More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states. The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network. Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."

DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[curmudgeon99]

Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world. It is only through government stupidity and lethargy that this hasn't happened already. Anybody who has a DB is going to link them up if at all possible. The only thing we have on our side is the delay caused by government sloth.

Your best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[Heian-794]

Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.

Re:

[Yvanhoe]

Maybe American agencies are not used to non-ASCII characters, but I think they are a standard and mandatory feature of every Asian and European intelligence database. And as much as I like to bash American administration, I doubt that they don't have the necessary bridges to track an individual whose name is usually written in, say, arabic.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[morgan_greywolf]

You might want to read this guy's story about being an illegal in Prague [blogspot.com]. Some brief quotes:

My employer didn't even know my last name (and spelled my first name in phonetic Czech), I had no listing, no cell phone, no junk mail. I was officially off the grid. ...
Eventually I went home, and then returned in good financial standing a year later. I worked about a year, and then ran my own business as an illegal alien. Eventually, I got my papers, but it was no easy task. ...
Now the point is that the Czechs didn't care that I was already in the country. In fact, I had to show that I had already made connections and had resources. If I had been arrested at some point, I would have been out of the running. If I was a criminal at home, they didn't want me.

Re:

[PhysicsPhil]

Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.

Provided you don'

Re:

[argStyopa]

Great advice!
Let's see the places with non-Roman alphabets: Russia...Japan...China....various Middle-Eastern countries....Israel.

Wow, there are SO MANY places on that list where I would feel that my private and personal data is so much secure (particularly from government abuse) than here. LOL.

Re:

[dcw3]

Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.

Even if you make les

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[mikelieman]

Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?

Re:

[ArcherB]

Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy??

How does this invade your privacy? Is there a camera on these things?

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[trianglman]

It invades our right to privacy by requiring this card for any action we might take, thus allowing the government to track every thing we do. These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets), when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc. Currently, no single government agency has the legal right to get this information without dozens of search warrants; once all of this is grouped together, one agency will have full, unmitigated access to do all the data mining they might want.

Now, you might say, "But thats not what this legislation is for, its to prevent fraud." The fact remains that privacy will be lost and we will face these consequences. Even if the current administration shows restraint with these powers (fat chance of that) others could in the future.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[ArcherB]

It invades our right to privacy by requiring this card for any action we might take, thus allowing the government to track every thing we do. These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets), when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc. Currently, no single government agency has the legal right to get this information without dozens of search warrants; once all of this is grouped together, one agency will have full, unmitigated access to do all the data mining they might want.

How is this different from existing state ID's?

Am I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?

enumerated Right_To_Privacy

[advocate_one]

enumerations...

#ifndef _Right_To_Privacy_H
#define _Right_To_Privacy_H

namespace Right_To_Privacy_n
{
const int None = 0;
const int Easy_To_Get_Warrants = 1;
const int Hard_To_Get_Warrants = 2;
const int Full = 3;
}

#endif // _Right_To_Privacy_H

Giving Up is Not Inevitable

[Doc Ruby]

FWIW, the government sloth and lethargy is part of the American ideology of limiting government so it can do the least harm to the people, while doing the most work for us. I'd rather have an inefficient government topheavy with accountability than an efficient totalitarianism.

Those of us who work with the government (I advise the NYC City Council's Technology committee) know that governments, born to bureaucracy, have the most chance of actually adhering to policies that prohibit invasive DB linking, when the people get involved to stop aggressive officials with Big Brother dreams. They live by those rules and the audits. If they are designed by both policy and info architects, to actually work with the "machinery" of people who run them.

If you are that fatalistic, and just give up, of course exploiters in government, and the "subcontractors" who love them (and pillaging their data) will track your every move. Only if you do something to engage your democracy will you make it work for you. You are the "dem" in democracy.

Re:NYC Is A Bastion

[Doc Ruby]

government can do what it wants because nobody cares

Well, your fatalistic comment perpetuates that apathy, which is self-perpetuating.

I lived in SF, where government access was just as open (in the early 1990s). I lived in Albany, NY, in the 1980s, and there was absolutely no access to the government by mere citizens, even under Cuomo "the Great". I lived in New Orleans the first part of this decade, and mere citizen access to N'O/LA government (without a fistful of cash or a cemetery of old boy relatives) was a dream, a joke, a thorough hoax. We'll see whether near extinction has any constructive effect, especially depending on which outsiders (if any) move in, bringing expectations of government with them.

Interactive government is a culture that varies by region. But the underlying rituals, however vestigal, leave all Americans somewhere to start reactivating citizen access, even if it's a long road to a real republican democracy. It's worth doing. And the only one who can do it is "you", whoever "you" are.

