Slashdot Mirror


Congress Debating National Driver's License Rules

hamelis writes "The NYT [FRR: bugmenot]reporting on Congress' attempt to set national standards for issuing driver's licenses. The Secretary of Homeland Security could require licenses to contain fingerprints or retinal scans, and while states are not required to cooperate, if your license doesn't conform to federal standards, you can be denied "access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation." Additionally, the House version would require states to keep all license data in a linked database for quick access, and calls for "an integrated network of screening points that includes the nation's border security system, transportation system and critical infrastructure facilities." How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

189 comments

  1. Sad news by Deanasc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the papers are more important then the man holding them we will all cease to be human.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    1. Re:Sad news by eggstasy · · Score: 0

      Uh, when was this NOT true?
      If you can't prove something, then it is reasonable to assume that its not true.
      Most companies require you to have a degree, and present proof that you do have it. A lot of companies require verifiable references that prove you have the work experience you claim you have.
      If you want to travel anywhere, you have to show a ticket to prove that you paid for it. Ditto for movies, concerts, sports events... if you want to get a refund, you have to show the receipt.
      Seriously, if you expect people to take your word as legal tender, you should probably go live with the Amish...
      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it, since we aren't into conspiracy theories and the whole fearing the government thing...

    2. Re:Sad news by Deanasc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Most companies require you to have a degree, and present proof that you do have it. A lot of companies require verifiable references that prove you have the work experience you claim you have.

      A fine point but you don't have to go to college to get on an airplane. The great thing about this country once was that any man could travel and live a life free of government sponsored scrutiny.

      If you want to travel anywhere, you have to show a ticket to prove that you paid for it. Ditto for movies, concerts, sports events... if you want to get a refund, you have to show the receipt.

      Also true but again any one should be allowed to travel freely provided they've payed their fare without further scrutiny. If they can't prove I'm going to bomb the plane after I've walked through the metal dector and they've swabbed my back pack down and put the swab on a chemical sniffer then I deserve to get on the plane regardless of who I am.

      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it, since we aren't into conspiracy theories and the whole fearing the government thing...

      That's nice for you and your country but clearly you haven't been paying attention to all the other freedoms that are being grabbed up by the US government. What if your name is suspicously close to that of a terrorist? You can't expect the guy at the airport to understand you're not the terrorist. Afterall, if they airport screeners don't recognize a name like Kennedy (Still a bigger political dynasty then the Bush family) then you have no hope of travelling freely on your own.

      What if a fly lands on the teletype as your name wizzes by? What will you do when they cut a hole in your roof and suck you out of your home?

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    3. Re:Sad news by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you can't prove something, then it is reasonable to assume that its not true.
      Only under certain conditions. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's not reasonable to assume that it's not going to.

      Most companies require you to have a degree, and present proof that you do have it.
      A bit of anecdotal anti-evidence: I've never had an employer verify that I have my degrees -- they've just taken my word for it. My degrees aren't really related to the field that I'm working in, but still, they've never even checked. (And yes, I've had more than a few employers in the 19 years I've been in the workforce.)
      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards
      To be fair, the US is big. Bigger than most countries. And it's generally (often?) believed that government at the local level is better than government at the national level. Unless you live in China, Canada, India or the USSR (er, scratch the USSR), I don't think too many Americans (yes, I am one) really put too much weight in how you don't mind your national ID card.

      Around here, our personal liberties disappearing at a high rate, thanks to the wars on drugs and now terrorism. Many of us see this as a bad thing, and a national ID card is seen as yet another symbol of this -- it may not remove or liberties by itself, but it may make future attempts to deny us liberties easier.

    4. Re:Sad news by nusratt · · Score: 1

      "I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it"

      Which country are you talking about?

    5. Re:Sad news by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it..." That's fine foe you and yours, as that is what you are used to. I'm sure that your country is better off than it used to be (probably evoved from monarchy, I'm guessing), but we have only known a monarchy for an ALMOST insignificant time (when we first settled here, found a better way for us, and overthrew the monarchy). We have gotten used to our freedoms, LOVE THEM, and DO NOT want to regress (yes, that's how we tend to view losing eve the tiniest bit of freedom-regression). We fear and loathe shackles more than the unknown, (at least most of us do) and that's one of the reasons that this country is one of the "Big Powers" globally today. So, just because that Big Brother style of govt. suits you, keep it away from us, and don't be so quick to judge something you know little or nothing about!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    6. Re:Sad news by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 1
      What if your name is suspicously close to that of a terrorist? You can't expect the guy at the airport to understand you're not the terrorist.

      But if you had a national ID card, wouldn't that take care of your arguement against said card? After all, that card would identify you as NOT being the person they where looking for, right?

      The crux of such a system would be network connetivity and security.

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    7. Re:Sad news by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you can't prove something, then it is reasonable to assume that its not true.

      Science doesn't seek to prove, it seeks to disprove.

      Most things aren't exactly provable, they just have quite a bit of evidence in their favor. Proofs themselves are just taking conclusions and tracing them back to either errors in logic or raw premises. For all the data that exists in the universe, most things "proven" hit an error somewhere before they hit all of the premises from which they are founded.

      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it, since we aren't into conspiracy theories and the whole fearing the government thing...

      No offense, but we Americans have more of a government to be afraid of. We cherish anonymity, because in our country, the government is the servant of the people. Bush isn't our elected leader, he's our elected servant. We don't want our servants to gain power over us that could easily be used against us.

      If you look at things like the War on Drugs, Waco, Alien and Sedition Acts, we are very concerned with maintaining self-rule. As we enter a more and more modern age, that self-rule is ironally reverting to more of a parliamentary monarchy, like Britain had after the Magna Carta.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    8. Re:Sad news by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      You make it sound so simple - "network connectivity and security". Oh, is that all?

      Netowrk connectivity is easy. Security is not. There are three basic goals of security - integrity, confidentiality, and availability. One must choose which pieces of that triangle one wants to enforce. In the case of national security, the most important thing to them is availability - knowing that the infrastructure won't be damaged (planes don't blow up, people don't get panicked, etc.). Confidentiality is second, hiding those parts of the puzzle which would allow attackers to know how availability is being maintained.

