Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government News

California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt 211

Posted by kdawson
from the blinking-every-time dept.
The Department of Homeland Security's Real ID program has a real challenge on its hands from California. DHS had said it will only grant extensions from the Real ID rules taking effect on May 11 to states that apply by March 31 and promise to implement Real ID by 2010. California requested an extension but would not make the latter promise. DHS buckled and said, in effect, "Good enough." Perhaps they realized that trying to slap giant California around is qualitatively different than doing the same to New Hampshire. In another crack in the wall. DHS has granted Montana a waiver it explicitly did not ask for. From Wired: "For a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11... DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future. That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules. For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire... [A]fter Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt

Comments Filter:
  • by snarfies (115214) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:12AM (#22843748) Homepage
    Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
    Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
    Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
    Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
    Borodin: No papers?
    Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:25AM (#22843820) Journal
      Not only is that insightful, but brilliantly used. People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights. Uhmmmm this is one of those times folks, where state's rights protect your own rights. For some truly interesting reading you might try this link I saw yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia [wikipedia.org] It's a long read but I think an important one when you consider what the Federal government is trying to foist upon us all. The entire notion of ID kind of falls apart when you actually dig into the constitution and laws which govern this country, your state, and local municipality... at least here in the US.
      • Here is the link I meant to put in the post above: http://phoenix.craigslist.org/pol/581103415.html [craigslist.org]

        Sorry about that... not back to normally scheduled reading.. or not
      • by drooling-dog (189103) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:10AM (#22844118)
        This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by xSauronx (608805)
          it just struck me....but wouldnt this be the kind of thing people could do, but call their group "anonymous" while they protested it...? /not yet awake
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cayenne8 (626475)
          "This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers."

          I applaude CA for this too, but, it does bring up a VERY troubling thought. Why did DHS back off their strict regulations when it came to CA, but, not all the other states?!?!?

          This is, after all, the United States of America. Isn't each state supposed to be an equal of the rest of the states

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Reziac (43301) *
          Someone in the FA's comments had a good point -- restricting access to Federal buildings if you lack an RFID, er, RealID denies the Constitutional right to petition the courts. This is begging for a legal challenge to the RealID act.

          And as I understand it, if a law is being challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, it cannot be enforced until the matter is settled. (If a constitutional lawyer is handy, they may want to comment on whether this is correct.)

          As to the possibility of restricting access to m
      • by khallow (566160)

        People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights.
        Federalists too. Libertarians aren't the only ones with an interest in states' rights.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by guywcole (984149)
        But the state's aren't resisting to protect state powers. They're resisting because of the cost of implementing.

        If the fed's had funded this mandate, it would have been implemented already, regardless of how it relates to individual or state rights.
    • by Shakrai (717556)

      Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me

      The bold/highlighted statement clearly shows his lack of knowledge about America ;)

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johnsonav (1098915) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:12AM (#22843750) Journal
    I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CRCulver (715279)
      I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire. Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by johnsonav (1098915) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:44AM (#22843964) Journal

        I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire.
        There are many people who move to Wisconsin to take advantage of their great public University. Then move away to a state, like California or Arizona to work where there are more jobs in their area of expertise. Then they retire to Florida, where they pay no state income tax. It is only because of the states' sovereignty, separate from the Federal Government, that the people in those states can decide for themselves what is important.

        States' rights make more sense now than ever before. People are able to move from state to state more easily than in the past. It's a feedback loop. As more retirees move to states like Florida and vote, more retiree friendly legislation gets passed, and more are drawn there as a result. They are happy because they get to live in a state where they have the votes to get what they want. And I'm happy they aren't here driving ten under the speed limit, clogging up the highways where I live. It's win-win.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by TapeCutter (624760)
          Great idea, lets divide the population into seperate states based on age, 50 states means everyone gets to move roughly once a year before retiring to Florida. We can start by sending everyone under 30 to Alaska, that'll keep those damm kids off my lawn and make the highway safe to drive on.
          • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

            by electrictroy (912290) on Monday March 24, 2008 @11:40AM (#22845432)
            You seem to have missed the main point:

            - State Legislatures operate as a counter-balance against the D.C. government becoming too dictatorial. For example, California's Legislature refusing to implement the "real id" (or as I say, Spy ID) in its current form is a way to remind the D.C. politicians to stop acting like nationalized tyrants.

