Slashdot Log In
Deadline For Saying "No" To National ID
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 08, 2007 04:00 PM
from the vote-quick dept.
from the vote-quick dept.
cnet-declan writes "If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts: the deadline to file comments on the Real ID Act is 5:00 pm EDT on Tuesday. Probably the best place to do that is a Web site created by an ad hoc alliance called the Privacy Coalition (they oppose the idea, but if you're a big Real ID fan you can use their site to send adoring comments too). Alternatively, Homeland Security has finally seen fit to give us an email address that you can use to submit comments on the Real ID Act. Send email to oscomments@dhs.gov with 'Docket No. DHS-2006-0030' in the Subject: line. Here's some background on what the Feds are planning."
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: More States Rebel Against Real ID Act 295 comments
Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Please sign up here...... (Score:3, Funny)
I fail to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I fail to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
What it means is any power not specifically granted to the US federal government in the Constitution is in the jurisdiction of the various states. Issues like abortion and drug prohibition are to be decided by each state; the founders did this for a reason--you could move to the state whose politics most closely matched your own. The more centralized the federal government has become, the less choice we've had in regards to the policies governing us.
(Not to mention that the Real ID won't help us catch terrorists, but I figured that was a given.)
Parent
Re:I fail to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Travel between the colonies was common, especially for those who signed the Declaration and Constitution. I doubt that it is much more common today. While the number of people traveling has increased, so has the population.
The driving force of the creation of the Union was to remove the power that the centralized government of England had over the colonies. The government had too much power and was using that power to keep itself established. In doing so it was oppressive.
You're right, providing the nation with a variety of legal options was not the goal, it was a side effect. In order to keep a centralized government from taking control of the country, the States were given the power to make those decisions. Creating mass opinion is not difficult, but by keeping each decision in a smaller area (the state) large society-changing laws would be limited in scope (to the state).
Unfortunately the tide turned leading up to and because of the Civil War, which the southern states rightly call the "War for States Rights". Unfortunately they are right. The states that were trying to enforce slavery were wrong for doing so, and it's fortunate that slavery was abolished. However, it was not necessary for the federal government to take over the way it did, and I hope that the pendulum swings back soon.
Mind you, not because I agree with slavery, but because the Federal government is making decisions that have far broader consequences than were intended, and there's no way out for citizens. When some states wanted a different president, they were forced by a slight majority to have another. The President's office was not supposed to be so powerful that that would be a problem. The state governors are supposed to be more important to the individual.
The Federal government has made regulations regarding various drugs, for instance, that some states disagree with. When a state opposes a federal law, is that allowed? Constitutionally yes! But there are those who want federal funds to be pulled from that state. Where are the federal funds coming from? Each individual in that state!
If the government wasn't so big on making new laws, it wouldn't be such a large a problem, but don't get me started on that.
Parent
Re:I fail to see... (Score:5, Informative)
1. It's bureaucratic and expensive.
2. It's open to abuse of power
3. It's only one thing to forge / steal - makes faking your ID and ID theft much simpler
4. It leads to all sorts of data mining privacy issues - one ring to rule them all - get the ID card, get everything else.
5. It's easy to stay outside the system - unless there are regular checkpoints and official stop and searches.
I used to live in Germany and I've seen every single one of these be a problem at some point. Biggest issues are 1. the expense - this is serious money for something that is very ineffective, and 2. the abuse of power - ask anyone who looks Turkish in Germany how often they are stopped and asked for ID. It's pretty much daily in some areas.
That said, there is a huge number of people living illegally in Germany that have no ID, and have been doing so for many years. It is an inconvenience to the law abiding, and no hassle to a criminal, possibly even an advantage.
Parent
Re:I fail to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, it's not specifically the fact that this ID is federal that is the problem, but I hope you can see that the abuse of power is easier. More efficient is something people are taught is a good thing. We live by the clock. But when it comes to government, more efficient is the opposite of what you want.
Parent
Re:I fail to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Schneier and Richard Forno's National ID card a disaster in the making [blogspot.com] discusses some of the many problems with Real ID.
