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."
As a US citizen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It almost seems more convenient to just use a national ID.
I mean, if I could replace my driver's license and passport with this card, and it could act as an oAuth for any other service ( meaning complaint companies wouldn't need to issue their own magic cards anymore ), and especially if this card erased the need for multiple proofs of ID I'd be fine with having it. I'm not normally a convenience over security guy, but I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id
Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And most important...where the fuck is it in the constitution for the Federal Govt. to issues national id??
States exchanging drivers license info ... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it is NOT a national ID. It is issued by my state...other states and the federal govt, for the most part..do not have the information from my DL immediately upon query.
From 2008: "The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has teamed up with law enforcement agencies in four states in a pilot project to transmit driver’s license photographs across state lines and deliver the photos to an officer’s computer within seconds of a request." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/information-led-policing/photo-sharing.htm [usdoj.gov]
There isn't a national drivers license database.
"The computerized system uses the Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM), an information-exchange standard designed specifically for criminal justice agencies that has been widely, but not universally, adopted."
And most important...where the fuck is it in the constitution for the Federal Govt. to issues national id??
It is where it always is, the commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
"The computerized system uses the Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM), an information-exchange standard designed specifically for criminal justice agencies that has been widely, but not universally, adopted."
Kim Possible and Dr. Director have a lot to answer for
Re: (Score:2)
and the federal govt, for the most part..do not have the information from my DL immediately upon query.
You, sir, are delusional.
There is not one federal police agency that can not get your DL info from any state in under 12 seconds flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you are wrong. We have had a national ID for several years now. In the form of your drivers license. Think about that next time you get on an airplane, and they shine that special light on your Drivers License or ID card when you're getting in line for your complimentary molestation.
They made all Drivers license status reciprocal in all states, where a suspension in Arizona will result in a suspension everywhere else, so they are linked. This means law enforcement in Florida has access to Law enforceme
Re: (Score:2)
And most important...where the fuck is it in the constitution for the Federal Govt. to issues national id??
Devil's advocate: where in the constitution is something to forbid Feds imposing a national ID?
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, if it ain't in the constitution, the Feds aren't supposed to be able to do it....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's to stop someone from leaving the country, rather than just the state?
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, but I think you're putting too much faith in the local government. I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
And what's to stop someone from leaving the country, rather than just the state?
It's far easier for a U.S. citizen to move from one U.S. state to another U.S. state than it would be to emigrate to another country.
Just off the top of my head ... another country would almost certainly mean changing your money to a different currency. For an American, it would likely mean getting used to the metric system. It would mean learning a whole different set of laws. It may mean learning a new language. It is possible but far less likely that you could remain with the same employer (than if y
Re: (Score:2)
Things like changing currency, a new (better) measurement system, different laws - those are easy. A hassle, to be certain, but far from a real prevention from moving.
Learning a new language should not stop people from moving there either - but that's a personal opinion, and I've also never done it myself. A challenge, but I think it would be a good challenge - the kind you'd like to defeat.
Changing employers does suck, but can be a great thing.
Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The super rich don't think in terms of homeland (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
Probably much like the EU did a few years ago. Ok, it wasn't -- still isn't -- a nation, but the point is moot if power isn't centralised. Nowadays there's probably too much centralised power for the EU to be a model of that any more, although it's probably still a pretty good model of the way things would be bound to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my state is now fully controlled by Dems, all of whom seem to think raising taxes, and not cutting services is the answer. Even though their continued raising of said taxes is driving the very young, young, and now middle aged people out of the state: that can afford to move.
It's really sad that my parents,who can't afford to move yet, have to drive over the state line in order to get groceries at an affordable rate: filling up their gas tank with the lower taxed gas. Yes, even with the added driving
Re: (Score:2)
I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
Since you're a Canadian, here's one example - health care in Canada got started locally by provinces, and is still in fact run at provincial level, with feds only redistributing money around (but any province can opt out of that). That seemed to work out quite well - certainly much better than the recent US attempt to introduce national health care on federal level.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's to stop someone from leaving the country, rather than just the state?
