAY just end up being a boring ass driver's license that triples the amount of time I have to spend at the DMV. But that would be ignoring history.
Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. First you'll have to explain just what problem this attempting to solve. I've never seen a consistent explanation of the purpose of this act to begin with.
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't the bank authentication be faked? Well, if I were faking being John Doe -- I'd be in a bank or somewhere getting my photo and finger print and hoping there were no other John Doe screaming about identity theft... and the bank has a few Million in the vault and expensive property -- so I doubt they'd want to make money on fake IDs.
2) That's the point of the "check code" -- the handshake in private/public key incryption. I punch my ID in a box that is authorized and hooked up to a phone line -- just like we do right now, billions of times a day, with credit cards. When I enter in my SSN, I get something back like "Ouch!" -- because that's what I set up as my "check key." Now, however someone wants to create the authorization scheme to verify that box -- they are still going to have to intercept incrypted codes for anyone who's ID they are going to want to steal. I could get very detailed but I could say with a GPS, authorization procedures, and a phone line -- these ID boxes could be pretty hard to steel -- you could authorize them by day, and for one location on the planet.
OK, now that I saw "Ouch!" on the screen -- I know it is an authorized ID system I'm hooked up to. Unless someone has intercepted my last transaction with an authorized device, and is running an elaborate scam -- this is at least many times more work than what it takes to steal a bank pin on my Debit card -- which is harder to steal than my SSN right now. So now I can send my password that goes to the ID system, and then they wire back to the Vender an authorization like "John Doe Approved" and a transaction number -- just like credit card companies use -- a time stamp and hash that could be used to prove later that I, John Doe, really did buy that crappy leather jacket so pay up!
3) Yes, it doesn't reduce tracking. But I would want such a system to be State-based authorities. Not Federal. I don't have a problem with a company like VISA being an authorized ID System. The point is; someone needs to know that I'm John Doe -- if they are wrong, VISA is going to lose some money. THAT sort of privatization is fine with me. In the National ID scheme; huge government beuaracracy authorizes cards, but outsources to one politically friendly company. I guess it's pretty much that I know BushCo will screw it up, and it will cost us a lot of money, and only benefit friendly crooks. What else is new? But any ID system needs to only provide a reasonable guarantee to Company X or Person Y that I am John Doe. VISA has a vested interest in Credit Cards and would be financially damaged trying to screw me over -- see, they have something to lose! Not one appointed company made for the sole purpose of privatizing and keeping he system forever from oversight.
4) Um, because my password can be changed. If someone steals my ID Number -- how do I change my unique ID like a SSN? Everything is based on some sort of fixed tracking number in every database ever used. The password can change and be used merely to authorize that I am John Doe using such and such SSN. It's only a slight inconvenience like a bank pin -- you don't need it everytime you shop -- you just use this INSTEAD of your SSN. Like when you take our a loan, or apply for that fricken' blockbuster video card where they think I'm going to trust them and 20 part-time teenagers with my SSN to rent a video.
So, in short -- you don't use your SSN to go shopping now. You use your credit card and occassionally your drivers license. In fact, you can even use CASH. McDonalds does not need to know I'm John Doe in order to sell me a hamburger. They just need my money. If VISA wants to do a better job of securing money -- then let THEM solve it. I don't want a MORE PERFECT ID system -- I just
The REAL problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its that there isn't a clear limit of what states can put on the card. There isn't necessarily a database per card, but thats up to states to decide. And it is a major stepping stone to a national ID card.
And yes, that is a problem for ID theft, and it is a problem for a police state. It would be so simple to say "Where is your card? I'm sorry.. you don't have it? Please step out of the car, ma'am, you're under arrest for suspected terrorism."
Honestly, its that easy.
Oh yeah, and yes Social Security numbers are tied to the card. Not listed ON card, but directly linked.
Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? (Score:3, Insightful)
A. Visas are granted with little or no thought. Can you pretend you're going to college? You can probably get a Visa. Technically fixed now, but having actual rules about them wouldn't be a bad thing.
B. ID is becoming to the point where different states have completely different rules. Why not have a standardized rule that says if you have these X pieces of identification? You can get an ID. If not you can't. Instead I've seen every single state that I've lived in (4 in the last 5 years) has different laws. 2 of them didn't require proof of residency, One required just my old ID which they just looked at and assumed it's ok, they didn't even scrutinize the picture (and they don't have access to that state's database so they definitely didn't pull up the database to look at the official picture).
One state I went to allowed you to use ID from certain states... why? Because those states had "adequate" security measures. I didn't have that state's license and I had to go through the official process of proving who I was, which was easy.
So why should we have such a variety in the ways we gain ID and have states having different levels of security but everyone assuming that the two drivers licenses from different states are both the same level of proof of your identity, when even the states themselves know certain states are more secure? Oh right, because it's not a problem....
I'm not trying to tell you Real ID is right, but at the same time let's find a way to make the law better than yelling about it and trying to get it completely thrown out, which just won't happen.
Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right. My only alternative idea to reducing freedoms is 'leave things the way they are until we come up with a good idea'. I wish I had that good idea right now, but at least I'm opposed to making things worse. 'You don't have an idea on how to improve things so don't complain about our idea to make things worse' seems like a really, really weak position to me.
So, we've posted a hundred complaints about Real ID. If they're legitimate, it's important that we consider them. When the proponents of an idea object to critical analysis, that's a strong sign that it's a bad idea.
Iraqi election (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to those who voted in the first time of their lives where the ballot had more than one option.
Wow, a whole 12 million Iraqis voted. Out of a population of more than 60 Million that's only 1 in 5 that voted.
How many countries has the US "liberated" that didn't have oil lately??
Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, nearly Haiti, and, of course, Afghanistan. Of course, this list only goes back to the late 80's, but you did say, "lately".
Panama? Who did the US liberate Panama from? The same person the US supported to begin with. Kuwait? Kuwait does have oil for one thing. A second is that Kuwait was not then and is not now a democracy. It is a sheikdom, ruled by a Sheikh [wikipedia.org]. Haiti? The US used Papa Doc [wikipedia.org] as a bulwark against communism. He is the one Haiti needed to be liberated from. Afghanistan? Though it doesn't produce oil, Afghanistan is building oil pipelines [localnet.com]. However now the Taliban, whom Bush gave $43 millions in taxpayer money to, are regaining strength and power.
FalconRe:Why wait to the last minute to post this? (Score:3, Insightful)