U.S. National Identity Cards All But Law 1083
CompSci101 writes "News.com is running a story about the RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage. How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ? The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away." From the article: "Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."
Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
So how possible would it be to get by without one? Regarding
I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.Might as well start writing the check out now to help fund the fight against this thing.
Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.
"Aus Passe!"
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness though, your statement was exactly what I was going to say.
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Interesting)
This is EXACTLY what we have got to stop allowing them to do!! We send tax dollars to the Feds...in order to enable them to extort us with these funds?
That, and something needs to be done about allowing them to tack irrelavent legislation onto any bills that go through. Only relavent items should be allowed on a bill...!!!
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably, the right to own slaves?
The right to own slaves wasn't the core issue. The civil right of a person in the USA to choose not to be a slave was what was won in the civil war.
After the war ended, many former slaves still chose to stay - working the fields in exchange for food and shelter - but the difference was it was their choice, and those who chose not to do this were allowed to leave.
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.
Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.
The war effectively ended on April 9, 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox. The 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was declared on December 18, 1865.
Explain to me, exactly, how several northern states were allowed to keep slav
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
And the bullshit goes on....
What was being determined was whether or not the states or the federal government would reign supreme over the U.S. of A. The feds settled the issue by burning most of the South to the ground.
Slavery was the excuse, not the reason.
Max
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Informative)
This is simply not true. Most Northerners were not abolitionists. Most northerners did not care about slavery in the South, so long as it stayed in the South and didn't wander into their back yards. Northerners were keenly interested in limiting the spread of slavery into the federal territories, which in 1860 was most of the country west of the Mississippi. This was more for economic than moral reasons. Slavery and capitalism simply can't function in the same place. Slavery sucks the life out of capitalism.
It's true that by 1860 abolitionist sentiment was growing in the North, thanks partly to the popularity of Uncle Tom's Cabin, but Northerners generally were not so enflamed about how awful slavery was in the South that they wanted to go to war over it.
At the same time, the plantation class in the South came to believe that they had to expand slavery into the territories in order to protect the institution itself. They were keenly interested in being sure new states entering the Union would be slave states. Otherwise, at some point in the future there might be a big enough majority of "free" states to amend the Constitution and ban slavery.
Also, cotton depletes nutrients in the soil, and if the same fields are used for growing cotton year after year, eventually there will be a reduced yield. Apparently crop rotation didn't occur to anyone back then. So, the plantation class wanted to move slavery into new territories (and not just U.S. territories) in order to keep production up with demand.
Most of the wealth of the antebellum South was concentrated in the hands of the plantation owners. Most southern whites were dirt poor, illiterate farmers, but the plantation class lived in lordly splendor. And the antebellum South was, in effect, a plutocracy controlled by the plantation class.
The southern plantation class believed slavery to be necessary to maintaining their wealth. The U.S. South was the chief supplier of high-quality cotton to Europe at the time. Plantation owners believed that their futures depended on the expansion of slavery into the territories, which Lincoln opposed and pledged to stop. Hence, as soon as Lincoln was elected the Southern states began to secede.
The secession conventions of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas wrote "declaration of causes" documents that explained their reasons for secession. The reasons were slavery, slavery, slavery, and also slavery. What caused secession is what caused the war. You can find links to these here [yale.edu]. This is what Mississippi had to say:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
And that's why there was a Civil War..
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the Native Americans kept slaves.
And if you're honestly upset about slavery, well do something about it. Slavery is more widespread now than ever before.
And it's not a play on the word "Slavery". But honest "I bought and paid for your ass and your life is mine."
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Funny)
-truth
PS, I wish I could take credit for this, but I can't. Saw it here on /. somewhere.
Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, try to get a state to pay you a debt (ie jury duty payment) in gold or silver coin, also mandated by the Constitution.
The Constitution exists only as long as people believe in it (much like the value of paper money, or anything else written on paper). Most Americans today have no idea what's in the Constitution, hence there is no consistent belief in its tenets. As a result of this, it basi
Re:Blank Reg (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's why they attached this thing to an Iraq spending bill...so they could ram it through Congress without actually having to debate the issues...on its own, it was expected to have trouble in the Senate.
Attached to an Iraq spending bill, it will have no trouble passing, and our esteemed President has already expressed his support.
This bill will impose costs on states (driver's licenses)without proper reimbursement, so there's a fighting point right there, but I don't realistically see this being stopped. Instead, it might be better to start thinking about how we might benefit from the imposition of this new technology.
Re:But why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification.
Also, Declan's article was misleading on this point:
Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.
Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID. The case was about a man's refusal to identify himself, not refusal to show ID. You are required to identify yourself, but that can be as simple as saying "my name is [insert name here]." If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest.
But to answer your question, why do I care? The first reason is that having to present this ID to board an airplane is a hindrance to both interstate commerce and freedom of assembly (note the environmental activists who were prevented from flying due to the secret watch list). But John Gilmore [freetotravel.org] does a much better job explaining this point.
Re:But why? (Score:3, Informative)
I've actually been issued an infraction before, as a passenger in a vehicle in the state of Connecticut (my home state), for not carrying "proper identification" with me. The officer insisted that I was being evasive for "not showin
Re:But why? (Score:3, Informative)
You may want to check with your state, but most states require everyone over the age of 18 to carry a state ID/DL/Passport/etc. If you do not and a cop stops you, he can cite you (possibly arrest you) for not carrying ID. Yes not many people know this, and probably not many cops would do this - but they can.
As for the ID's being a gold mine for marketers - no more or less so then state issued ID's like DL or gov
clarification (Score:5, Informative)
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.
Silly rabbit (Score:3, Funny)
(adopt slightly vacant look one gets when one watches TeeVee)
"Uh, sorry, I don't remember it."
You don't remember your social security number?
No, sorry.
(sigh) Fine. I'll let you off this time.
(yes, this time and every time, you fat, donut-eating pork belly product of generational incest) "Thank you."
Exit, stage left.
Re:But why? (Score:3, Insightful)
To turn it around: what good will this new id card do?
To any extent that it facilitates better tracking (or whatever), it's not too hard to come up with a scenario where that greater tracking is abused.
More generally, this intiative smells like any of a number of garden-variety post-9/11 "anti-terrorist security" notions that piss people off because they're showboating in the name of security while in fact simply taking away freedoms (and yes, anonymity is a freedom). Our "grea
Re:But why? (Score:5, Insightful)
But even without all the added security, it can never happen again. EVER! You see, back before 9/11 the thought was that if a terrorist was to hijack a plane, they wanted to go somewhere, maybe land and hold hostages for a while, negotiate, and eventually, if you were quiet and did what they said, you would go back to your family after a frightening ordeal.
Now that whole paradigm has changed. If a terrorist takes a plane, every man woman and child aboard will know that they WILL DIE if they do nothing. See the difference?
Before 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and live
After 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and die
The terrorists used a one-time window of opportunity to do what they did that day. But now, were it to happen, the terrorists themselves would die before they ever took the plane down. Every able bodied passenger will fight for their lives if facing death. How can a terrorist take a plane if there are 30 people willing to die fighting to re-gain control of the plane?
Using a plane full of passengers as a missile will never happen again. So all the airport security in the world, searching for box knives and zippo lighters, is only to make frightened people feel like they should be frightened, and more importantly, to take away more liberty.
The people of this country have got to figure out that the only way to loose the war on terror is to let your life be changed out of fear of terrorism. That's the whole goal of terrorists, and our government is simply letting them win.
Ok, more like ten cents than two...
You fogot one item... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also: to make it look like they're Doing Something About It(tm). AKA looking busy. All these newly-minted petty dictators have to keep enacting new egregious violations of your libery to keep reminding you why their jobs are "needed". If they just do their jobs, they'll eventually be let go as a
If you build it, villians will come (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument "Law abiding folk have nothing to fear" is used time and time again by oppresive governments. It's not the American way.
That said, I'm pretty sure a natio
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment IV: 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.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em. Remember that the BoR is a backup to the idea expressed in Amendment X...
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...that everything not expressly granted to the federal government is forbidden it. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity. (Only much later did it become apparent that the individual states were far from excellent guardians of liberty, and Amendment XIV was passed.)
Re:But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em.
Yep. That's the clincher.
There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity.
Unless
You can't avoid it. (Score:3, Insightful)
With all these sealed national borders and national ID card initiatives getting pushed through Congress, you may wake up one day and find you couldn't leave the U.S. if you wanted to.
Maybe we all need to take a breather and reread select chapters from Margaret A
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because dissent will get you far in todays political climate. Didn't you see the congressman on Farenheit 911 state very plainly that for the most part they don't even get to read and analyze what bills they are voting in? The Patriot Act is so fucking unpatriotic that George and Tom are still rolling in their graves. 200 years ago we went to war over such intrusions into our private lives and yet now we idly sit by and watch as slowly but surely the bill of rights becomes eroded with each new act of congress.
