Slashdot Mirror
Driver's Licenses to Become National ID Cards
XorNand writes: "Time is reporting that the Dept of Transportation, acting on instructions from Congress, is in the process of linking together states' drivers' license databases. They figure that it'll be cheaper and easier to slip under the radar of civil libertarians and privacy watchdogs. Wonder if Larry is a bit peeved that he's not getting his cut?"
So I just need to stop driving to become a nonperson! Well worth it, really.
If you don't drive, you're a terrorist, right?
In MO (and probably most states) you can opt out of having your SSN (Social Secutiry Number) from being your DL number. What if these states overlap (ie I have 666 as my ID from MO and you have 666 from IL)? Wonder who will have to pay to correct this little oversite? This is just one thing off the top of my head...
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
I don't know very many places that don't require a driver's license as the standard form of identification. State sponsored photo ID's are basically the only form of ID that is accepted everywhere (i.e. using personal checks at stores, getting into nightclubs, etc). Making em national isn't going to be much of a change, except for 2 things. 1) Your less likely to be thrown out of a club in another state for having an ID they don't recognize, and 2) You can't get away with speeding in another state quite as easily, because now the state trooper has access to ALL the state databases :)
I am !amused.
Shouldn't the national ID be uniform across the country? In the sense that the kind of info displayed on the card and the lay out. If it is not uniform, then it's harder to detect forgery on those ID, especially if the ID is out-of-state.
Then, the question on the on-card security add-on implies that we're effectively getting a new driver's licence ID. I dunno why don't they just enforce a single, uniform ID in the first place?
Just my 2c.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
Nope, not me, I must be someone else...
The danger is that such a bogus ID will be taken as valid in more places and for more things due to its "national scope", and it'll be easier to get into things and do more damage than it is now (difficult concept, I know).
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Don't forget that most (all?) states take a digital picture of you when they make your license, so the government now has an immense database of faces.
I'll let everyone else debate whether this is Big Brother or healthy law enforcement. But one thing's for sure: buy stock in face-recognition software companies!
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
What about states (like NJ) that don't require a photo on the drivers license?
Seriously, though:
I'm gonna wait for the implants to come around before adopting this. Don't need my muggers getting free health care when they steal my wallet.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
It's already the standard photo ID. It makes sense for the feds to require standardization of state IDs, so that all states have to meet the same requirments. E.g., I've lived in NY for a few years, and my wife has an NY state license...but my 4-year-old Florida license is much higher tech (plastic, digital photo, holograms) than the low-tech laminated paper NY state licenses.
You already have to show your license or something similar when flying. The chances of fraud will be reduced if we have common standards for all state ID cards.
Most of the privacy rights - if there really are such things - vulnerable to a nationalized ID card have already been trampled under the wheels of increased security, more efficient law enforcement and better business long ago.
And there lies the problem.
It's too bad that the 28th amendment will probably ban flag burning instead of doing something useful.
Try that in Hebrew/Israeli/Yiddish.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
How incredibly easy it was for them to get fake drivers licenses, SS Numbers and Birth certificates. So now if you get a driver's license in California under a fake name, you can create a person that exsists in every single state. I don't see how this will help.
What if you move from one state to another? Will driving points remain? Come to think of it, what happens now?
If he does, his daughters fake ids won't work anymore.
:)
It's much harder to kill or seriously injure someone when you're eating, walking, or breathing. With a 2-ton piece of metal at your command, this becomes much easier to do. So some training is in order before one should be allowed to drive. A driver's license is merely proof of this training.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
In NY state now, you have to have 6 points of proof of name to get a DL. You get certain amounts of points for each of various docs -- out of state license, credit card, ATM card, etc.
You also have to have proof of date of birth, which is the tough one. Basically you need a passport, military ID or birth certificate. I have no passport or military ID, so I have to somehow track down my birth certificate (an original, not a copy) before I can get my NY state license.
I believe all this is post-Sep.-11. It used to be much easier...
You know, Single Identification Number, from the Gibson books. IIRC, it wasn't impossible to be SIN-less, it just made your life very difficult. The main SIN-less character was in Mona Lisa Overdrive, and she had a pretty lousy existence. So, everybody line up for your original SIN. Or become a homeless, drug addicted hooker. Your choice, really. And that's freedom, right?
Do not touch -Willie
I'm not sure which is the scarier part of the article- the way it blythely assures you that this isn't really a significant step because the civil liberties damage is already done, or the fact that this is probably true. As they point out, all this involves is linking together data that's already kept and making it a bit easier to access. The problem is that making it easier to access will make it that much more tempting to access it for more and more trivial reasons. If it's really possible to check any driver's licence just by scanning it, how long will it be until you have to scan your license to buy alcohol or tobacco, rather than just showing it (or here in California not bothering to show it because nobody seems to care)?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Just a thought...
But seriously, though, if information is property, how long will it be before everyday citizens claim their personal information as IP? How long will it be before we get a right to privacy? How much of Big Brother and Big Corp invading our lives does it take?The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
My driver's license became my Natl. ID as soon as the State of Iowa started using digital cameras to capture (and no doubt store) my image for the license, and probably before.
Try doing much of anything that matters WITHOUT a form of state issued ID, and for the most part, you will be SOL. National ID's are here, and have been here for quite some time. Get over it OR get used to it.
I particularly like the tone of the article. "Give up, don't fuss, it's just too hard. Life will be much easier if you just conform." The Disneyfication of the Corporate States of America continues....
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Right now, driving is considered a "privilege" (If you ask me, it's pretty much a requirement nowadays), which makes it real easy for states to take away your driving "privileges" for accumulating too many points, etc... If this becomes a national ID card, what is going to happen to that "privilege" philosophy?
The plan, Congress hopes, will be cheaper and easier to implement, and less likely to incur the talk-show ire of civil libertarians and states' rights purists (the same type who squawked in 1908 when the FBI was born).
I'm not one to usually "squawk" about bias in journalism, but what kind of sorry excuse for objectivity is this? "Congress" hopes? since when did congress think all alike? "Talk-show ire"?
I feel genuinely ill.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
So, we will get even more bad drivers going rampage on the roads? What a wonderful idea!
The current situation is already terrible. Most americans think they have the right to have a driver license, and that's probably why the license is so ridiculously easy to get. But now, even the failures who couldn't pass the driving tests will have access to a driver license...
Insurance quotes will go up, up, UP !
...this sounds like a good idea to me. In fact, I'm surprised all the databases weren't already linked together. I mean, you've given this information anyway, what's the difference if all the DMVs have access to it?
SIGFEH
>A driver's license is merely proof of this training.
And the lack of it (via suspensions) is a good indication that you *shouldn't* be continually endangering other people's lives... why is it that the local police blotter always has several "Joe Schmoe was stopped for [tail light/reckless driving/running a stop light] and the officer found that he was driving with a suspended license from a DUI. This is Joe's fourth offense while suspended" kind of items... I still don't buy into the drug legalization thing yet, but won't someone lock up (or heavily fine) the fools who continue to endanger people's lives with heavy, powerful machinery? [/rant]
Sorry about that... I feel better now... but if you know anyone who was broadsided by a drunk who already had his DL suspended twice, I'm sure you can sympathize.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Whew. I can go back to sleep now.
specifically:
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.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Case in point.
.. not because of fleeing the police)
.. I was clean as a whistle. Cheap insurance for me.
.. will this "information" now allow insurance companies to go back and collect "past dues" that they felt they deserve?
.. just inject the id chip in my arm get it over with.
I had a nasty no-no on my driving record (and lack there of for 3 months after it was revoked) in one state and moved away in 6 months of it happening. (it was because I graduated college
Nevertheless, in the new state I arrived in, they did a run of "my license" to see if I had any bad marks on it. Guess what
Now with this "new" systems, they will probably be able to back track all your offenses from state to state.
"Sorry John Doe, you received a speeding ticket 10 years ago and we consider you high risk."
Another thing
We are screwed
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
I am peeved to no end that the government attaches so many strings (Trackability) to the services/priveleges it provides (Roads). The government should serve the people in a nearly transparent manner. We already sacrifice income taxes to pay for those services. At what point does a service or privelege become a right? I'm seriously wondering. Must I retreat to a 19th century standard of living to maintain my privacy?
