Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Politics

REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU 315

Posted by kdawson
from the go-ahead-and-board-that-plane dept.
Dr. Eggman points us to Ars Technica for an article on the ACLU's view of the latest loosening and deadline extensions for REAL ID act compliance by the Department of Homeland Security. The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed. "The ACLU, which opposes the plan on civil liberties grounds, says that the many changes made since the Act was passed [in 2005] nearly 'negate the original intent of the program.' 'DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing... all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,' said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. 'Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU

Comments Filter:
  • by MonkeyCookie (657433) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @04:08PM (#21258431)

    Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.

    Didn't Cheney say the same thing about the insurgency in Iraq a couple years ago?

  • Re:Real ID (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Courtland (585609) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @04:16PM (#21258525)
    Well, I can't speak for the GP, but assuming you reside in the United States, have you ever been in an auto accident with an individual who is not a legal resident?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @04:22PM (#21258595)
    Credit signatures aren't for identification; you're saying you agree to the contract of the card (when you sign the card) and that you won't charge back the purchase (when you sign the receipt). That's a very general view, but you can do more research.
  • by cdrguru (88047) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @04:39PM (#21258809) Homepage
    1. States issue photo IDs already to people that do not drive.

    2. The problem is exactly that the states are issuing VALID ID to anyone. In Chicago, for example, you can get a driver's license or state ID with a birth certificate or passport. Or, if you happen to not have either one of those, you can get a note from the Mexican embassy saying in effect to give this person an ID with no further verificattion. Yes indeed, Illinois does recognize the authority of the Mexican embassy to determine ID requirements for the state.

    Please tell me the difference between my drawing a driver's license with a crayon and using it and what Illinois is doing. I don't see any difference at all.

    If the states are going to issue an ID in any name with no proof this pretty much means the ID has no value. Of course people are going to abuse the system. Why can't I have three driver's licenses in different names under this sort of system? Why should teens pay for fake ID when they can get a "real" one from the state?

    The reason behind the Federal rules is to put a stop to the states that are issuing ID with no rules whatsoever.
  • by PHAEDRU5 (213667) <instascreed@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @05:02PM (#21259141) Homepage
    The Feds want a 1984-style system of ID for citizens, but will do almost nothing about the flood of illegals coming across the Southern border.

    The states are refusing to comply on the ID card, and are enforcing border controls.

    This is a fascinating inversion of control.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @02:04AM (#21263849) Journal
    Airport employees don't need to track me, they don't need to know anything. Now the airline employee that I get the ticket from needs to know I can pay for it as well as checkin baggage but that's it. If the airline wants to require IDs I have no problem with either as long as they keep it private and don't share it with the government. My problem is the government requiring ID. I was born in the Land Of The Free not the Soviet Union where you had to carry your internal passport and show it to whoever asked for it.

    True, airport employees do not need to track you. They do not need to know exactly where you are. What they do need to know is exactly where you are not. They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas. They need to make sure you are on your plane, etc. Of course, that's not what we are talking about here, so it really doesn't matter.

    Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying. Quite frankly, I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane! If you don't like it, drive, take the bus, walk, swim, go Amway, hitch hike... I don't give a shit how you get to where you want to go, but if you are sitting next to me on the plane, that flight attendant better be damn sure you are who you say you are. And if you refused to give your ID, I hope they went over you with a fine tooth comb (inside and out!) before you letting you on the plane. Flying is not a right.

    I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.
  • Re:Real ID (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NickNameCreateAccoun (1173269) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @02:32AM (#21263979)
    Because you are supposed to be a citizen in "the land of the free" ? How ironic, built on immigration, now you are doing our best to forget your countrys glorios past and it's ideas.
  • Re:Real ID (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Planesdragon (210349) <slashdot&castlesteelstone,us> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @02:40AM (#21264015) Homepage Journal

    I'd rather they go home so we can export the jobs that are exportable to them in their country rather than taking over the non-exportable jobs here at lower wages.
    Farmhand.

    Toilet cleaner.

    laborer for a construction sub-contractor.

    Exactly how many Americans do you know that either really want to work in one of those three jobs, or would be willing to pay $100/day for them?

    Unlimited migration (NOT immigration -- these people don't want to be citizens!) is a fundamental part of a free market. If the entire population of Mexico wants to come and do low-level service jobs in the United States, they should just need to tell the Departments of State & Homeland Security and the IRS.
  • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @03:20AM (#21264177)

    They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas.

    They can then require ID for those areas and have security request IDs to make sure anyone there is authorized. They don't need to know who a person is in public spaces. For instance they don't need to know who someone going to the game room is, I specifically mention this because my sister used to go the airport where we lived to play video games and occasionally she'd take me. If I wait in line at the ticket counter and buy a ticket going somewhere and pay cash they have no need to know who I am, all they need to know is where the ticket is to and if the person can pay for it. If paying with check or credit card then they need to know you are authorized to write a check or use the cc.

    Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying.

    Yea, the TSA needs to make sure Senator Kennedy doesn't fly, NOT! There is no need for any TSA. Nor is there a need for the government to know what a law abiding person goes. Simply government shouldn't be controlling who gets on a plane.

    I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane!

    You trust someone who won't let Kennedy or Cat Stevens fly? Boy are they dangerous terrorists. NOT!!! Neither is John Gilmore [wired.com]. If the US really wants to do something about terrorism then it needs to stop creating and supporting terrorists If bin Laden, al Quada, and the Taliban are terrorists then why did the Reagan and Bush Sr admins support them?

    Flying is not a right.

    Neither is feeling secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said anyone willing to give up a little liberty for security neither will neither get nor deserve either. If you want to live somewhere where you'll feel secure I'm sure Putin's Russia, Iran, or Cuba would love to have you. Just don't turn my country into one of these. I was born in the Land Of The Free but if you don't like it move, that is if you live in the US.

    I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.

    Yeap, to some like you, tyranny of the masses is more important than liberty. Please form your own perfect government somewhere else, say NAZI Germany.

    Falcon
  • Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elemenope (905108) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @05:50AM (#21264791)

    If given the chance next year I'll vote for Ron Paul again, I first voted for him for President in 1988.

    I probably will as well, though as I said I'm not as sanguine about all his policy positions. For me, he is more like the Federal "Reset Button", which I think this government could use (and is overdue for). If it turns out I have to pick as usual between a democratic statist and a republican statist in the final election, I will take the liberal statism in a heartbeat; at least they don't want to tell me what God to worship and seem to at least fleetingly care about people who nobody else cares about. Ron Paul right now is the only Republican I would vote for, and Clinton is the only Democrat I would not vote for, in a pinch. Things are that bad.

This is a good time to punt work.

Working...