            If States rights did not exist, we'd all be living like D.C. residents (no medical marijuana allowed, ~$100 a year vehicle tax, universal gun ban, et cetera, et cetera). By allowing States to act independently, we keep at least *some* of our freedoms because the State Legislatures act as a counterweight against power-hungry D.C.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DustyShadow (691635)

        Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government.
        That would require amending the U.S. Constitution. I don't see that happening any time soon.
        • by CRCulver (715279)
          We can selectively interpret the Constitution to reflect changes in society.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by DustyShadow (691635)
            Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Not us and definitely not the Executive branch. The federal government can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. That power is quite limited. Any other powers are left to the states.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by electrictroy (912290)
              But as Thomas Jefferson said, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

              As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

              That's a HORRIBLE idea. It's equivalent to saying we should selectively enforce some laws ("don
              • As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

                Well, the Supreme Court looks at the same issues again. For instance, Plessy v. Fergison and then Brown v. Board of Education. That's because the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments are intentionally vauge and catch-alls. At the same time, the 14th amendment, and, due to changing conditions concerning interstate commerce, the commerce clause, give the federal government growing power over the states.

                I think it's a good thing that in some cases the constituti

                • I don't.

                  The Constitution is a Law. It's written in black-and-white and should be treated the same way. Otherwise the Law has no meaning if people choose to ignore what it says.

                  If there's a particular law which seems outdated (example: "two-thirds of other persons"), then it should be removed using the procedures provided (i.e. amendment or constitutional convention) not just randomly ignored in hopes it will go away. ----- The D.C. Gun Ban is another obvious case. I can not lay my hand upon any part of
                  • If there's a particular law which seems outdated (example: "two-thirds of other persons"), then it should be removed using the procedures provided (i.e. amendment or constitutional convention) not just randomly ignored in hopes it will go away.

                    I agree laws should not be ignored. However, laws should be written in a way so that they apply to new situations. For instance, fraud over the internet fit into other fraud over telephone lines (IANAL, so I may be incorrect), and thus didn't require a new law. AP

            • by 2nd Post! (213333)
              Don't the people own all powers not explicitly defined for the various governments?
          • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

            by johnsonav (1098915) on Monday March 24, 2008 @11:07AM (#22845098) Journal
            We can, and do. But there is nothing in the constitution that could be interpreted to remove states' sovereignty. The constitution was written, and remains, a compact between states and their respective citizenry. The constitution does not grant the states the right to exist; the states grant the federal government the right to exist. We can come up with new ways of interpreting the constitution, or even write a whole new one, but without rewriting each state constitution there is no way to remove their sovereignty.

            The states have ceded a lot of authority to the federal government over the past 200 years, especially since the Civil War. Much of that, civil rights for example, has been for the best. But the ability of the states to write and enforce their own laws is what made it possible for this country to grow from 13 colonies to one of the most geographically and culturally diverse countries in the world. Laws that may apply to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin may be counterproductive in a largely urban state like New Jersey.

            States rights are still important even after the closing of our western frontier and slower growth today. State governments are more responsive, flexible and approachable than the federal government. Local politics may not be as sexy as the soap opera in Washington, but if you truly want your voice to be heard, local and state is the only way to go.

            The states have tremendous untapped power even now, in this age of a strong central government. Washington just got used to pushing whatever they wanted down the states' throats. Even if I thought that REAL ID was a good idea, I still want the states to dust off their boots once in a while, just to keep everyone on their toes.
          • by Fjandr (66656)
            And that they are allowed to do this, my friend, is the fundamental flaw in the way government works today.
      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        "I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire."