Re:

[Dr. Eggman]

I love the grid life but I want information security too. I don't fear the government too much, like you said, they're lethargic and stupid. But I do fear the government's stupidity. If the government starts linking up all kinds of databases full of information like that found on the driver's liscence to who know's what else, how long until they link my credit history to my information? Surely there's a connection between credit rating to poverty and poverty to crime? Sure, that's not going to be a real pr

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[pla]

Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world.

Those of us who work everyday with databases should also know the reliability, performance, and interoperability of a large collection of databases all independantly designed, implemented, and maintained by different people, running on different platforms, and intended for different purposes.

Good luck pulling out anything meaningful - You might have a lot of "data", but I'd trust an appropriations bill for an Alaskan bridge before I'd rely on anything you could query from a multi-state DB monstrosity.

Re:

[garcia]

Good luck pulling out anything meaningful - You might have a lot of "data", but I'd trust an appropriations bill for an Alaskan bridge before I'd rely on anything you could query from a multi-state DB monstrosity.

What *you* trust and what the Government is told to trust are two different things. Everyone knows data is skewed. They just want to make sure it's skewed to support their interests and pet projects. If it is, the data is published.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable

[gfxguy]

Isn't it ridiculous how often our SS numbers are required? We keep forgetting the promise that they wouldn't be used as national ID numbers, that they'd only be used for social security.

When I bought my house, I couldn't believe how many times I had to give out my number to people. Moreover, less than six months after moving into my house, someone used my SS number to open a credit card account and had already defaulted.

After getting really pissed off about it, the next time someone asked my SS number (a membership at Sam's club), they refused to allow me to use a credit card (not theirs, just a plain old Visa or Mastercard), I had to use cash. I said "fine."

But you simply can't avoid it. I go to a new doctor, and I have to fill out a form with my SS number because I'm the responsible party for my family. If I refuse there, it's not a mere annoyance, it's being shown the door with a hearty "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out."

It's a good first step

[knightmad]

I wish they could take advantage of the timing and challenge other measures like national speed limit and national drinking age too, putting an end on this bastardized federalism that is not only against the intention of the Founding Fathers but very damaging to the very concept of the whole thing.

Re:It's a good first step

[east coast]

There hasn't been a national speed limit [wikipedia.org] for over a decade now.

Re:

[Bishop923]

I doubt it, I recently moved from Maryland to Wyoming (I hate people and Maryland has way-too-fucking many of them) and -none- of the states between here and there had a speed limit below 65 mph, States like South Dakota & Wyoming allow up to 75 mph. If you know Wyoming roads, even this is a loose restriction, there is so much road and such a low population density that outside the larger towns there are few, if any, cops to enforce the speed-limit in the first place.

Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age

[WindBourne]

We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.

you used the wrong approach

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have placed tolls (collected simply by cops in cruisers) at all road entrances to your state and had them collect a (large -- think 5-figure or more per-vehicle) toll only from federal (military, etc.) vehicles.

Ensure that if the feds want to use your roads then they *will* fund them whether its indirectly (as per usual) or directly.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age

[AlHunt]

We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.

This is one of the things Americans need to stand up against - the feds holding states hostage.

Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age

[Rob the Bold]

Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.

As de Tocqueville said:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"

Oh the Irony!

[FatSean]

Now it is the Southern and MidWestern states which benefit from the federal government squeezing the Northern/Coastal states for tax money to re-distribute to the Southern and Midwestern states!

Perhaps the North should rise up, buy our food from South America, and stop giving welfare to states that can't compete! /partly kidding

Re:

[Lloyd_Bryant]

the fight for state rights is a red herring, a shell game. its a front for social conservatives to, ironically, push agendas which damage personal liberties more than anything that could go down in washington dc

when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could

I have no choice but to disagree. The issue of "states rights" is, of course, not necessarily in line with the notion of individual rights. But while a state can erode individual liberties, it can only do so within a limited region. In contrast, when the federal government does the same, the entire nation is affected.

I'm not sure who originated the term "laboratory of the states" (Sandra Day O'Conner?), but it summarizes the reason that states rights are important. Instead of having federal bureaucritt

Re:your post is classic demagoguery

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

state versus nation != individual versus government

True.

anyone reading your post above would get the distinct impression that when the state of maine fights washington dc, they are fighting for your individual rights

In a way that is true. Laws like one restricting 18 year old people from drinking are anti-freedom. They remove the rights of an individual to choose for themselves. When the federal government imposes such a restriction, it restricts at least as many and perhaps more people than a federal restriction. As such, making this an issue of states rights, instead of a federal mandate results in no more, and quite likely less restriction of freedom.

seems to me that the state of maine is fighting for the rights of the state of maine

I take it you don't see the benefit of moving more power to the states.

why in a million years should i trust that the government in augusta to be a better guarantor of my rights than washington dc?