      Which leaves integrity as the smallest piece. Do you really think it should have taken Senator Kennedy THREE WEEKS to get cleared to fly because his NAME appeared on a do-not-fly list? Who maintains the integrity of the data used to detain people?

      Senator Kennedy has a card that says he's not one of the people they're looking for - he's a member of the United States Senate! And if they can't get enforcement for the government leaders right, what makes you think they'll get yours right, national ID card or no??

    9. Re:Sad news by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ditto for movies, concerts, sports events... if you want to get a refund, you have to show the receipt.

      The difference being that none of these items have any conenction to my identity. If I buy a ticket to a movie I can give it to someone else and it is still valid. An ID like this carried an inordinate amount of information about it's bearer.

    10. Re:Sad news by Deanasc · · Score: 1

      Supposedly Cat Stevens was pulled off a plane for having a name close to that of a terrorist. He also has a passport issued by Great Britain. I don't know the man personally but based on his public statements I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about not being a terrorist. Still having that gov't issued passport didn't save him from all that hassle. From what I hear about foreign journalists waiting on cold concrete floors for 48 hours before being trown out of the USA Cat Stevens got lucky by just getting deported.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    11. Re:Sad news by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it, since we aren't into conspiracy theories and the whole fearing the government thing...

      Well said, citizen, those Yankees still have a lot to learn. Now step over here so we can laser a barcode across your forehead.

    12. Re:Sad news by teflaime · · Score: 1

      I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it, since we aren't into conspiracy theories and the whole fearing the government thing... And you almost certainly face restrictions on your life that many, if not most, Americans would find intolerable. We wish to preserve our freedom against the tyranny that government inevitably becomes and that is why we are against such measures as national ID cards and "papers" being required to travel within national borders.

  2. The Sheep will gladly accept it by UnixSphere · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It is a national ID, just hidden under the cloak of security.

    When I first heard of this, it was only in its premature stages and only was going to be implemented for airports and other means of traveling so that passengers could go in the "express" lane because they were cleared to go.

    Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.

    I seriously think the government underestimates the terrorists and well maybe they dont, they just take the US public for fools and yes the majority of the public are fools.

    1. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Scarblac · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell,

      Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by luvirini · · Score: 1

      The fact is, national ID cards are going to come to the country near you. The reasons given are many, but in the end it comes down to the fact that any nation wants to have the monopoly on certain things, like setting rules and violence. Thus they want to try to track people who break any of these. In the past people knew other people so if we had someone breaking the law "everyone knew about it", but now many people do not even know the names of some of their neighbours, so the old ways do not work. There are ofcourse major problems with this thing too, that have to do with the fact that in the past, if you were hunted at some place, you could start anew by going far enough and living straight, but that possibility is getting harder and harder.

    3. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.

      I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.

      Will this help fight against terrorism in the future? Sure. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. Standardizing licenses isn't so bad, and from what I can tell requiring fingerprints or retinal scans would require an additional law to be passed. Requiring ID for interstate travel is less of a good thing, but they do it in Europe already so it's not that bad.

      I guess I'd prefer to see no drivers licenses at all, but the vast majority of people would be strongly against me on that one. And they do have a point. Our borders are far too big to adequately protect against people getting in unlawfully. Presumably a plan like this would help catch people even after they've already gotten in.

      Is it worth it? The problem is I can't really come up with any real arguments against it. I guess the only problem is if the government turns evil then all the infrastructure to track citizens is already in place. Of course, between drug laws and gambling laws and prostitution laws, maybe the government already is somewhat evil.

    4. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.

      While I don't support the cards, your reasoning is terribly flawed.

      Each additional obstacle, even if it's trivial to circumvent decreases the odds of a successful action.

      If you have to forge an ID, the FBI could catch a whole batch of terrorists if they uncover an ID fakery operation. Or the forged IDs might be flawed in some way that catches them at the terminal, or the process itself might be the deciding factor between a terrorist who goes through with the action and one who doesn't. You can't know, but you can know that it's a form of resistance to a successful terrorist attack.

      Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone here), I don't see the extra benefits worth the potential big brother aspect. That's because the resistance factor works the other way too. While the government can already track you in every way that the ID card will allow, it's usually just not worth their effort. But if the card is enacted, it will be just that much easier for them. I'm not a Bad Guy(tm), and I'm not really expecting some pending mass civil rights atrocity to result from this (but then, I *am* an optimist), but I don't want to make it easier for a mistake or a random act of poor judgment to ruin my day (or my life, as happens to innocents already--see Guantanamo for more info). The gains in security aren't worth the loss in civil liberties.

    5. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hitler's police power grab after the wake of the Reichstag Fire to defend against terrorists included a lot of unnecessary powers as well. Funny, that.

      One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever.

    6. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by pjcreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.

      I realize it's NYT, but upon actually reading the article, or say even the first sentence, you might find something that would have "helped one bit":
      Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, the House and Senate are moving toward setting rules for the states that would standardize the documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain.

      Setting real minimum documentation requirements is a good thing -- that way someone can't just pick the state with the weakest requirements and get a valid ID there.

      The scary parts of this bill have to do with the data contained by the license, the database, and the integrated network. But trying to fight those by making erroneous assertions isn't going to get you very far.

    7. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Setting real minimum documentation requirements is a good thing -- that way someone can't just pick the state with the weakest requirements and get a valid ID there.

      Assuming you believe we should have a national ID in the first place.

      The scary parts of this bill have to do with the data contained by the license, the database, and the integrated network.

      Not having an integrated network or database is just security through obscurity. I don't see how this is scary.

      As for the data, I don't have cookies enabled, so I'm not able to read the actual story. But I seriously doubt retinal scans and fingerprints are part of the proposal. Even if they are, I don't see that big of a deal. It's not like a non-criminal can change his identity without the help of the government anyway.

    8. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.

      It's called "learning." When we failed to defend against that specific attack, the need arose to analyze it and determine what we did wrong; Find out what we could have done to have prevented it; Locate the holes in the system that were exploited and plug them up.