You can only leave a country for another country. And countries, as it happens, don't make it particularly easy for non-residents - you'd need to get a visa, and then eventually go through naturalization process, and there are no guarantees that you would even be allowed to do either at any point.
In contrast, in US the states are required to do certain basic things (through the Constitution [wikipedia.org]): they cannot have laws in certain areas that are discriminatory to out-of-state visitors, most importantly freedom of
Re: (Score:3)
I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
That is exactly the form of government that was created by the US Constitution. Over time, the Federal government has continually grabbed more and more power such that it is less true today, but some States are starting to assert their sovereignty a little more.
With the ratification of the Constitution, the States delegated certain specific powers to the general government, they retained any and all remaining powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a local city or state passes a stupid law you don't like...you can easily move to a city or state that has laws more to your liking....and you have a more important vote and chance to voice your opposition to such laws on a local level.
On the federal level....you're fucked....notice how today the Feds seem to listen very little to anyone in the country as to what they want...
Re: (Score:2)
I personally prefer the option of fembot
Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Informative)
The STATE government can, NOT the federal government. You apparently missed the 10th amendment "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."
Re: (Score:2)
Someone hasn't read the 10th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
"The U.S. Constitution limits government powers. It does not grant them. Thus, if something is not in the Constitution, the government can do it."
Actually, the Constitution does both, and no it can't.
It limits federal government power to the 16 (some say 17) powers granted by Article 1, Section 8, and a scant few other places in the document. Powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people (10th Amendment).
So if it's not in the Constitution, the Federal government can't legally do it. It's strictly State business. Also, contrary to popular opinion, the "necessary and pro
Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not an US citizen, but can you also decline to get a Social Security number? and, if you can, are you able to conduct a normal life (ie, keep a job, buy a home, etc) without one?
It seems to me your SS number serves the same role as other countries' national IDs, except with none of the safety checks they usually have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can. You need a lawyer to front for you and you need to play some games with the corporation laws so that you pay your taxes through your corporation's tax ID. If you work at it you can manage to be legal and make money without a SSN. You cannot be an employee of anyone though. Best you can do is be a contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
but can you also decline to get a Social Security number?
No.
are you able to conduct a normal life (ie, keep a job, buy a home, etc) without one?
No.
It seems to me your SS number serves the same role as other countries' national IDs, except with none of the safety checks they usually have.
This is 100% correct right now, however, it is a recent development. People these days use SSNs excessively; they were only designed 80 years ago to be used for income/social security tax collection and for receiving social security benefits. Nowadays you're asked for your SSN if you try to order cable TV. *facepalm*
Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
"... 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: (Score:2)
There is such a mountain of evidence for this that it's really very simple: anyone who doesn't understand that simply doesn't want to. It definitely isn't because the facts leave any room for interpretation.
The income tax was "a temporary (WWII) war-time measure".
Re: (Score:3)
Up until just a few years ago, the cards said right on them that they were not to be used as ID. [...] But it demonstrates one thing clearly: don't trust government guarantees
No, it demonstrates simply the need for an official identification method. SSN simply filled the need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've went through the hoops of getting an SSN and opening bank account just recently after relocating to the US. Opening a bank account without SSN is actually not that much more complicated, but it limits your choices - some banks insist that they need it, others are okay without it and don't hassle you about it, and the trick is to find the latter. Sadly, the local credit unions seemed to be particularly unhappy about me not having it, which is a pity - I really wanted to go with one rather than a commerc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You choose which you think is more "worth it".
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to speak and transact business anonymously is essential to a free society. If you do not understand why, maybe you should read a few history books.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity. If you don't have an ID, how does anyone know that you're a citizen of this country? If you are never required to produce it, how would anyone distinguish you from an illegal alien? ESP?
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity. If you don't have an ID, how does anyone know that you're a citizen of this country? If you are never required to produce it, how would anyone distinguish you from an illegal alien? ESP?