Great! Now all those in prison (lack reason for having a drivers license) or have had their license taken away from them for driving crimes, and all the pre-driving age, and old and handicapped beyond drivable people are....
You have been a number for years. Now it's overt. The technology has made invasion cheap, we can fight it or roll over. Any ideas on how to fight?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is so simple! Driving is not a right.
If it were, anyone could drive, even people who aren't fit to drive! And there are definitely people who aren't.
Blind people, comatose people, etc, etc....
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
- Decentralized database. States would be the only repository of the information associated with the DL. This as opposed to a large federal database (and at much added cost).
- Standardizing the info on the cards. This would include a photo id, signature, and a magbar for quick input into a computer. Instead of the mess in which some states don't have photo IDs, some require SSN, etc. This still leaves enough up to the states as to not trample their states' rights.
- Improved communication between databases. Because the system would be decentralized, there would need to be an easy way for government officials to request info from such DBs; because states would be required to at least store a minimum of information, it would be simple to define a query standard. This way, rules can be put in place that if information is requested without a warrent, only specific pieces could be sent. If the database was centralized, then this would be much harder to enforce.
The groups are not completely at ease; this plan would suddenly give several DMVs near-absolute power, and unless regulations are put in place, this might be abuse. They also do worry, as many have posted, that there are both legal and illegal reasons not to have a DL; those that legally lack one may be forced to get one despite not having to drive -- this may cause states to have to provide DLs with "No Driving" restrictions to be issued in general for those currently without one."Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's really hard to get anything done these days without some sort of government-sanctioned (be it state, federal, whatever) picture identification. Can't cash a check, board a plane, get a loan, or a few hundred other things that you may or may not need on a daily basis, but there's going to be a point where you have to have it. For people who don't have a car or don't know how to drive, the non-driver ID is the easiest option. Not unique to NY, I imagine most states have them now. I know the 3 states I've lived in (AL, GA, SC) all offer non-driver IDs.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Some states already require you to give your SSN when you get your drivers license. I've been fortunate to live in PA where we didn't need to. But I need to renew my license next month, and if they change something, I'm going to have a bit of a hissy-fit. SSN for #1 is not a form of identification, and it should not be used for such, even though everyone asks for it. If you tell them you either don't have one or don't want to give it, you normally won't have a problem because they can't require you to give one!
The challenges in combining 50 states databases, all in different formats, containing different information, stored in different formats, etc. will be a very difficult and time intensive challenge.
And, I wonder if they will even be able to get many states to give up their databses?
I'm not entirely sure what driver's liscences look like in the states right now, but here in Ontario we already have . We also have health cards(for the national health care system that us socialists have) that look identical to the drivers licenses, only they're green.
All cops have a little computer in their cars where they can swipe your lisence and bring up your criminal and civil record. It's gotten to the point now where some dance clubs swipe licenses in order to check ID for age. There is already significant talk of uniting both of these card into a one piece that also contains the Social Insurance Number(Social Security for you americans).
Anyways my point is that this all managed to slip under the radar in Ontario about five years back and there was almost no public resistance to it(probably because the old two-piece driver's lisence was so damn ugly and inconvenient), and there is almost no public knowledge as to what kind of information is actually stored on that magnetic strip.
Don't let it happen if you can avoid it.
lysergically yours
It's a pretty blue book that says "Passport" on the front.
But yeah, not everybody has one of those like they do those blue cards that say "Social Security" on the front with a name and a random nine-digit number...
-JDF
It was clear a few years ago that they were setting up a national ID via the drivers' license databases.
That happened when they changed the law to require the states to collect social security numbers and link them to the licenses in their databases.
(I believe the excuse used was tracking down absentee fathers who were delinquent in their child support payments.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The powers of Congress are not all explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The last sentence of Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress can make all laws "necessary and proper" to enable their enumerated powers. This might not sound like much, but in practice it has allowed the Government extrodinary latitude. This was a big issue when Hamilton was pushing for a national bank (It doesn't say anything at all in the Constitution about the Government running a bank), but it's been a pretty much resolved issue for about 200 years. I wonder what percentage of current laws would survive without that clause.
Do they really think that this system will prevent anything?
Money talks. Simple as that.
In a sense, this is really already in existence.
When you're pulled over in most states, your license is checked in the issuing state.
If your offense is particularly bad, it is usually ran through NCIC, which IS national, and even international. Some states automatically use NCIC (CA,FL,TX), regardless of the offense.
Privacy be damned, making this easier for law enforcement is a good thing; and the first time someone is caught in another state, whether it be for terrorism or wife beating, it will have earned it's stars.
So, if they're going to go this far, they could incorporate this into all the updates (that will probably never happen) to the voting/polling system. We can finally swipe a card and vote without the arcane system of manual voter registration we have today.
But wait... Then lots more people would probably vote. And all addresses/info could be automatically verified eliminating doubt and manual recounts. And 'elections' like Florida will never happen again!
$100 bucks says they don't incorporate the 1 thing into this system that could empower citizens.
If the U.S. domestic response to terrorism starts to resemble Zimbabwe's, which passed a law in November making it compulsory to carry ID on pain of fine or imprisonment, well, that's something to worry about.
But until Congress passes a law like that -- and until you can't enter a movie theater without the usher checking you for priors -- there isn't all that much to get exercised about.
Er, no Frank, that's when it's too damn late to start doing anything about it.
Once you get to that stage people start becoming afraid of resisting goverments attempts to be Big Brother in all aspects of life, as it becomes a lot easier for the government to make otherwise innocent peoples life difficult by 'accidently' putting false information on the cards.
Oops. We accidentally put that you've got a criminal history on your card...oh well better luck at the next job interview.
Most of the privacy rights -- if there really are such things...
Yes, Frank such a thing does exist in the rest of the world. Here's the government body that protects my privacy and data.
For some, the real problem with smarter, more centralized ID cards is that they give bureaucrats a better chance to screw up more of your life
No there are lots of people who don't like the idea of either government or companies being able to see anymore information about them, than is absolutely necessary.
With the growth of the Internet it is getting far too easy for companies and governments to trade information about their citizens.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Great! So you get a fake driver's license. I mean, wasn't the whole point of a National ID card having a reliable way to identify somebody? What the hell makes them think that driver's licenses are a reliable method? You slip your friend at the DMV a few hundred and you can get a license no problem. Hell, in Illinois they'll even let you drive a truck!
It's all about trust relationships. At some point down the line you have to trust that somebody has verified who a person is and has done so accurately. As long as the system is dependent on trusting an underpaid, overworked, low level bureaucrat, people who want to get false identification will continue to do so. Heck, even if they are a well paid bureaucrat in a cushy position, they can still be bought, it just costs a bit more.
Ultimately the only people who this will effect is law abiding citizens who don't get fake ID's. Anybody who honestly wants to conceal their identity will continue to do so in any number of ways that are nearly impossible to prevent.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
And once there are nifty little networked readers in all these places, it'll be incredibly trivial for Big Brother to track your movements-- hey, you had to give your SSN when you bought that prepaid cell phone after the PATRIOT II passed in 2003, right?
And, of course, Big Brother has lots of annoying minions working in the IRS, local law enforcement, and collections agencies, all of whom are going to have much easier access to records than the law would suggest.
This isn't the America I want to live in. I want to live in a country where the long arm of the law doesn't have the resources to pursue anyone but the real baddies, by conventional means like the ones we had five or ten years ago.
I want this for your sake. I want you to be able to escape bad debts, a warrant for your arrest on drug charges, the ex-spouse with an unfair judgement against you. Right now you could change your name, move to another state, pay cash, and live quietly, and thankfully, never screwing up again.
But once all this is in place, you'll be sickly aware that you'll never manage to avoid the little red light on the ID-card scanner that'll bust you in a moment. Then you'll be more prone to a violent solution to your desparate situation, once escape and disappearance are no longer a realistic option. That's worse for my own safety.
(Of course, it'll please the Feds-- more of an excuse to clamp down on gun rights!)
I want to live in a country with a little breathing room, without an omnipresent electronic nanny state.
