Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

House Approves Electronic ID Cards 729

Posted by Zonk from the somebody's-watching-me dept.
chrisaj5 writes "ZDNet News reports that the Real ID Act of 2005 has been passed by the House, by a 251-161 margin. It stipulates that driver's licenses must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined machine-readable technology." From the article: "Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Approves Electronic ID Cards More

House Approves Electronic ID Cards

Comments Filter:

  • Yet another repugnant violation of states' rights (Score:5, Informative)

    by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) * <error.ioerror@us> on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:47AM (#11640753) Homepage Journal
    The driver license changes are one thing. But it's quite another to coerce the states into passing laws they don't want to pass, or that are contrary to their state constitutions, in order to receive highway funds. Hopefully the Senate kills this quickly.

    There is already a database of violators (the Nonresident Violator Compact [aamva.org]) being shared between most of the states.

    • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LEgregius ( 550408 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:50AM (#11640783)
      It's too bad that civil rights had the negative side effect of causing the federal government to use money as a coersion to make states do what they want. It's quite annoying.

      • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Another reason to try and wrestle more federal rights back to the state level. And the money too. My state would not need any federal dollars if we took a good chunk of the money we pay in federal tax and gave it to the state instead. And on the plus side, the state seems to be more accountable to the citizens than the federal government is.

        IMO the feds should be in charge of national security, nothing else.
        • Then let the states stop going begging to the feds saying, "please please please build Federal highways in our state for free." State governments love it when they can get tax-financed goodies or "revenue sharing" without having to raise state taxes, then complain when they have to meet Federal standards.

          Let the states send representatives who believe that the states should finance all their own programs and own all their own infrastructure, and the situation will change. You might even like the result.

          • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:4, Insightful)

            by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @10:54AM (#11642158)
            If the federal gov't was much smaller, your federal income tax should be much smaller too. The states could then raise their taxes, and pay for much of their own needs themseleves.

            I'd rather pay more taxes to the state, where my voice means more, then to the fed gov't, where it means almost nothing.

            A good start would be repealing the amendment that provided for the direct election of senators.
        • "Another reason to try and wrestle more federal rights back to the state level. And the money too. My state would not need any federal dollars if we took a good chunk of the money we pay in federal tax and gave it to the state instead. And on the plus side, the state seems to be more accountable to the citizens than the federal government is."

          I agree...the use of Fed. money witholding of Hwy. funds is basically blackmail....something a non-govt. individual would be arrested and prosecuted for..

          The sad th

        • There's a problem with "sending federal tax back to the states". It won't work for a majority of the western and southern states which, per capita, receive far more federal dollars back than they pay in Federal taxes. Those who complain the loudest about Federal funding, Colorado, Idaho, yadda yadda, are swimming in free cash. Welfare queens with Stetsons on.

          To twist the blade a bit further, the states which are not predominately Republican pay more in than they receive back. The old line states, New York,

      • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dcsmith ( 137996 ) * on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:21AM (#11641043)
        Are you really pissing and moaning because law enforcement wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses? Gimme a break. The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.

        15-20 years ago there wasn't even routine information sharing between states on driver's license statuses, arrest warrants and criminal histories. The FBI, through NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) implemented the III (Interstate Identification Index). Initial response from many individual states - pissing and moaning about cost and the loss of their independence. Right - you now have to standardize terminology and call a Burglary a Burglary instead of Breaking and Entering. The world's coming to an end! The upside - Felony arrest warrants from California were now eaasily accessible in New York. Down side - ummm, wait a minute it'll come to me... or not.

        Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused? Of course. Its possible to abuse any sort of personal information. Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears? Hardly.

        Its funny that as geeks we ridicule security through obscurity while supporting the rights of individuals to hide their poor driving records because of fears about 'Big Brother'.

        Incidentally, I don't think the 5th Amendment should be scrapped. I just think we should get a clue from the Brits - you can't be forced to testify against yourself but your refusal to answer questions can be considered by the jury during deliberations.