        I think that should actually be an argument more FOR states rights. Since we are more able to move at will, we could more easily move to a state that 'thought' more along the lines we do. You don't like the drinking laws in NH? Well...then mov

      • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Russ Nelson (33911) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Monday March 24, 2008 @02:09PM (#22847748) Homepage
        Ugh. What a thoughtless comment. How do you create good policy? By having one set of smart people in the federal government? No (how could that POSSIBLY work?). No, you create good policy by creating many different policies at the state level, and seeing what works. Then, the smart states adopt those good policies.
        • by CRCulver (715279)
          The countries that usually turn up at the top of quality of living rankings are also marked by a great deal of political centralism. The U.S., for all of the supposed promise in its states' rights ideals, is pretty far down the list.
          • The countries that usually turn up at the top of quality of living rankings are also marked by a great deal of political centralism. The U.S., for all of the supposed promise in its states' rights ideals, is pretty far down the list.

            They are also about the size (geographically and demographically) of an average state. Comparing Belgium to the US is similar to comparing Chicago to California. The US more accurately is comparable to the EU. So, you are saying that some states that aren't associated with a federation do a better job of quality of living than the federation that is the US. Has any of these quality of living ranking lists done one which compares individual states of the US to countries on the list?
            This is completely dism

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by twistedsymphony (956982) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:27AM (#22844238) Homepage

      I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.
      Whenever someone goes on about giving more power to the federal government I politely remind them that this is the UNITED STATES of America ... not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America.

      I live in NH and a co-worker was complaining about NH was not adopting RealID and that they would have to suffer additional search and seizure at the Airports and borders because of it. After explaining what Real ID entails, they agreed with me that it's good to be a NH citizen, where on many an occasion we thumb our noses at invasive federal programs that do more harm than good.

      There's a reason NH was chosen for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], as much as I hate the winter months here, IMO, it's politically the best state to live in (tax wise it's the 2nd best state to live in too, and that's only because Alaskans get oil kickbacks).
      • "Live, Freeze and Cry"

        though I hear you about the winters... me being a maineiac
        • I *love* winter! Snuggle-up next to a warm fire with the gentle hum of a computer nearby & some sci-fi flickering on the telly. Ahhh. Cozy.

          It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived.
          So darn hot, you can't go outside without
          feeling like a turkey roast in an oven.

          (Besides with the supposed "global warming" coming along, New Hampshire may soon be like Maryland or Jersey - not too hot; not too col; just right.) ;-)

          • by cayenne8 (626475)
            "It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived. So darn hot, you can't go outside without feeling like a turkey roast in an oven."

            Then don't even think of moving to the New Orleans area...I've had to turn on my A/C a few times already this year...I think the first time was back in Feb.

    • by Shivetya (243324) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:35AM (#22844306) Homepage Journal
      States lost a lot of their rights when they permitted people to choose Senators and ever since then the Federal Government has run over the states...
    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Panaflex (13191) <{convivialdingo} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Monday March 24, 2008 @10:26AM (#22844754)
      If Cali had a pair they'd let this date slip without a word... TSA would hit the wall, DHS would get no respect.

      You want to kill a law? Then ignore it.
  • Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

    Hence the call for RealID. If you have one, supposedly you can finally prove that you are a citizen and entitled to all the rights a
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by plover (150551) *
      "Dey took our jerbs!"

      It's easy to point to Manuel and blame him for cleaning toilets for $2.00/hr. After all, his skin is darker, and he don't talk 'murrican.

      The real jerb problem in this country is not that Manuel is doing the $7.00/hr job for $2, but that our corporations have been shipping all our jerbs overseas, (both in manufacturing and services) and the corporations continue to pour U.S. dollars over the borders faster than Mexicans can climb back in. The large corporate interests must be pleas

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BadAnalogyGuy (945258)
        The source of the angst is not Manuel, though. It was Binter from India who came here on an H1-B and took that PM job from Joe America Programmer. The loss of high-quality jobs to immigrants who have no intention of staying in the US for long periods is the root cause here.

        There are two ways to look at Binter. The first, unfortunately, is the way we have reacted. We turned against him and Manuel and want them out of the country so that we can have those jobs back.

        The second is to look at the benefits that t
        • by CRCulver (715279)
          The reason Binter wants to go back to his home country is because he can buy a house and live like a king with the money he saved while working in the West. You see the same thing with Moroccans who slave for a decade in France and then move back to their home village in Morocco where they build themselves a gigantic house and enjoy a nice and fairly early retirement. When that's their motivation, it's hard to keep them here.
          • I object.