Doesn't anybody else, in the country of Patrick Henry and Tom Paine? Isn't anybody going to fight this?
I know that some of you, for your "safety", want to have a national ID card, national ID number, surveillance cameras, and face recognition everywhere. But isn't there a place, actually otherwise a really nice place, that you could move to? I think it's called "Europe".
hell i live in NYC and have never had a car or a license like many other weirdo new yorkers -- what happens if I can't prove my existence cuz I can't drive?
I agree. One of the large problems that is overlooked is that State's Rights to handle driver's licenses was just F*cked over by this one.
More and more the US is becoming a 100% federal entity. Things work best when you have choices and people are allowed to rule their town, county, state and country the way they want to. If you don't like what your state does just move to another one. That's what the entire Civil War was about.
What makes this really suck is that the US federal government is not only sucking away state's rights, but sucking away the rights of the world by using "economic sanctions" to get other countries to conform to our laws adn using the WTO as the big stick as we walk softly.
It won't be too long until if you don't like a law the only way to protest it or get away from it is to leave the planet. I've been considering leaving the US after I finish up a few obligations because their foreign policy pisses me off too much, but US law is creeping into every country. Once we have a homogenized world law system and a world culture, the land of Huxley's "Brave New World" is not too far off.
You can't copyright facts. One of the necessary qualifications for copyrightable material is that it be "original", and facts fail this test. For example, if you copyright a map (of a real place, that is), it covers the coloring, symbols, etc., but not the actual factual meaning of the map (locations of things).
This was the subject of a lawsuit over phone books. One phone book produced sued another for copying the contents of the book, claiming copyright infringement. The court dismissed the suit, saying that the names and numbers in a phone book are factual in nature, and thus not copyrightable. If there were some novelty to the ordering, organization, or selection of the names -- some piece of "original" work -- then it would be copyrightable. But alphabetic ordering certainly fails this test.
Your name, address and personal data are all factual. So your idea doesn't really work. Cute, though.
How many of you allready have to "show your papers" just because you look different?
How long are we going to take being persecuted for being independent thinkers?
How muck longer should we be forced to prove our innocents?
Time to rise up, my brothers and sisters, to take ownership of the information technology world.
We need to show our power, I task all of you to destroy al electronic data you can.
We Will NOT TAKE THIS lying down.
We are the giant, and they have awoken US!
The WTO is global, all countries will have a common laws that they see fit to protect THERE corporate interests. Act now, act swift, destroy data.
We have more power then all the unions in the world, and they KNOW it. If so much as decided not to come into work for 1 week, together we would shake industry more then any other group in the history of the world.
WE are the power, they have been trying to keep the illusion that they are, but in truth, we control the data, and with out us, they would crumble.
Its time for them to bow to us.
My friends, Strike now.
Either by directly destroying the data, or "missing" a couple of security problems.
There is nothing they can do to stop us, the militaries of the world can not function without computers for logistics and communication.
Rising up is the only way to return freedoms to the people. When a few controll almost everything, and remove freedoms from the people, the people MUST strike back.
Its always about control, and balance of controll, now is the time to restore balance to the controlls.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll point out one of the biggest:
The standardized databases would save the California state trooper a phone call to Atlanta; he'd be able to run a nationwide check from his car.
Everyone familiar with law enforcement will laugh at this statement. Officers and dispatchers do this now, via NCIC (National Crime Information Center). It's been years since there was a need for a "phone call to Atlanta."
All that is needed to find the drivers license of anyone is the DL number or name and date of birth. These can be used to run nationwide checks to locate the record. To find a drivers license issued out of the country, a request is made to US Customs and/or Interpol.
Unifying the ID isn't really a big deal in and of itself. There's no danger to civil rights that people could more easily verify the validity of identification. The particular set of information they choose to standardize on is likely to be innocuous.
The danger of a national ID is in the way it is used. In particular, in the use of a magstrip or other machine-readable common format. Most states seem to have something like this -- Illinois has some sort of 2D bar code, for instance -- but because there's no standard you cannot reasonably expect to scan every person's card at some given point. So I've never seen anyplace where they actually use a machine to read the card.
If you have a national ID, then this would no longer be the case. It makes it very possible -- and likely inevitable -- that IDs will regularly be scanned in all sorts of locations. Courthouses, airports (whether or not you are flying), privately secured locations (office buildings, etc.)... and the next thing you know there's random road blocks (to catch drunk drivers, drug smugglers, terrorists, or whatever other justification they choose) and they'll scan your ID.
If these systems were one-way, even this wouldn't be too terribly bad. That is, if such scans only checked to see if there was an outstanding warrant or other legal restriction placed on you. However, this is unlikely to be the way these cards would be used by the government, and certainly not the way they'd be used by private security. It is all too easy to record every time you pass such a checkpoint, and in that way coming up with an extensive profile of every person's movement and associations.
Of course, much of this already exists with credit cards. And who knows... maybe they'll join them together.
Cash a check: To combat fraud.
Get a loan: Again, to combat fraud.
Board a plane: Neither you nor the government owns that plane, the shareholders of your airline do. As having customers die in giant fireballs tends to be expensive (planes aren't cheap), they, too, are merely protecting their investment.
The problem with fraud and terrorism is, of course, that identity documents can be faked. Faked identity documents can be used to commit fraud and terrorism. (The only difference is that the terrorist doesn't care if his real identity is discovered after the crime.)
Unlike the old adage "If you're innocent, what are you hiding?", I fail to see how strenghtening the integrity of identity documents can be a Bad Thing.
Admittedly, changing the laws to require that I produce ID before I post to Slashdot, or purchase potato chips, could be a Bad Thing.
But that's not really what we're talking about here -- the notion of tying together state Driver's Licenses into a central database is really just finding ways in which things that require ID (and which require them for very good reasons) can be made more secure.
Given the alternative -- give Larry Ellison a billion dollars to develop a new bureaucracy around Oracle -- I'd say strengthening and integrating existing systems is the better way to go.
Thats a criminal offence in many US States.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You've let them have your freedom (to drive, in this case). What did you get in return?
And feign ignorance when he arests you, then feign ignorance when you face the judge.
The feign ignorance when you're slapped with a fine...
welcome to the new world my friend.
All your existencs is belong to them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"It's much harder to kill or seriously injure someone when you're eating, walking, or breathing."
But not impossible, hence the need for the license. Won't somebody think of the children!!??
One *strong* motivator for you to turn in your Canadian license is for tax reasons...
If you are not a resident of Canada, you do not have to pay the taxman in Canada.
Conversley...
If you are deemed a resident of Canada, even though you live abroad, you CAN be taxed on your income.
Now.. some tax treaty may add some simplification to this (like, if the US considers you a resident, then you are automatically not a candian resident).
IF you, say, kept an apartment, car, provincial medical coverage paid up, and still have your bank accounts and driver's license in Canada, yet were working in the US, the CCRA most likely can still call you a resident, and tax you accordingly.
Having had a few deep breaths and calmed down a bit, I'd like to add that despite 30 years of terrorist attacks (sponsored by US citizens), the UK hasn't seen it necessary to introduce ID cards.
In fact the only time there was a widespread to detain possible terrorists was the internment in the 1970's, which cause so much hatred of the UK government, that it recruited a whole new generation of terrorists for the Republican cause.
To prevent terrorists striking against you, a country has three options:
1) Stop the terrorists hating you so much that they will risk their lives or commit suicide to hurt you.
2) Have focussed intelligence agencies that can actually gather and act on intelligence data, rather than destabilising other countries.
3)Kill _everyone_ who might not like you.
The US is having a good go at number 3 (3,800 civilians so far and counting), but in the long run methods one and two are cheaper in dollars, lives lost and liberties given up in the name of freedom.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
The problem you outline is that reliable ID is more than "something you have". Same as the "password problem" -- ID should be "two out of three: Something you have, something you are, something you know."
OK, implant a uniquely-serialized chip into yourself. (Or, if you don't like that idea, use a fingerprint scanner or retinal scanner. Encode the results of the scan on the card.)
Then, socially-engineer folks to think of "ID" to "something you have AND something you are".
When Joe Crook steals your card, he gets busted for presenting someone else's card at the strip club, because the data on his implant/retinascan don't match what's on the card.