Think it is any small mystery that the government wants less people to own guns and certainly less people to carry them on their person? Why do you think militias, you know, those little civilian armies, you know, the ones that originally fought for our revolution, why the fuck do you think want them to only really have small arms and certainly no automatic weapons, bombs, grenades, or anything of power? The very real posibility that the people may one day get fed up with all these bullshit laws is precisely the reason that the federal government wants to ultimately have everything under wraps. Whatever happened to Taxation without Representation? Ask yourself honestly, who is being represented within the federal government? Who does congress typically side with? Who funded the media blitzes that got these cadidates seats within our government?
The political climate in this country is so stifling it makes me wonder how people can call themselves public servents when they have become so entirely self serving. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You should never trust any reigning power, including the president and his bought and sold republican congress. The people need a voice and that voice is drowning out in the politics of corporate america and the rethoric of an unwinnable war on terrorism. By coaxing the public into a constant state of fear, we have created a public opinion that our rights are not nearly as important as our safety. According to Mr. Franklin, we now deserve neither safety nor rights and will be given neither in this sad pursuit.
I think the James Madison quote in my sig speaks best about the current political environment. Remember, Madison and Jefferson both wanted no American to trust the federal government and left the flexibility in our constitution to tear down our government if need be and erect something in its place. As it happened with the original Articles of the Confederation, which basically gavae the federal government no authority, it was realized that such an arrangement would not work for a great many reasons, including the need for a single currency. Thus 10 years or so later, the Constitution was born and signed into law.
As long as people keep voting for a party that does paltry little to represent their voters and their voters' rights, then American will continue along this sombre path of imperialism, corruption, world manipulation, and war all in the name of protecting our "freedoms."
The next time you go to vote for someone, ask yourself, who does this candidate represent? If you can't put yourself into that picture, well then, who the hell can you vote for?
I hope your state does indeed fight this and my state as well, but unfortunately I'm sure that with the threat of removal of precious federal funding, most states will do as they have always done and bend over. Good thing you voted for those state reps right?
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
I was right with you up until the part above. This is in part why things happen as they do. The gov't gets people arguing about democrats this, republicans that, when the gov't institution itself is corrupt. It doesn't matter if they're
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think there should be no riders. Every bill should address one thing and one thing only, and should carry a title that clearly summarizes its intent. Of course, that would be the end of pork, so there's no chance in hell that it will happen prior to the revolution. But I can dream...
Re:Blank Reg (Score:3, Insightful)
Revelation 13:16-17 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Revelation 13:16-17 (Score:5, Funny)
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead"
So this would effectively reveal Dubya as the anti-christ? Yeah, kinda figured.... ;-)
Though I always had him cast as Jar-Jar with Rove as the Sith Lord.
Re:Revelation 13:16-17 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Revelation 13:16-17 (Score:4, Insightful)
16
Congress also forced everyone,
small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive an ID
and a card,
17
so that no one could buy or sell
unless he had the card, which bears
the number of his name.
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to break it to you, but this was kicked off in 1996 by Bill Clinton. link here [worldnetdaily.com]
From the article: For those who point to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Poole explains that President Bill Clinton recently signed Executive Order 13083 entitled "Federalism." That document effectively gives authority to the federal government to force anything it wants on states. No effort was made by anyone in Congress to overturn the Executive Order. Conservatives went to their legislators in 1995 to protest an effort by Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to establish a Conference of the States to address the issue of states rights and federalism.
Little notice was given to the issue in 1996 when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. One section of the act requires all states to make their driver's licenses comply with certain guidelines found in Section 656 (b) of the act. Federal agencies will be required to prohibit the use of state driver's licenses beginning Oct. 1, 2000, unless they comply with the federal standards.
"These new National ID regulations violate every notion of federalism, because they force states to comply with regulations issued by the federal government without any constitutional authority to do so," says Patrick Poole of the Free Congress Foundation. "Nor are federal agencies empowered to force state to gather detailed information on every person in order to comply with federal mandates. The net result of the DOT's regulations is to establish a national ID system, which has been opposed by almost every non-governmental sector for the past five decades." Shortly after the passage of the act by congress, Utah state Rep. Gerry A. Adair introduced a bill to comply with the federal requirements.
Without the new card it may become impossible to purchase firearms, get a job, board a plane, vote, cash a check, open a bank or investment account, purchase insurance, receive federal benefits, obtain a student loan, receive Medicare or Medicaid benefits, and many more basic services presently taken for granted according to Poole. Once the card is in use, Poole suggests that privacy will be a thing of the past.
