TSA Moves Closer To Rejecting Some State Driver's Licenses For Airline Travel (nytimes.com) 428
HughPickens.com writes: Jad Mouawad writes at the NYT that a driver's license may no longer be enough for airline passengers to clear security in some states, if the Department of Homeland Security has its way the Department of Transportation will start enforcing the Real ID Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2005 following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Homeland Security officials insist there will be no more delays. In recent months, federal officials have visited Minnesota and other states to stress that the clock was ticking. The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply. "The federal government has quietly gone around and clubbed states into submission," says Warren Limmer, a state senator in Minnesota and one of the authors of a 2009 state law that prohibits local officials from complying with the federal law. "That's a pretty heavy club."
Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."
Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."
Voluntary? (Score:5, Insightful)
The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.
If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have dictionaries, only the definitions in them are completely different than the ones you and I get to use.
"Humpty Dumpty dictionaries": the words mean exactly what the user wants them to mean, neither more nor less.
Re: Voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)
It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states. The "mandatory" part is that the federal government will deny highway funding to any state with a drinking age under 21, which is why every state has 21 as the drinking age. While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.
Re: Voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)
It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.
Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.
I mean, if you want to go down the road to that sort of argument, you have to start with the question of whether the federal government has the right to regulate air travel at all. It certainly isn't mentioned in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the 1910s and 1920s, there was much debate over whether a Constitutional amendment was necessary for Congress to regulate anything other than basic interstate commerce issues. With the Air Commerce Act of 1926 [wikipedia.org], the federal government formalized its role in regulating some safety measures, only for commercial flights, and rather limited. (It's important to remember this was still in the middle of the Lochner era [wikipedia.org], when the Supreme Court routinely struck down any statute that seemed like government interfering with economic liberty.)
Of course, everything changed after the FDR court-packing threat and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine [wikipedia.org] in 1937, followed by sweeping federal government expansion in 1937-42, effectively culminating in the end of federalism. (Standard example: Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before this time; marijuana prohibition did not, since it occurred at/after this time.) Federalism still nominally exists, but not really. Wherever the feds want states to do something, they tie up huge funding issues with it, as you say, so the feds bully the states into it.... and if they deem it even more important (e.g., TERRORISM!! AHHH!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!), then they'll just magically make it a federal power by fiat.
While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.
This statement is skimming over HUGE leaps in Constitutional law that have been changed by fiat just in the past few decades. After the terrorist threats in the 1970s, security screening was instituted with metal detectors and such at airports, but it was run by airports/airlines, NOT the feds, mostly because of Fourth Amendment concerns which would clearly prohibit such blanket searching (at least for the first 200 years of the Constitution or so). Prior to 2001, you submitted to voluntary security screening as a condition of the commercial contract you entered into with the airline.
Of course, after 2001 this whole 4th amendment concern was swept under the rug, and the crucial distinction between private voluntary search in a commercial transaction and government agents performing mandatory searches (which you could not just exit from -- now you could be detained by police even if you decided to leave after entering the security area).
But to get back to the real issue here -- you have to deal with the right to free travel [wikipedia.org] within the U.S., which the TSA has arguably been disrupting since 2001. But the feds hesitated at first to stretch the Constitution that far. So -- while it was not widely known -- you could still travel domestically without ID for about a decade after 2001, as long as you made it clear to the TSA that you knew your rights and insisted.
But then the TSA closed that "loophole" (which used to be a g
Re: (Score:2)
Most informative Slashdot comment I've ever read. And I've been reading for a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
The Fifth Amendment eh?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Did you perhaps mean the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But, the real question is, is this search unreasonable, the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights.
Re: (Score:3)
"the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights."
1: In every single attempted hijacking since 9/11, passengers have overcome the would-be hijackers long before they got close to succeeding.
1a: Even before that time it was happening in some areas. I can recall a 1986 case where an enraged chinese businessman battered a would-be hijacker to death using his mobile phone as a club.
2: All the security theatre in the world is of no use wha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, it is not what you or I find reasonable. The Constitution spells out that it is what the court decides those words mean.
A common misconception.
We find in Article III Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Also, we find in Article VI that they are required to swear oaths upholding the Constitution: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".
Thus, there are limits on the ability of the court to decide what "those words mean". If in so d
Re:Voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)
I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.
Re: (Score:3)
The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.
If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.
Er, I think the concept you need to consider here is opportunity cost [wikipedia.org]. If failing to participate in a purely voluntary practice closes the door to important benefits, then that decision can absolutely have undesirable consequences.