            It's not the immigrants I dislike. My closest friends were born in Japan, China, and Afghanistan, and I welcome them to the United States.

            It's the ones who think "I'm above the law and don't need no stinkin' visa" who annoy me. My other friends followed legal procedure, filled-out all the necessary forms, and became U.S. citizens per the standards laid-out by the People's representatives in Congress.

            The illegals did not.

            They should be packed into buses, handed the required "request to become citi
      • by moeinvt (851793)
        "The real j[o]b problem in this country is . . . that our corporations have been shipping all our [jobs] overseas."

        You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Wowsers (1151731)

      Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

      The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it. Want to buy something in a store with cash, show us your ID card first. Did you vote for the wrong party, your ID is cancelled and you become a non-person, unable to get state benefits / pension / health-care.

      The governments are very keen on using the pretext of immigration for ID cards etc., but it is they that deliberatel

      • by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Monday March 24, 2008 @10:16AM (#22844664)

        The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it.


        It's fairly well known in the UK that the ID card is just a political front for MI5 and the police force's desire to build a fingerprint database of everybody in the country. Nobody wants the cards, they just want to work around the recently passed laws that prohibited them from collecting DNA and fingerprints of people who aren't criminals, and they've seized on the idea of creating an ID card as an excuse to write new laws that will let them.

        I doubt they even care whether the project succeeds in producing an ID card (it's currently failing, spectacularly - after three years of funding they've started collecting the fees and writing down your names, but there is no card, no database, no fingerprint collection, and no firm plan for when or even how they are going to do anything other than collect more fees; they are still wrangling with the contractors about who is going to be responsible for working out the plans for these various parts). The important part for them is that the laws will still be on the books, so they can escape from the recently imposed restrictions, even if there never is any card.
    • by asuffield (111848)

      It is particularly sad that we're not more open to qualified foreigners, but rather lump all immigrants (legal or not) into the same category of jerb-stealers. If you want to see what the average American thinks of immigrants, watch Lou Dobbs once in a while. Then you'll understand that not only is there a strong desire in this country for RealID, but that those people are sadly the majority.

      It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough t

      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        "It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid."

        Actually, if you look at the majority of burger flippers out there....they also cannot speak English, because they aren't from the US. The sad thing is...there are many that are trying to give them the right to vote too!!

        --And the invasion continues...

  • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:24AM (#22843806) Journal
    Good thing they've got the governator.

    If it wasn't for him, we'd be dead from aliens and terminators and who knows what else! Its no wonder that even the DHS can't push him around.
  • by Nomen Publicus (1150725) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:27AM (#22843834)
    Identity has little if anything to do with intent.

    Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

    So you have to wonder exactly what the government thinks it is protecting itself from by using REAL ID?

    • by AJWM (19027) on Monday March 24, 2008 @11:31AM (#22845340) Homepage
      Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

      Heck, citizens with valid papers and evil intent don't even need to enter a federal building to cause harm. Timothy McVeigh just parked his Ryder truck full of ANFO in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

      The bit about preventing non-RealID holders from entering federal buildings has nothing to do with securing the buildings and everything to do with extorting compliance with RealID.
  • by resistant (221968) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:29AM (#22843848) Homepage Journal
    As has been remarked before (by myself and others), one of the more interesting results of demanding such specific identification of residents of states that balk at Big Brother is the abrupt denial of the Constitutional right to seek redress of grievances in the courts (read the Federal courts). If you have such "leper" identification, suddenly you cannot sue anyone in the Federal courts, or even show up to defend yourself if you are sued in a Federal court or charged with a crime in the Federal courts, or testify as a material witness in Federal courts. Will Federal judges issue contempt of court citations against the defendants, or against the armed agents who prevent the defendants or witnesses from entering the courtrooms? Getting Federal agents to enforce a blizzard of contempt of court citations against themselves could be problematic. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at drunken parties, but this all seems entertaining in a grim way.
    • You can enter the courtrooms. You just get searched more intensively.
      • by resistant (221968) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:42AM (#22844358) Homepage Journal

        On the contrary, after the deadline, you cannot (legally) enter Federal buildings and therefore the courtrooms in them, even if you agree to be searched with a microscope and a probe captured from the aliens at Roswell. Without a "Real ID" identification or a (Federally issued) passport, you're technically screwed. Lots of people have no passport, nor feel any need for a passport, which is supposed to be only for entering and leaving the country, not for basic civil rights.