All of this said, this is one of the reasons I can't stand it when ppl blame everything on Bush without even doing any research.
Re:Blank Reg (Score:5, Insightful)
RFID chips in IDs: (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
Looks like devices like these [eweek.com] are going to become very popular very soon...
Also, devices like these [rense.com] could be used to really complicate the lives of people you dislike...
Re:RFID chips in IDs: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:RFID chips in IDs: (Score:3, Funny)
The guy that said this was wearing a black suit, so he must have been telling the truth.
Re:RFID chips in IDs: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shielded wallets already exist I suppose, but they lack the punch of saying "faraday cage" to people. It just sounds better.
Re:RFID chips in IDs: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two years ago, the US have imposed that all foreign passport have to be machine readable for people from countries in the Visa Waiver program. In Switzerland, this forced a lot of people to get new passports, which caused a huge backlog. Now that most people me including have new passports which are machine readable, they want passeport with biometric information, so expect biometric information on US ID card within six years.
Going to conferences in the US is rea
Re:RFID chips in IDs: (Score:3, Insightful)
How soon? (Score:5, Funny)
you mean theres a difference?
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government officials almost never go to jail.
Re:How soon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since this works with all the states, the crooks need only go to a state with a broken education system [slashdot.org] and take advantage of the people to get in the system.
And as pointed out, the system is as weak as the state with the weakest system.
At least TFA isn't beating around the bush (Score:5, Informative)
Q: Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill?
Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief.
As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now.
Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, line-item veto's are a great Constitutional discussion. It would probably require an Ammendment to the Constitution in order to change from the method Congress uses now to something that resembled line-item veto's or riderless legislation.
Whoa! (Score:5, Interesting)
The "New Labour" government got back in the UK (with a reduced minority) so are going to try to introduce ID cards here, but at least there's going to be a hell of a debate on it now they won't be able to steamroller it through.
http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]
Like all this growth in government (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been moving in this direction for years (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans had freedom and are willingly throwing it away. All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing. WAKE UP!
Nice trick (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military
> spending bill??
> Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops
> in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat
> vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.
The Republicans control congress and the executive branch now, and they wanted [house.gov] to have this National ID bill. By attaching this to a wholly unrelated military spending bill, the so-called advocates of small government will get their national ID card wish.
As an interesting aside it's funny that they chose to stick this into a military spending bill for Iraq. Anyone recall that the Bush Administration told us told this war was going to cost? I thought this was was supposed to cost between $10 and $100 billion [salon.com]? We're already more than three times the high end figure, with no end in sight. This is the fourth emergency allocation of money Bush has asked for for his war "on the cheap".
Anyway, make no mistake about it. The Republicans are now using their complete control to railroad this bill through, by sticking this thing in a military spending bill. It's a perfect catch-22. If the Democrats voted against it, they would have been accused of being against our troops (John Kerry, please take some time to describe how that feels). If they voted for it, it miraculously becomes a bipartisan bill so the Republicans can pass the blame around to evade responsibility. Even after this, the Democrats can be accused of "flip-flopping" since they voted against the national ID before, and now they're voting for it when it's buried in a military spending bill (Senator Kerry, your turn again). Wow, it's a win-win-win situation for the Republicans.
Of course, for the Democrats and the public in general, it's a nice lose-lose-lose situation though. Maybe a brave Democrat can filibuster this bill so it doesn't get railroaded through. Oh, wait, the Republicans want to get rid of the filibuster [nytimes.com], too.
I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.
Re:Nice trick (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that this bill is problematic in setting up a de-facto (if not in-facto) national ID card. However you really need to RTFA (again perhaps) as it clearly states that the ID card rider had already been passed in a stand-alone bill before it was tacked onto the military spending one. Yes, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for dissenting reps who may have changed their mind having learned more about it since the first time it went through, but this is not a backdoor bill, it already had major support.
On a side note re: your mention of the rampant spending for this war - at what point can we begin impeachment for such blatant lies? We entered this war with no exit strategy, no reconstruction plans. Hell I'd be astonished to learn Bush had planned anything farther than "bang-bang shoot em up real good". I think it's pretty clear that this administration has at no point cared about actual public opinion, political results, or actual cost. They wanted this war at any cost and have lied, cheated, and passed the buck from day 1 of Bush taking office. As much as every piece of government seems to be in bed with the executive branch (goodbye checks and balances) I can't believe there is no legal case against half the cabinet members for knowingly misleading the public and basically doing whatever the hell they want with zero regard for legality, international relations, or - for fssk's sake - the consequences of their actions over the next generation.
"Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun is terror elsewhere in the world where I'm from." - Special Delivery, MC Frontalot
Re:Nice trick (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, all Democratic senators and representatives do these days is read Slashdot.
Maybe that's a good idea for them. Instead of standing up there reading a phone book, they could pick a slashdot article and read all the comments. They might even learn a thing or two in the process.
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem (Score:5, Informative)
Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years. (Score:5, Insightful)
Things were getting better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, so much for that.
Abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably about as quickly as emergency military spending bills have been abused to pass RealID Card legislation.
Warning: Alarmist Article (Score:3, Insightful)
"Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."
What standards doesn't my driver's license have? Again, FTA:
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on.
Checking my driver's license:
[x] Name
[x] Birth Date
[x] Sex
[x] ID Number
[x] Digital Photograph
[x] Address
[x] Machine-readable technology: both a magstrip and a barcode.
What states are issuing driver's licenses without this information on them?
Emergency military spending bill (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the line item veto [loc.gov] was popular, despite being blatently unconstitutional. A few congress persons sitting on a committee can completely disrupt the validity of a bill. Nobody is going to veto a bill that gives money to the military and be responsible for leaving them high and dry. And the bill also gives tsunami aid. Nobody will veto that either.
It should be unconstitutional to place this type of stuff on a bill. It is also highly irresponsible of our congress people to not flame anyone who tries to do this stuff. I don't know how to word the ammendment, but it would probably do a LOT to clean up some of the obnoxious laws that sneak into place.
Additional Information (Score:3, Informative)
Feel free to make your own del.icio.us account and add to the collection.
As a non-US citizen... (Score:4, Interesting)
Who exactly has the authority to 'attach' things to a bill? If I was a politician and was sure that a bill had a 100% chance of passing (say, one of these 'emergency, need money for our troops' bills), what would prevent me from attaching to it a few pork projects for the people who elected me for example?
Re:As a non-US citizen... (Score:4, Informative)
Essentially what happens is that representatives (bills originate in the House of Representatives, the lower house) can add their own provisions, make edits, whatnot, of draft bills submitted for review. It's basically a way of saying "change this-and-that or I won't vote for it"--if you have a lot of influence, for example through which committees you chair, you can exercise substantial control over things like budgets, membership in committees (and thus peoples' political careers, etc.)
Committees also have varying degrees of influence of new bills as they can "go to committee" for review, editing, whatnot--for example, the senate foreign relations committee, select committee on intelligence, and others have pretty inordinate amounts of power. The chair of these can engage in what is essentially blackmail to get his way, or to help a colleague/ally/whatever.
No, nothing prevents you from attaching pork projects. And yes, it's shit.
Re:As a non-US citizen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, this is how Senators get wasteful and special interest spending passed as political favors to the people who funded their reelection campaigns.
Now, it gets even more sad when you realize that the only thing that a candidate needs to do to get elected is to greatly outspend his opponent. Darth Vader would win over Jesus Christ if Jesus spend $2000 and Vader spent $2,00,000 on his campaign. It's works because the populous is so
And section 102 IS STILL THERE??? (Score:4, Informative)
"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'"
As a foreigner living in the USA (Score:3, Informative)
When most people here think that it is OK to discriminate against foreigners living here legally by passing crap like this [tennessean.com] then you should not be surprised when the power to abuse this is kicked a few notches higher.
I am also constantly amazed when I speak to most Americans around me about the Patriot Act. They seem to live in this dream world thinking that it will only be used against "terrorists". Yeah. Right.
What's the definition of "Internal Passport"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, any /. folks old enough, like me, to remember how we would react with derision and scorn at the horrifying stories of people in the USSR being required to have "internal passports" for travel and always carry identity papers? Well, just for giggles, how would you define "internal passport" and how is that different from this?
Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.
Flying will require this, but really, is it any different than how you fly now? Flying is n
Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly don't think it's quite as onerous, but it's not too far from it. I did read the article and here's the second paragraph:
Further, with the Suprem [epic.org]
What No One Seemed to Notice (Score:3, Insightful)
"The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...
"Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about
"Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...
"Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...
"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."
Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955)
__________________________________
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001
Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Safer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Requiring identification is basically a way of tracking people; fishing expeditions.
Scanning for explosives, etc is what they should concentrate on... most, if not all?, of the 911 terrorists had valid licenses; many of them had no criminal records
Ron Bennett
Not too late, call your senator, here's a form: (Score:4, Insightful)
They have a very easy form to contact your senator on this issue.