This is a pretty standard tactic when national governments try to influence policies that are, strictly speaking, the purview of sub-national entities. Health and education, for example, are provincial responsibilities in Canada, but funding mechanisms, subsidies and tax breaks ma
Anonymous travel (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.
Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?
Re: (Score:2)
You are a terrorist. We need to track where you go and who you see and communicate with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the Wikipedia article on Freedom of Movement under US law is to believed, we have broad rights to go where we please. Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege? Why does flying require so much identification? If you travel on a private plane, does somebody check your ID (and I'm thinking let's say I know some rich guy with a plane, not some NetJets flunky making sure I'm not trying to glom a free ride)?
I guess you can always walk where you w
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.
Definitely has limitations when you live in Hawai`i as I do.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.
Definitely has limitations when you live in Hawai`i as I do.
Only if you're lazy. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you probably could ride a horse without identification as long as you stuck to the back roads since you would be a safety hazard on the highways.
Re: (Score:2)
The Amish already do that. Same with a bicycle. You can legally ride just about anywhere except for limited-access freeways (interstates), though it may not always be wise to ride on some roads.
Re: (Score:2)
It felt good to be out of the rain.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how did driving get turned into a privilege?
It didn't.
You're perfectly welcome to legally drive an unregistered, uninsured vehicle from coast to coast without a license. Just stay on private property.
Oh, that's too much trouble? Well, there are public roads, but driving on them IS a privilege - and always has been, and for the safety of everyone else using them with you, there are a few conditions you need to meet before you can use them.
Re: (Score:2)
The photo, height, weight, and eye color are there to make it harder to get away with fraudulently driving on someone else's "simple certificate".
Not the best examples (Score:4, Insightful)
The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".
Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated. People involved in car accidents likely appreciate the fact that cars are registered; remember the license plate and tell the authorities, even if they drive off, and we know who's responsible.
I imagine that trains and planes have more regulation for similar reasons; as we now know, you could potentially cause a plane to crash into a building, for example. A train derailed can hurt lots of people and destroy lots of cargo. There's large responsibility again, so we do extra checks. If something goes wrong, we now have a shortlist of people to investigate.
Not saying the system is perfect. I worry about the surveillance state too, and am not a fan of the TSA's decisions lately. But we must acknowledge that the current system evolved for reasons (like safety and responsibility) that need to be carefully balanced with our liberties. Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as they say. But definitely voice concerns to your congresscritters, and keep it in mind in upcoming elections.
The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing. It is fine to say you have a disagreement with a stance, but let's please not demonize groups of people and pretend that we aren't what we are -- a country with a diverse set of beliefs that really isn't easily categorized.
As an aside, If you want your freedoms and the constitution respected more, vote for Bernie Sanders. He has said no to surveillance state, no to perpetual war, no to corporate control of the economy and elections, and coming from a small state, he is very moderate on gun regulation. Let's all agree to stop voting for the typical establishment candidates and vote for candidates like Bernie if we want to see real results.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Jesus Christ, not this line of crap again. "Regulated" in that time meant "functioning". And if there's any question as to what this was all about, take if from one of the writers of that article:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The Federalist Papers make it very clear [gmu.edu] that the public has an unquestionable right to arms in order
Re:Not the best examples (Score:4, Informative)
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.
This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), ...
Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.
... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems ... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.
Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing ...
In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.
Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writi
Frog boiling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How did we allow the Statists to play us so?
By voting for party authoritarians, democrat and republican. The voters are to blame for their own situation. If they want it to change, they have to do it their own damn selves. Will this be an election issue? Doubtful. So don't blame the system for something of our own making. It is a system that you yourself shows support for. So, I don't know why you are complaining now. Did you say anything back in 2005? Did your vote indicate any objection in the elections s
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to walk state to state, anonymously.
Is it convenient? Absolutely not. But it is also not restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of ways. Just be creative.
- Ride a horse.
- Find a ride to share online.
- Canoe and portage between bodies of water.
- Walk.
- Ride a bike.
- Could try a cargo ship. They take passengers but I don't know if they check for ID.
- See if a trucker would like some company
- Hop in an empty boxcar
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the misinformation, you retarded Canadian sack of shit
Cinnamon and gravy! I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but damn that was just needlessly harsh, AC.
Especially when there are lots [freightere...ons.com.au] of [freightercruises.com] websites [flightlesstravel.com] dedicated to hitching rides on cargo ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Anonymous travel (Score:4, Funny)
You want to post? Papers please.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I travel anonymously?