Simple. If you claim someone is an illegal alien, you are accusing them of breaking a law.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
You either prove that they have in fact broken immigration law ... or else they are presumed innocent and assume to be a legal citizen.
Really, it's easy as pie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that breaking of the law is defined by the paper. Being an illegal immigrant is defined by not having papers. Otherwise, do you know how easy it would be to accuse someone of being an illegal alien? "Sorry, we couldn't find your identification papers back at HQ, please come with us."
You have two choices: you open yourself up to arbitrarily being labeled an illegal immigrant by government officials, or you open yourself up having to ID yourself at specific points.
An ID card is there to protect
Re: (Score:2)
However once you are arrested and are unable to prove your identity that does leave you in a bit of a pickle. As the police should not let you go until they can establish who you are under existing immigration laws. The logic being if it can not be proved that you are a citizen then be default you become an illegal immigrant.subject to deportation once they can prove which country you belong to and they must accept you.
A voluntary ID card is reasonable as long as there are server penalties in place for p
Re: (Score:2)
Why, you can't use 10th amendment rights. States rights are only for racists, the democrats told me so!
Re: (Score:2)
The implication is that I don't need identification or special permission to move freely about the country of which I am a citizen.
Sooo... how do they know you are a citizen if you don't have identification ?!? The logic fails me. Note: I'm from a country with customary identification papers, and I've never been asked to show them EVER on the street. But when conducting business with the state (voting, going through customs, getting a speeding ticket, etc) sure, that's what they are for. I don't see what the big deal is.
The implication is that I am not free to move about the country of which I am a citizen.
I fail to see the connection. You can be harassed by police whether you have a piece of paper in your pocket or not.
Over six dozen right wing attacks since 1995 (Score:2, Troll)
No foreigners are as big a threat as the right wing. Little Timmy McVeigh was only the most well known of the bunch.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right [splcenter.org]
Troll mod? Okay, I'll post it again (Score:3)
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right [splcenter.org]
Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn.
Re: (Score:2)
"Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn."
And you conveniently forget (or perhaps didn't even know?) about all the left-wing shootings and terror bombings that took place in the U.S. in the 1960s - 1980s?
FAR more than anybody in the "right wing" has ever pulled. If you don't believe that, I can pull up references. But you can yourself, too. Just look up these names, and learn about the things they took "credit" for doing: "Black Panthers", "Weather Underground".
There were more left-wing terrorist bombings just in Washington D.C. during that p
Re: (Score:2)
"Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn."
And you conveniently forget (or perhaps didn't even know?) about all the left-wing shootings and terror bombings that took place in the U.S. in the 1960s - 1980s?
FAR more than anybody in the "right wing" has ever pulled. If you don't believe that, I can pull up references. But you can yourself, too. Just look up these names, and learn about the things they took "credit" for doing: "Black Panthers", "Weather Underground".
There were more left-wing terrorist bombings just in Washington D.C. during that period, than all "right-wing" bombings combined.
While you're absolutely right, I think the whole "right vs left" deal glosses over a lot of important things.
All I want is maximum freedom for consenting adults who do not use force or fraud to achieve their goals. All I want is the minimum possible government that can still provide effective public works, law enforcement (but only to prevent one person from using force/fraud to deprive another of civil rights), and national defense (against unprovoked foreign enemies -- to paraphrase Franklin, provoking f
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who uses bombs (or shootings, or threats of same) as a tool for terrorism in America is a whacko. I don't care if they're "left" or "right" or something else.
Government can't protect people from crazies, because they're not rational. That's what "crazy" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost without exception, terrorists do not want what they say they want. They do not want to achieve political goals; if they did, once their goals were achieved they would disband, yes? But they don't. They find some other cause to terrorize over. They do not want
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Just read that page, took all of thirty seconds. It is very short, short on facts, and even based on the facts presented, does not make a case for present day leftism terrorism. It claims leftist terrorism was once a problem . Cherry picking the dates 2000-2005, hmm, what happened during those years that might skew things? It also leaves out many, many right wing attacks. My source, and the FBI page linked to from your cherry-picker page, both list more. I guess he has his own criteria for what cons
Re:As a US citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:As a US citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
As a EU citizen (Score:2, Interesting)
Some states have national ID cards, some require you to always carry one on pain of arrest and a fine. The UK is a notable exception in that it actually implemented such a thing and then repealed it. Still has biometric passports though, and they'll take your fingerprints AND DNA swab if you're arrested --regardless of reason-- and will keep the profile indefinitely, "just in case". Getting out if proven innocent is unreasonably hard to the point of being almost impossible.
