Slashdot Log In
More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Feb 05, 2007 08:41 AM
from the get-together-right-now dept.
from the get-together-right-now dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards 621 comments
WebHostingGuy writes "The State of Maine rejected the federally mandated ID cards passed by Congress. In a non-partisan vote the legislature flatly stated that they would not force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It also asked Congress to repeal the law."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:5, Informative)
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:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Giving Up is Not Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
What *you* trust and what the Government is
Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a good first step (Score:5, Informative)
Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:your post is classic demagoguery (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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
What's it really for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's it really for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But doesn't it also makes them harder to get? (Score:4, Insightful)
that's the whole point (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Think of the Children! (Score:4, Funny)
watch out for revenous mooninites while you are at it.
Many thanks to the north east and north west! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post's most obvious and absurd fallacy is that states only worry about one issue at a time, b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
frankly, i don't understand the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You're probably more secure under a national ID, but you certainly aren't more private.
You too can voice your opposition (Score:5, Informative)
just being lazy and cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
They have eleventy-billion lines of COBOL to care about.
states challenging (Score:4, Interesting)
Check closely (Score:3, Interesting)
If half the money taken in taxes was actually spent wisely, most people would quit complaining.
It's not a "privacy thing" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
highway funding (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Giving up privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the problem with having a national ID ca (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)