You can. Walk.
How did we allow the Statists to play us so?
Because most people aren't extremists and understand that laws are always a compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot hitchhike on the side of an interstate. You certainly can truck stop to truck stop or something.
Heck, many cities have special hitch-hiker centers so people can carpool to downtown and use the High-Occupancy lane.
Re: (Score:2)
Set up a designated time of the week to swap cars.
Share? You want me to share?!?
Communist!
Re: Anonymous travel (Score:4, Insightful)
License plate scanners [npr.org] are everywhere [aclu.org].
This brings us one step closer to many things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Passports are rather expensive and can take months to get. I don't have much of an objection to using my passport to travel, but they need to be issued for a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. I hide my passport until I need to go international because the darn thing cost almost $200 in total to get and took a month with the expediting charges.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have national identification cards - they are called passports.
Except, that, you know, passports are optional. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. If you never want to leave the US, you don't have to get one. I know plenty of people who never have. And in what way are passports even a bad idea? All countries have an interest in knowing who is coming into their own country, and if they have permission to be there (or should be denied such). You strike me as the sort of person who probably doesn't want Syrian immigrants coming into the US - without passports, how would you know that, and i
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the passport is a very quick way to get past the jack-booted thug^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H TSA screener before you go into the porn imager^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H back-scatter X-ray machine. I've seen them eyeball my drivers license for an obscene amount of time, where a US passport only gets a few seconds of glance before they let me pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who knows anything about datacenters knew what they would be collecting when they built the Utah datacenter. its building wasn't a secret.
You want to know who else has datacenters that size? Facebook and Google.
What the fuck did you think the NSA was going to do with a datacenter in Utah that rivaled a Facebook datacenter?
https://defensesystems.com/Articles/2011/01/07/NSA-spy-cyber-intelligence-data-center-Utah.aspx
This shit was common knowledge. Here's an article about it a full 2.
Yeah they dont dare... (Score:2)
If an entire state tells the feds to "fuck you" they wont dare block an entire states residents from flying. whatever sitting president will shit bricks the moment they try as the screaming will start from all the rich people first...
You know the ones that buy our government officials... yeah they wont tolerate being inconvenienced.
Re: (Score:2)
National ID - what's wrong with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
And what's wrong with a nationally recognized ID?
It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed. If the government knew who's a citizen or not and a nationally recognized ID was in place it would make voter fraud a lot harder. And if the US don't have a clue about who's a citizen or not, then the security measures likenthe 'do not fly' list is useless. All those actions at immigration like fingerprint reading is useless. It only serve
I've never been sure why people hate it (Score:3)
It makes sense to me, and it isn't like the US would be the first or only free country with a national ID. Right now there's a strange situation where the government steadfastly insists that a passport is not for general ID, it is a travel document only, yet it is one of the best forms of ID since it is hard to forge and can identify you as a citizen or national.
To me, it would make sense to have a national ID that is a standard form, and available to all for no cost. This eliminates a lot of trouble with v
Re: (Score:2)
I'm soon going to have to renew my driver's license. I've been a licensed driver for decades now and there hasn't been a problem. But now suddenly, they want a bunch of supporting ID to prove that I am me. Not everyone has any of that supporting ID. I happen to still get one paper bill, so I can just manage to get adequate proof, but the only reason I still get that is because I knew I would have to prove I am me. Otherwise, it's all electronic.
I can easily imagine what a nightmare a stolen wallet can becom
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.
Yes, there would be many benefits, but they are generally argued against by both liberals and conservatives because "identification papers" were historically the marker of totalitarian regimes.
And, indeed, there is a strong argument that they still could be problematic in exactly that way. Note what has happened in the past 15 years or so in the response to 9/11, and the various rights that have been undermined particularly in air travel. Note the massive government spying efforts which completely skirt
Re: (Score:2)
Tattoos or implants cannot be denied. That is an important distinction.
The protected right to anonymity is actually an anonymous use of the First Amendment's right to free expression. Per the SCOTUS, "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority...It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society".
Anonymity as an inde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only. It's not just the look of the card, they have to add extra procedure for verifying your ID as well before issuing the card, even if you've had a license for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want them to be in 50 different databases please. Ideally with no electronic linking so that if the authorities of one state need info they need to convince the authorities of another state that it is necessary and proper AND create a paper trail. And I don't care to pay extra since we've done just fine with what we have now.