Better yet, if Joe Crook has ever had valid ID, it's a trivial matter for the mismatch to be tracked back to him.
Best of all, if you lose your wallet, you just go to the DMV, stick your eyeball in the scanner, or wave your arm underneath the reader, and they issue you a new one.
Wild-ass suggestion: Retrofit existing systems to use the fingerprints some parents have voluntarily taken of their children in order that the kids' remains can be identified in the event of abduction. Within 30-40 years, damn near everyone is in the system, and identity theft becomes impossible.
(Side benefit -- as most kidnappings are done by non-custodial parents, a thumbprint-scanning of all students upon enrollment in a new school would render most kidnappings impractical, too.)
No one said it would be legal for a 10 year old to drive. No one said your freedom to drive couldn't be taken away.
With licenses, everyone's freedom is automatically taken away, and you have to petition for special permission to get it back. Wasn't this supposed to be a free country?
But I guess this is trolling. Thinking for yourself is trolling on Slashdot. Nice place you have here.
You're right, except that driving isn't a freedom.
What?
I recently got my drivers license. In the process of doing so, I was told that someone in Alabama with the same name birthdate as myself had multiple DUI convictions. So it seems this information is already national available to government agencies. I don't think we need to be really worried until they start talking about tying it to biometrics or something ridiculous like that. I mean, its worrisome, but only to the extent that systems like this have been worrisome since their introductions in the previous century. Not a new, or necessarily worse, problem.
As though no one possessing a valid ID has ever committed a terrorist attack...
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Note to self: Join the police force, if for no other reason than to see the onboard dash camera footage the day Larry tries getting out of a speeding ticket this way ;-)
I beleive in Civil Liberties and all, but is a national ID card that bad? Before you mark this as 'Flamebait,' consider much of Europe (France and Switzerland spring to mind). Every French and Swiss person legally has to have a national ID card and carry it with them at all times, on pain of arrest. They're a little larger than a credit card, and have a strip along the bottom that you could pass through a passport reader (somthing like <<;), so if it wanted the Man could bring up your entire immigration record in one go. That's the theory: in practice, no one carries them or is ever asked for them, and if you are, you can just say "I forgot." Many of my French friends have never been asked for them in their lives, even when arrested. All they use them for is to travel within Europe without carrying their passports (yes, they can even fly with them on intra-Europeen flights).
The point is, just because they have a possibility to be used for evil, dosen't mean they will be. Look at Napster: it (in itself) is not illegal, it just has the possibility of being used for illegal purposes, yet we support it. Now switch the word "illegal" with "bad" and the word "Napster" with the phrase "National ID Card" and instantly our opinion chanages. Well-legislated IDs can be useful, and besides, most of you already have one; it's called a Passport (and if you don't have one you should). They can be well used in such things are preventing identity theft, reducing fraud, and miinimizing travel pains. The key to them is well-written and concrete legislation, crafted without the input of lobby groups or vested interests. In France, no bartender can ask for your National ID card, nor can an insurer, a municipal police officier, or a private company. In fact, I htink it may be a constitutional right that only the Feds can (not sure about that). Do they have a problem with it? No, because only (theoretically) responsible people have access to the card. Legislate well, and National IDs (be them in Driver's Licence form or whatnot) can be a Good Thing(tm).
Cue The Sun...
Only because it was stolen. Speech wasn't a freedom in the former Soviet Union either.
Whether we generally acknowledge it or not, we have an excellent system of government here in America. Some of this is based on the forethought and intention of the various people who helped found our country, and some of it is based on chance, or, if you prefer, luck. Things happened in many cases because of compromise, accident, and caprice.
One of the most important unintended features of our government is the amount of play between law and enforcement. It is widely understood (among law and philosophy students, anyway) that no society enforces its laws perfectly. Laws are usually written with the inherent limitations of the state in mind.
In many cases, a poorly or selectively enforced law is good for society - and I will take copyright as an example (albeit a hot button one). We currently have an impossibly strict and protectionist set of laws protecting authors (of books, software, etc). Yet these laws are rarely enforced at all, and when they are, typically against companies or large organizations doing what we would call "bootlegging" or "piracy" and hardly ever against "informal" violations. Person to person breaches of copyright happen with astounding frequency and, looked at objectively, constitute a massive act of civil disobedience, with just those acts we know about totaling millions per minute (napster, etc). This state of affairs, where enforcement lags behind the law, has two important effects it would have been difficult to achieve "head on:"
1) Artists do get paid, and they get paid quite well. Copyrightable media is a worldwide business estimable in the trillions of dollars. Most people who can pay the author, do.
2) Conversely, lower-income and disadvantaged users gain access to books, software, and other media for free (by violating the law without consequences).
Should this be stopped via systematic enforcement, a massive chilling effect would occur across all aspects of our society, as children, students, and low-income users could no longer learn on stolen $1,000 compilers, or depend on hundreds of "stolen" texts. Programmers lose their (illegal) access to the latest tools and work of the industry, slowing feedback and development overall. As copyrighted material represents our intellectual heritage, properly enforcing the tollbooth in front of it stymies our intellectual development.
Surveillance technology such as a national ID is dangerous because, aside from the obvious potential for abuse, it allows for enforcement which is too effective. Many of the laws in our country were written as copyright law is - to be enforced using traditional, 20th century law-enforcement techniques. In some cases these laws (copyright, taxes) have extravagant penalties by way of "intimidation" - since enforcement is expected to be difficult or impossible. While new technology may be effective in improving enforcement against violent criminals and other laudable activities (for which improved enforcement actually is better), it will have numerous negative effects as it surpasses legislative intent on good laws and reduces the "containment" of bad laws.
Of course, no discussion of federal or quasi-federal surveillance or information-gathering technology should pass without further acknowledgement of the general "chilling effect" on free speech and free expression these technologies create.
When people are aware that they are being observed (even in abstract, highly specific, or systematized ways), their behavior is altered - whether it is no longer stealing a kiss on a dark street corner for fear of the mute eyes of the surveillance camera on the traffic light, or altering the way they write their correspondence, choosing not to share an opinion in a debate, or choosing not to travel. This is an implicit and often unconscious reaction to authority, and it represents, collectively, the psychological weight of being observed. U.S. Courts have acknowledged that this kind of tacit "intimidation" sometimes constitutes a breach of our first amendment rights, as it makes us self-conscious and we work to avoid an implicit judgment. It is political dialogue on a primitive level - and where those in power are actively observing, "dissent" is stifled.
Common sense can tell you that to live in a state of "freedom" we must be free of the specter of observation.
The story of government is the story of uneasy compromise between freedom and conformity necessary for a healthy society. America has had its success on the foundation of personal freedom's default supremacy; here, our homes, our persons, and our daily business are meant to be sacrosanct and immune from invasion by both each other and the state, as evinced by many of our strongest legal edicts (the Bill of Rights is preoccupied extensively with personal sovereignty, and it is - theoretically - the highest legal doctrine in our country). Our lives were meant to be lived outside the view of the government, which must be absent unless it has "probable cause" - and by and large, this is true... at least for the moment.
This is not an accident, but by design. Our government's success is based on its distrust of itself. We could still have a monarchy if we believed people in power always know what's best, or do the right thing. Instead, we have a complicated, subdivided, cynical democracy; one which, even now, functions in spite of itself, its wheels greased with millions of illegal yet necessary actions every moment. In all of human history, Government has never, ever walked it's talk, but with new technology, it might soon be ready to try.
We're on the road to Tycho.
Driving is a "freedom". The idea of driving as a "priviledge" was a concept created to convince you to give up that freedom. It worked.
So what if you're being identified by a number. You're already identified by hundreds of numbers - this just gives you a nationwide one. And so what if "They" could use this to track you - you already are. Weren't you ever bothered that just by having your supposedly-secret (and obviously not) social security number that someone could steal your identity? We've never had a way of proving to someone with certainty that we are who we say we are without jumping through hoops - and even then identity theft can still be committed. With a biometric-labeled national ID we can finally have a good way of authenticating ourselves, provided they develop the system right (dual-key encryption of biometrics, for starters). It beats some unlaminated blue card with no picture.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I've taken to using my U.S. passport for ID where I can (i.e. just about anywhere except while driving). As an experiment, I even used it for ID at my last driver's license renewal, saying that I had misplaced my old license. Passports don't have addresses or Social Security Numbers on them, and I suspect that the fears of the civil libertarians will act as a brake on any ambitions that the federal government might have toward adding national ID features to them.