As does the Wall Street Journal's Real ID Revolt [wsj.com]: In terms of the concept of National ID in general, Jim Harper describes it well in his excellent (long!) deconstruction of Real ID [smallgovtimes.com]: jonPS: more on this on the Stop Real ID Now! [blogspot.com] blog.
Parent
Re:I fail to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing to wrap your head around is that aside from the general issues of your liberty to travel and your privacy, the legislation for the ID contains enabling sections for - as yet - unspecified technologies to be part of the card. The most likely candidate, for quite a few reasons, is RFID, though something with more range might replace that. RFID allows your card to be read without you presenting it. This is a definite escalation from you deciding to show someone your ID in return for, oh, a bottle of wine, or that DVD of Erica Campbell you've been thinking about.
Any such technology creates a number of very bad potentials; someone could walk through a crime scene with a clone of your RFID (trivial to do, by the way) and thus "establish" your presence at the crime, at the time. You might have been home in bed, but your RFID was out being a criminal. You'll be arrested and then your lawyer can sort it out (after you mortgage your home, of course - criminal lawyers don't work on a "work now, pay later" basis. Or they could clone your card and purchase weaponry, using your good name, which they could then use in the commission of a crime. As far as the police are concerned, you bought those weapons. To prove otherwise, you're going to have to locate the fake card. Good luck with that.
Suppose you go like a good citizen to get your card, and the computer is corrupted, or someone was there first, and they say, no, we've already issued the card that matches your information (birthdate, name, SSN, mother's last name, birthplace and date, etc.) You can't get your card. Now you can't partake of any federal service. Yes, that's written right into the RealID act. Got cancer? Poor? Need your meds? Sorry. You're going to die. No federal services. Period. Of course, they're still going to tax you to pay for them.
Another issue is that tracking everything you purchase becomes 100% practical. So what? Well, let me point out that lately, it has been the habit of the legislature, backed up by the Supreme Court, to create and approve ex post facto laws. This class of laws includes those that make things crimes after they were done. The constitution guarantees your immunity to the four types of ex post facto law, but that has been disregarded and from the government's point of view, is irrelevant. They can, and will, jail you for such things. They've been doing so to others for years. Now. Imagine you buy a Playboy magazine. This is tracked. A year later, fundamentalists get laws passed that make purchasing such a magazine a crime - pornography, etc. Now they can come and get you; all it takes is the knowledge that you made the purchase and an ex post facto law.
Because of the unknown, secretive technological component of these cards, the threat to liberty escalates into a serious threat to privacy and security. Either should be enough to halt the program, expose its exact workings, and then allow evaluation on the basis of precisely known parameters. But they're not offering that opportunity. In 20 minutes, the window for even general objections base don what we do know - which is incomplete - closes.
The only redeeming thing at this moment is that they expect the states to bear the burden of the costs, and some states - Montana, Maine - are refusing. I suspect it is entirely budgetary, despite the high sounding words, but I'll take what I can get at this stage of the game.
Parent
...open your eyes. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Sure, they'll promise to only use relevant data appropriately. Right. Governments do not have a good history of using such pervasive data without oppression (up to and including genocide).
3. The more ID is needed to function in society, the more valuable IDs become. A national ID becomes a one-stop-shop for ID theft. Crack one card, and I become you.
4. Without the national ID, you can't participate in government. You can't enter a courthouse, visit your Congressman, etc. because you won't be able to even enter the building - no ID, no entry.
5. Ultimately a national ID is a license to exist. No license shown on demand? You're detained until your ID is found, one is created, or you get removed from society. The fact that you exist means nothing; no card, no you.
6. Corrupted data screws you over. Your file gets marked "deceased"? You're officially dead, and no amount of "but I'm standing here ranting at you!" won't help. At least with diverse cards & databases you can argue "8 out of 9 government databases say I'm still alive; please correct yours!"
7. Pervasiveness. No card, you can't function. Without that one centralized ID card, which you don't get unless everything is in order, you can't drive, fly, ride, vote, own property, get married, file suit, work,
Parent
Reagan (Score:5, Interesting)
Unnecessary (Score:5, Funny)
Considering the amount of surveillance they now carry out on US citizens, I suspect the already know your thoughts.