You shouldn't trust them and that isn't the reason to support state rights. Why do extremely socialist countries turn into authoritarian regimes? Many of them have a democratic process that is completely subverted, but started off very similar to our own. So why is it that those countries so commonly fail in that way? The answer is quite simply, consolidation of power. The more power you put in fewer hands the more motivation and risk of that power being seized by an individual or group. The more centralized your decision making and the more people you have answering to a single authority, the greater the risk.

The founders of our country understood this risk. They broke up the federal government into competing branches and spent a lot of time specifically writing own all the powers the feds should never have and trying to bolster state rights as much as possible. They knew the less power was concentrated in one place, the harder it would be for a single group to control that power for personal gain and to the detriment of the people. Also they understood an important facet of human nature. Power tends to consolidate. People who seek positions of power are the same sort who tend to want accumulate more power. Unchecked, they would take more and more power until they were an authoritarian system. That is why it is important to decentralize power and have multiple factions competing.

i am firmly of the opinion that my individual liberties are better preserved by undermining state's rights

On a case by case basis, this can be true, but in the grand scheme of things, every power the feds get increases the risk that the US will be completely taken over by a small group.

state capitols, it seems to be, always seem to be rotten with more corruption and social conservative agendas (agendas always at odds with personal liberties and freedoms) than what goes on washington dc

Sometimes, but the damage they can do is limited because it only applies to one state. As such, there will always be reform movements and people can always vote by walking to a new state. When it gets too bad, there are the feds to step in and clean house. If we instead centralize all power with the feds, who steps in and cleans house?

what goes on in montpelier or sacramento or bismarck is no better, and often a lot worse, and often a lot less scrutinzed

Actually the more localized an issue, the more likely people are to both get involved and feel that they can make a difference. Ask the average person if they think their vote in the general election matters. Now ask them if they think their vote on state constitution amendments matters. Now ask about the local school millage. Notice a trend? The individual would be right to. It is possible to become active and get a Green party or Libertarian party candidate elected mayor. It has even happened that they have been elected to control a state. The same sort of reform on the federal level is unlikely to ever happen beca

Re:

[siriuskase]

The drinking age thing comes up just about every time the Georgia legislature meets. The traditional argument is that people old enough to fight our wars should be able to have a drink, so sometimes, it is tied to being in the military. But, that isn't even the best reason.

Kids still drink, possibly as much as when I was in college. I got totally plastered a few times when I was a freshman, but I always managed to find my way home. I didn't particularly enjoy it. By the time I was an upper classman,

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age

[WindBourne]

Being age 47, I can remember when the drinking age was 18 in wisc. and 19/21 in ill. We use to drive 2 miles to get into Wisc and drink. This encouraged a large number of drivers from Chicago to come out our way (by lake geneva). Big mistake. I have no desire to see differing age limits again.

With that said, I do think that we should change the drinking age to 14. Allow kids to get past this PRIOR to driving, so that they do not regard it as a big deal. In addition, change the driving so that at age 16-18, it is one child in a car, unless a 21/over is with them OR if a special license (for work/school only). If the teen is caught drinking and driving than the license is revoked until age 21.

We need to teach our children that having a drink is NOT a big deal but that drunkness will not be tolerated.

I would say the opposite...

[Belial6]

I would say that we shouldn't restrict 16-18 year old drivers to one per car. Going out with your friends is a right of passage in our county. People consistently say that we don't have any 'culture', and we don't have the quaint 'rights of passage' that many other cultures have. I say that most of us just don't recognize our culture and rights of passage. If you want to reduce the damage that teen drivers do, don't stop them from driving, or dating (that's what a one teen per car does). How about lice

Re:

[bogjobber]

Being age 47, I can remember when the drinking age was 18 in wisc. and 19/21 in ill. We use to drive 2 miles to get into Wisc and drink. This encouraged a large number of drivers from Chicago to come out our way (by lake geneva). Big mistake. I have no desire to see differing age limits again.

This was one of the main arguments used for the minimum drinking age act, and it's complete bullshit. It definitely was a problem, but its effects were severely exaggerated. If you have a problem with drunk drivi

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age

[Thunderstruck]

Actually, the federal law for witholding funds, 23 USC 158, only calls for a 10% reduction in funding, not the loss of all federal highway funds. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this section in South Dakota v. Dole. It held (arguably) that witholding all funds might constitute coercion and be impermissible, but a 10% sanction was within congressional spending authority.