They are also working on a law proposal that would force lawmakers to read the laws before they get to vote on them. A good idea and well presented.
Funny/scary ACLU "movie" that's relevant to this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What's really wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
New bill going through to prevent the government from beating up your dear, sweet grandma... (and we snuck on legislation that allows us to sneak into your home and rummage through your stuff for any reason we decide, without informing you)... can't vote that down, think of all the grandmas!
Also bans torture and "extraordinary rendition" (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure which is worse - allowing the government to continue to kidnap potentially innocent people and send them to other countries to be tortured, or a national ID that's little more than the existing drivers' licenses.
Fortunately we still have the Second Amendment. For now.
i certainly dislike this, but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
And requiring such a national ID card to fly in an airplace sucks.
And a lot of other things about this ID thing suck.
But there is one upside to this: reduction of election fraud. If you're required to scan in when you vote, voter disenfranchisement should plummet... assuming Diebold doesn't get it's slimy hands on the system, of course. Sorry Chicago, no more "Vote early, vote often" of yore.
A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner (Score:4, Interesting)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] House approves Real ID Act;one Democrat's
objections [priv]
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:50:32 -0800
From: James Moyer
To: Declan McCullagh
Declan,
With the approval of the REAL ID Act, I believe it's time to place blame
of it passage and make sure that Congress knows that there are people
who still believe in liberty and care about their privacy.
For this reason, I believe that we (those who care) should begin a
campaign against Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, to make sure
that he loses the September 2006 Congressional Primary.
We must make it clear, to the people of the 5th Wisconsin district, that
Rep. Sensenbrenner, is directly responsible for the creation of the
National ID Card, through his sponsorship and work on the REAL ID Act.
We must make it clear that Rep. Sensenbrenner is putting American's
identities and lives at stake, by fomenting the introduction of RFID
based passports (a result of his "leadership" as chair of the House
Judiciary Committee.)
And finally, we must make it clear to people of faith in his district,
that he is *most* responsible for paving the way toward the Mark of the
Beast, as predicted in the book of Revelations, and that, like the Mark
of the Beast, no American shall be able to "buy or sell" without one of
Jim Sensenbrenner's "REAL IDs." There should be no doubt his work on the
REAL ID Act is entirely unchristian.
By aggressively targeting Jim Sensenbrenner next year, we shall make it
clear to leadership that we are demanding that they take liberty and
privacy needs into account. We can further awake the sleeping giant of
Christians who are concerned about National ID card issues, but haven't
found a medium for voicing their concerns.
Now's the time to begin such a campaign, so that everyone is well aware
of Sensenbrenner's dastardly REAL ID act. By September 2006 every
churchgoer in the Wisconsin 5th shall be aware of it as well.
Anyone who wants to work on this project is more than welcome to get in
touch with me.
James Moyer
... the irony of this is incredible ... (Score:3, Insightful)
My gun club is populated by a lot of right-wingers, some of whom are pretty far right. The guy I buy my ammo from used to regale me (because he knows I'm a lefty) with tales of how the liberals were trying to institute national IDs which would stomp on states rights. He used to say stuff like "The liberals are gonna take away our freedom to go where we please when we please without having to show papers. It'll be illegal to just be walking down the street without anything in your pockets. Then they'll take away our guns." I laughed at him then and I confess that it's still pretty funny to me. Nobody's going to take away our guns, after all.
It's especially funny that the same righties that used to holler and crow about how those liberal treehugging twits were gonna take away our rights are now the same ones that want national ID cards. Now that's ironic.
It's funny also because I used to think that conservatives were for smaller federal government that leaves more responsibilities to individual states and doesn't spend so much money. Yet, these IDs are very much a big-government imposition on the states, the federal ban on gay marriage is one more such example, the Terry Schiavo fiasco proves that the fed is even willing to bypass the states to step on individual rights, and I've never seen an administration spend so much borrowed money since the Reagan years. Do republicans stand for anything conservative anymore?
I'll probably garner some flame for this post, but there just seem to be so many examples over the past couple years where the supposed "conservative" parts of the legislature and the admittedly conservative executive branch have taken stands that are so completely at odds with conservatism as I've always understood it. Honestly, I'm not intending to start a right-left flame war -- some of my best friends are republicans, not to mention folks in my family -- I'm just trying to figure out what being a conservative means at this time.
Sorry, Godwin... (Score:3, Insightful)
We got compulsory ID here in the Netherlands first though (well, before the US...in january 2005)...funny thing is, that's the seconds time in 60 years we've had that happen.