      Will this help fight against terrorism in the future? Sure.

      How? How does requiring our own citizens to carry more identification prevent terrorist attacks? In terms of attacks from our citizens (i.e. Oklahoma City), how does having a valid driver's license stop someone from blowing up a building? In terms of attacks from foreign visitors (i.e. 9/11), are we going to not allow them to travel at all? That will certainly stifle the tourism industry. So, if we do allow them to travel within our country, how will our driver's licenses stop them from blowing up a building? I suppose if the licenses have really sharp corners we could use them to attempt to re-take a hijacked plane on which we are travelling. Or, if enough people simultaneously throw their licenses at an attacking vehicle (plane, truck, etc.) then the laws of momentum tell us that the vehicle can be stopped.

      All that being said, I'm more interested in the part of the article that states "...reduce the highway death toll by helping states identify applicants whose licenses had been revoked in other states." A central database which authorities can access would help them enforce the driving laws already in place in every state.

      Of course, between drug laws and gambling laws and prostitution laws, maybe the government already is somewhat evil.

      If you want to change the laws, write your democratically elected representatives. Draft proposals for changes and rally support for those proposals. They will be democratically voted on by our democratically elected representatives. If the majority of the people agree with you, the law will pass. Otherwise, it won't. Please explain how this process is "evil."

    9. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by ballwall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I don't get is why we're fighting the symptoms and not the disease. If America would stop pissing off the rest of the world we'd probably see a lot less people that want to kill us.

    10. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by GQuon · · Score: 1

      One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever.
      During Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War, the federal government took away the right of habeas corpus from KKK members and other non-loyals in the South. Does the federal government still use this power?

      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    11. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by greenhide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11.

      Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really. The truth is, and it's harsh, the reason that the whole 9/11 thing worked was because of stupidity. No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them). There were articles a few months before the incident in which box cutters were specifically cited as a weapon that children were sneaking into school, since they were less likely to be confiscated than standard knives. Once their potential as a serious weapon was raised, those should have been banned.

      Sure the terrorists will try to come up with new ways of attacking the US. That's why there's an emphasis on increasing security over things like train shipments, cargo, and chemical and nuclear plants/factories around the country. Otherwise, we'd just say, "Well, I'd like to point out that the terrorists used an airplane, not a train, for their terrorism."

      The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US. In my opinion, the war on terrorism must be a war of the heart. We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits. We can make it more difficult for terrorist organizations to grow by encouraging stability and economic stability and equality in the Middle East. We can deny funds and wealth to people who will channel it into war, hatred, violence, or oppression.

      [steps off of soap box]

      Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    12. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Does the federal government still use this power?

      Take a look at this current front page CNN article -- the Supreme Court *just* struck down an attempt by the Bush Administration to bypass habeas corpus.

    13. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      America's corporatatism and consumerism are what really offend a lot of these Muslim countries. We can pursue an isolationist foreign policy but still 'invade' countries with our culture.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    14. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by kmb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I seriously think the government underestimates the terrorists and well maybe they dont, they just take the US public for fools and yes the majority of the public are fools.

      I think what it comes down to in many ways is that the government is more concerned with looking like they're doing something. I was going to add "than actually doing something" but I don't think that's fair. But, yes, they need to cover their bases, and they think/hope/pray that the masses are too clueless/paranoid/apathetic to realize that either having to forge a fake ID or forge the documents needed to get a real one aren't going to stop anyone serious about getting on a plane.

      And what about foreigners traveling through our country?

    15. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      It's called "learning." When we failed to defend against that specific attack, the need arose to analyze it and determine what we did wrong; Find out what we could have done to have prevented it; Locate the holes in the system that were exploited and plug them up.

      Sure, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to protect against different attacks.

      How does requiring our own citizens to carry more identification prevent terrorist attacks?

      That's really simple. Some terrorists are not legally in the country. Some of those terrorists will get caught either by not having ID or while trying to illegally obtain ID.

      In terms of attacks from our citizens (i.e. Oklahoma City), how does having a valid driver's license stop someone from blowing up a building?

      You seem to have the misconception that a method of defense must stop every single type of attack in order to be useful. This is obviously not true.

      In terms of attacks from foreign visitors (i.e. 9/11), are we going to not allow them to travel at all?

      Of course not. Valid foreign visitors will have temporary identification saying that they're a valid foreign visitor.

      If you want to change the laws, write your democratically elected representatives.

      There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.

      Draft proposals for changes and rally support for those proposals. They will be democratically voted on by our democratically elected representatives. If the majority of the people agree with you, the law will pass. Otherwise, it won't. Please explain how this process is "evil."

      I'll let Thomas Jefferson do it for me:

      All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
      The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.

      Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books. Your assertion that if the majority of people agree with me, the law will pass, is nonsense.

    16. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11.

      Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really.

      No it isn't. Stopping people from taking nuclear bombs on planes wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Requiring airline pilots to be licensed wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Keeping bin Laden out of the United States wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Stopping Mexicans from smuggling Radium into the US wouldn't have stopped 9/11. But all these things help stop terrorism.

      No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them).

      Yes, and making laws to stop these things is useful. But not all laws which help stop terrorism have to be able to stop 9/11.

      The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US.

      That doesn't make it a valid point. It means we need to do more than just stop people from illegally being in the country, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't also stop people from illegally being in the country.

      We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits.

      Like I said, Europe already requires ID for travel between states. Requiring the same in the US doesn't hurt our image very much.

      Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?

      Because 9/11 isn't ever going to happen again. In fact, 9/11 most likely wouldn't happen again even if zero changes were made. The fact that the fourth plane went down in Pennsylvania only a short time after the first plane hit the WTC is evidence of that. Stopping terrorism != stopping 9/11.

    17. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Deagol · · Score: 1
      The truth is, and it's harsh, the reason that the whole 9/11 thing worked was because of stupidity.

      I sorta agree... but I think it worked because we, as American Citizens, nave been totally emasculated by the government.

      In Jeff Cooper's great book To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth, he tells how a planejacking attempt in some middle-eastern nation ended in the perpetrator(s) being dismembered by the passengers of the plane.