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ

[Jon Peterson]

Well, look on the bright side. Neither the states nor the Feds are enforcing capital letters, and you for one must be very glad of that.

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ

[peragrin]

You are why this country is failing apart. In the 1940's and earlier it wasn't The United States of America. It was These United States of America. The loss of two little letters changed us from 50 states of different people united, to one Nation State who must follow the will of the Party in Control.

The Constitution clearly states that all rights not assigned to the federal government are rights of the States.

It is too bad you have never read and understood such an important document.

You missed the point.

[C10H14N2]

Constitutionally, your state can pretty much trample all over you and you have little recourse. At least with the federal government, as in this case, the states, on your behalf, can blow raspberries. The federal government really can't do much to you without the active participation of your state. So, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, si

Re:

[operagost]

What's wrong with your shift key?

don't drink the koolaid: state's rights is the last vestige of conservative assholes

That's an ad hominem and has no place in any rational argument. You're totally disregarding the concept of regional interest. It has nothing to do with conservatism. You don't think that in left wing meccas like Massachusetts that they have common interests to be defended?

Re:

[DJCacophony]

states are not subsets of the USA
the USA is a superset of states
the states came before the federation of the states, and
the federal government derives it's power by consent of the states.

dude: try to understand the CONCEPT

[circletimessquare]

NATIONAL problem versus LOCAL problem, get it?

a local problem: paving a road

a national problem: border control

get it?

does it make sense for street grids in all cities and towns to be micromanaged from washington dc?

of course not!

so: does it make sense that an id issued in virginia was used to board a plane in boston on 9/11?

of course not!

ids, that are used across the country, is a problem best solved NATIONALLY

now if viriginia issued ids that were only valid in virginia, then you would be correct. but it's

computer problems?

[DJCacophony]

You either completely missed the point of my post or otherwise replied to the wrong one, because your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with the post it is replying to.

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ

[TheGavster]

There are two reasons I support state's rights:

- The likelihood of a public policy being agreeable to 300 million people is much less than it being agreeable to 3-30 million people. Additionally, there is a tendancy for the 'rich' states to be forced to subsidize the 'poor' states. Before you say it's the poor states' right to be subsidized, is it the right of say Kosovo to be subsidized by Lichtenstein? Coming together for a common defense and free trade doesn't mean coming together for the giving of ones resources to the other.

- Representative governments lose touch with their constituents as the number of constituents rises. My US congressman represents me ... and approximately 1 million other people. My state congressman represents a few orders less. Having laws passed by a group whose majority doesn't come from within 1000 miles of my home does not give me a warm fuzzy. What does the Congresswoman from California know of the needs of Connecticuters?

What's it really for?

[Rob T Firefly]

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.

Because we all know it's completely and totally impossible for a terrorist or illegal immigrant to have actual IDs from the DMV in their pockets, right?

Re:What's it really for?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think this is a valid point because several of the "19" had valid passports and other ID.

Re:

[gsslay]

It'll be exactly like the UK ID Card. What it's for is whatever hot-button topic of the month is. And once that has been thoroughly debunked it'll be for the next month's hot-button topic. And so on until something sticks or it's too late....

And by the end of it all the government will have grafted a shiny new ID handle onto you, all the better to grab you by and put you where they want you..

For your own good, of course.

Re:

[mobby_6kl]

Does Joker [wikipedia.org] classify as a terrorist? Because it's certainly possible for him to get a new national ID card [theregister.co.uk] designed to prevent just such problems.

But doesn't it also makes them harder to get?

[HighOrbit]

My understanding is that it makes applicants prove either their citizenship or legal presence in the country (i.e valid permanent resident visa) to get a license. The 9-11 hijackers had real valid Virginia issued drivers licenses, but they were obtained fraudulently. This makes it harder for them to get one. Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.

Re:

[maxume]

How does it decrease fraud? It makes a valid license that much more valuable, meaning that the bad guys will be willing to pay more for them, and corrupt dmv employees will be that much more likely to sell them.

that's the whole point

[circletimessquare]

it is easy for an illegal to get a fake state dmv license

that's the point

50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model

i would go so far as to say that it might still not be so hard to get a national id

however, it will be HARDER, without a doubt. no huge bureaucratic system is airtight. but national resources, and one national id card, brings to bear resources on the problem that individual states are ill-equipped to handle. plus. for law enforcement, its easier to vet one card and one database than 50 fractious, differently standardized state models

Why are states ill-equipped?