My government insists on fingerpri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany and the Netherlands.
They won't necessarily arrest you, but being unable to show ID when asked to is a petty infraction with possible fines.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every country of the EU has that. But most have. As we have this since nearly hundreds of years, depending on country, no one complains.
Afaik only the UK has no requirement for an ID card.
(We have no EU wide unique id, though, they are country specific)
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every EU country has a law which enforces to carry an ID it always has been like it and I am 40. If people really do is another issue.
There's no legal requirement to carry ID in the UK. You don't even have to carry a driving license when driving, though if stopped you may be required to present it at a police station within a few days.
Don't know about other EU countries. When abroad I generally keep my passport handy so that might cover me if such is a requirement? It's never been an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany - you have to own one, but not carry it on you. Technically you need to report a change of address within 2 weeks and get the address on the card changed. (just a sticker - no charge). I managed to live for almost 20 years without bothering to report my changes of address though the official one was still fine if anybody wanted to contact me. Mainly I did this so I could vote in the community I grew up in, instead of where I currently lived. The state didn't bother smoking me out until a disgruntled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*gasp* Noooooo waaaaay! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Interesting outlook.
"Jimmy murdered someone? So what? OLD NEWS! He murders people all the time?"
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I... am not sure I understand what the summary means. There is something wrong with those sentences. They give me a headache.
We don't need no steenking real-id (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We don't need no steenking real-id (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
California (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your papers, please. I must see your papers.
Ahh, I see you have recently been to New York. Please step this way, this gentleman will escort you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your papers, please. I must see your papers.
*pulls out scissors*
Re: (Score:2)
The other half would be trying to figure out how they can speed up the process, unless you tell *them* that it's actually going to be the Mark of the Beast or something.
The fundies I used to know already considered 'national ID' proposals to be the 'Mark of the Beast'. Some of them opposed it on that basis while others supported it because it means the End Times are coming and they're about to be Raptured.
I don't get it at all (Score:2)
I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system. If you're a citizen, you already have Social Security documentation, and probably a passport/driver's license. If you're a legal resident, you have a visa of some sort. If you're not a legal resident, you're not going to get an ID anyway.
I don't understand why people panic over a national ID system. They already have Social Security documentation, driver's licenses, and passports. It's not like nobody knows you exist, or you can't be
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why people panic over a national ID system.
Because they've studied some history?
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. So everyone should panic when their government is trying to force it through.
Re:I don't get it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't get it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Two words:
"internal passport" [wikipedia.org]
some animals are more equal than others (Score:2)
"A man with a watch knows what time it is.
A man with two watches is never sure."
-- Segal's Law
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck does this get modded insightful?
Step 1: Government hands you a plastic card
Step 2: ???
Step 3: 1984!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really, truly apathetic on this, and I don't understand why anyone cares at all.
It's a huge waste of money. We pay that money with our taxes or with fees associated with the IDs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they need real id's soon because they are going to bankrupt the social security system and have to have something in place when it collapses.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should take your time to look for the videos on youtube.com of www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
And take the time to watch one of them, yes takes 2h ... so scroll back and forth if you want.
But it will give you an idea what your government and the men behind it are doing since 60 - 80 years ;D
Regards
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:2)
If you take those movies seriously, you're either credulous, delusional, or an idiot. Most of the fans fall into the first category - they're naive and ignorant, and tend to believe anyone with an authoritative voice and a movie camera. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you fall into the same category. Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system.
Probably slightly less paperwork for law enforcement, so they like it. And some government contracts would probably be awarded for the manufacture and tracking of the ID, so there's that economic interest to hire lobbyists. Plus, homeland security's primary job is to fool the public into thinking they're safe, big intrusive programs are some of the most effective placebos in that aspect. So there's plenty of want and need for it.
Oh, did you mean legitimate reasons why this is good for the nation? We
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you missed the part about some states deciding that it was better for illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, if you prefer) to have driver's licenses than not. As part of this decision the rules controlling how you got a driver's license were relaxed. No longer is there a need for a certified copy of a birth certificate or any other government document that offers a proof of identity. All that is needed is a note from somewhere (most often cited is the local Mexican consulate) that says this
Re: (Score:2)
Along with the various ways it can be abused against citizens directly, there's the slow lobster-cook method of stripping away rights. Recall the old "First they came" statement. In addition to the direct effects on citizens, it is an excuse to further consolidate power into a national government. Thus the actions by those states that are paying attention, to hopefully prevent their rights from being further eroded.
I for 1 disagree with most of slashdot (Score:2)
I am pretty big on privacy but aspects of a national ID I fully support.
I'm just trolling here because this topic brings out irrational emotional rants but I'll post something because I'm board at the moment.
Government can provide an ID system without taking over your life-- that is a SEPARATE issue. Its your collective fault if they take over your life and they don't need an ID system to do this. (the IRS has done quite well already.)
Social Security numbers are given to everybody and I am totally for them
seriously stop trying to complicate shit (Score:2)
If they think having real id's will protect infrastructure they are wrong.
If they think having real id's would save more lives or fight crime/terrorism more than just dumping the money into police / safety / intelligence measures wrong again.
What we need to do is think further ahead after the real id comes out. We will need a really real id.
Then we can lay the ground work for a Real DNA id.
Then maybe we can have Really real secure dna id by 2020.
It'll only set us back 10 trillion and another 2 trillion each
Re: (Score:2)
Then we can lay the ground work for a Real DNA id.
Oh crap. My DNA is synthetic!
Re: (Score:2)
DNA-based IDs -- the better with which to discriminate against the growing population of non-biological sentients.
We could ... (Score:4, Funny)
... set fire to the Reichstag building [wikipedia.org].
On second thought, that's been done already. Never mind.
666 (Score:2)
It's nothing but FUD. (Score:2)
Faced with this state refusal, every year since Congress has voted to "delay" the program for another year. They haven't killed it, simply because they don't want to lose face over having voted to pass a law that is universally despised throughout the U.S. They simply don't want it to come to people's attention.
If they tried to enforce it tomorrow, my
Real ID brought about by some states (Score:2)
The whole Real ID mess came about because a number of states (Illinois for one) decided to abandon any real standard for issuing state-backed identification. I was recently in Germany and they accepted my Arizona driver's license as a valid ID - no passport required after the guy at the airport. I'm sure they would accept an Illinois driver's license equally well - in fact, they did the time before I went to Germany and was living in Illinois.
The problem is, in Illinois you an get a driver's license that
Re: (Score:2)
Terror arrest in 3, 2, 1 (Score:2)
Quote from TFA:
With another faux implementation deadline looming in May, the DHS is almost certain to issue a blanket extension of the compliance deadline again soon.
Smith, King, and Sensenbrenner don't want that to happen. They cite the arrest of Khalid Aldawsari in Texas as a reason for "immediate implementation of REAL ID."
So I predict a scheduled event in in May, about 15 days before the deadline. That should give enough time for sensational stories to be published, State Legislatures to be stampeded, and federal mandates to be imposed. Its time for the curtain to go up on another Act in the Security Theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we have them...but no one is ever required to register and get one...unless perhaps they were going to travel outside the country. Heck, its only been in the last few years that you needed anything more than a birth certificate copy, or a drivers license to go back and forth on vacation to Mexico from the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just give me a reason to solidify my decision..
Antarctica will welcome you and help you solidify your decision quite swiftly (as long as you keep your decision on your - frozen - self).