Which box is it time for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let me summarize it for ya: we've been speaking out against the government's intrusions into personal privacy, the bill of rights, etc. And then there's the lack of representation of the people because so many congresscritters have sold their souls to the corporations.
After all the screaming and shouting we all got to vote with our hearts, but then we're stuck with a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario because of our 2-party system where both candidates aren't about to serve the best interests of the people anyway. Hell, has that really ever been the case with oligarchies like the US gov?
And to top it off, the 2000 election was not so quietly stolen by not so obvious voter fraud, thanks in part to Bush family ties to Choicepoint's owners (which is the company that eliminated the number of votes to give "W" the Florida electorate).
So, we've used the soapbox extensively, in fact I'm doing it now. We've used to ballot box, but that didn't seem to have any affect. So what's that leave us with?
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
1) Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill.
2) It means nothing that it was passed by the house. If you follow the article a bit more (part 2):
It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you completely, with the exception of the 'shocking' part.
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.
There is also no reason to believe it would have passed the senate.
"Running into trouble" != not passing
Similarly, "Running into trouble" != passing. So the best either of us can do is to say that we can't know how the stand-alone bill would have done in the senate.
I think you're smart enough to know the point of my arguement. That is, that it is wrong to tack an unrelated rider that may have touble passing onto a bill that is guaranteed to pass. Any laws passed in this way are patently wrong, no matter what they legislate for or against.
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, whoop-ti-doo, we just found a wonderful way to avoid all that messy discussion and debate. Declare it "likely to do stuff" and just toss it on the pile of "must be voted for" items.
Look, you admit it shouldn't have been on a spending bill, so why bother people with all the logic when what you really are saying is "the fact it won't get debated doesn't bother me because I'm for the whole thing". The people who are annoyed are annoyed because of the bypass of the whole open discussion and debate part of our lawmaking process. Obviously those opposed to it would be more annoyed than those who see it as manifest destiny. Even if it passed after discussion, it likely would be modified in some way if the normal processes took place. Ever notice the phrase "reconciling house and senate versions of the bills" bouncing around? That is because both houses have different makeup and therefor different viewpoints and often make different choices. Now the alternative viewpoint is squelched. Sure, the end result might be the same. In fact, it is probable... but why be all happy and supportive of short curcuits to the law making process?
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
I bef of you.
How dare you bef of me!!!
Heh heh...Ok, seriously,
With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?
The Department of Homeland Security is already pushing RFID. FTA:
The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant
I think you missed the point there...t
You want reasons not to have an ID card? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing when you give them the benefit of the doubt. You usually can't take it back. Once the floodgates are open, they can't generally be closed.
You fail to realize the reason of the dichotimy(sp?) between the two slashdot viewpoints: Technology is an enabler, but it is a much more efficient oppressor. Slashdotters want technology that enables, and don't want technology that oppresses, or can oppress. It's quite simple really.
Considering that Texas is considering RFID tags on all license places, and yes, police would scan them automatically for criminals in the like, I'd say the "trcaking system" infrastructure is already being put in place. (Only if the license gets an RFID tag, now they'll know if someone's borrowing your car or not.) And as more and more things are RFID-mandated, more and more government buildings will have readers, then like red-light cameras they'll be red-light RFID readers (to help catch people who run red lights, of course)... The end result will indeed be tracking of everyone's movements. Technology as an oppressor. NO ONE has to have that idea in mind now for that to be what happens; it's simply where the current trend will end up.
You also seem to think that just because there are not men in dark suits in a dimly-lit board room conspiring against us, that there is no conspiracy. There is a conspiracy, but it is more a de-facto conspiracy of ideas and moral forces that mesh together to create things bigger than any single human being (corporations, government entities, grassroot movements). That the conspiracy doesn't have a specific face does not mean that it is not something that should be fought against.
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal Identification
This is blatently anti-American, or at a bare minimum anti-Checks and Balances. Primary identification has always been a function of the state. In fact, I can rarely use my military ID in place of a state ID at banks and the like. Places that do accept it often require additional identification, where if I had used my state driver's license, that one piece would suffice.
RFID as a Convenient Technology
Why, you ask, is it that most
Now, if those same RFID chips make it more convenient for a would-be thief to steal my identity, or for government agents in a terrorist-stricken world to pilfer my whereabouts, then I am against it. Stolen identity != good. You following?