[halr9000]

I disagree with the parent on one point. There is no fundamental reason that a given solution is bad simply because a state conceived or implemented it. None of our states are so resource-poor that they cannot take a problem, say standardized ID, and solve it. Now the *quality* of said solution may certainly (and rather likely) be crap, we are talking about government here. But what I am getting at is that the Feds will do no better. If you throw more money and more bureaucracy at a problem, does that

Re:

[Magada]

50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model

Excuse me while I go laugh my arse off. Is the notion of single point of failure familiar to you? The resources of all criminal organizations operating or wishing to operate inside the US would thereafter be focused on compromising ONE database and ONE form of ID, both managed and guarded with all the care and diligence that federal subcontractors have become famous for over the years. In the

Re:

[siriuskase]

Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to investigate acts of terrorism where the terrorists have fake ID's instead of real ones. Since most of the folks hijaacking planes on 9/11 had valid passports and drivers licenses, it was relativiley easy to investigte after the fact and if a better job was done of putting the pieces together before 9/11, it may have been preventable. Several of those people were acting strange, not attendng classes, taking flying lessons, etc. Making it harder to kee

Think of the Children!

[emptybody]

sorry, couldnt resist.

watch out for revenous mooninites while you are at it.

Giving up privacy

[mulhollandj]

I sure hope more states revolt against this. We are surrendering our privacy for 'security'. Of course one must realize how few terrorist attacks the USSR and Nazi Germany had that weren't staged. I find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.

Re:Giving up privacy

[mr_matticus]

Explain to me why a national ID surrenders more privacy than a state ID. It is not as though the federal government doesn't already have access to all 50 states' ID systems. What is the inherent harm in replacing 50 different databases with one database?

Re:

[DJCacophony]

Job background checks currently only check against the database in the current state
I reserve the right to commit a crime and run away to another state!

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Actually, the "whole republic concept" has nothing to do with federalism. There are dozens of unitary republics in the world. But more to the point, "usurping power from the states" is not a violation of privacy. People are calling this a privacy issue, and I want to know why. I get that there is a states rights argument, but that has nothing to do with privacy.

Re:

[Dachannien]

What does states' rights have to do with privacy?

Re:

[chihowa]

It says that the states get the power to issue drivers licenses in the Tenth Amendment: 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.

WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!

[Groo Wanderer]

Sorry, it needed to be said.

              -Charlie

(once again, sarcasm)

Many thanks to the north east and north west!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't think much about the north eastern and north western states. But it's these states that have truly helped retain the last remnants of the freedom the Founding Fathers fought so valiantly for.

So while the people in a state like Kansas focus all their attention on debating whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes, the people in states like Maine, Vermont, and Washington are defending their freedoms.

Maybe it's a matter of the level of education of the general populace in those states. No offense to anyone from Kansas, but it has traditionally ranked quite low, often at the very bottom, when it comes to a variety of measures. As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states. Fewer people there have undergraduate or graduate degrees from universities (sorry, Oral Roberts University doesn't count) as compared to the people from other states. On the other hand, university degrees are extremely common in the north western and north eastern states, with virtually everybody having at least attended university for some period of time.

So while I no longer live in America, I do want to thank those in the north west and north east who are defending the rights of our nation's people.

Re:

[green453]

I think you may have a misunderstanding of which regions of the US are likely to defend what. Admittedly, the NE and NW regions generally tend to support much more liberal policies, but I think you should keep in mind that states in the midwest, west, and south are the bastions of small government thinking and states rights.

If you read the article, you will notice that the coalition being formed to fight the realID was spearheaded by a Missourian. If you don't remember your geography, especially the parts a

Re:

[Manchot]

To be fair, even though Missouri and Kansas are neighbors geographically, they are worlds apart politically. Kansas is a decidedly red state, while Missouri is perhaps the swingiest of swing states. (See the Wikipedia page on the Missouri bellwether [wikipedia.org].) The major difference is that while Kansas is almost completely rural, Missouri has its own urban east and west "coasts": St. Louis and Kansas City. As it turns out, the population distribution happens to closely mirror that of the nation as a whole, and as a r

Re:

[Spazntwich]

Wow. The fact that you were upmodded to +5 for such a pedantic troll is a testament to the fact that the moderators think they're a lot smarter than they are.

Your post's most obvious and absurd fallacy is that states only worry about one issue at a time, but I have a funny feeling Kansas has never put the majority of their resources into debating evolution.