And if you're not being watched now, you will be if you sign that petition, you troublemaker.
You terrorists (Score:3, Funny)
Need help writing a letter / more info? (Score:5, Informative)
Before you have your day, consider the alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is "Papers, please" is a quaint, obsolete phrase. In fact the problem is not people looking at your ID, the problem is that event being recorded in a database to produce a picture of your movements.
If there were a national id that was secure and could be validated without hooking up to a national database, there would actually be less government intrusion into our privacy than if they data mine information from drivers databases and track you secretly.
Datamining email addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
As something from a country with a mandatory ID... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country it's mandatory to carry a (real, state issued) ID wherever you go. No matter what, when a cop stops you and asks for your ID, you have to be able to prove that you're you. And they can do that whenever, whereever and for whatever reason they want. Failure to comply results in an arrest.
If you want that, don't write. It's what you'll get.
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.
Parent
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in the neighboring country to the north of the States, we have a log running tendency to blindly follow in their example. Thus, anything being introduced or changed there, will generally always have a direct impact on our laws and society, and when this isn't the case, the big U.S. corps generally see to it that our parliament gets lobbied into submission.
So that is why it matters to us.
Parent
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
In Britain there seems to be no option for registering disgust at our national ID scheme - seems we're getting one and that is that. For all the horrific breaches of privacy and freedom that the Patriot Act etc have brought you over there - at least you do have the right to protest. PLEASE PLEASE DO!!!
If you can regain your freedom, then there's some hope for us over here in Airstrip One - maybe they'll even take down a couple of million cameras - you, know like 25% of them... (sounds like that's a sarcastic exaggeration doesn't it. But it's not, sadly)
Parent
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you haven't been charged with something, or spied on, or in some other manner had your rights compromised because of this nasty product of the Bush administration, doesn't mean you won't. By then, though, it will be too late. Keeping control of government is all about keeping the horses in the barn- trying to get them back after they've escaped is a very long and arduous process.
Parent
Re:International disquiet (Score:5, Insightful)
I care because totalitarianism is insidious. "It's only an ID card" becomes "you have to carry the ID card at all times" becomes "the RFID chip (or whatever) allows us to track you, wherever you are" becomes
I care because the state is our servant, not our master.
And I do not have to tell you good folks that it will be expensive, and it will be insecure, and it will not prevent crime or terror or social disintegration.
I care, becase it won't work - and it is dangerous.
Parent
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure... you want to be ID'd where ever you go, automatically, with who knows what information available to the teller, toll both operator, merchant, insurance agent, and anyone who hacks into the system just because you walked close to them and your RFID burped. You want someone to be able to clone your RFID tag and walk through a crime scene a few times, thus "establishing" that you were at the scene of the crime. Sure you do. You're all about being identified, right?
That's why you post anonymously.
Sometimes I wonder if we ought to take a hint from the Spartans.
Parent
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:5, Insightful)
IF you wanted to blacklist someone, you might enter anything into a database about that person. Everyone paying attention to how much fun we've had with the Credit Score companies and how long it took to force them to tell us what the damn score was without spending $40 for the privilege of correcting their errors?
And, who is going to bet me $10 that you won't be allowed to know what data gets on your ID card? As well as medical health, and most like genetic data, you might even have job history, traffic accidents -- think of all the baggage a corporation would want to have about you. All this data gets sold right now to private corporations -- did we vote on that? Please, by all means google it. Yes, the Bush administration takes info from your tax forms, or from Homeland Security, and sells it to private companies that do things like identify issues for politicians to campaign on -- or probably anything someone will pay for.
I'm sure future employers will consult the National ID card when they hire you. What sort of information will be on that card? Well
No, the national ID card isn't to identify you -- it's to track you, and to build a database on you. It's to make you a citizen at the level that they think you deserve to be. What happens to a traveling salesman who gets on the "Do Not Fly" list?
It might be your SAT score or it might be some government information that decides what college you or your kids go to. "Not corporate friendly" might keep you out of Yale. I'm sure my voting record would be useful, so that they could keep me out of Political debates -- who needs a loyalty oath when you can actually determine if someone is the "right sort."
You may call me paranoid. I just think if you don't imagine what the abuse could be -- you are being naive.
Parent
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is really kind of funny, because (a) I wrote this [slashdot.org] and every time I point it out, I don't get mod points for many months in a row, and (b) one of the editors regularly and systematically mods down my posts, easily detected when I have a series of posts over several stories, over several days, sometimes highly rated, sometimes just at 1, then over the course of five minutes, I'll lose 10-15 points across multiple stories; clearly someone with more than 5 points to "spend" has had themselves a little "abuse party." As the "editors" brag [slashdot.org], they have unlimited mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them.
Personally, I browse at -1 because there aren't enough positive mod points to raise up all the reasonable posts and because there are tons of good posts that get moderated down as a matter of commentary, rather than because they are actually bad posts. As far as I am concerned the moderation system just barely manages to make itself felt as commentary, less effectively than digg's does, and it is absolutely useless as a criteria of which messages to read.
Let me say, however, that I take your comment as a complement and I thank you for saying so.
Parent
Re:Actually I Support A National ID (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't the bank authentication be faked? Well, if I were faking being John Doe -- I'd be in a bank or somewhere getting my photo and finger print and hoping there were no other John Doe screaming about identity theft... and the bank has a few Million in the vault and expensive property -- so I doubt they'd want to make money on fake IDs.
2) That's the point of the "check code" -- the handshake in private/public key incryption. I punch my ID in a box that is authorized and hooked up to a phone line -- just like we do right now, billions of times a day, with credit cards. When I enter in my SSN, I get something back like "Ouch!" -- because that's what I set up as my "check key." Now, however someone wants to create the authorization scheme to verify that box -- they are still going to have to intercept incrypted codes for anyone who's ID they are going to want to steal. I could get very detailed but I could say with a GPS, authorization procedures, and a phone line -- these ID boxes could be pretty hard to steel -- you could authorize them by day, and for one location on the planet.
OK, now that I saw "Ouch!" on the screen -- I know it is an authorized ID system I'm hooked up to. Unless someone has intercepted my last transaction with an authorized device, and is running an elaborate scam -- this is at least many times more work than what it takes to steal a bank pin on my Debit card -- which is harder to steal than my SSN right now. So now I can send my password that goes to the ID system, and then they wire back to the Vender an authorization like "John Doe Approved" and a transaction number -- just like credit card companies use -- a time stamp and hash that could be used to prove later that I, John Doe, really did buy that crappy leather jacket so pay up!
3) Yes, it doesn't reduce tracking. But I would want such a system to be State-based authorities. Not Federal. I don't have a problem with a company like VISA being an authorized ID System. The point is; someone needs to know that I'm John Doe -- if they are wrong, VISA is going to lose some money. THAT sort of privatization is fine with me. In the National ID scheme; huge government beuaracracy authorizes cards, but outsources to one politically friendly company. I guess it's pretty much that I know BushCo will screw it up, and it will cost us a lot of money, and only benefit friendly crooks. What else is new? But any ID system needs to only provide a reasonable guarantee to Company X or Person Y that I am John Doe. VISA has a vested interest in Credit Cards and would be financially damaged trying to screw me over -- see, they have something to lose! Not one appointed company made for the sole purpose of privatizing and keeping he system forever from oversight.
4) Um, because my password can be changed. If someone steals my ID Number -- how do I change my unique ID like a SSN? Everything is based on some sort of fixed tracking number in every database ever used. The password can change and be used merely to authorize that I am John Doe using such and such SSN. It's only a slight inconvenience like a bank pin -- you don't need it everytime you shop -- you just use this INSTEAD of your SSN. Like when you take our a loan, or apply for that fricken' blockbuster video card where they think I'm going to trust them and 20 part-time teenagers with my SSN to rent a video.
So, in short -- you don't use your SSN to go shopping now. You use your credit card and occassionally your drivers license. In fact, you can even use CASH. McDonalds does not need to know I'm John Doe in order to sell me a hamburger. They just need my money. If VISA wants to do a better job of securing money -- then let THEM solve it. I don't want a MORE PERFECT ID system -- I just
Parent