Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Privacy United States

Terror Arrest Used As Fodder To Fund Real ID Act 212

BeatTheChip writes "There's been a lot of buzz in recent days concerning the deadline to deliver on the federal Real ID Act. Congress is looking for corners to cut. One tactic is to attach emergency policy to the Real ID in order to sustain funding for its development by authoring members in Congress. In an effort to link the two, Rep. Lamar Smith and others asked DHS to increase enforcement of the Real ID Act over a terror suspect apprehended by lawful means."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terror Arrest Used As Fodder To Fund Real ID Act

Comments Filter:
  • by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:20PM (#35362584)

    Are you telling me that the government manufactures or manipulates events to frighten people into providing funding and release their liberties? Why, I've never heard of such a thing!

  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C_amiga_fan ( 1960858 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:24PM (#35362632)

    Cling to your 9th and 10th amendment rights (right to privacy is one of those non-enumerated rights). It appears that's what the Member States of the Union are doing: "Half the states in the country have affirmatively barred themselves from implementing REAL ID or they have passed resolutions objecting to the national ID law." (Congress shall exercise no power reserved to the States.)

    BTW does the European Union have a single ID that all europeans must carry? If the EU tried to force the adoption of such an ID, how would the citizens or states react?

  • Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:25PM (#35362642)

    I... am not sure I understand what the summary means. There is something wrong with those sentences. They give me a headache.

  • California (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action ( 1499847 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:32PM (#35362712) Homepage Journal
    It's funny, for all our talk about being a forward looking state, and about being one of the strongest states in The Union, California sure likes to bend over and take it from the Federal Government regarding issues like this. Maybe we should start a rumor that the Real ID will allow the Federal Government to put homosexuals in concentration camps. That might get folks in this state thinking about privacy some....
  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kell Bengal ( 711123 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:48PM (#35362906)
    I can decline to get a driver's license, and I can decline to get a passport. I don't have to have any id at all if I don't want. The implication is that I don't need identification or special permission to move freely about the country of which I am a citizen.

    With a national ID card scheme, I don't have a choice to opt out. Such a card exists solely for "papers please" moments. The implication is that I am not free to move about the country of which I am a citizen.
  • by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:51PM (#35362938) Journal

    Two words:

    "internal passport" []

  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @06:54PM (#35362970)

    I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id in the form of a driver's license / state issued photo id and your passport

    Slippery slope for one. If this passes, the issue could become "Basically everyone already has these ID cards, why not make them mandatory" then "You already all have ID cards issued, there's no reason you shouldn't have them on you at all times. To prevent terrorism." Then "We had to shut down that protest: there were people breaking the law by not having national ID cards" or "Suspect was obeying the law, and had an ID card, but we suspected it was fake and incarcerated him until we could determine it was legitimate, at which time he had missed his speech 'when did we submit to totalitarian rule."

    And while each of those steps are a long shot and maybe unrealistic, but it's a pointless risk to take: we get no increased security in return. None. This won't prevent terrorism.

  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @07:25PM (#35363310)

    State, national, what's the difference? Only in scale. Sometimes you need the feds to protect you from the state. Authority is authority. All you're choosing is whose foot you want up your ass. The natural birthright is to be able to move about without being tagged like cattle.

    In terms of abuses of power ... the states are saintly figures of altruism who walk on water, heal the sick, feed the poor, and keep your cereal from getting soggy in milk when compared to the federal government. It's different when the people running things are not so damned far removed from being neighbors in or near your own community. State governments also don't receive nearly the sort of "attention" and dollars from lobbyists and special interests that the feds do. It does happen, but not nearly as much.

    You as a taxpaying citizen are far better represented in your state government than you could ever dream of knowing at the federal level. And if all else fails, you can vote with your feet and take yourself and your tax dollars to another state that's more sane.

    I heard a fable once about a particular culture's ancient rulers. When a man was to become a local king, the way his territory was determined was simple. He would stand on the very tallest hilltop he could find. Everything he could see was his to rule and not one acre more. The belief was that it's very dangerous to allow a man to rule more than he can see. Smaller and more local is how you lessen the pitfalls that come with political power. Compared to the lumbering gigantic monster that is the U.S. Federal Government, the state governments are quite close to this ideal.

  • by Plugh ( 27537 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @07:57PM (#35363634) Homepage

    I always find it amusing when someone declares that "focusing on Right X is just a distraction; you should REALLY focus on Right Y!

    See, the whole idea of personal rights, individuality, and self-ownership is predicated on the notion that different people have different values and different priorities. Me personally, I hate mandatory seat-belt laws, and I fought hard to make sure NH didn't adopt such a law (it came real close in 2008, but we did defeat it, NH remains "free to choose" on seat belts)

    For some people it's taxation. For some people it's guns. For some people it's marijuana. For some people it's education choice. And on and on and on...

    We are gathering a critical mass of people who agree in principle that the government should back away from all these things. Different people work harder or less hard on different issues. At the end of the day, all these freedoms are being defended by those who feel most passionately about them, and all of us who have made the move to New Hampshire feel the benefit.

  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @08:00PM (#35363660)

    "... they were only designed 80 years ago to be used for income/social security tax collection and for receiving social security benefits."

    Not even that, really. When this was proposed, people were concerned that it would be used as a national ID. So the people were guaranteed, in so many words, that the SSN would never be used as an ID card. Up until just a few years ago, the cards said right on them that they were not to be used as ID.

    But then the government started making exceptions, and allowed banks and credit reporting agencies to use it as ID. Now, it's a big mess.

    But it demonstrates one thing clearly: don't trust government guarantees, when they try something like that. It might last for a few years, then "bye, bye."

  • Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @09:19PM (#35364378)

    I think I did leave out one very important point.

    Saying "things here are hopeless" and moving to a foreign nation in the hopes of finding something resembling a free country ... that means finally giving up on your own country. It means abandoning what is ultimately your homeland, leaving it to the forces of tyranny which have finally succeeded in taking it over. It means surrendering all hope and cutting your losses. It's not an easy thing to do for anyone with a conscience.

  • by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @09:33PM (#35364478)

    Because they've studied some history?

    Doubtful. The average person I see beaking off on the topic tends to be they type who thinks that Caesar was a famous Italian cook.

    As you say, there's no legitimate need for a 'national ID' system and there are a bazillion ways to abuse it to harm people.

    Yeah. Paper-cuts really suck. A bazillion of them would really REALLY suck.

    If your government plans to oppress you, they're going to do it with guns, not with cards.

Put no trust in cryptic comments.