Second on the list is the false premise that the northern states are fighting for "the last remnants of freedom." They're fighting for their last remnant

frankly, i don't understand the problem

[circletimessquare]

national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?

but, from a law enforcement id, it provides a comprehensive framework:

1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
2. it brings to bear national resources when weeding out the fakes/ questionable ids/ other types of enforcement and vetting

i understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id

however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models. so what's the problem? it makes law enforcement's job easier. what, you think there will be more nefarious government activity with one big model? one big model that every privacy group will monitor with a white hot spotlight? you think somehow 50 different little models is going to have less shady activity, more monitoring? oh i get it: crooked law enforcement only goes on in washington dc, it doesn't go on in montpelier or bismarck or sacramento. pfft... get real

of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government

don't drink the koolaid: a national model is superior from a security AND privacy stand point

Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem

[LM741N]

Its all about money. One more unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.

yes, it is all about the money for washignton dc

[circletimessquare]

just like it is all about the money for augusta maine

so money is a moot point

the efficiency gains however are one sided in favor of washington dc

And security

[wiredog]

Replacing 50 or more databases full of useful personal information with one database. Why introduce a single point of failure?

please

[circletimessquare]

so ebay, amazon.com, google, etc.: they should all subdivide into separate companies for the sake of database integrity? what a red herring. there is no single point of failure. look into some rudimentary concepts if basic IT work

Re:

[korbin_dallas]

So go ahead point out to us, the Slashdot crowd, exactly which article and paragraph in the Constitution of the United States of America, in plain English, where the Federal Goverment has the authority to require an ID?

Remember, unless EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution of the United States of America a power granted to the Federal Governement, then its a STATES or the PEOPLES right. And Maine and the other States BETTER stand up for their rights, or we are all sunk.

Neither security of individuals, nor

got it

[circletimessquare]

according to you, the legal technicalities matter more than the philosophical concepts

listen carefully, you missed it:

state versus nation != individual versus government

why in your mind is your state capitol a better guarrantor of your personal freedoms and privacy than washington dc?

how the heck does that work in your mind?

Re:

[jZnat]

Well, for one, my state's legislature better represents me and my neighbours than the assholes in DC. I can hold my local legislature far more accountable as I can actually get enough people to care enough to vote out the assholes since the only people who really vote in local elections are those who give a damn about politics anyhow. Hell, it's far more possible for someone like me (without shitloads of money for campaign ads) to be elected into the legislature, so there's far less bribery that goes on.

Re:

[DJCacophony]

Not all problems are national, and not all national problems have as great an impact on any given state as they would on any other given state. for example,

illegal immigration from mexico is a much larger problem in texas, california, and other southern states than it is further up north.
sure, it is a national problem, but the effect is obviously not evenly distributed across the nation.

Re:

[danpsmith]

of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government

Which is exactly the point. There's a reason why this coun

security problems of a national model

[JimBobJoe]

however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models.

Whoa there! Obviously? Not at all. A national model is, using the security lingo, a much more brittle system than the 50 state model.

Let's compare a non-standardized 50 state model to a fully centralized national ID card model, issued by a federal agency:

a.) The fraud vectors increase with the quantity of employees involved. A national ID card system would introduce probably 30 to 50,000 employees

Re:

[VE3OGG]

Now, I have to say that while you bring up some valid points, you also let slide a really big one. While you say that one is by virtue more secure than fifty, I would argue the counter-point. One means that if I want multiple IDs, all I need is someone on the inside of the central DB. Further, if I want to commit identity theft, I only have to deal with one standard as opposed to fifty. Likewise, if I find I am being monitored unjustly from one state, I can move to another, and then to re-monitor me would r

privacy differences between the two documents

[JimBobJoe]

national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?

The difference is this: a state ID card is an administrative document. It helps verify identity in particular situations, but it is still an optional document. (It's really only tangentially related to driving--it's the driver's record that more important, not so much the license itself.)

And while the uses of the state ID card are more varied today, I maintain that it's easier to live without one than it would have been 10 or 15 y

Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem

[deblau]

a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id

No it doesn't. State ID information is limited to your state, national ID isn't. The fewer people who have your information, the more private it is. Besides, you're (supposedly) giving up your privacy to the state DMZ for the limited purpose of getting permission to drive on their roads. There's no such "bargain" with a national ID. And federal agencies are making a point to share information, combining it with credit information and who knows what else. Your State probably doesn't do that.

You're probably more secure under a national ID, but you certainly aren't more private.

the 9/11 hijackers

[circletimessquare]

got illegal virginia ids and used them to board planes in boston

50 different fractious models versus one model with more resources is obviously superior in terms of security, and has no more privacy concerns than the 50 different little models

in other words, you don't lose anything in terms of privacy, you only gain more security (of coruse someone will still get fake ids on the national level, but it will be HARDED to get them: no system is foolproof, but anything little like this where we lose nothing and

You too can voice your opposition

[Cainam]

If you live in the US, you can voice your opposition to the REAL ID Act by sending your senators and representative a message using the handy form at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30 [downsizedc.org]

just being lazy and cheap

[r00t]

The states don't care about you.