      While the brave folks on the 4th plane finally got the clue, the other 3 planes should have ended in the same (if not, better) result. (This is, of course, a rerefence to the 9/11/01 attack.)

      We've been disarmed physically and mentally by those people charged to ensure our safety. We expect everything to be handed to us on a silver platter -- even our own personal protection.

      This is the problem. I won't discuss the feature-creep nature of this phenomenom, as my tinfoil hat is at the drycleaners today. I'm undecided as to wether shit like this is by design or stupidity, but it's bad news for us proles one way or the other.

      Utah recently passed a law that forbids guns on public school grounds and in places of worship -- even for those that had the FBI look up their ass in order to get a conceal carry permit. If I ever "go postal" you can bet those will be the places I go for.

      Soft targets, indeed! There has never been a softer target than the average American.

    18. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Let me ask a question. Do you think that having border controls reduces terrorism, or do you think that we could allow anyone who wants to freely enter country without any increase in risk to our country? If it's the latter than we have a fundamental difference in opinion, because I think border controls obviously reduce terrorism.

    19. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sure, we should have just ceded control of our country to the Taliban. That'd stop the terrorists!

    20. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Valid foreign visitors will have temporary identification saying that they're a valid foreign visitor.

      For example, the foreign visitors responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as other attacks by that same group both in the US and abroad.

      There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.

      Simple. Don't vote for her at her next election. That is your way of using your equal voice to help determine who represents you in government. Of course, if more people vote for her than against her, then we're back to that whole "democracy" thing again.

      Thomas Jefferson...

      Point taken. However, I personally do not see how laws against drug abuse, excessive gambling (there is plenty of gambling in this country... what do you want, a craps table in every corner store?), and prostitution are somehow oppressing you. One of the jobs of government is to protect people from themselves. Sure, the US has made some mistakes (prohibition, for example) and tried to go too far. But going too far in the other direction would be equally mistaken.

      Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books.

      What is this majority doing to change the laws? They're certainly not electing leaders who agree with them. If the majority of people want a change, they need to enact it. In 2000, the majority of the people in the US didn't even bother to vote in the single most important election our government has. If people want something done, they should do it. I'm reminded of when Bart ran for class president on The Simpsons. It wasn't that the majority wanted him elected, it was that the majority didn't care. The former may have seemed true to everyone in that majority, but the latter was proven true when the election came. Don't complain about the system just because people don't bother to use it. It's in place, it works. People just don't care.

    21. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.

      The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror. Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause. They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong. We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers. We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.

      The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism. Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).

      I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate, but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things. I don't want my country destroyed by cowards who would give up everything that made this country great just to prevent terrorism. No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen. We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.

    22. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.

      Simple. Don't vote for her at her next election.

      So I don't vote for anyone, because every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with? That doesn't accomplish anything.

      However, I personally do not see how laws against drug abuse, excessive gambling (there is plenty of gambling in this country... what do you want, a craps table in every corner store?), and prostitution are somehow oppressing you.

      The laws aren't against drug abuse, they're against cultivation of certain drugs and trafficking of certain others without a license, prescription, etc. They oppress me because they take away my right to grow pot, to buy glasses without going to a doctor, to put into my body whatever I want whenever I want to.

      Some forms of gambling are legal in some places, but it's illegal for me to call up a friend in Las Vegas and place a bet on a football game. It's illegal for me to fund a PartyPoker account with paypal. And a bunch of other things, all of which oppress me.

      As for prostitution, I'm not sure what the federal laws are regarding prostitution, and they're not oppressing me, but they are oppressing prostitutes.

      One of the jobs of government is to protect people from themselves.

      This is what I get for discussing things with an anon. IHBT.

      Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books.

      What is this majority doing to change the laws?

      The majority of people aren't doing shit.

      They're certainly not electing leaders who agree with them.

      The only way to elect a leader who agrees with you on everything is to elect yourself. Even if I was able to run for all positions (I'm too young), I certainly wouldn't be allowed to hold them all at the same time.

      In 2000, the majority of the people in the US didn't even bother to vote in the single most important election our government has.

      What, the Electoral College? The majority of people aren't allowed to vote in that.

      If people want something done, they should do it.

      I want all drug laws repealed, so I should do it?

      Don't complain about the system just because people don't bother to use it. It's in place, it works. People just don't care.

      It's in place. It doesn't work. And I have every right to complain about it.

    23. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror.

      So it's a strawman argument. OK.

      Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause.

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong.

      The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?

      We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers.

      Yes we have. Long before 9/11.

      We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.

      We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention. And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11.

      The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.

      I don't see how that's a problem.

      Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).

      Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.

      I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate

      Good, then apparently you read the rest of my post, where I said that this still might not be a good idea.

      , but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things.

      There obviously should be a test. But whether or not something would stop 9/11 is not that test. There are plenty of things which wouldn't stop 9/11 which are a good idea (as I said, stopping nuclear weapons from being taken on board airplanes). And there are plenty of things which would have stopped 9/11 which are a bad idea (stopping Arabs from boarding aircraft, for instance). Whether or not something would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant.

      No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen.

      Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.

      We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life.

      Or we can be brave, stand up for our way of life, but continue to make adjustments in our laws which make us safer.

      I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.

      This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.

    24. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. As long as we're richer and more powerful than the rest of the world, we'll never lack for people who want to kill us.

    25. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.

      Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.

    26. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with

      Then run yourself. If the majority of people agree with you, they'll vote for you.

      The majority of people aren't doing shit

      That's not a failure of the system. It's a failure of the people.

      I certainly wouldn't be allowed to hold them all at the same time

      Are you implying that a dictatorship is the only way to get things done? Perhaps you could hold one position and use its influence to try to change things. You know, like other elected officials do.

      What, the Electoral College?

      No, the election which led to the Electoral College's election. You do realize that you're actually allowed to go into a little booth and cast your vote, right? You can thank a lot of dead soldiers for that little constitutional right.

      I want all drug laws repealed, so I should do it?