Meanwhile, those extra checks will make un-people. That is, people who don't happen to have any bills addressed to them at their current address and who don't have their SS card (perh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times [seattletimes.com]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's one thing for Mickey Mouse to be registered. That action has no specific, direct outcome on an election. It's quite another for Mickey Mouse to vote.
You've presented examples of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
And like every other religious person that objects to America's laws, they have the right to sue, and if it is determined that their rights are being impacted, a suitable arrangement can be made. It's happened before (notably, with the Mennonites and Social Security) and it will surely happen again. It's not really a big deal.
Compliance less than 50%? (Score:2)
There are 29 states not in compliance and 12 more who have outright rejected it? That is pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with the law even for the most educationally challenged individual.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 29 states not in compliance and 12 more who have outright rejected it? That is pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with the law even for the most educationally challenged individual.
From a few articles I've read, some states see the law as an unfunded mandate and don't want to pony up the cash themselves to implement it. Others mention privacy concerns, but I'm not sure that's valid - from the States' perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Far easier for the States to remain in status quo, and if people can't fly through their airports on some arbitrary date, then it becomes a massive fuck you to the Federal government.
No way the TSA ever completely shuts down a major airport over an ID pissing match with a state, much less 29 of them. There would be an executive order issued to "extend" the deadline well before that's allowed to happen.
This is an inter-governmental pissing match, and the States will win, because if the Feds had the balls to
Hah, funny coincidence (Score:2)
This was posted right after an article about 191M voters having their information exposed on a single database. But no, I'm sure requiring everyone to have their identifying information on a national database won't lead to any problems...
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that voter registration is public information, so that article was a story about public information being made public.
Oh noes!
Well, use a passport. Unless the IRS takes it. (Score:5, Informative)
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. [forbes.com] No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
Not Arbitrary (Score:3, Informative)
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. [forbes.com] No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.
More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.
We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.
None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.
Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.
Time to (Score:2)
Short Airline stock.
Fuck the Patriot Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED! (Score:5, Insightful)
The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state. 10th Amendment baby! Tell the TSA to allow people on the plane - or LEAVE the state.
Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!
Just remember the U.S. Government FUNDED and TRAINED Al Qada! Don't believe me - try reading your history! The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen during the 80's to fight Russia in Afganastan. Who was the head of the Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden! Where di Al Qada come from? The Mujahideen! Oh and while we are at it where did ISIS come from? Al Qada. Who the HELL do you think is behind all the "terrorism"? Your GOVERNMENT of course! Why would they do it? Look at all the TYRANNY that they have put into place in the name of "saving us from terrorists".
Madison's statement IS coming true!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison
Re: (Score:2)
Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!
I would like to spend a mod point on +1 Paranoid Ranting
Though of course it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Re: (Score:3)
Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!!
Why?
It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution.
Under what section?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Ok AC - back it up.
I will backup up my statements - The CFR - the ones who are behind LOTS of things have this to say:
"The self-proclaimed Islamic State is a militant movement that has conquered territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria, where it has made a bid to establish a state in territories that encompass some six and a half million residents. Though spawned by al-Qaedaâ(TM)s Iraq franchise, it split with Osama bin Ladenâ(TM)s organization and evolved to not just employ terrorist a
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget:
Anwar Al-Awlaki - Al Qaeda Leader dining at the Pentagon months after 9/11...
Proof:
Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
http://www.infowars.com/al-qae... [infowars.com]
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010... [foxnews.com]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't apply to the feds, and it doesn't even apply to all state actions. I have a driver's license and a concealed carry permit. By compact, the states all recognize each other's driver licenses. They don't all recognize each other's concealed carry permits, because there is no all-state compact to do so. And within a state, my permit means nothing the moment I walk o
Re: (Score:2)
Crossing state lines (Score:2)
I imagine that while you are only travelling within your own state, on inner state infrastructure there should be no need to respect these requirements? The issue is when you cross state lines, since you need the other state to trust the credentials of your state. This is where the federal identification comes into play, since instead of having to negotiate with the other states for standards of 'trust', they only need to do so with the federal government, for which this standard has been delegated to.
In th
2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employees (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not constitutional (discrimination)
Get rid of the drivers license! (Score:3)
Well, a state doesn't have to get rid of the license completely, just don't require it for travel within the state. Get other states to go along with it so people can drive state to state. We've been seeing "mission creep" on the drivers license for a long time. Even people that can't drive, or don't want to drive, still get to experience the DMV to get an ID to vote, get a bank account, or any of a number of things. This DMV issued, non-driver, ID is increasingly needed to travel by bus, plane, boat, or train. It's not a drivers license any more, its an internal passport.