They have eleventy-billion lines of COBOL to care about.

Their citizens will clamour for them to reverse

[HighOrbit]

This makes great grandstanding for politicians, but when these states' citizens are unable to open bank accounts, get on an airplane or train, enter a federal court house, or do anything under the control of the federal government or involving interstate commerce, then the other 90% of the people in those states (the 90% who don't care about real id) are going to be madder than hell at the state legislature for dragging the feet.

I predict their resistance won't last long.

Why? what's the problem? (non-USian asks...)

[fantomas]

Why is there a problem with a national driving licence in the USA?

I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just genuinely interested in what the key issues of the debate are (I'm posting from the UK). Is it something to do with the federal political make up of your country, or individual states lack of trust in national government?

I think you have other national level shared data sources don't you - isn't the social security number a national level ID? or is this also only ratified at a federal level? would the

One major problem

[Dobeln]

(is also non-USA-ian, but wth...) ...is illegal immigration. The major sponsors of illegal immigration*, primarily from Mexico, want to make sure that anti-ID theft measures, border control measures, etc. remain lax.

*
Read:
Various business lobbies (More profits)
Ethnic lobbies (More voters = more power)
George W Bush (More voters + God told me to)
Most of the Democratic party (More voters)

Re:

[will_die]

This is not a national drivers license. It just tell the states what they need to collect and how it should be displayed. You would still have to get a new drivers license whenever you move to a new state.
As it is now whenever you move to a new state you are required to get a new drivers licenses, usally within 30 days of moving. The states handle who is authorized to have a drivers licenses(include at what age you are allowed to start driving), some allow anyone working in the state to get one (legal

cheers! local vs national identity maybe?

[fantomas]

Cheers for your thoughts imikem.

I think we've got something analogous here in Europe, as the European Union becomes more significant and the final court for more laws, and more and more legislation is "harmonised" (I think this is the official term they use, for gently negotiating common ground and gradually bringing laws to the same place between countries). I could imagine in a few years time that an EU-wide driving licence might be proposed.

Probably this is not a perfect parallel though as the concept of

Re:

[Dachannien]

I'm fairly certain this has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. Rather, it's akin to one of those "we will give you money for your highways, but you have to do X first" laws, which are very common in federal legislation. In this particular case, rather than using the carrot of money to get the states to comply, the federal government is using the stick of not accepting non-compliant state IDs for federal identification purposes. (Think federal employment, social security, etc.)

The actual problem here

states challenging

[Ankou]

I think that this has less to do with "protecting your rights" than it does with states keeping their archaic way getting you licenced. If you have ever moved from one state to another, you know the total nightmare process it is to move your licence and register your car. Every state has some crazy multi level state process for doing this. Oh no, it would be too obvious to get ALL that stuff done at the DMV, no its to the tax office, then to the department of transportation (not the dmv), then to the court house, then if you are unlucky enough to go to a state that will reject your previous state's driver's licence, you need to take their set of tests etc etc. The processes is so old and confusing, and these people have had these jobs position for years, the above government standardization will make these people jobless and ruin their money shuffling games. The last state I came from still was using PAPER for these registration processes, and it was MY responsibilty to check after a few months that my previous state had actually processed my move. I have had friends who made a similar move where the state they came from STILL had them registered in the previous state, their licence expired in that state and it was a big pain to get it all straightened out.

Re:

[east coast]

I think that this has less to do with "protecting your rights" than it does with states keeping their archaic way getting you licenced.

Not to mention the dollars they would lose having the feds taking the fees involved with drivers licenses and renewal fees.

Check closely

[BCW2]

This is based on a problem that some states started fighting at least 10 years ago. I has nothing to do with protecting your privacy, it's about money. This is just another "unfunded mandate" from Washington. Congresscritters pass a law requireing the states to do something but don't supply the funds to cover it. The states are supposed to come up with the money out of already tight budgets, sometimes when the legislature is not in session so there is no way to alter the budget until the next session. During the Clinton era many states passed their own bills stating that any law like this would be enforced only when Washington paid for it. In other words: Don't tell us how to waste our money, we are already very good at that and don't need your help!

If half the money taken in taxes was actually spent wisely, most people would quit complaining.

It's not a "privacy thing"

[OldeTimeGeek]

It's a money thing.