        As a practical matter, though, I gravely doubt that the judges in those courtrooms would allow for an instant actually barring people from their courtrooms, leading nervous Federal security agents to ignore the black letter wording of the law, perhaps doing as you suggest and settling for giving the hairy eyeball to anyone arriving, voluntarily or otherwise, without his duly issued mark of the beast. They like giving people the hairy eyeball anyway, even without encouragement.

        I suppose with this regime sooner or later someone will get cute and claim through a lawyer that he can't answer a summons regardless from a Federal judge because the law plainly forbids him from entering a Federal building without a "Real ID" identification or passport, and he has neither, and he cannot be legally forced to break the law. That would be amusing, although probably not to the judge who would be issuing contempt of court citations.

        BTW, the Wikipedia entry is interesting and might as well be hereby linked [wikipedia.org]

        .
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sconeu (64226)
          Now that's an idea.

          Sue the Federal Government over the Real ID. Send you lawyer to court. When the judge asks "Where's the plaintiff?", your lawyer states that you are legally barred from entering the courtroom by the Real ID act.
  • by organgtool (966989) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:32AM (#22843860)
    DHS is coming across as a desperate guy who proposed to a woman way out of his league. He anxiously tells his friends "She didn't commit to a 'yes', but she committed to thinking about committing".
  • Montana Governor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Speare (84249) on Monday March 24, 2008 @08:50AM (#22843990) Homepage Journal

    A couple weeks ago, I heard the governor of Montana on NPR, talking about why his state wasn't going along with the federal plan. It was an embarrassing interview, he tried to sound folksy as a rural westerner would, but ended up sounding ornery, obstinate for no real reason, and clueless on the real issues. In my opinion, he missed a real chance to explain real reasons why Real ID doesn't make sense. I very much wish that they would get security experts like Bruce Schneier to talk in layman's terms about the actual shortcomings, or even Constitutional scholars to talk about the states-rights issues that apply here, than to get politicos who just want to explain why they "ain't signin' up today fer a concept of tomarra."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by superid (46543)
      The interview can be found here [npr.org] I heard it too but have not re-listened to it. I suppose he could have been a little more polished and less cranky but I think the gist of his argument was that it was a nebulous federal requirement that would cost Montana money and there would be no benefit.

      I hope he doesn't back down.
      • by DannyO152 (544940)
        Never underestimate the power of cranky cheapskatery to convince an electorate. Indeed, "it will raise taxes" can kill initiatives which have long-term payoffs. I'm glad this time the argument is on the side of the angels and Declaration of Independence.
    • by Apotsy (84148)
      WTF? Clueless? Embarrassing? Maybe you should listen to it again. He certainly did list several "real reasons" why RealID doesn't make sense. He said most of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified for it. He said it can be obtained with a birth certificate, which as he explained is easy to forge. He mentioned the lack of federal funding. He even used the phrase "unfunded mandate", something Bruce Schneier lists on his site as well, which is funny because you wish interviewers would talk to Bruce instead, e
  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:01AM (#22844064)
    Congress won't defend the Constitution or Rule of Law anymore. The Supreme Court has been compromised.

    Perhaps the states are our last hope. If California, New York, and just a few of the other big states say no to all the nonsense, the federal government shall have to back down or stage a coup.

    It would be great to see them band together and take a very strong, pro-Constitutionalist stance on RealID, as well as the other recent intrusions on states' rights (I mean it in the Constitutional sense, not the neo-con sense).

    For instance, the deployment of National Guard overseas at the expense of Civil Defense; the National Guard units belong to their respective states and actually answer to the governors, not the President. Or take the Medical Marijuana initiatives that passed all around the country in 2006 and which the Federal Government has been trying to countermand--it's not my issue but the states have the right under the Constitution to regulate such matters within their own borders.

    Maybe, just maybe, if the states lead the way Congress will grow a pair.
    • See, this is a view that I don't understand and never really understood.

      You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.

      You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.

      Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congr
      • by moeinvt (851793)
        "You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that."

        The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped
        • The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branc

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sandbags (964742)
      The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...

      Facts:
      - The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in p
      • by Curunir_wolf (588405) on Monday March 24, 2008 @07:32PM (#22851314) Homepage Journal

        The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...

        Sad, isn't it? It's really all about money. States that decide they get more highway funds than it will cost them to implement Real ID will implement it, while states that get small amounts of highway funds will oppose it.

        Facts:
        - The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in place currently. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will also be closely guarded by top security people since it's such a public issue. Access will be restricted to public sector netowrks, not open to the public or common hacking attacks, just like the ATM network and existing police and DMV systems. It will be monitored constantly. Do you think South Carolina has a top notch FBI security team monitoring access to THEIR systems? I can tell you as someone who knows a few former programmers at the for SC state who wrote that system, NO IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT! there have even been breakins at DMV offices where PC, printer, and blank IDs have been stolen since the system requires no direct connection to a secure validation network in order to print IDs.

        You're kidding, right? First of all, it will still be the state DMV's that are running and controlling the system, it will just be "connected" to a nationalized database. Sure, there will be more, and more higher-paid *government* security folks, but there will also be a lot more people with access, and less centralized control over who they are.

        - Currently, all you have to do if you loose your license in one state is move to another and apply for a licesne there. Too many DUI's? just move and reset. Under Federally issued ID, this will not be possible, and states can protect themselves from repeat bad drivers (driving is a privelidge, not a right, and if you abuse it, we have the right to take it away and make sure you can't get it back, even if you move). This will lower insurance costs across the board.

        This is just a total fiction. If you get so much as a speeding ticket in one (of many) states, it will follow you to whatever DMV you next register with (in most places). Currently, this is accomplished mostly by states joining cooperative agreements. The only thing nationalizing will do is that they will track you down *faster* than they do now, but they do it now. Try having your license suspended in one state and going to another to get one. You won't be able to do it except in some very rare circumstances. Not worth the cost and loss of privacy, IMHO.

        - Few people in security (professional residential, even bartenders) can be expected to know how to spot fake IDs from every state (There are over 200 legal forms of ID circulating in america). With a single secure ID, we don't have to even look for fake info, we can swipe it, compare a computer screen to information on the ID, and compare the picture to the person, even use a biometric scan as further confirmation. RFID may not be secure, and it may only take a few days for someone to crack the chip in the ID and distribute hardware and software to edit it, but cracking the text printed on the ID will be much tougher. The state of CT has one of the hardest to forge IDs I've ever seen, and I've not seen them all. If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)

        So you expect every bar and restaurant to install biometric iris scanners just to check everybody's ID? It will all be cracked eventually, and changing the

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:18AM (#22844178)
    I mean, if teenagers have already figured out how to forge them [kmsstv.com], then real terrorists will have no problem with it either.

    So I ask, exactly how secure does this REALID card make us again?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ahecht (567934)
      Why Did They Feel The Need To Capitalize Every Word In That Article? It Made It Awkward To Read.
  • by Rooked_One (591287) on Monday March 24, 2008 @09:26AM (#22844228) Journal
    As soon as I saw it, I knew that mass producing american flags as stickers, magnets, and hats would be a way to make a quick but.

    Was it ever! I made so much moola in a such a short period of time that I wish we would get hit again.

    of course this is not me - but I simply wanted to raise your emotions about how capitalistic our society is and let you be the judge... how did you feel when I typed that?
    • by Miseph (979059)
      I felt like you should have posted that somewhere more relevant and closer to the top.

      You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.
      • my apologies - I typed that 10 minutes after I rolled out of bed....

        In other words - it made sense to me but the rest of the world was prob left in the dark ;)
  • exactly what the problem with real id is?

    we already have driver's licenses

    i don't understand the rabid opposition to it

    to me it seems a sort of so what
    • by Fjandr (66656)
      The problem is the concentration of information in linked databases. That information will be abused if (when) a dictator comes to power, and the more centralized the information the easier it will be to abuse.

      If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.

      Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expec
      • #1. there is nothing in a hypothetical central database that does already exist in an acutal central database today

        #2. no one actually lives their lives successfully with the chicken little "the sky is falling!" attitude of ANY DAY NOW WE WILL HAVE HITLER. of course it's possible the usa can lose its democracy and become an authoritarian state someday. howabout we worry about that after we go another inch down that mile required to get to that reality? yes, i can hear your reply already "WE'RE ALREADY ALMOS
        • by Fjandr (66656)
          "WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

          Way to put words in someone's mouth. I never claimed we were almost to a dictatorship. Bravo for trying to subvert a completely legitimate concern by attempting to make it seem like I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.

          It has nothing to do with false alarmism. Abuse of the data WILL happen at some point in the future. There is nothing in governmental history that supports a claim to the contrary. The level of abuse is somethin
          • you apparently have the fatalist view that abuse will happen, nothing you can do about it

            ok

            i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it

            catch me now?

            you seem to think i am bizarre for making light of almost certain abuse

            i happen to think you are bizarre for thinking it is useful to fight almost certain centralization

            with the same cynical fatalistic acceptance about abuse you show to me, i am here to tell you everything is already centralized, you
            • by Fjandr (66656)
              I'm a fan of fighting for what I believe is right rather than rolling over and taking anything anyone wants to dish out, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

              Abuses can at least come to light when there are people who are willing to dig and to fight, and sometimes those abuses may even be punished. Letting bad things happen and saying or doing nothing only makes it easier for abuse to become a common institutionalized occurance.

              You can cast aspersions at or hold in contempt the people who dare to oppose th
              • battle hymn of the republic, comment spoken with a forceful tremulous voice, as the marching men's humming grow louder and louder...

                zzz

                dude: everything about real id is already in existence

                it's a pointless technicality. you honestly think you are actually making a difference fighting a nonchange. you're not fighting over whether or not a gun is pointed at your head. you're fighting over what color the gun is that is already pointed at your head. an absurdity

                get over yourself. or rather, you go on with your
            • by AGMW (594303)
              i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it

              There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! The problem is that most people don't seem to care one way or the other - I guess that's one of the bad things about living in a democracy - however right you might think you are, if more people believer otherwise you are, by defi

              • "There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! "

                drivers license

                social security number

                passport

                done deal, already happened

                why don't some people understand the obvious: real id is not a change of status quo, it is merely a continuation of the status quo under a new name

                it's the difference between arguing over whether or not there is a gun pointed at your head (valid fight) and arguing
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday March 24, 2008 @10:18AM (#22844680) Homepage
    I find it interesting that the states are refusing to implement REAL ID, but the state's representatives voted for it. So who are they representing if their state is willing to flat-out refuse a law? This is a very serious breakdown of representation. It is absolute confirmation that the representative democracy is not working.

    The other aspect of all this is that while Slashdotters are praising the states for standing-up for civil rights, the reality is that the states are fighting REAL ID because of funding issues, not because of civil rights issues. If the government tied federal funding of schools (or highways, or parks, or somethng) to the implementation of REAL ID, then the states would quietly fall-in line.
  • It's about fricking time that the federal government realizes that this is the United STATES, and that it's run BY the states, FOR the states. And if the DHS doesn't like it, they can go screw themselves.
  • Cal Native (Score:2, Troll)

    by rossz (67331)
    I was born in Kaliforniastan and have lived my whole life here. I don't, for one second, believe this state will fight the national ID system. Our two senators (Box and Feinstein) are socialists to the extreme. They firmly believe in the nanny-state and have always fully supported forcing the peasants to be tagged and bagged.

    Why do I still live here? I'm a contract tech worker (Linux system administrator) and this is where the jobs are. Plus, the weather is better than most other places in the world. T
  • "By 2014, according to the plan, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a Real ID-compliant card, except people older than 50, officials said. That exception would give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the threat from someone in that age is much less."
    I didn't realize Osama Bin Laden was so young!

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html [huffingtonpost.com]

    Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society

    1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
    2 Create a gulag
    3 Develop a thug caste
    4 Set up an internal surveillance system
    5 Harass citizens' groups
    6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
    7 Target key individuals
    8 Control the press
    9 Dissent equals treason
    10 Suspend the rule of law

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...