        Let the flaming begin!

        • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SomePoorSchmuck ( 183775 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:34AM (#11641154) Homepage
          Its funny that as geeks we ridicule security through obscurity while supporting the rights of individuals to hide their poor driving records because of fears about 'Big Brother'.

          It's funny that you as a "geek" can't see the difference between the rights and protections due you as a human being, and application development.
          That is, if "funny" is a word which here means "not at all surprising".
        • But the states should have a right to keep such law enforcement at the local level if they wish. The federal government has NO authority to do all of the things you outlined above. Read article 1, section 8, as well as the 9th and 10th ammendment.

          I, for one, hope that my state will just simply deny the federal highway funding and refuse to co-operate. This is a horrendous violation of privacy. The law enforcement in California shouldn't be aware of my speeding ticket in New Jersey. It's not thier right to know!

          And what happens when everything you do is public record? Anyone who wants to can find out what you bought at the grocery store last week, or what you ordered at Denny's 6 years ago? Isn't that a bit creepy? Once all knowledge is public, the government can regulate ANYTHING.

          And yes, security through obscurity doesn't work -- all security PROTOCOLS should be volentarily submitted for public scrutiny. It's just pragmatic. However, the contents of the cypher doesn't have to be.

        • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:41AM (#11641235) Homepage
          Are you really pissing and moaning because law enforcement wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses?...The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.

          There is a term for a government in which legistlation is passed for the mere convenience of law enforcement officers.

          The term is "police state".

          Sure, what we have is a lite version, a mostly-benign police state (at least if you're a white middle-class non-Muslim person with mainstream political views). But as others have observed for the past few decades, anytime, anywhere, no matter what you're doing, there is some law under which you can be arrested and booked.

          When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.

          • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @10:10AM (#11641506) Homepage
            When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.

            Bullshit. If you've lost your license because of DUI and are driving around in another state, it is of extreme importance. If you are wanted on felony charges, it is of extreme importance.

            It would be a violated of equal protection if you were pulled over because of your ethnicity, but there is no equal protection for people with poor driving records.

            Kierthos
            • Kierthos,

              You're a shinning example of those who ignore the purpose of government and laws as long as it supposedly doesn't affect them.

              Your interpretation is based upon your view of the law, and the issue is the law shouldn't be open to such a drastic interpretaion. It should have a subject, and speak about that subject clearly.

              It's really satisfying to read childish comments like yours that refuse to actually comprehend the issue based upon the assumptions your now safer or not affected because you are
          • There is a term for a government in which legistlation is passed for the mere convenience of law enforcement officers.

            Well, the aforementioned laws aren't merely for the convenience of LEOs. They are there to help apprehend criminals, including those who have arrest warrants, those who attempt to fraudulently obtain a license in another state when their original license had been suspended, and those who enter the country illegally. In other words, the laws are for the greater public good, not simply for

            • And this law does what to catch "bad people" (Score:5, Insightful)

              by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @11:11AM (#11642500) Homepage Journal
              Have you read the bill to understand the purpose of the bill?

              The bill isn't being created to catch DUI'ers escaping or driving illegaly, it isn't being created to catch criminals, crooks, thieves, rappists and what not.

              We don't know why it is being created other then at the request of congress, the "homeland security" and other federal agencies.

              What the "Homeland Security" has to do with my driving record is beyond me since states, not federal government control my ability to drive and should be pro-active in maintaining that right.

              We are neither safer nor are we funding any initiative to catch bad guys by this law. There is no more police, there is no coordination to actually take charge and solve the problems you mention.

              What is happening is the government is excluding itself from the law and creating infrastructure for it to do as it sees fit without judicial/congressional or representative oversite.

              You support that for what? And you assume this law is solving your afformentioned issues how?
          • When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.

            It's completely reasonable (and not a "violation of equal protection") to treat repeat offenders differently. If you haven't noticed, your sentence will be longer the third time you commit armed robbery than it was the first time you did it. Perhaps

        • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Insightful)

          by koko775 ( 617640 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:48AM (#11641310)
          Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears?
          I believe my, and much of slashdot's philosophy is: Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Many choose to fight the big fight, even on small issues. That's how it's perceived, and I for one agree.
        • I can't believe what you choose to ignore.

          The fact its included to bill to build a fence in California to keep people out and that the department of Homeland security has the rights being granted to them to be above the law and even cease to adhere to the law when it sees fit. (under the guise of immigration control)..

          The federalization of licensing is sick in itself, however the fluff the republicans are putting into the bills is downright scary and simply UN CONSTITUTIONAL. So much for the "roots" of t

        • Right To Hide (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @10:26AM (#11641736) Homepage Journal
          No, you have it somewhat wrong. Private law abiding citizens have a right to privacy.

          The 'state' does not have a right to invade it, unless we have committed a crime, or are under specific investigation authorized by the courts.

          Just because I have nothing on my DMV report to hide, does mot mean I want to state to invade my rights. There are prices for freedom, and part of that price is that it can be abused by the dishonest. I still choose freedom.

    • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by opposume ( 600667 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:51AM (#11640786) Homepage
      I was just writing a response just like this. Last I knew it was a states rights issue. Not to mention the fact that it's a mandate that's going to cost MANY under funded and less affluent states a LOT of money to impliment. And if they don't? They lose MORE money. Good. Great. Grand. What's the next step? Corporate sponsorship of a state just so they can stay afloat? "The Nextel province of Mississippi" And let's not even think about putting our tin foil hats on with the possibilities of a nation wide ID system...
    • That's nothing new. Why do you think we have mandatory speed limits and .08BAC drunk driving limits?

      Federal coercion is the norm these days.
    • That's a fallacy. States don't have rights. People have rights.

      Granted, I'm not fond of this thing either--it's just one more step down the slippery slope to "papers, please".
      • See 10th amendment to US constitution. "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." Emphasis mine.
      • While you are technically correct, the term "States' rights" has historically been used to describe "State autonomy in the federal system". So when someone against highway funding restrictions says "States' rights!", what they're really yelling about is the Congress removing state autonomy.

    • Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aurostion ( 740363 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:30AM (#11641106) Homepage
      I think that the ID Card is the least worrisome part of this bill. From HR 418 (Real ID Act of 2005). THOMAS doesn't have permenent links, so forgive the lack of a link. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 418. The frightening section: SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS. Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows: `(c) Waiver- `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. `(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction-- `(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or `(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'. Rep. Earl Blumenauer yesterday:
      If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review.

  • Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:47AM (#11640756)
    Enter the "tinfoil wallet".

  • Welcome to 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:50AM (#11640776)
    You know, the United States always seemed to be the place where government stayed out of people's lives. Now, it seems a few want to make Orwell seem like a conservative vision.

    I think it'll come to a point, that if you don't want government in your life, you'll need to live in a country where the government has little technology.

    Freedom has been lost while no one was paying attention.

    • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 10Ghz ( 453478 )
      Now, it seems a few want to make Orwell seem like a conservative vision.


      Orwell's vision involved constant supervision (even in your home), propaganda being streamed to you all the time, people spying on you, forced re-education etc. etc. If you think that this proposed system makes "Orwell seem like a conservative vision", you are WAY off your rocker!

    • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwilliamson ( 672411 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:14AM (#11640969) Homepage Journal
      "Freedom has been lost while no one was paying attention."

      I actually think it's more like while nobody cared. Apathy is putting us into the second dark age.

    • if you don't want government in your life, you'll need to live in a country where the government has little technology

      No, you'll need to live in a country where the government is strictly limited in their powers over the people. How to achieve that -- or whether it can be achieved at all -- is a matter of question. Sadly, the US has already proven that strict limits on government power (the constitution) don't necessarily mean a thing. Most people don't realize that if the constitution was upheld, the US

    • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sheepdot ( 211478 )
      Ironically, the Czech Republic, Costa Rica, and other countries are actually heading in the opposite direction. I'm actually anticipating leaving this country for greener pastures sometime in the next 3 years.

  • insurance companies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GLowder ( 622780 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:50AM (#11640778)

    Oh well, so much for the insurance company not finding out about that ticket in that little town in Texas.

  • No big deal so far...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:50AM (#11640780) Journal
    The real question is does it mandate the use of RFID or some other wireless technology (if so then this is probably related to under-the-table business dealings) and does it or will it ever require fingerprint or iris scans?

  • ACLU to the rescue! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:51AM (#11640787)
    I found their quote interesting:

    The American Civil Liberties Union likened the new rules to a "de facto national ID card," saying that the measure would force "states to deny driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants" and make DMV employees act as agents of the federal immigration service.

    Just so we're clear, it appears in the debate about whether illegal immigrant should be granted access to all services that the U.S. has to offer, it would appear the ACLU is firmly in the PRO column.

  • Digital signatures? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ohad_l ( 683421 )
    Are these going to be digitally signed by the authority which releases them, and will whatever devices that 'read' them be equipped to verify the signature? I've been wondering why the don't do this for IDs, as signature verification (public/private, a la PGP) would make counterfeiting much harder, when combined with traiditional anti-counterfeiting measures. Or will a distributed network of private-key-bruteforcing computers be enough to make short work of any such signature?

  • The "Land of the free" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:54AM (#11640802)
    just got freer!

    Who knows, perhaps in 30 years time you'll be able to go to theme parks where you can pretend to be in 20th century America and experience the freedoms you once had?
  • "Help, I'm being repressed!". I can hear the cry already. Your not, I hate to break it to you, this doesnt repress anyone. Most countries have a national ID to begin with, and this isn't even that much.

    This doesnt take away your rights, it doesn't repress you as a person, it doesn't cause cancer, and it sure as hell isn't that big of a deal. Drivers license and ID information is largely public to begin with anyways, it just all getting (somewhat) standardized.

    Fake ID's are a fairly good size problem. I

    • (9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

      I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about businesses that use ID card readers to store your personal information (ie liquor stores and bars) and then can share that information as they see fit.
      • I agree, that is bunk. I had a liquor store do that to me and refuse to remove my info from their database. When they asked for my ID I assumed the clerk was going to check it, not scan it. Very disturbing seeing my name and address appear on their computer. If such info is scanned, it should display nothing more than your age. It should also not be legal to keep the information.

  • Electronic ID's are not the worry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <[gorkon] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:54AM (#11640809)
    ZDNet News reports that the Real ID Act of 2005 has been passed by the House, by a 251-161 margin. It stipulates that driver's licenses must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined machine-readable technology.

    Lessee....how are these electronic besides having a mag stripe or something that stores the data?? Sounds like you still have to physically have it....which by reading, the office HAS all of that info anyway. Most Drivers Licenses's already have this.

    The worry is the linking of Databases. Also, there's going to be time after even the senate passes it if they do, that we can say something before the president has to sign it. Even then, the Supremes can still rull this unconstitutioinal.

  • National ID card (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:55AM (#11640815) Journal
    There you have it folks. The closest thing to a National ID card which can be claimed isn't a National ID card. The only ones who wouldn't fall into this area would be those who don't drive/have a license.

    Just remember, it's for your protection. All those terrorists out there are sure to be tripped up by this new measure. After all, one can't drive a vehicle, especially one on a one-way trip, without a license, now can you?

    Keep repeating this over and over and you'll see why this is a necessary step: It's about fighting terrorism. It's about fighting terrorism. It's about fighting terrorism.

    • Re:National ID card (Score:3, Informative)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) *

      The only ones who wouldn't fall into this area would be those who don't drive/have a license.

      Nope, they'll get one too. Every adult needs a government-issue ID, so states provide IDs to non-drivers. In every state except Hawaii, these IDs are issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, so they'll be issued with the same technology as the driver's licenses. In Hawaii, the organization that issues non-driving IDs is associated with the criminal justice department, and I happen to know that they're looki

  • Instead of some guy in uniform reading your papers, looking for a particular seal, etc, he will just pull out a small scanning device, slide your license through like a credit card swipe, and then see what's going on.

    As for digital pictures, I think a lot of the states, if not all of them, have switched to using some kind of digital camera now.

    If there's such a big problem with the licenses being forged, why not inform the states whose licenses are forged the most and let them come up with something?

  • The ACLU and the Gun Owners lobby on the same side in this argument.

  • D'ooooooooh! (Score:3, Funny)

    by tgd ( 2822 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @08:58AM (#11640834)
    Lets hope the "complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses" is just going forward, or my insurance is going way up.
  • As we all know, and have been hearing for some time from people like the EFF, ID card schemes can easily be fooled by using fake ID when getting the ID issued. Even though the cards may be secure, it is the method of distibution which will decide their usefulness. I'm sure scammers will find a few ways to get their hands on real ID cards with fake details, so let's just hope that it will be harder than it is at present.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:00AM (#11640850) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't the purpose of the drivers license to prove you passed an operators test? Now you don't exist as a human in this country if you didn't pass your drivers test.
    • They're not just talking about drivers' licenses. The bill also covers non-driver ID cards, which are also issued in every state to those who do not choose to drive.
    • The states typically issue ID's in the same format as driver's licenses- they have varying forms of means of providing the fact that it's an ID, that the state certifies that you're who you claime to be, but that you've not met the requirements for legally operating a vehicle.

  • The bad part (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:01AM (#11640864)
    The bad part is not so much the ID card.

    The bad part is the connection that will be made when a commercial entity needs your drivers license for one reason another, scans it, and it enters a commercial database where it will be crossed linked to other databases.

    Airlines, insurance comapnies, grocery stores (for the new shopper cards they will want to issue), bospitals and doctor's offices, your bank, business' taking a check. I bet libraries will require it eventually.

    Pretty much the beginning of the end. Congress is a bunch of whores.

  • am I missing something here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette&gmail,com> on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:03AM (#11640876) Homepage Journal
    Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses.

    Um...yeah?

    "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.

    But they had valid ID. They were who they said they were. Or did I miss the article the day it was revealed that Atta guy (or whoever) was really called Joe Smith?

    • But they had valid ID. They were who they said they were.

      The deal is, you're not supposed to have a 'valid' license from more than one state at a time. The various DMV's linking their data would (supposedly) prevent that from happening. Is M. Atta from Virginia the same guy as M. Atta from Florida or Maryland? Show a VA license in Florida, and the cop is less likely to follow up if he suspects something.
      Not that I agree with the way they are doing this.

  • This isn't going to have any affect on people like me who are Carfree by Choice.

    It's still another step down a slippery slope, and that scares me, but I'm glad that I'm not personally affected by this.

    • Re:Of course... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tuxette ( 731067 ) *
      You may be carfree by choice, but that does not mean you will be granted access to federal buildings, national parks (!!), trains etc. unless you had some kind of approved identity card. From the article:

      Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government.

  • nothing new... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sushi_K ( 640861 )
    everyone I know can't live without an ID. All of the IDs are machine readable (magnetic strip) and data is shared between states about the license. Seems like this is just putting what's already in place into more formalized terms. I know that's not the popular opinion here. It would be nice to have a standard ID system that incorporated some modern methods of authentication and verification. At that point we could say goodbye to most identity theft. "Oh wait, that would be too scary! The government could t
  • I'll be popping my new license in the microwave for about 3 seconds to fry it's little rfid chip...oops.

  • God Bless the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sunkist ( 468741 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:13AM (#11640960) Homepage
    I'm glad I live in a country where privacy and personal freedoms are championed and the ideals of our...oh, wait. crap.

  • Driving License as ID card? (Score:3, Informative)

    by barbara_oreily ( 759208 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:16AM (#11640989)
    What happens if you don't have a driving license? I've managed to get all the way to thirty without needing one. I ride a bike everywhere and take the plane and train for work travel. Ben

  • I don't see how this changes anything... (Score:3, Informative)

    by phlegmofdiscontent ( 459470 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:19AM (#11641012)
    Maybe it's different in other states, but here in Minnesota, we have on our drivers licenses:
    1. digital photographs
    2. anti-counterfeiting measures
    3. machine-readable technology (bar code & mag strip)

    My only gripes are:
    1. Forced sharing of information between states. While some shared database is probably practical, sharing ALL of that information is too much.
    2. This is a law that shifts yet more power from the states to the federal government.

  • Section 102 is even scarier. (Score:5, Informative)

    by grimwell ( 141031 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:45AM (#11641277)
    Section 102 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive laws without Judical review. That strikes me as *way* worst then a huge database filled with non-verified DMV data.

    From thomas.loc.gov
    SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

    Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

    `(c) Waiver-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

    `(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

    `(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

    `(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
    ### end quote ###

    Gee, sounds like he can suspend pretty much anything without review. He just has to "say" it is related to building a barrier or road.

    Example: Labor laws governing the production of materials for the barriers or roads? Nah, they'll just get in the way, we're going to "suspend" those.

    OR

    What Endangered Species Act? Never heard of it, keep laying down the asphalt.

  • Forget the ID card, check out Section 102! (Score:5, Informative)

    by volsung ( 378 ) <stan@mtrr.org> on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:46AM (#11641283)
    Section 102 of HR418 [loc.gov] (the bill in question) has two positively frightening clauses:
    • "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."
    • "Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."

    So in a couple paragraphs, they've given the Department of Homeland Security (executive branch) the power to ignore laws (legislative branch) and not be held accountable in court (judicial branch) for it. Now, I may have been asleep in government class, but that sounds like you're disregarding the system of checks and balances which underpin our government.

    Sure, they say it within the context of border security, but on the subject of rule of law and constitutional separation of powers, I can't see how anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution could vote for a bill including this provision in good conscience.

  • Already there.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drathos ( 1092 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:46AM (#11641288)

    "Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses."

    Having worked in Law Enforcement messaging systems the last several years, I can say that this is already here, and has been for ages (except maybe the federal funding bit). All of the states are connected via NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and most share their DMV records directly over that network. Some states (like Maryland) don't have their DMV records automated, so you they tell you to send a request (still via NLETS) to a certain station where the lookup will be performed.

    The amount of data returned (for DMV records) varies from state to state, but some do include all of the above info. Some are just a minimum - the info on the card itself and the licensees status (active, expired, suspended, etc).

    The federal law enforcement agencies, Canada, and Interpol are also members of the NLETS network.

  • The devil is in the details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by metoc ( 224422 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @10:03AM (#11641460)
    As you might expect, the DMV and security angle is just the main selling point. The rest of the act is really scary.

    It gives the feds the ability to refuse entry to any federal facility if you don't have the card. That includes government buildings, federal courts, parks, etc. As far as the park thing goes, it means foreign tourists may not be able to visit the Washington Monument or Yellowstone National Park.

    The Secretary of Homeland Defense can override ANY law short of the Constitution when it comes to building barriers at borders. Although it is aimed at overriding EPA restricts on a 3 mile long fence between San Diego & Mexico, it technically applies to the 7500 mile long border of the USA. Theoretically the secretary can suspend all your rights at the border, and you can be strip searched and held in secret if you leave the USA and fail to declare the gift you bought your children when you come back through customs. The act also means the Secretary's decisions can't be challenged in court. Go home, the courts are closed!

    What does this mean for people with H1B visas?

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close