According to a report [ncsl.org] from the National Conference of State Legislatures, it'll cost states 11 billion dollars to comply with the Real ID act. There was no money put aside in the bill for states to comply, just a mandate to do so. California is looking to spend between 500 and 700 million dollars alone.

I'm not saying that the fine people from the states that are holding back are less than honest - some of them probably feel that privacy is important. But when your state's already facing a budget deficit - as most are - yet another unfunded Federal mandate is going to get a less than warm reception.

Uncle Sam Bush

[Doc Ruby]

George Bush is a champion of states' rights [google.com]. His Republican Party stands for keeping Uncle Sam out of most private info [slashdot.org], and out of your bedroom [dailydoseofqueer.com].

highway funding

[JimBobJoe]

For what it's worth, the original slashdot discussion had a lot of people incorrectly assuming that Maine was giving up highway funding in order to reject the REAL ID Act.

The REAL ID Act doesn't affect funding at all, and promises no money to states in order to meet REAL ID Act requirements.

Maine's decision only means that Maine licenses after the deadline will not be REAL ID Act compliant and will not be accepted for identification by the Department of Homeland Security (which, for all practical purposes, means a slight change on how one travels by air.)

Having said that, the REAL ID Act also allows for mixed issuance systems--where a state would issue both Real ID Act compliant license documents, and non-compliant documents, with the requirement that the non-compliant documents indicate their non-compliance.

First we get national ID numbers

[Goose3254]

Then we track all purchases via national ID numbers (we just got an alert that a licensed driver purchased 4 drinks in an hour, and the master control programs reports his GPS phone is moving outside the public transportation grid, better dispatch a pursuit car)...
Then we socialize medicine...
Then we use the info from the purchases to determine if you get healthcare (cigarettes and fast food, no doctor for you my friend)...
Then we see who are buying fast expensive new cars...
Then we investigate them cause they're obviously not paying enough in taxes or insurance...
Then we start tracking all gun and ammo purchases, cause anyone with a gun is obviously a terrorist...

The modern push for federal control in what is and should be states rights started in the modern day with the speed limit...at the time it seemed sensible, there was an energy crisis. Then helment laws, it only affected a small part of the population so what's the difference, next drinking age, it makes sense after all to protect the children. But the real starting point was in the mid-1800's and tarrifs on cash crops from the south...the northeastern states wanted the products but the overseas market was paying more. How to solve the dilemma? Get the House (populated by the densely concentrated north) to pass a tarrif that canceled out any profit.

Next we'll hear how cool it is to have an RFID implant that makes accessing your now national information so fast and easy...Not hard to do if you think about it...we require newborns basically to have a social security number now when they are YEARS from being on the tax roles...

Re:

[mr_matticus]

The scenario you paint can be accomplished just as easily by a state government, while simultaneously getting away with even more egregious violations because people don't pay that much attention to their state governments. Unless you live in a state like California where the state has lots of money to throw around, you hear about the states about once a year. All the attention and distrust is aimed squarely at the federal government while states get away with murder. If you want to see wasteful spending

Don't be a Real ID Hater! Passport Replacments

[N8F8]

Without Real ID Congress will never authorize replacing Passports with Driver's Licenses. In most some instances now and within the next year no-one will be able to enter the US without a passport, at at $80-$100 [state.gov] per person, this pretty much blocks low income folks from leaving the country even for Mexico/Canada/Cruise Ship visits.

Re:

[will_die]

For Canada, Mexico and maybe a few other places there is/will be a cheaper card which will cost $50 or less. It is all part of the US PASS.

The stuff is already linked

[Sesticulus]

I recently moved from Florida to Pennsylvania and DL databases are already linked, having national database and national drivers license would actually be a really nice thing.

To get my car registered in PA I needed to get PA insurance. Figuring I'd do it all in one trip I got PA insurance, canceled my FL insurance and headed down to the DMV. Because my FL insurance was canceled, FL suspended my DL. Because FL suspended my license and PA checks that with their already connected DBs, they won't issue me a lic

Re:

[Qubit]

Live Free or Die!

-- Q,
born in Oregon, livin' in NH.
(I'm generally pretty happy about both states...)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[jimicus]

"You have a government certified ID card which we are assured cannot be counterfeited, so your little claim about identity theft must be false, all those charges must have been by you, so pay up or go to jail."

A variant on this argument is being used by banks for Chip & Pin card transactions in Europe; viz. you dispute a transaction, the bank replies with "the transaction was completed with a PIN, therefore you are either lying or you were careless with your PIN. Either way we're not responsible; go away":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m oney/2005/12/14/cmliz14.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

That's the "nice" case. The "not so nice" case is that you continue to complain until the bank finally gets fed up and reports