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?
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.
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.
If he does, his daughters fake ids won't work anymore.
:)
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.
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
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.
- 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:
This is true - states can choose to play ball, or not to.
For example, the Feds decided that they'd like the national speed limit to be 55 mph back in the seventies(?).
They couldn't mandate the speed limit on the interstates, but -could- withhold federal highway funds from states that elected not to enact the limits.
So you're correct when you say that the Feds don't have the power to mandate this - but they carry a pretty big financial stick to persuade states to play ball.
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.
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".
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
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...
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?
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
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.
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.