      I said "people." You are not "people." You are a "person." You, alone, can not decide what is legal or illegal for the rest of us. That would be a dictatorship. If the majority of "people" want something done in this government, they can do it. If the majority of "people" claim to want something done but then don't act in any way, I am forced to conclude that they don't actually want it done. They're just talking about it for the sake of argument. Back to my Simpsons example. It sure looked like everyone supported Bart, but in the end they didn't support anybody. The "majority" claimed they wanted him elected. But they didn't want it enough to take a minute out of their recess time and vote. That was not a failure of the system, it was a failure of the people.

      It doesn't work. And I have every right to complain about it.

      The system works. The people don't. And you're absolutely correct in that you do have every right to complain about it. But complaining about the system because people don't use it is misdirected and doesn't accomplish anything. A hammer works, but if I were to refuse to use it and then complain that it doesn't work, my complaints would be misdirected.

      I sympathize with you, honestly. I have corresponded with representatives on multiple tiers of government many times. On some occasions I like to think I helped get something done, on others my efforts were futile. But, in every case, I voiced my opinion and it was added to the collective. However, there was sometimes more opposition than support. And, being a believer in democracy, I have no problem admitting that my opinion was outweighed by the opinions of others.

    27. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1
      every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with

      Then run yourself. If the majority of people agree with you, they'll vote for you.

      Nonsense. The majority of people will have never heard of me. I'm not old enough to run as a Senator or President anyway.

      >The majority of people aren't doing shit

      That's not a failure of the system. It's a failure of the people.

      No, it's a failure of both.

      Are you implying that a dictatorship is the only way to get things done?

      Of course not. A republic with strict constitutional limits on the powers of government guaranteeing the rights of the citizens is the way to get things done.

      No, the election which led to the Electoral College's election.

      That's hardly the most important election, and the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election.

      You do realize that you're actually allowed to go into a little booth and cast your vote, right?

      Sure, I can cast my vote, which might be counted, and certainly won't change anything. I'm aware of that.

      If the majority of "people" want something done in this government, they can do it.

      Eventually, with much bloodshed, perhaps. And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.

      The system works. The people don't.

      The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail. Therefore it doesn't work.

    28. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by hamelis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make. point me to the clause in the constitution where it says the government can force me to identify myself before boarding private transportation, or while traveling within the country. don't bother with the interstate commerce clause, it's weak at best (traveling != interstate commerce, even if i cross state lines), vastly overused at worst. in fact now that i actually read it.. Article I,Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with the foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." yea, nothing about travel. Elastic Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carring into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof." i guess you could argue this one, but the telling detail in this bill is that Congress didn't actually create a true national ID card, they went in through the back door and will try to enforce their will by coercing the states, rather than using a legitimate Constitutional power. If they truly thought it was Constitutional, they would just pass a national ID card law. by instead leaving ID issuing power in the hands of the states, they are implicitly stating they don't have the power to do so.. and while I don't think it will be challenged (successfully) soon, I think this steps outside their Constitutional powers, actual or 'necessary and proper.' their tactics in this case seem a lot like forcing every state to up the drinking age to 21 by making it a requirement of receiving Federal highway funding. people keep saying europeans require ID to travel between states. i'm fairly sure you are referring to travel between countries, not between internal states, so the analogy is false. if not, that's pretty screwed up.. but even so, just because they do it, doesn't mean we should. The problem isn't what these guys will do with the system, the problem is what CAN be done with the system by someone who comes along later.. sure it won't be abused (too much) by the people in power now, but internal passports have generally preceded moves toward, and made easier the transition to, more authoritarian government. and i think that's a Bad Thing. "Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither." --Benjamin Franklin

    29. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of people will have never heard of me.

      Sadly, you do have a point. Campaigning requires funding. This makes it more difficult for the average person to run for a major office. That's why it's better to start small. Run for city council or something. Work your way up. You claim to be young, so you have plenty of time to build up your political credibility.

      the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election

      Once again, the majority of people didn't vote in that election. They weren't ignored, they just didn't care. If they don't care about their own opinions, why should anyone else?

      Eventually, with much bloodshed, perhaps

      Bloodshed can be kept to a minimum if the majority of people use the system in place. Support representatives who agree with them, vote when the time comes, etc. It will take a long time, but that's to be expected. Enacting sweeping political changes is often not something a group does for itself, but rather for the benefit of future generations. Join such a group, or start one. If people support it, it will grow and have political influence. If people don't support it, then it's not what the people want.

      And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed

      Hell, that's how the US became its own country. Well, slightly different. The colonies fought for a secession, not a take-over. If you want to secede from the US, be my guest. If everybody who supports drug abuse, excessive gambling, and prostitution wants to secede from the US, I'll support them 100%. If, however, this group wants to fight to take over the US government, expect resistance.

      The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail

      It tries. The system, however, can not read people's minds. That's why we have the right to vote, so the people can express their opinions. When people don't vote, they don't have opinions. It's their way of saying that they are complacent with the status quo. The system protects their rights by continuing to go about its business as usual.

    30. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.

      I'll throw out a quote for you:

      "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" Nathan Hale (an actual patriot).

      Believe it or not, people have died for the freedom that we hold so dear, but obviously braver, less self-centered people than you. Those were people who recognized that the Constitution is there to protect the freedom of all Americans, not just theirs, and that their personal safety was less important than protecting the rights and freedoms of all of those who would come after them.

    31. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election

      Once again, the majority of people didn't vote in that election.

      You're right. I misspoke. The majority of votes were ignored in that election.

      Bloodshed can be kept to a minimum if the majority of people use the system in place.

      The system in place is not designed to give the majority whatever they want.

      And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.

      Hell, that's how the US became its own country.

      Off the work of oppressed minority slaves? Yep.

      The colonies fought for a secession, not a take-over. If you want to secede from the US, be my guest.

      Your guest maybe, but the US won't let me, just like they didn't let my state during the civil war.

      If everybody who supports drug abuse, excessive gambling, and prostitution wants to secede from the US, I'll support them 100%.

      Actually, I only want the right to legitimately grow and use drugs or drug containing products, and the right to gamble non-excessively. But the government has taken that right away from me.

      If, however, this group wants to fight to take over the US government, expect resistance.

      Oh trust me, plenty of people have fought the US and lost who only wanted to exercise their God-given rights.

      The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail.

      It tries.

      And it fails.

      The system, however, can not read people's minds. That's why we have the right to vote, so the people can express their opinions.

      You keep confusing rights with opinions. When the majority of people decided that it was OK to keep slaves, that didn't make it right. The system should protect the rights of people, regardless of what popular opinion has to say.

      When people don't vote, they don't have opinions. It's their way of saying that they are complacent with the status quo.

      Or maybe they're not able or allowed to vote. Or maybe they just realize that their vote isn't going to accomplish anything. Or maybe they just feel that all the candidates are equally incompetant.

      The system protects their rights by continuing to go about its business as usual.

      Again you seem to be confusing rights and popular opinion.

    32. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start. Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.

    33. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who has always had their freedom.

    34. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Like I said, Europe already requires ID for travel between states. Requiring the same in the US doesn't hurt our image very much.

      Says who? Wasn't there a big fuss about the EU changing things so you don't need a passport to travel between member-states anymore? When I flew into Florence a few months ago we came into Brussels -- where they checked our passports. When we flew into Florence nobody even looked at us or asked for ID. As far as I know you do not need ID for travel between the countries of the EU. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      In any case are you seriously suggesting that we require ID to travel between our own states? Do you have any idea what kind of nightmare that would be? I live 5 miles from the PA state line -- if I hop over the border to buy gas or see some friends I should have to wait in a line to show my ID to some bureaucrat? Why would this improve security? Is it even constitutional?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    35. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      So it's a strawman argument. OK.

      Your inability to effectively counter it doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument.

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.

      The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?

      The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about? Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?

      Yes we have. Long before 9/11.

      So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.

      We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.

      The U.S. has classified the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as "illegal combatants." This grants them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.

      "And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11."

      So? Your point?

      The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.

      I don't see how that's a problem.


      Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.

      Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.

      Agreed.

      Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.

      Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.

      This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.

      No, it is not.

      1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?

      2. "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." The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Implementing a Soviet-style internal passport system is not one of the powers granted the federal government by the Constitution.

    36. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start.

      Looks like I hit a nerve. :-)

      Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.

      You get on Slashdot and speak out in favor of gutting the Constitution if it will save your sorry a$$ from terrorists. My, that is quite the service to your country.

    37. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      As far as I know you do not need ID for travel between the countries of the EU. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      If I find a cite, I'll send it.

      In any case are you seriously suggesting that we require ID to travel between our own states?

      Not all borders, by all modes of travel, as that'd be impossible. But this particular law seemed to be that interstate travel by bus or train would require an ID.

      Is it even constitutional?

      I don't see why not.

    38. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.

      Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.

      The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about?

      No. It's certainly not so that one branch of government can't share information with another one, though.

      Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?

      No. It's obvious why they do.

      So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.

      But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.

      Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.

      But I NEVER SAID THAT.

      Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.

      Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?

      How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.

      The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions.

      Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power. It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive. Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.

    39. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.

      The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision just as they were in the Dredd Scott case, ruling that a slave was property, nothing more, and could never be a citizen.

      But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.

      Japanese internment camps were a response to Pearl Harbor and the detainment of various Muslims were a response to 9/11. Just because an atrocity has happened in the past doesn't mean that the

      Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?

      No. It's obvious why they do.
      Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.

      Privacy is a freedom -- a fundamental one. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments have been interpreted to include privacy rights. Our legal concept of privacy is often said to begin with the famous law review article of Warren and Brandeis, although they were in particular addressing the issue of privacy and the press. Privacy is covered in various court cases, such as the Supreme Court's decision in 1967 that affirmed the right to private communications by outlawing wiretapping (except under certain court-sanctioned circumstances). In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law banning birth control. Justice William O. Douglas wrote, "Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."

      How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.

      No, they have not required biometric data to fly. And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport. Google "Gilmore vs. Ashcroft." Besides, when has Constitutionality been decided by complaint counts?

      Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.

      Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.

      It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive.

      This has nothing to do with funding or witholding funding. This is about denying people "access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."

      Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.

      I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.

    40. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not all borders, by all modes of travel, as that'd be impossible. But this particular law seemed to be that interstate travel by bus or train would require an ID.

      So only interstate travel? So if I take a bus from Port Authority to Newark (about 20 miles) I have to show ID but if I go from Port Authority to Buffalo (about 400 miles) I don't? Does that make any sense? Are terrorists more likely to strike that bus because it crosses a magical line that doesn't mean anything if you aren't an American?

      Might I also point out that all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid forms of id. Why does being forced to have my ID scanned (and more likely then not a record of my trip recorded into a Government or Commercial database) make us any safer?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    41. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Shit, RTFS(tory), if not the goddamn ARTICLE. We're not talking about BORDER controls, we're talking about our OWN GODDAMN CITIZENS for crying out loud!

    42. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No, they have not required biometric data to fly.

      A photo ID is biometric data.

      And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport.

      You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.

      In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.

      One is a state, the other is located within a state.

      I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.

      Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong. You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.

    43. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      So only interstate travel? So if I take a bus from Port Authority to Newark (about 20 miles) I have to show ID but if I go from Port Authority to Buffalo (about 400 miles) I don't? Does that make any sense? Are terrorists more likely to strike that bus because it crosses a magical line that doesn't mean anything if you aren't an American?

      I think the point is to make it difficult for the terrorists to get around the country, not to stop them from blowing up busses.

      Might I also point out that all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid forms of id.

      Sure, go ahead. It doesn't matter, though, because 9/11 isn't going to happen again.

      Why does being forced to have my ID scanned (and more likely then not a record of my trip recorded into a Government or Commercial database) make us any safer?

      Because it makes it more likely that we're going to catch people who are illegally in the country.

    44. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea. Buy a clue, and then get back to me.

    45. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Pointless, content-free, and idiotic. Congratulations on hitting the trifecta.

    46. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Grym · · Score: 1

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      Do you really not see the problem with this? That information just doesn't disappear once they realize you're doing nothing illegal. It gets sent to some file or saved on a computer hard drive.

      Ever done anything you're embarrassed about--wouldn't want your loved ones to know? What if you have AIDS and don't want your insurance company/employer to know? What if you've had an abortion? What if you're a closet homosexual? What if you're a recovering alcoholic/drug addict but have since quit? What if you cheated on your wife? Ever visited an inappropriate website or posted something outrageous (that you don't even believe) on the internet to get a rise out of people? The list could go on forever.

      ANY of those things could ruin a person's social (or even political... remember the gay republican senator who just got exposed? I wonder why he isn't running for re-election...) life, and yet ALL of them are completely legal. If the government has unfettered access to the private lives of LAW-ABIDING citizens, what's to stop a little (hell.. A LOT) malfeasance or blackmail from occurring? If you think corporations have politicians by the balls now, just imagine how powerful the person in control (or even just the $10/hour data tech) of said database would be?

      Don't think I'm overreacting here. The exact same thing happened in both the Nazi Germany AND the USSR under the guise of stopping criminals/dissidents. History has proven that concentrating political power in one area only works until ONE person who would abuse it attains power. This is the whole idea behind the checks-and-balance structure with which the US was founded. A question I've heard no proponent of the PATRIOT act answer is how can this portion of the bill be realistically checked? As displayed earlier, said information is the ace-of-spades in our political world.

      The only real solution is to add judicial oversight into who does and doesn't get scrutinized, but of course, this is EXACTLY the check the law removed.

      -Grym

    47. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Grym · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.

      Oh but it is! In fact, it's one of the most important ones! But like most freedoms it's easy to not appreciate it until it's gone.

      How can you have a free society if everybody is looking over his or her shoulder making sure Uncle Sam would approve? How can you have a free market if people are afraid to buy anything that might be considered suspicious? What if every morally or socially questionable act you have ever or might do could come back to haunt you if you didn't do the person watching you some favors?

      Privacy is FUNDAMENTAL to a free society. It is a right, and though it isn't spelled out explicitly in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have to be! It was on these grounds that many, in fact, opposed the ratification of the first ten amendments, because they were afraid that by enumerating certain rights, the government would feel less obligated to respect others--which is EXACTLY what we're seeing today with the PATRIOT Act.

      -Grym

    48. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      Do you really not see the problem with this? That information just doesn't disappear once they realize you're doing nothing illegal. It gets sent to some file or saved on a computer hard drive.

      I don't see how that's any justification for probable cause to be necessary to gather any information.

      Ever done anything you're embarrassed about--wouldn't want your loved ones to know?

      Sure, I guess. And the kind of searching the government would have to do to get that information should certainly require a court order. But you asked if the government should require reasonable cause to gather information, implying that this would be for any information, including that which is already publically available, or that which you have already given to someone else without having them promise not to redistribute it.

      If the government has unfettered access to the private lives of LAW-ABIDING citizens, what's to stop a little (hell.. A LOT) malfeasance or blackmail from occurring?

      If the government is going to break the law by malfeasance or blackmail, what's to stop them from breaking the law on gathering information? In any case, I never said the government shouldn't have unfettered access to the private lives of citizens. Some searches, most searches even, should require probable cause and a search warrant. But you asked me if the government should need probable cause to gather information, without any qualification whatsoever.

      A question I've heard no proponent of the PATRIOT act answer is how can this portion of the bill be realistically checked?

      I'm not about to defend the PATRIOT Act carte blanche. I'm sure there are parts of it that went to far. But you're trying to say that it should be illegal for one branch of government to voluntarily give information about the library books checked out by someone to another branch of government, even though that person gave that information to the library freely without promise that it wouldn't be transferred. I don't think you've got a point there.

      The only real solution is to add judicial oversight into who does and doesn't get scrutinized, but of course, this is EXACTLY the check the law removed.

      In certain extremely narrow cases. If you're going to go further with this, please at least refer me to the actual law.

    49. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Privacy is FUNDAMENTAL to a free society.

      True, but "privacy", especially in the context of the Constitution, doesn't mean the same as "not allowing the government to track your whereabouts and travel". The Fourth Amendment, for instance, says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." These qualifications imply that one has a much lower expectation of privacy when travelling using public transportation.

      I didn't say that privacy wasn't a right. It is. I wouldn't call it a freedom, since it's more a restriction on the freedom of others. But a "law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel". That's not a fundamental right or a freedom.

    50. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?

      There's no such thing as a monolithic "The government" you reference. In all probability, your library is run by a county or state government, which is a separate entity from the USA federal administration.

      Some citizens still care about the division of power between state and federal.

    51. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      A photo ID is biometric data.

      That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.

      You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.

      Quit being dismissive. The lawsuit was filed by the John Gilmore, the man who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (with Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, and Steve Wozniak), the Cypherpunks (with Eric Hughes and Tim May), the ``alt'' newsgroups on the Usenet (with Brian Reid and Gordon Moffett), Cygnus Solutions (with Mike Tiemann and David Henkel-Wallace), and GNU Radio (with Eric Blossom).

      Several Amicus ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in support of Gilmore's appeal. These include briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.

      In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.

      One is a state, the other is located within a state.


      England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state." It shares one border with Virginia and one with Maryland. It has no voting representation in Congress and no star on the flag. It is not a state. Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.

      Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong.

      No, I said that one of their decisions was wrong (in the sense that it runs contrary to legal precedence) and I specifically provided information on Supreme Court decisions that established and upheld a right to privacy.

      You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.

      What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"

    52. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Sure, go ahead. It doesn't matter, though, because 9/11 isn't going to happen again.

      My point exactly! Unless the terrorists can sneak a few Uzis onto the flight they aren't going to overpower 40+ passengers, the air marshal and the vault-err I mean cockpit door. So why the hell do we need all of this oppressive big-brotherish security? We didn't even need the change the pre-9/11 rules that much -- common sense changes like getting rid of box cutters would have been enough. But why would we use common sense when we can use 9/11 as a pretext to ram everything we've ever wanted through the Congress with little or no debate.

      Because it makes it more likely that we're going to catch people who are illegally in the country.