Most (all?) states will issue non-drivers a state ID card, typically through the same agency that issues driver's licenses.
Essentially it's the same as a driver's license except it doesn't license you to drive. Use it to prove your identity, residency, and age, buy booze, cash checks, etc.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
New Zealand instituted a phto-ID driver's license a while back, and since then a lot of places assume that that is the form of ID that people will use.
The article says:
> but you can only get arrested for _driving_ without one
That's why I simply leave mine at home (I don't ever actually drive, so I don't need it). So far, other forms of ID have always been accepted - but I'm prepared to make an awful lof of noise if my driver's license is ever required for something else.
At the time the photo driver's license was introduced, there was some idea of turning it into a national ID card, with a 'non-driver' card for those who don't drive. Thankfully, that was rejected - this time. I suspect it's coming though, and if it does I'll be in there fighting it.
I'm in a very rare position of:
* have a license and eligible to drive
* _never_ actually driving,
so I'm aware others don't have the luxury of taking my position on this one, although what you can do is _never_ use your driver's license except for driving related purposes.
The states drivers records databases are collected into a central commerical database already for the purposes of (1) driver insurance (2) car rental screening (3) job application screening (integrity) and (4) general credit screening.
So why don't they just have a national driver's license?
If the ID presented is proof of US citizenship, then the driver's license (or state ID, if the user merely wants an ID without driving privileges) is issued with the usual expiry date.
If the ID presented does not prove US citizenship, then proof of legal status in the US should be required. As this legal status may have an expiry date (e.g. TN or H-1B or student visa holders), then the ID or license should be issued with an expiry date no later than the expiry of the alien's status.
Simpler would be check boxes:
O US citizenship proven.
O US visa/landed status valid through (date) proven.
And ditto for Canada (due to treaty interlocks with the US and Canadian driver's license systems.)
Visa extensions and status changes could then be handled like address changes, rather than by making the driver's license self-destruct and complicating the bureaucrats' systems.
Failure to get a box checked, or presence beyond the date shown, wouldn't automatically mean they WEREN'T citizens - just that they hadn't proven it to the state driver's license issuer, or hadn't updated the license document. (So they'd better have secondary documentation available if they don't want trouble with the immigration authorities.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
By informing people, that several of the 19 hijackers were actually known terrorists by various US "intelligence" agencies, and that they were all using completely valid and correct IDs, you will be working against the Homeland Security Agency (or whatever they call it) - and we all heard G. W. Bush say "if you aren't with us, you're against us", which means that you are now a terrorist. Good luck.
Oh by the way. The US now wants to decide how MY country designs it's passports. They want fingerprints and iris scans in the passports, because it will make it easier to identify people. Well - I guess you know what to look forward to on your new national IDs.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Problems arise when the "card" isn't just a card, but a set of back-end databases and records that are exchanged in non-transparent ways and that you have no control over. Problems also arise when the "cards" and ID numbers are designed and used poorly (e.g., when knowing your semi-public social security number potentially can be used to get access to your bank accounts).
The problem with using driver's licenses and all the other bogus ID documents and numbers that exist in the US is that they don't work well and are being used for things they were never designed for. Self-proclaimed civil libertarians are at fault here: we won't get any good, secure ID cards and numbers as long as any such effort is immediately torpedoed.
What we should do to protect our civil liberties is to design a robust, secure system of identification, and create privacy legislation that lets us get control of who stores what data about us. Or, in different words, the complete opposite of the agenda of the libertarians and the conservatives.
Central to the entire proposition is a big, fat non-sequitur: that knowing who the person in front of you is tells you anything about that person's motives. Even if we blithely ignore the problems in standardisation and expense, the core problem is the same:
why should a terrorist / criminal to be appear any different to you or me (in terms of the information linked to the card)?
Consider: Joe Bloggs, a disgruntled Nuclear Plant worked, has nefarious (sp?) intentions. How does this register on his card? What possible difference can that make to the businesses who (in terms of the article) are crucial to the success of the system? Can people believe that Joe will have a "terrorist risk" label attached to him (and if so, how in heaven's name does it get there)?
So the prospect of "demand[ing] a swipe to weed out terrorists" is assinine in the extreme.
Finally there is one other belief: that this will make it easier to retrospectively track the actions of terrorist. Wow. The FBI can know that Joe (having now destroyed the plant) was a big fan of Coca-Cola and McDonalds. Congratulations. Everyone with those tendencies gets "flagged" as dangerous.
I feel safer already.
We call it a "walker ID".
Best Slashdot Co
Neither you nor the government owns that plane, the shareholders of your airline do. As having customers die in giant fireballs tends to be expensive (planes aren't cheap), they, too, are merely protecting their investment.
And it's not like the government regulates flight, right? I mean seriously, why should a government have any say in the matter of flying bombs travelling over the country?
Oh, right, there's the FAA.
Think before you post.
Kind of a useless bit of information, but isn't that what Slashdot is all about? ;-)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I've got to say I'm not as upset about this as I was at the prospect of National Registration... if they were trying to soften the blow to Civil Libertarians, they did a good job, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. ;)
I don't fear the government having a decent, reliable database of a limited amount of citizen info (Want to buck the system? Try not paying your taxes or not collecting a paycheck!), I'm far more worried about private companies getting access to personal data and exploiting or spreading it to make a buck.
Enough of my ramblings... I'm just happy the Fed isn't going to pay Larry off for his overpriced (but generally high-quality) database system.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Thus, I would propose the "National ID Plaque", something about the size and thickness (for durability) of a magazine, bearing a good-sized portrait on one side and blown-up thumbprint image on the other, with the bearer's name and one of those anti-tamper holograms embossed into either (or both).
The fact that the plaque would be too much of a PITA to carry around would prevent the sort of mission creep that linked the Social Security number (which was originally supposed to be presented to an employer when taking a new job, and used for no other purpose) to everything in sight. As an additional precaution, it would include no encoded information of any sort (this also insures that zapping it in a microwave, putting it under a magnet, etc, won't damage it).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
So if you've only got a license for a scooter or a moped does that make you a second class citizen.
If conscription were to start what are the bets that the majority of groundtroops and frontline operatives will be the moped owners.
:)
Here in California the list of people eligible for jury duty are drawn from the drivers license and state ID databases, as well as the voter registration. In the past it was just voter registration (the theory being only a citizen is registered to vote and only citizens can be on a jury). The problem was that people weren't registering to vote because they didn't want to go to jury duty.
Well, that's been fixed and now the DMV databases are used as well... but now non-citizens are often asked to come in for jury duty (if you're called you can write a letter stating you're not a citizen and you're excused -- just make sure you tell them you're not a citizen otherwise you'll just create problems for yourself).
So a friend of mine (who is a citizen) is the kind of person who doesn't want to go to jury duty so he is not registered to vote and does not have any form of state-sponsored ID... no driver's license or ID card.
My understanding is that is 100% illegal, because once you turn 18 you are supposed to have some sort of valid ID. And let me tell you he doesn't carry his passport around with him.
At present, the only States that require an SSN for a driver's license are:
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
All other States do not require an SSN, but will usually ask for one. If an alien does not qualify for an SSN, usually a statement from the Social Security Administration indicating the alien is not eligible will suffice. Source: link
You know the constitution?
You must be a terrorist. Real Americans are never taught the constitution.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I beg to differ, and so do the courts:
Quoted from: http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/interest/travel_
You *don't* need a Driver's License (permision) to travel upon the highway, ONLY IF you are are engaged in commerce.
All German citizens are required to have a national ID card. The card is about the same size as a passport (see below for why). It has a photo, place of birth, ID number (which is not the Social Security number -- since the national ID has its own number, there is no need for using the pension fund number for everything as in the US), physical description and city/state of current residency.
The ID card also is used in the German passport (which is why the size is what it is), thus killing two birds with one stone.