Uniformity in Identification
Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US. Uniformity is not always a good thing. Each state creates it's own forms of ID, and those agents that are required to request that ID understand where/what/how data is stored on those cards. Nobody else needs to know. *shrug*
Final Comments
Now DNA/Fingerprints I don't see as much of a problem. Of course, being in the Army, they already have that for me. Frankly, the only thing I can see that being used for is matching criminal investigations. The amount of effort spent tracking a person down for whatever reason solely on DNA and/or fingerprints is outrageous. However, RFID, GPS, tracking devices, cameras... Anything that allows a person to be tracked by the government (even for potentially legitimate reasons) allows a person to be tracked by malevolent persons as well. That is never an option IMHO.
Re:*Please* RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the reason is not to track citizens, it will eventually be used for it if allowed. Speed pass records have been confiscated in investigations ever since the speed pass was introduced. Do you think that the government won't subpoena records of where you've been if they deem you a threat? It's already done with credit card records, cell phone usage records, etc etc. Except in this case the ID card scanner will probably have to phone home to a central server to verify the card. Now the government won't have to go through the hassle of collecting all this data, when it's already in their hands. Allows for a lot more shuffling of locational data to make a case appear to fit (even if the data is only circumstantial.)
Granted, this data mining will probably be used MOSTLY on investigations where there is already a suspect, and this information could also be subpoenad by a defendant to prove his innocence. Basically if you feel that your government is generally benevolant, there should not be a problem with using this tech. However if you have fears [oldamericancentury.org] that your government is moving towards more totalitarianistic [wikipedia.org]or even fascist [wikipedia.org] state, then you might actually has a valid reason to fear this.
Re:For the . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.
Let's use the old NRA argument here. One of the main reasons the NRA is opposed to gun registration (excluding their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) is that criminals will not register their guns, thus only legitimate gun owners will be registered and potentially tracked.
This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?" Do you really think they won't be able to get fake credentials that are as good as these IDs or can be used to get a legitimate ID?
And finally, do you really think that the government won't abuse this new power (i.e. knowleged of your every purchase, move, travel, etc.)? Who do you think will hold and compile these data? My guess is an Oracle based system. Do you really think that our corporatocracy will keep this information away from corporations?
Can you imagine how much corporations would pay to know your every move, flight, purchase, hotel reservation, rental, etc. etc. etc? These data are worth billions upon billions and they won't be sitting idly in some database in DC doing nothing.
Re:For the . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, yes I do. I think they will do it again and again and again until they have all the cards they need.
UK anti-ID card pages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834 [bbc.co.uk]
and
http://www.no2id.net/ [no2id.net]
Re:For the . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I entirely agree. First of all, it is worth remembering that almost all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid, DMV-issued IDs. There is nothing that I can see in this bill that is going to fix that. It will also screw up the effort in some states to give limited driver's licenses to (possibly) illegal immigrants, in the interest of seeing that they actually know how to drive, have insurance, and so on. Since, statistically, your chances of dying in an auto accident are much higher than in a terrorist incident, I don't think this is a trivial concern.
Second, the whole concept of checking IDs against a list in order to fly is stupid. If we know who the suspects are, it would be much more efficient to spend the resources investigating what they're doing. Does anyone actually believe that potential terrorists are so dumb that they'll not try flying before they do the real thing? Or that they might not consider just blowing up a shopping center or a sports stadium?
These data are worth billions upon billions and they won't be sitting idly in some database in DC doing nothing.
Even assuming I trusted the government 100% not to misuse this data, one class of people to whom it would be very valuable are identity thieves. I suppose the argument will be that the database is so secure it can't be hacked.
Right.
Re:For the . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
How wil this stop a hijacking? None of the previous group used false ID. And neither will the next group.
You obviously have no idea of how they were able to crash those planes and why it won't happen again. The reason they succeeded was because in the entire histiory of domestic hijacking the best way ti survive was to sit down and shut up. The hijackers wanted money, travel out of the country, the freedom of a comrade, or some other goal that only power outside of the plane could grant them. The passangers were hostages and the plane was a convenient container to keep them in. The 9/11 hijackers played a completelt new set of rules. The passangers meant nothing to them. They wanted the aircraft.
Do you get that? The rules changed and only the hijackers knew it. But now everyone knows. The next time someone tries to hijack a plane they are going to get the shit kicked out of them by people who don't want to die. Just look at what happened to the "shoe bomber".
But this begs the question: "how much of your privacy are you willing tio give away?" What will you give away when terrorists find a different way to attack us? And what about the attacks after that? At what point do you declare that you've had enough?
The brutal truth is that there is no way to stop terrorists completely. If they really want to hurt us they will. They will find ways to attack us that we haven't thought to defend against.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana