DHS Official Suggests REAL ID Mission Creep 277
The Register noticed that a senior US Department of Homeland Security official has floated the idea of requiring citizens to produce federally compliant identification before purchasing some over-the-counter medicines — specifically, pseudophedrine. The federal ID standard spelled out by the REAL ID act has been sold as applying only to air travel and entry to federal buildings and nuclear facilities. A blogger on the Center for Democracy and Technology site said, "[The] suggested mission creep pushes the REAL ID program farther down the slippery slope toward a true national ID card." Speaking of federal buildings, CNet has a state-by-state enumeration of what will happen on May 11, when REAL ID comes into effect, to citizens who attempt to enter, say, the Washington DC visitors bureau.
Dear God (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole pseudoephedrine thing is not about the meth addicts. Sure, that's the excuse they used, but the real reason for the provision for requiring ID on pseudoephedrine and limiting the quantity for purchase of these drugs in the so-called 'Stop Meth Act' is to prevent people from using them as a sort of 'speed lite'. Teenagers were found to be using them as 'pep' pills and 'smart' pills (because pseudoephedrine is a stimulate that's quite a bit stronger than caffeine) and so the purpose was really to keep people from buying them and using them for that purpose.
You can either buy the party line or examine the evidence yourself: the truth is that purchasing pseudoephedrine-containing drugs in certain combinations, such as with guafenesin, does not require ID and does not have any purchase limit. Making meth from psuedoephededrine+guafenesin is not much more difficult than making it from any other pseudoephedrine-containing drug. However, the pseudoephedrine+guafenesin combination cannot be used as a 'pep' or a 'smart' drug, because the guafenesin will make you sick if you take it in too high of a dose.
This can all be verified with a simple Google search.
Think for yourselves, people. Please. For all that is good in this world, please starting thinking for yourselves.
Re:Dear God (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear God (Score:5, Funny)
That's one of the problems with pseudoephedrine. Can't slow down. Bouncy bouncy. Can't take a joke. No fun at all.
Really kids, just go for the caffeine. Despite years of attempted vilification, modern medical science hasn't found too much wrong with it.
Works for me anyway. The perfect life. Sitting in front of the computer screen, drinking coffee, posting on Slashdot.
Oh, wait...
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Informative)
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing, you'll tell us you bought your Rolex from a guy on the street... And it was a really good deal.
Might as well buy your drugs from Puerto Rico [slashdot.org]
Re: Buying Rolexes on the Street (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't trust the government.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pretty clear to most any US citizen that the govt here (and I'm sure it is about the same in most any western country), that there has pretty much never been been a law passed that hasn't had its interpretation bastardized at s
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats all good and dandy, but why is DHS involved in whether or not teens get high with OTC drugs? Shouldn't that be something the DEA or FDA handles?
I mean... Does Homeland Security think that kids popping pills will somehow turn them into into Fundamentalist Terrorists?
Even if there no evil intentions by DHS, this is at least very poor use of their resources.
Re:Dear God (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently they are. And just as apparently, the US government considers drug use to be terrorism. [slashdot.org] It's the war on [next thing to extend the grasp of government power and take away your consitituional rights].
Would someone please point to the section of the US Constitution that gives the government the power to tell me what I can put in my body? And don't give me that "interstate commerce" bunk.
I voted for Ron Paul yesterday. I smoke pot, you would have to be a damned fool would vote for someone who would condone laws that would put you in prison for something you enjoy. When this country was founded, a man had the right to screw his life up any way he pleased. No more.
Sadly, I won't be able to vote for him in the general election. If the Libertarians aren't on the ballot I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but it won't be a Republicrat*.
-mcgrew
*A "Republicrat" is the US' single political party. It has two wings, the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicrat Party wants the things I love outlawed. I'd like to see neckties outlawed, or mandated that anyone who wears one hangs himself with it.!
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Insightful)
Erroneous comparison. He was talking about sitting at home, and getting a bit stoned on pot. Nothing more 'dangerous' to you or society than anything else that is currently legal like alcohol. In fact, it could be argued that pot users are less dangerous that boozers...they rarely get violent which is often a problem with many with alcohol usage.
You are mentioning acts which by definition harm others (molester, rapist), the comparison is not even in the same ball park. Hate crime? When did we get that in the US?? Crime is crime...if you kill someone, they are dead, no matter the reason. You think it is worse if it is due to racial or sexual reasons? No, murder is a crime...period. It isn't made any worse due to the reason. And it is already against the law, we don't need more laws against murder....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about that, but whoever moderated this, very obvious, joke as "insightful" is definitely smoking something.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how dare those people think they have the right to choose not to see funny posts? I'll tell them what they should and shouldn't read.
Personally, I mod all offtopic comments as "Insightful" so people who have "Offtopic" at -5 can still read them.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or just show your passport (Score:5, Insightful)
As a side benefit my personal data in databases within the US is extremely inconsistent. As I'll use any convenient address or data when I fill out whatever form I'm using. I do the same thing with the bank accounts I maintain within the US.
Having said all of that in my opinion the majority of US government is grossly incompetent and they have no business having access to my personal data. Just because I haven't figured out some cataclysmically stupid and devastating thing to do with my own personal data does not mean that some ass in government can't come with something (which would invariably be worse).
If they spent all this time & money understanding what about American society creates many addicts we'd be done already. Limiting purchases of cold medicine is just drug war theater
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said all of that in my opinion the majority of US government is grossly incompetent and they have no business having access to my personal data.
I think they have already screwed it up. According to the current head of DHS, as quoted on CNN, http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9771953-7.html [news.com]
Great, that means you now have to pick someone living to impersonate by us
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a slightly related note, I've been going through a ton of crap recently trying to find out if my passport is valid. I accidentally washed it and I don't know if the RFID chip inside is still functional. Externally it looks brand new. I didn't want to be traveling and have tha
Re:Or just show your passport (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or just show your passport (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you fall into an EXTREME minority of people using a passport for such purposes - All the passport-tracking infrastructure currently in place exists to track entry and exit from the country at its borders (and various major points-of-entry, ie, airports).
If you want an example of the sort of abuses RealID will lead to, you need look no further than EZPass (or TransPass or whatever they call it) in New Jersey (and several other states). "No, no, we'll never give out your travel details!" - Then bam, ten years later, the states want to use those record to retroactively impose speeding fines, divorce cases regularly subpoena their records, and in at least one case, police used an EZPass dump to "justify" randomly harassing hundreds of innocent people who happened to use the wrong highway at the wrong time.
We tinfoil-types don't (only) fear what could happen, we fear what already happens when you hand similar tools to those in power.
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, I am a political scientist.
I did not say that everything from DHS is bad. I said that this is from DHS, and that this is bad. I actually did not mean to imply that all DHS work is bad. The point is that if there is a charge for getting a RealID, which there will be, and if the RealID is require
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
To place this in context, once there is a national ID card it will be easier to add more and more functions over time. However, would you accept it if you were told that you will need to show this card to conduct any financial transactions, own a gun, travel beyond 30km from your house, or exercise your right to free speech? to name just some possibilities...
The slippery slope is not that these things are somehow implied to the introduction of national ID, but they are clearly made easier by it, and some people may already be planning the introduction of further measures along the lines I have suggested.
Not a fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
What I infer from what you say is that the slippery-slope argument is not fallacious, but insufficient. And on that, I agree. Simply invoking the slippery-slope is not good enough. You'll have to back it up.
In this case of the Real ID, we've already seen the "slippery-slope" happening. It's not only logical that it will slide down that slope, but inevitable. The question is not "if," it's "when." With the DHS grasping for more power, that time seems now.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it ? After all, if you make the Real ID card required for buying peas - indeed, any transaction - then it will become a lot harder to live in the US as an illegal immigrant. It would also be harder to commit crime and not get caught because increasing your spending would
It's ALWAYS been "papers please" in the U.S. (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that people are calling the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy based on its context as a mathematical/scientific proof.
But it is a common practice (for good or ill) to try and reach a goal through incremental steps. Many see medical marijuana as a step to reaching the full legalization of the drug. When slavery was banned in the UK, it didn't happen overnight, it took a lot of little steps and pressures (like attacking the profits of the slave traders rather than the slave trade).
But it also works in the other direction. Maybe not a slippery slope, but a stepladder to tyrrany. Just because the term is associated with a mathematical logical fallacy, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The behaviour of human beings doesn't mean they will recognize that they are 'falling' for a logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
HOWEVER, we have a mountain of evidence based on direct observation of the past behavior of our government, and other governments around the world, indicating that the "slippery slope" is very real. We also have an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that anything coming out of the DHS is a BAD idea. If they come out with 10 bad ideas in a row, am I to assume that it's a coin toss as to whether their next policy proposal will be good or bad?
It's called
Re: (Score:2)
Hey - the government doesn't like competition!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're attempting to apply logic to an organization (the U.S. government) that applies fallacy at least as often as logic to legislation.
This leads to a sort of meta-logic where one must not only consider the reasonability of the proposal under discussion but also the effects down the road. A great many freedom abusing proposals are ALREADY waiting for the real-id to happen (TFA demonstrates that DHS can't even manage to wait that long). Thus, I may reasonably argue that real-id opens the door to a legis
Re: (Score:2)
IGNORING THE CONTEXT OF ITS USE. We are talking about a very specific
context here that is SPECIFICALLY built upon the idea of "one thing
leading to another". It's a feature of how the given system works
rather than just being a random bit of paranoia.
First they abuse kids (spray paint), then they move on to adults
(decongestants).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
personal identity number (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:personal identity number (Score:5, Insightful)
Just about everyone in the US has at least two government issued IDs: A driver's license (state issued) and a social security card (federally issued). Social security cards do not have a photo. For those that do not have a driver's license, a passport is also acceptable (as someone already mentioned) as photo ID.
There are two reasons why no rational person likes the Real ID Act. First, a minor point, is that we already have the above ID options and they work just fine. Second, and more important, there is currently no massive federally-controlled database containing ALL of the information in one spot. Given the government's track record of ineptitude and maleficence - especially in the past eight years - the last thing a sane person wants is to put all of the nation's personal information into the exclusive hands of a single government entity.
In short, it's both redundant and dangerous for our liberty. Of course all the chicken-littles will cry that we need it for security but even they know deep inside that's a load of shit.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their brains might be able to figure out that it is a load of shit, but thinking is so 20th century. Now, we know with our guts. And their guts know that they need to track every movement of your and your money, to protect you from yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee whiz. Sounds like the Democratic and Democrat Light(Republican) parties right there. Everyone is talking about Nationalized Heath Care now, and guess what that is? Protecting you from yourself. Actually, it applies to just about everything our government is involved with now.
What gets me, is that the same people that want National Health Care have no idea that it also means more government i
Re: (Score:2)
A Social Security card is not an ID. I don't know of any place that will accept a Social Security card as an ID. Legally, no place is allowed to request a Social Security card as an ID. It says *right on the friggin' card* that it can't be used as an ID. They may want your Social Security *Number*, but that's diff
Re:personal identity number (Score:5, Interesting)
My Social Security card says, in bold capital letters just under the signature, "for social security and tax purposes - not for identification".
But it was issued in 1968 when I was 16, back when the only thing you needed an ID for was driving a car and buying liquor.
I've watched my freedom disappear little by little all my life. Compared to my youth, I now live in a police state [slashdot.org].
-mcgrew
(oblig "child's garden of grass (album)":)
"Your paperss pleasse!"
"Uh, I only have a pipe, man."
"Zen you vill haff to come vith me!"
Re:personal identity number (Score:5, Interesting)
Go get a new one. They don't say that anymore.
I was forced to produce a SS card when I tried to get my license in NY. A fucking blue piece of cardboard printed up by a typewriter. And I shit you not, when I asked why, the ditz at the desk told me "9/11".
Here is the ID that I did have on me at the time, all not-expired:
Drivers License "PA"
Military ID
Birth Certificate
US Passport
Bank ID
Work ID
Tax return
Home insurance
and a freaking Concealed Weapons Permit.
No, those were not sufficient. They needed that little blue piece of paper that previously said 'not to be used as identification'.
Old school SSN cards (Score:2)
"for social security and tax purposes - not for identification".
Go get a new one. They don't say that anymore.
Mine still does. Not that it matters of course...
I can't imagine why people think a SS card is any sort of sensible way to authenticate identity. Of all the important documents I have that one would probably be the easiest to forge.
Funny story - when my wife voted in the last presidential election she was asked for some sort of ID. So she presented her passport which should satisfy anyone right? The idiot holding the voter registration books said "no, no, you need a government issued ID." !!?!?! Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the track record of many governments it won't stay "exclusive" for very long. It's only a matter of time before the entire database is on many laptops "stored" in plain view in many fools' cars. Or just left somewhere said fool probably shouldn't have been i
Re:personal identity number (Score:5, Interesting)
Now there are some mullahs in a cave halfway around the world who'd like to blow up a few buildings, and the g-men talk about how the sky is falling. We need to take drastic action to protect ourselves, they say. They're either cowards or up to something more sinister and cynical. Lately, I don't care which. I just want it to stop.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1) While there may be some Mullahs in caves halfway around the world, it has also been shown beyond doubt that there are people living among us that DO wish to cause us harm. (No, I'm not going to do the legwork for you on that one, feel free to Google it.) So the concern for the safety of ordinary Americans from Islamofascists is quite real, and trying to minimize it by painting it as a far-away issue is , I think, intellectually dishonest.
HOWEVER
2) I DO NOT think that the REALID is the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Big f*cking deal. During the cold war we had the
entire security service for a world superpower to
worry about. We lived through 50 years of the KGB
without any of this nonsense.
9/11 is a big fat red herring.
These people WERE ON WATCH LISTS. If the government
had been any good at doing it's job with the
information it already had and the means that it
already had then then there would have been no attacks.
New methods to annoy the general population are not the answer.
Wish to cause harm (Score:2)
There are more people killed by gun-toting relatives in the US than by Islamofascists. Before 9/11, there were more people killed in the US by Christiofascists
Re: (Score:2)
The terrorists don't need to
Re: (Score:2)
Why Americans and Brits object to ID Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the US, people believe that we're free and the government works for us - we're not owned by some government. Britain's a bit different, having a tradition of feudalism (we has a revolution against ours, while they mostly outgrew theirs), but they still also believe in individual freedom as a fundamental value. We both know it doesn't really work that way any more, and don't like it, and that really annoys us. Our countrie
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden is one country. As designed by the Constitution the USA is 50 nations working together under one oversight government.
The other part is this. Do you really want the current USA government to have tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federalism (Score:2)
Re:Unity? (Score:5, Informative)
I realize you're being absurdly funny, but still...
A Federal "Real ID" stomps all over the Constitutionally protected rights of States _and_ citizens. It's been a while since the feds have done such a bangup job stomping on _that_ much liberty.
Remember, the SS# was "never to be used as a means of personal identification..." And now look where we are. The Real ID is nothing more than a power grab and a consolidation of yet more Federal power... that the Congress complied with happily. Time to take the DHS to court... and let the Supremes decide if they can usurp authority that is _NOT_ enumerated to the Federal government.
I didn't think I would see such a reading comprehension problem with our government when it comes to the Constitution. Seems clear to me what it says... they may not like it, but I don't care. It's not their position to like it... it's their position to uphold it and keep it from becoming... well... Orwell's nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Passport. To leave the country. That's its use.
2) National ID card. For identification purposes inside the US. It must only contain data that does not compromise your identity, just name, age, a picture and a number. With this number and a national database, all your data is there.
How can you use the driver's licence as ID, what if I d
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a non-drivers license ID. It looks almost the same as the drivers license, and serves no other purpose than to be an ID. It is much more common in cities where you don't always have to drive. But in the US, since it is almost a necessity to be able to drive to survive here, most of us just have driver's licenses.
The objectiion is part an American cultural thing (Score:2)
But also with the nature of the social contract between government and the people.
In Sweden, you have government intrusion to a point many Americans would find unacceptable, but you also have a welfare state that truly cares for the people - world class medical care, housing, education, etc. You trade off privacy for some real benefits.
In the US we do not have that social contract.
We are losing our privacy to government intrusion, but we are not g
This Sucks (Score:5, Informative)
But speaking as an asthmatic allergy sufferer, and someone who gets some really crappy colds every year making good old sudafed a bitch to find/get/procure. That new Sudafed crap elevates my heart rate by over 20 bpm and doesn't clear my head. You feel like you're ordering donkey porn when you go in and try to buy something that has it, and most vendors don't.
For the record, Aleve has a 12 hour decongestant that is the evil good old sudafed in it. After suffering for three days with every other stupid cold pill on the shelf took one of those, and was fine for 12 hours.
Of course, it was too late and I got a sinus infection so I had that joy to go through.
But this is just stupid. I'm ok with you putting it behind a counter so a meth head doesn't come in and clear the shelf, stealing it all. but the limits on the amount make it rought if you have a >3 day long cold sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
As a graying 29 year old I don't feel the need to show proof of anything when I buy a two or less boxes of medication that's supposed to be over the counter medication.
I realize I live in a nanny state that attempts to dictate everything we do while appearing to be liberal (yay for Min
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here we have to show ID, can't buy more than 12 pills worth at a time, and are limited to a certain number of grams. i did the math trying to figure out and with the aleve I found that worked it was 3 boxes. That is if my cold medicated sinus infected brain did the math right.
We used to buy sudafed in bulk. For my nasal cavities that stuff is mana from heaven, works every time. It was amazing when we got the 'improved' formula one. I didn't notice
Bulk Sudafed is still available? (Score:2)
After a few years, I ran out and bought another one. When I
Entry to Federal Buildings (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens if I'm summoned to a Federal Court appearance and don't have the required ID? Do I:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Go to jail. You are required to comply with the court order or summons. The court does not provide transportation nor lodging. I think it would take an unsympathetic view to your not providing your own identification, proper identification of course...
Re:Entry to Federal Buildings (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an important distinction, however, between not having (or forgetting to bring) a driver's license or other photo ID to the courthouse, and having a perfectly valid state ID from a state that has decided not to comply with REAL ID. The individual citizen should not be penalized because he or she doesn't have access to the appropriate identification.
And, no, getting a federally-issued passport is not a solution for everyone. Only 30% of Americans have a passport (according to the Wired article in the summary). A passport's sole purpose is to allow someone to travel outside of the country - it shouldn't be a requirement to do anything within the country. It costs $100 and takes 6 weeks to get one. There should be no minimum barrier for someone to be able to petition to government in court, and certainly not a minimum barrier for someone to defend themselves in court. It's right up there with a poll tax, which has time and again been ruled unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. You have now established that all residents of the United States are legally required to possess Federally-approved identification and that they can go to jail for nothing more than not having it.
This was a big issue during Vietnam. This changes the long-standing principle that American citizens aren't, in general, required to have ID. You might want to read some of
Re: (Score:2)
you go directly to gitmo, with jumper cables attached to your testicles while they read to you how to survive a waterboarding.
What about NON-citizens? (Score:5, Interesting)
That would give non-citizens more rights than citizens, since they can hardly make it illegal for resident aliens to buy medicine. Or will they be forced to show green cards or the like? What nonsense.
Re:What about NON-citizens? (Score:4, Interesting)
So - how do they handle me as a Canadian citizen and a visitor? There is no way I will have REAL ID, and I would prefer not to have to carry my passport everywhere I go (for obvious reasons). My guess is that the ID requirement could not really be applied to non citizens, which raises the interesting spectre of a non citizen having more rights than an American citizen from any of several states. Or perhaps the ID requirement WILL be enforced against non citizens, in which case just watch as your tourism industry evaporates almost overnight. Visitors HATE people in authority demanding "PAPERS!"
Already have to show ID... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course now, people running meth labs are using even more dangerous materials, so it really wasn't that effective.
Homeland security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Homeland security? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's because meth is produced by the people, for the people, unlike marijuana, smack and coke which we mostly import. The gov't can't get its share of the profits on meth the way it does on other stuff, so they are coming down harder on it. The 'War on Drugs' was never about saving us from the evils of substance abuse, you know.
Course, that's just MHO. (And I don't know about other states, but here in Virginia you have to also sign a piece of paper in order to buy said medicine. It's ridiculous. Makes me try all that much harder not to get sick!)
Re: (Score:2)
First, you make it sound like meth is some kind nice harmless recreational drug. "By the people for the people", my ass. Meth is a nasty piece of work, and it is produced by criminals that don't care about anyone or anything other than making money. Maybe meth is not quite as destructive as heroin, but it still very effective at rui
Re: (Score:2)
And I've gotten many compliments on my tinfoil hat, thankyouverymuch, it brings out the silver in the tracking devices the gov't put in my teeth...
A test case for conservatism (Score:5, Interesting)
Here we see a flip side of this argument: we'd all like to be perfectly safe, but at some point you buy the next increment of safety at the cost of something else. Are we really safer if we have a government functionary peering into all kinds of aspects of our private lives? Is Republican Party conservatism just the choice of an alternative form of government paternalism?
This kind of thing is what conservatives (and liberals) ought to be on the lookout for.
Conservatives for years have railed against the idea of a government ID ("papers, please"). Personally, I don't have a problem with a standard government issued ID, but I do understand what they're getting at. It's about the indignity of some unaccountable government flunky exerting control over your private affairs. If the growing conservative discomfort over ID standards is any measure, many conservatives have begun to realize that the government issued ID is really symbolic; it's not the ID per se, but what can be done with it.
All things being equal, an ID that is standardized, either by being issued by a single authority or whose issuance and features are controlled by a single authority, is better than an unreliable ID. The problem is that a better ID is also convenient for illegitimate purposes. Why mandate such an ID for purchasing medicine, if other than to put medicine purchases in a federal database?
And that's the rub. Conservatives are way behind on recognizing the coercive power of databases in government hands as they are ahead in recognizing the dangers of a national ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, please do not confuse "conservatives" with "republicans". Bush Republicanism is the unholy alliance between conservatives and evange
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice I used the term "Republican Conservatism"; I am quite aware that traditional conservatives have major issues with the party.
Personally, I don't think states are inherently more trustworthy than any other level of government. In some cases, such as California, they are large enough to be their own countries. In other cases (I won't name names for profession
More jobs @ DHS (Score:2)
As for you who pay for it .....
*blink* *blink* NOW they grok "mission creep" (Score:2)
I blame the cubicle blinders^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H walls.
That and a hyper-hypocritical admin mindset that wants to evince their anti-big gummint creed by adding a master layer with unprecedented access.
But that's just me.
DHS Has Outlived Its Usefullness (Score:5, Insightful)
And in record time for a federal agency. I think its creation was a mistake and its continued existence a money-sucking waste of resources. Instead of focusing on terrorism they've started to put their greasy fingers into all kinds of areas not related to what's supposed to be their core mission.
Unless someone can relate cold medicine and terrorism. If we've got this terrorism thing whipped that DHS has so much time on their hands, then scale back their budget.
We have the FBI for domestic terrorism, the CIA for overseas operations...they were getting the job done before 9-11. Just as a reminder, the problem wasn't that we didn't know about the terrorists before 9-11, the problem was we didn't act on what we knew. And we knew without massive, illegal wiretapping of Americans, without the Patriot Act, without waterboarding, secret prisons, GITMO and all the other retarded things we've done out of fear since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it does not waste money, then it is not a government.
Unless someone can relate cold medicine and terrorism.
Yes, i can: Cold medicine bought in large numbers create a shortage of cold medicines during Spring and Winter seasons. This affects the armed services personnel and their families a lot. Since doctors and hospitals become swamped due to overcrowding by patients with cold, this puts pressure on peak readiness of armed forces. As a result terrorists can strike at will.
See? That was not so difficult.
Twisting
Re: (Score:2)
I think its creation in certain sectors was seen as a corporate merger...in other words, a way to lay people off without getting in trouble for it (in this case politically.)
Give it a few more years and we'll break it apart again....for the same reasons as above.....its all about the reorg.
If they fix something by doing it...well accidents happen...
Yup (Score:2)
Which of the Presidential candidates . . . (Score:2)
Gee, I wonder?
The real mission-creep issue: Immigration (Score:2)
The thing that's going to turn REAL ID from just another card that you may carry if you want to into a mandatory document, required to be presented on demand to any government official (and probably lots of non-officials), is illegal immigration.
There's a large portion of this country that's willing to give up all sorts of rights if it'll let us keep those damned illegals out. Right now they're largely fixated on border protection, the 700-mile fence and all that. At some point, though, they're going to
What about state reps to the capital? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to try actually listening to the event [heritage.org] cited in the Register. The issue in question is addressed roughly 18 minutes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:2)
Then get your state to legislate that your ID is just the first digit.
Re: (Score:2)
There will still be 50+ variations of ID card she has to
sort through. Some funky looking ID from across the country
could still end up looking like something that can't be
real. Although it doesn't matter because it's still a lot
of variations and variable details you could get wrong.
Another federal power grab and pointless feel good security
measure won't help Suzie one bit.