The card must be renewed every few years, with a new photo and so on; any time you move, you must also get a new card or have the current one updated with the new place of residency. You have to show proof of residency -- a rental contract, a lease or a deed for land, for example. (Foreigners have to do a lot more -- proof of right to work, proof of employment or place of study, proof of income, statement of renouncing of rights to social services, no prior criminal record, in some cases an affidavit from a German sponsor, etc.)
The thing is, the whole infrastructure of making this work is missing in the US. Not only is there a lack of legislation regulating the use and defining abuse of the ID card (privacy is actually strictly protected in Germany, at least against private individuals), but a lack of people to manage that information.
Every German city and county (Landkreis or Gemeinde) has a residency office, or Einwohnermeldeamt, where all residents (citizens and foreigners) are required to register (and unregister if you move), along with showing documentation for previous places of residency, next of kin and so on. It is a serious offense to lie on any of those forms or to have a false ID; it is a minor offense to not carry an ID at all times (driver's license doesn't count).
Because the national ID is not directly linked to the retirement system (or anything else), there is a greatly reduced danger of identity theft WRT the pension or health insurance system. (Cashing checks almost never happens in Germany -- checks are rarely used -- and for an ID at the bank, you use your bank card anyway.)
The information stored is decentralized -- meaning, while the authorities can quickly access it if need be, it's not all in one spot waiting to be abused; and no one but the government and the inidividual may access that individual's information. Anyone caught trying to misuse or hand over that information to third parties is in deep doo-doo.
What I want to know is, why not have such a system in the States, rather than this half-arsed idea with driver's licenses? As many have pointed out already, it's vastly open to abuse or chaos and won't do a thing to identify people out-of-state...
Anyway...
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
The reason why I don't have anything like that and why identity theft is rampant is because people keep fighting it, under the misguided notion that it increases privacy. Fighting a national ID card doesn't increase privacy, it decreases it, because people still need to identify themselves, but there is no secure or legally protected way of doing that.
Fight for a secure national ID card and fight for legislation that limits how it can be used. That is much more valuable to your and my privacy than what you propose.
...and not only is it going to get harder for US citizens who lose their license, but it will become harder for non-US citizens who are visiting.
Like when I went into a bank in south Texas, to get a cash advance off my temporary/replacement VISA (due to having been pick-pocketed in Pisa, Italy a couple od days beforehand). I explained to the cashier that I couldn't use the ATM because it was a temp card, and I needed a cash advance. She asked to see my drivers license. I explained I wasn't a US citizen, and so I didn't have a US license, and my NZ license went with the lost VISA. But here is my Passport, I said. I'm sorry, the teller said, I need a driver's license. A careful re-explanation including a reminder that a passport was a legal identification document that was good enough for US Customs, and a query as to what about people who didn't drive resulted in no joy. My US guide, an uncle, lamented about droids behind tills in small town banks who weren't encouraged to think for themselves and so we went to the San Benito Bank to the Bank Of America in Harlingen. Explained my circumstances again, and was asked "Can I see your passport please?" Ah, someone with a future, someone who was helpful! Bigger bank, maybe someone who was encouraged to think for herself.
As I see it, if driver's licenses become the defacto ID, then it'll be harder for people like travellers (without them) to get by, because droids like my first bank teller seem to vastly outnumber thinking-people-with-a-future like my second teller. Most people get given by their boss this party line of "ask for a driver's license as ID" and they then stick to that rigidly without any common-sense flexibility. This can only be exacerbated by having d/l's as *standard* and *official* mechanisms for identification, because then it will become esconced in the minds of millions of droids that a d/l is the one and only means of identification.
*sigh*
Welcome to America, where you're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, but all I have to do is say you owe me money and the burden of proof is on you to prove you don't and get it erased from your credit report.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Some actors and other celebs do this (or more often , it's done by thier agency). This was a key factor in the whole artist formerly known as Prince thing - his label (WB) owned the trademark rights to his name.
It turns out that the KKK motto is "Non Silba Sed Anthar" (not for self, but for others.)
.sig
So I will keep my
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Nah, let 'em pick and choose. But if they withhold any funding from a state, then residents in that state, don't have to pay any federal taxes.
Get rid of ugly words like "succession" and call it something nice like "opt out."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
ROTFLMAO!!!
That is SO true!!!
Rough being a radical centrist here, I tell ya...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
A national ID will just be another ID for people to steal. What makes you think the post office is going to detect fraud any better than a national bank? You delude yourself to think any kind of computer program can take the place of personal service.
Get to know the people you trust your money to. If you want to know your banker, go visit him! Open an account at some nice stable local bank and get to know someone there. If you want to be sure of ticket purchasing, get to know a travel agent. The local banker can offer you the same account and credit card insurnce that the national bank does but he might know your spending habits better than a computer program. Sure, it costs more but there's a trade off to everything isn't there? As a society, we get what we demand.
Identity theft is rampant because big institutions are irresponsible with their lending. The same fool that thought automatic executions of email attachments thought it would be a good idea to offer credit cards by mail. It just screams, screw me and everyone else, I don't care so long as I'm raking in the cash.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is one such reassurance. All it's saying is "don't worry if you don't see one of your rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution - just because it isn't in there doesn't mean that the Constitution gets rid of it."
The 9th Amendment has been brought up as an argument for the right to privacy, but to my knowledge a court has never accepted that argument. However, the Supreme Court has said that a right to privacy does exist as an implication of some of the other amendments (specifically in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.)
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" is another amendment that you could say doesn't really do much. The authoritative word on the matter was set down by none other than John Marshall (who is probably most famous for articulating the theory of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison). In Marshall's decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he said two things - 1) the people who wrote the amendment didn't mean for it to limit the powers of the Federal government because they wrote it to read "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." instead of "The powers not [explicitly] delegated to the United States by the Constitution...". It might seem somewhat absurd to parse the sentence so much, but for the most part members of the First Congress, which submitted the amendment in the first place, agreed that the court was interpreting their intent correctly. 2)Marshall pointed out that any document that explicitly enumerated every power of government would be too large, convoluted, and cumbersome a document to even be understood. Remember, we have the Constitution was written by a group of men who considered the Confederation too weak to fix.
What may be confusing, though, is that the history of the 10th Amendment isn't as simple as that. Even though the authoritative decision was made in 1819 the Courts would occasionally use the 10th Amendment to curtail the powers of the federal government. It's generally accepted that the court wasn't doing this because it had stumbled upon a more correct interpretation of the Constitution (after all, James Madison himself agreed with Marshall, and he wrote the Bill of Rights, so he should know!) No, the Court was curtailing Congress's power for political reasons, specifically the fact that most members of the court believed in laszie faire economics. The fact that the Court tried to cut the legs out from under Congress is a great example of the way the 3 branches fight amongst each other, and the reason we need checks and balances. Anyway, speaking of checks and balances, the practice of using the 10th Amendment to cripple Congress came to an end when FDR enacted all those government programs that he's so famous for. Think about it, the Depression era programs have to be the greatest expansion of Federal powers in our history - how was he able to get it past a Court that wanted explicitly wanted a weak federal government. In 1937 FDR checked the power of the Supreme Court by threatening to expand the Supreme Court and to add members who would give him the results he wanted. It's an amazingly dirty tactic, but it did restore the interpretation that is regarded to be the correct interpretation. This interpretation was reiterated by the 1941 case United States v. Darby.
So, what was the point of the 10th Amendment? Just like the 9th amendment it was a statement intended to reassure the people, but not to alter the functioning of the Constitution - it was simply a statement of a truism.
I have to admit though, that the argument isn't 100% dead. Why? Because in 1995 the conservatives of the Supreme Court (the same political types that were invoking the 10th Amendment before FDR) invoked the 10th Amendment again (US vs Lopez) - now, so far this seems to be a fairly limited ruling (because it hasn't affected any laws outside of the original law yet), but it may be that politically inspired use of the 10th Amendment is coming back in vogue. (Mostly depends on if more conservatives get added to the court, the decision to invoke the 10th was one of those 5-4 affairs.)
So, in summary, there's a chance that the Supreme Court would agree with you as far as the 10th Amendment goes, but 1)I doubt they would be correct in so agreeing, and 2)cynically speaking they probably won't do that to a law enacted in this environment by a Republican President. For better arguments than mine, I suggest reading the remarks of the Justices for the cases I've mentioned.
IANAL, but I was a history major.
The more and more I search, the more it looks like at least in VA, this could be somewhat illegal.
The Virginia ID card and drivers license form state:
The information provided on this application is for DMV's record-keeping purposes and may be disseminated in accordance with 46.2-345.
46.2-345 states:
G. Any personal information, as identified in 2.2-3801, which is retained by the Department from an application for the issuance of a special identification card is confidential and shall not be divulged to any person, association, corporation, or organization, public or private, except to the legal guardian or the attorney of the applicant or to a person, association, corporation, or organization nominated in writing by the applicant, his legal guardian, or his attorney. This subsection shall not prevent the Department from furnishing the application or any information thereon to any law-enforcement agency.
The Department of Transportation is NOT considered a law enforcement agency, is it?. I'm sure this can seen differently by others.
If your VA license number is your SSN, it probably violates other information reporting laws also.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
SSN cards aren't proof of citizenship since anyone who works in this country (with a few exceptions) is required to pay into the system, pay Federal income taxes, etc.
This doesn't affect tourists or students, who are legally prohibited from working, but it does affect resident aliens.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I love my DL number, had it changed to Pi. Hope they won't make me change it!!!
You have a right to travel. That is to say, you can walk. (Hey, how do you think the early settlers in California got there?) You can take a taxi. Hop on the bus. Bum a ride from a friend. Stick out your thumb where permitted.
You even have the right to drive your car around your own property in whatever manner you want, including blind drunk, as long as you don't cross onto public property, other's property, or recklessly endanger others.
What you don't have is the *right* to hop into the left seat of that 747 and fly it to Vegas yourself, not even if you're a qualified pilot. You don't have the right to drive the bus. Or your SUV, or even (in some areas) ride a bike on the city streets if 1) you haven't demonstrated your basic proficiency and 2) you haven't demonstrated your ability to avoid being a threat to others.
I do NOT like the idea of turning a DL into a "good citizenship award, e.g., revoking the license if someone is behind on child support payments. This is not directly related to public safety and should be uncoupled.
But at the same time, I support mandatory prison time for anyone caught driving while their license is suspended for being a hazard to others. Hell, give people life sentences without parole for their second DUI resulting in death. When I hear about some Bubba with 16 DUI convictions, including 5 resulting in deaths, I start thinking about death penalties... for the government officials who let this idiot back on the road. I doubt they would be equally sanguine about someone who just punched strangers at random even when on parole for earlier assaults.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Not innocent until proven guilty anymore I'm afraid. My little brother was arrested, thrown in prison for a weekend, and now has to go to "therepy" where doctor patient confidentiality has been thown out the window because the state needs to know, "why he did it, and if if he'll do it again."
He has yet to go to trial, where is his innocence before proof of guilt?
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
For those of you who don't see why this is bad, consider how much fun it would be to have yourself locked out of the economy for having dissident political views. --Or for failing to pay a traffic ticket. You only get to buy bread if you heartily agree that Arabs are evil. Mm. Fun!
Being able to accurately trace & identify any individual, (National I.D. cards), and the on-going movement towards a virtual money society, (debit & credit cards: note the effects of the Euro introduction, where citizens are being strongly encouraged by authorities to avoid 'confusion' with the new cash by relying only on plastic money), will make it MUCH easier to control the populace.
Anybody who thinks that any aspect of this is a good thing should remove from their ears and eyes the filters which only allow in the 'Very Reasonable Sounding' B.S. arguments as supplied by the U.S. propaganda departments, and take a good, hard look around.
9/11 was almost certainly manufactured, and even if it wasn't, it is being exploited to the hilt. Turn off CNN, (propaganda), grow a spine, (ignore the accusations by the popular kids of 'tin-foil hatters'; Time to grow up, ignore the Gap wearing sheep and their desperate to be accepted
If you are critical enough, (of words from BOTH sides of the fence; Very important), intelligent enough, -and if you work for long enough to get a solid feel for all the available information, then you will begin to see another reality rise from the fog.
Otherwise, you might as well just accept a nice ear-tag.
Remember: Sheep get tagged & numbered. They also get fleeced. And eaten.
Some links to get started:
A brief, but solid essay on the nature & mechanics of propaganda, with examples from the U.S. during WWI to present. A 7 minute read, approx.
An article about Gulf War propaganda, outlining how the 'Babies Torn from Incubators by Iraqi Soldiers' was manufactured and used by Bush to instill war fever. 2 minute read.
Article on how IBM made a fortune during WWII by covertly supplying Hitler with the punch card technology used to process Jews for termination -Throws an interesting light upon national identification tracking systems.
7 minute read including excerpt.
Significant anomalies regarding the flight lists of the planes used in the terror attacks. 5 minute read, (10, including searches of the passenger lists to verify the writer's sources)
Empty but maintained concentration camps in the U.S. This link is half sensationalist, alarmist B.S.. Read with caution. Although it is worth noting that FEMA and the Rex 80 programs are real; the laws can be found on-line. Food for thought.
Okay. That's enough for now. Read. Think. And don't waste my time with dip-shit flames unless you've actually read this stuff. Flames are usually a waste of time with me, but if you have legit questions or criticisms, I'm always happy to respond and/or update my own knowledge base. Growing and learning is fun!
Good luck.
-Fantastic Lad
For those of you who don't see why this is bad, consider how much fun it would be to have yourself locked out of the economy for having dissident political views. --Or for failing to pay a traffic ticket. You only get to buy bread if you heartily agree that Arabs are evil. Mm. Fun!
Being able to accurately trace & identify any individual, (National I.D. cards), and the on-going movement towards a virtual money society, (debit & credit cards: note the effects of the Euro introduction, where citizens are being strongly encouraged by authorities to avoid 'confusion' with the new cash by relying only on plastic money), will make it MUCH easier to control the populace.
Anybody who thinks that any aspect of this is a good thing should remove from their ears and eyes the filters which only allow in the 'Very Reasonable Sounding' B.S. arguments as supplied by the U.S. propaganda departments, and take a good, hard look around.
9/11 was almost certainly manufactured, and even if it wasn't, it is being exploited to the hilt. Turn off CNN, (propaganda), grow a spine, (ignore the accusations by the popular kids of 'tin-foil hatters'; Time to grow up, ignore the Gap wearing sheep and their desperate to be accepted
If you are critical enough, (of words from BOTH sides of the fence; Very important), intelligent enough, -and if you work for long enough to get a solid feel for all the available information, then you will begin to see another reality rise from the fog.
Otherwise, you might as well just accept a nice ear-tag.
Remember: Sheep get tagged & numbered. They also get fleeced. And eaten.
Some links to get started:
A brief, but solid essay on the nature & mechanics of propaganda, with examples from the U.S. during WWI to present. A 7 minute read, approx.
An article about Gulf War propaganda, outlining how the 'Babies Torn from Incubators by Iraqi Soldiers' was manufactured and used by Bush to instill war fever. 2 minute read.
Article on how IBM made a fortune during WWII by covertly supplying Hitler with the punch card technology used to process Jews for termination -Throws an interesting light upon national identification tracking systems.
7 minute read including excerpt.
Significant anomalies regarding the flight lists of the planes used in the terror attacks. 5 minute read, (10, including searches of the passenger lists to verify the writer's sources)
Empty but maintained concentration camps in the U.S. This link is half sensationalist, alarmist B.S.. Read with caution. Although it is worth noting that FEMA and the Rex 80 programs are real; the laws can be found on-line. Food for thought.
Okay. That's enough for now. Read. Think. And don't waste my time with dip-shit flames unless you've actually read this stuff. Flames are usually a waste of time with me, but if you have legit questions or criticisms, I'm always happy to respond and/or update my own knowledge base. Growing and learning is fun!
Good luck.
-Fantastic Lad
Own a credit card? How about a driver's license? A checking account? If you answered yes to any of these, you have already sacrificed a significant amount of your privacy for the sake of convenience.
None of these things are mandatory. You don't have to get a credit card and no one is holding a gun to your head making you drive. Any (and especially all) of those 3 things gives the state an enormous amount of information. They know where you get your money from, what you spend it on, probably where you live, what kind of car you drive, where you got this car, what you do with it, and can practically learn everything about you without ever meeting you in person.
So, why do we do it? Simple. Try to survive without a credit card. Pretty doable, but it rules out most e-commerce, and makes staying at hotels pretty difficult. No driver's license? Sure, but if you don't live in a city, you're probably fucked without a car.
No checking account? You're going to have to go far out of your way just to perform basic life functions. You expose yourself to great personal risk by mailing cash (and many companies will flat out refuse it). You have to get money orders for everything, and you could never accept money orders because cashing them requires ID. You'll probably fail most credit checks (which are done for everything nowadays; mobile phones, apartment leases, etc)
Beginning to see a trend? To function in society, you need to have some degree of accountability. You forfeit quite a lot of your freedom just so you can function. It's no coincidence that many ultra-privacy/paranoid people are drifters.
Being unknown is entirely your right, but fat lotta good it'll do you. A National ID card is entirely voluntary, so if you want the convenience of speedy airport checkout, you'll do it. And if not, no biggie. Get on the other line.
Uhm, ok, excuse me... by whom was 9/11 manufactured? Before someone really starts to argue with you, I'm just curious what exactly that meant.
--
RumorsDaily
Here is a discussion of smart card security by cryptographer & computer security expert Bruce Schneier. It's pretty hard reading, but the main point is that, by depending on an external keypad and display, the smart cards allow a lot of new security breaks. For example, a hacked ATM terminal may steal your PIN and also divert the money -- the screen says your deposit is going to your account, but actually it's going to the somewhere in Belize, from which it will be untraceably transferred before you find out you've been robbed.
Bruce didn't consider putting a fingerprint sensor in the card itself. That will rule out some breaks -- neither stealing the PIN by "wiretapping" (and European PIN keypads have some protection against that), nor stealing the card and beating the PIN out of you will get someone into your accounts. But other vulnerabilities still remain. If you build the keys and display into the card itself, you may be quite a lot more secure -- especially if the card does good enough encryption internally and talks directly to the server, which is the only thing outside of the card which knows the key.
But then you've got the case of the Saudi terrorist (say) with a German ID (say), at a traffic stop in Maryland. Will the police car be carrying equipment that can query a database in Germany? Will results come back in a reasonable time? And even if they do, why would a German database show that the FBI wants this guy?
There is also the big issue of how identity is confirmed when someone is first entered into the system. Anyone with my birth certificate and social security number could get an ID in my name, and the SSN is in all sorts of records while you don't have to prove identity to get the birth certificate. If I'm alive and in the system, it should notice the duplication, but there are plenty of dead people to choose from. Internationally, there are many nations where records got blown up or never were complete, so you've pretty much got to take people's word about their identity.
he's a minor right? Parent's probably consented.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
"Microsoft" is a trademark, but that doesn't stop me from writing about Microsoft without their permission. I can't legally market a product called "Microsoft" without their permission. I can write all I want about their business, such as their corporate address, phone number, management, annual sales, quality of their products, etc., etc., etc.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Oh no mom didn't, they told us he either had to go through with this, or he'd go straight to jail. Still no trial, and he is being tried as an adult at age 15.
best part is, even though he is innocwent until oproven guilty *laughs* he doesn't stand a chance, the plaintiff is a straight A student, my little brother struggles, and is a constant behavior problem. He's as good as gone. AT this point, he is just trying to get out of going to Juvvi hall until he is 18, which would pretty much ruin his life in one way or another.
And just so the world knows, girl slaps him on the ass.... so the next day, he does it back, except beforehand, he said something that offended a friend of hers, so she screamed sexual harrassment.
The lesson is, don't flirt with women, even if they flirt with you first, cause they can always scream "rape." or osme other utter bullshit, and completely destroy a small life.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
You've missed my point - there is no reliable way for you, as a person, to prove that you are who you say you are. This is a disadvantage to you when you required to do so, or when people impersonate you for various illegal purposes (particularly where it comes to taking your money). It is a disadvantage to others, when they NEED to know who you are for whatever reason. And when you're going somewhere that makes a tempting target, or doing something that could cause great harm to many people, they NEED to know whether you'd do such a thing.
My second point is that you already have a number. What is the difference between being forced to show your driver's license (or social-security-number, or credit card) at every traffic stop or stadium event you frequent or for every purchase you make (as if you actually have had to do that) and presenting a National ID? Do you think "They" are incapable of cross-referencing some data? Guess what? They can but they probably don't, because unless you or someone you're associated with has committed a crime worth prosecuting you for (which is expensive), in all likelyhood they don't care about you. They have only so much time and money and resources. The only reason you have any privacy is because your boring life isn't worth the effort to investigate it.
You don't have to go to (or live in) places and events that require ID if you don't want to, and traffic stops are a rarity reserved to catch dangerous criminals or prevent some drunk moron from driving into something or somebody. In both cases the decision to check ID is a matter of expense. As for shopping, there's this thing called "cash" which doesn't require you to present an ID at a store. The only trouble with it is that it's a pain to carry around.
And guess what - unless you happen to live alone in the middle of nowhere, people are watching you. Some of them even work for the government. It may be a few, or it may be thousands, but they all have got their own agendas - some of which may even involve you. People like your mom, or your boss, or the guy next door whose yard your dog keeps crapping in. Did you know that police officer in the 7-11 gets coffee for FREE?! And that in the very same store the guy behind the register wants to take your money?!
Some people are sure that only they are wise enough to see the insidious machinations of nerfarious agencies while the rest of the world remains ignorant. Ironically enough, these measures are becoming necessary mainly because of people who are sure that only they are wise enough to see the insidious machinations of nerfarious agencies while the rest of the world remains ignorant, and that the appropriate course of action is killing a bunch of people.
Quit worrying about whether people want to know what you're doing, and get on with your life. Society is a messy business of competing interests - that's why we have laws. Your real concern should be whether the laws of our society are good and their execution fair, and if not you should try to change that by voting your conscience and convincing others to your case.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
get a lawyer. You can't go to jail for sex harassment.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Nope -- he was using the "Hey, kid, the first hit's free" business model:
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Not quite. You do need to proof legal residency (ie. H1/H4/L1 etc). Instead of SSN you can also use ITN (the tax id number people not 'qualified' for SSN, like spouses on H4 need and can apply for). Whether even ITN is required I don't know; I do know that ITN is just fine (interestingly, ability to drive a car seems to be such a sacred "right" that even us lowly foreigners can get to do that reasonably easily... :-) ).
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Reusing numbers would probably be a Bad Thing. I really don't want to be confused with the late Mr. 765-43-2100, which is bound to happen if we both end up with the same id#.
Dyolf Knip
well, they are trying to label it as a mild sexual assault charge. they say if the therapist believes that he is in need of therepy to calm his sexual urges, that he will have to serve his sentence in a state mental hospital.
Even if it ends up being a nasty fine, his reputation is ruined, he has to transfer high schools, and I still fail to see how any of what the state is doing is legal at all.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Ok, I just went back and read the article about the passenger's names... his basic complaint (a fair one, I'll admit) is that none of the passenger lists for the airplains contained the names of the men accused of the hijackings, nor do they contain a single Arabic name. In addition to this, the passenger lists and the death tolls according to CNN do not add up, there always appear to be people missing... including the hijackers.
I propose a solution to this dillemma, airlines and the US Govermnet simply didn't release any names of on the passenger lists of Arabic descent as part of the initial investigation. The Arabic men in question boarded the plains with ordinary tickets, passing through security in an ordinary manner (not, as the author suggests, by sneaking onto the plain possibly as food preparers). Just because CNN published an incomplete listing of names, does not mean the US government piloted the plains into the Trade Centers itself.
And you know why this argument fails for me? Because American's wouldn't care much about a targetted mission in Afghanistan or elsewhere. If this was all a big scam to allow military action, I ask to what end? There's no oil in Afghanstan, there's nothing we want from there. It's a big rock, not a juicy target.
If the whole thing was faked, why?
--
RumorsDaily
How can you criminalize something that can happen accidentally?
...as far as I understand these things, anyway.