The federal government can only push the states around as long as the states allow them to. Case in point, marijuana possession is illegal but yet no federal agency will even dare prosecute for this in those states that legalized it. The states have considerable power over the federal government, they can tell them where to go if they only grew a backbone.
Perhaps getting rid of the drivers license is too much just because the TSA wants to use it as an internal passport. What this is though is just one of many reasons on how what is supposed to be a record that one can pilot an automobile safely has gone well beyond this and has become a means by which the federal government can impose itself upon us.
Also, what few people will tell you is that it is perfectly legal to travel by commercial aircraft without government ID. You don't need an ID to fly, but everyone will tell you that you do. You might get hassled, delayed, and searched thoroughly but it's not illegal to travel without ID. As of yet we don't have a requirement to carry ID to travel, but the powers that be are working to change that.
Identifying oneself (Score:2)
I reuse to use my passport as ID for any national activity. International, sure. That's what it's for. But I do not, repeat, do not need a passport to travel within my own country, or from one location to another in the U.S.A.
I usually use my pilot's license as ID when I check in. Canadian ones look like passports [tc.gc.ca] and have many of the same security features. Fine. Or so I thought once when a glubeshnik at Oakland International Airport started blankly and called his supervisor. Rather than argue I showed
Creating more problems than it'll likely solve (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flying has long been in a different category. Special rules have long applied including searching you with metal detectors, screening your bags (or just stealing all the good stuff out), and you lose a lot of rights while in the air. While regrettable, this is just an incremental change, albeit for the worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When does the right of free passage equate to the right to taking a plane? If the government refused you to leave an area or to go into another one then I could see your rights being denied. But if you can't take a plane there are alternative methods for you to travel. It's the right to free passage, not the right to the fastest method of free passage.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.
In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The TSA doesn't only exercise their power over flying. They also search trains, buses, and have even tried to set up CBP-style random stop-and-search stations on interstate highways.
When you, with an Idaho license, get stopped in Idaho and detained because the TSA refuses to recognize your license as valid - Do you consider that just an "incremental change", or do you consider that a fundamental violation of your right to equal protection under the law as a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeeze! Another armchair Rambo...
Re: (Score:3)
Dear TSA: I can't wait to have you deny me, as an American citizen, my equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.
Bring it.
Test your rights now; refuse to take off your shoes for scanning. Let us know how far onto the plane you get.
We'll wait for your report.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should be shut down and replaced with professional law enforcement. The sort that know there are lines you don't cross without a warrant and who actually answer to a boss that cares about the law - professional.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one of us, anyway, counts as too stupid to recognize the difference between "willingness" and "ability" to comply.
I fully agree with Gilmore, but understand the grounds on which he lost. Totally different ballpark than having the federal government say "people from Idaho can't fly".
Re: Use a passport (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your state is not compliant, then you can use your US passport.
What if you don't have a passport?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the TSA is going to shut down 29 states worth of airports on some arbitrary date, if the states go to the brink on this.
Never going to happen, and the states know it. You thought the last government shutdown made Congress look stupid? That would look like a minor traffic jam in the middle of nowhere because of a few idiot rubbernecks in comparison. Not accepting 29 states worth of drivers' licenses would leave millions stranded, and result in untold number of cancelled airline tickets and b
Need a declared war for that. (Score:3, Interesting)
disband the TSA ... and execute everyone in charge of it for treason.
Can't convict 'em of treason - you need a declared war for that. (That's why Jane Fonda got to marry Tom Hayden, and later Ted Turner, rather than twist in the wind at the end of a rope. The Vietnam conflict was not a declared war.)
There's lots of other things you CAN hang on them, though.
I'd start with 18 U.S. Code  242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law [cornell.edu], which seems to be right on the mark.
It's a "wobbler": Misdemeanor (
Re: (Score:2)
A Title 18 suit against the TSA would make me giggle like a little kid, because it's actually rather appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.
Since he knows about the treason of Jane Fonda, he most likely didn't sit at home. Most likely he's a former Marine. The Marines will never forgive Jane Fonda.
Re: (Score:2)
Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?
Not a bad idea.
A phone app to upload pics/video with location/time data taken of government officials/employees and other state actors wherever/whenever encountered by average people to a database hosted in multiple locations somewhere out of the US government's reach (short of military action, of course) like Ecuador and others, with facial recognition and other sophisticated search/filter algorithms in place.
Turn the machinery of the panopticon back on them.
They shouldn't worry, though. It's only 'metadat