      Maybe we should focus on stopping those people from being here in the first place instead of trying to capture them (i.e: close the barn door after the horses are gone) after they slip into American society. Maybe we should stop rolling over and giving up our civil liberties in the name of security.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    53. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.


      We must go forward, not backward; upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.

    54. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by sjames · · Score: 1

      In 2000, the majority of the people in the US didn't even bother to vote in the single most important election our government has.

      Perhaps because in 2000 the majority of people could find no evidence of a discernible difference between the cantidates. Even amongst those who did vote, no clear preferance emerged, that's why the election was such a mess. As a whole, the same level of (dis)satisfaction with the winner could as easily have been achieved by flipping a coin on the Whitehouse lawn. (but there probably would have been fewer conspiracy theories as a result).

    55. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by sjames · · Score: 1

      No. It's certainly not so that one branch of government can't share information with another one, though.

      Actually, they are seperate governments. The libraries in question are generally city or county government. A number of those governments have issued instructions to be as uncooperative as they can be without federal stormtroopers showing up. Further, a number of library systems have altered procedures and document destruction policies to reduce the amount of information they may be forced to hand over.

      Those actions show that this is not cooperation, it's an application of force by the federal government, and it violates state's rights outlined in the Constitution.

      One ofn my personallitmus tests: When other branches or levels of government resort to civil disobediance, there's a serious problem somewhere.

    56. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by Grym · · Score: 1

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      It's very simple: To keep the government out of the personal lives of law-abiding citizens.

      What's crazy is that the two checks you're worried about were never considered a problem in the past. A court wiretapping order can be obtained in minutes, and depending upon the judge, probable cause can be quite lacking in substance. But both of these checks are crutial to preventing abuse of the system. A court order ensures that the mass-monitoring people doesn't occur. Probable cause makes sure that the government doesn't do something as foolish or questionable as wiretapping every muslim/arabic/black/whatever person in the country.

      Sure, I guess. And the kind of searching the government would have to do to get that information should certainly require a court order.

      *sigh*... All of the situations I described only required the recording of a simple phonecall or the monitoring of a private discussion in a public area, which according to you is A-OK for the government to monitor even if they don't have a good reason. Haven't you ever called a doctor? Haven't you ever talked personally with a friend/clergymember in public?

      ...But you asked if the government should require reasonable cause to gather information, implying that this would be for any information, including that which is already publically available, or that which you have already given to someone else without having them promise not to redistribute it.

      So...what are you suggesting here? That I need to have my doctors, friends, and spirtual advisors sign legal documents before and after every conversation so it doesn't get used by the thought-police against me? So, are they going to ask me for those documents for proof that such a "promise" were made? If so, wouldn't that defeat the damn point of monitoring me to begin with? If not, what if a person promises me they won't say anything but then does? Have my rights (what little you believe we deserve) been violated?

      Practicality aside, even if your system were possible, it's bullshit. If there's no reason to suspect me of doing anything illegal, why do they need to collect information about me to begin with? It's both an extreme waste of time and taxpayer money that's an injustice upon the innocent people--whether they have knowledge of it or not--who it claims to protect.

      "In certain extremely narrow cases.

      Oh that's just classic... Just how common do you think a terrorist is in the United States?! You're pointing to the rarest of cases and claiming it warrents an overhaul of the whole system. I'm arguing that it's the exact opposite. There are only an extremely narrow number of cases (bomb is ticking; terrorist needs caught) in which probable cause or a court order is a hinderance.

      -Grym

    57. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      A photo ID is biometric data.

      That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.

      I don't see how it's stretching the definition. There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point. But furthermore, the government isn't planning on including any additional biometric data on your driver's license anyway.

      I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.

      I know all about the case, and I also know that the EFF are on the losing side of an awful lot of them. They'll sue over just about anything, like trying to get a law declared Unconstitutional just because someone sent someone else a nasty letter mentioning it. An EFF lawsuit means nothing.

      England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state."

      A nation is a state. State: "A body politic, especially one constituting a nation".

      Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.

      I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, though, as well as the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", such as DC.

      What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"

      We'll see who wins that case, I guess. While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.

    58. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?

      It's very simple: To keep the government out of the personal lives of law-abiding citizens.

      But that would also keep the government out of the public lives of law-breaking citizens.

      All of the situations I described only required the recording of a simple phonecall or the monitoring of a private discussion in a public area, which according to you is A-OK for the government to monitor even if they don't have a good reason.

      I never said that was A-OK. You are putting words into my mouth.

      If there's no reason to suspect me of doing anything illegal, why do they need to collect information about me to begin with?

      What makes you think they're collecting information about you to begin with?

      You're pointing to the rarest of cases and claiming it warrents an overhaul of the whole system.

      You seem to be reading too much into what I've said. Where have I suggested that we should overhaul the whole system?

    59. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      It appears that you are interested in a more civil debate. I'll try to uphold my end.

      There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point.

      But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. The government cannot use that license to ascertain your comings and goings. You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.). If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.

      I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce.

      You: It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.

      Me: Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.

      You: One is a state, the other is located within a state.

      How would you interpret that exchange? Your initial statement about regulating commerce among "the states" sure sounds like interstate commerce to me.

      While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.

      I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.

    60. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.).

      Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".

      But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. [....] If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.

      Yes, you don't have to show you license and announce your destination every time you drive your car. But that's more due to the unreasonableness of the intrusion weighed against any benefit such as keeping unfit drivers off the road. In any case, it wasn't an analogy.

      You asked "How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?" Now I should have stopped you right there, and asked you what the relevance of your question was. But I answered instead, saying that "they've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained." I was referring to the requirement that one provide a photo ID in order to board a plane. Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable. Now, you said I'm "stretching the definition", so really we need to go back to what you mean by your original question. Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is. If you'd prefer to focus on the question of precedent, I can do that, but I think precedent is even more clearly in favor of this being Constiutional. Either way you really need to be more specific. What law or proposed law are you referring to?]

      How would you interpret that exchange?

      I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble. Going back to the initial statement, you said that "The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions." Now, without looking at the actual law in question, since you haven't provided it, I'd presume that it's saying that airlines which engage in interstate or international commerce must verify the identity of their passengers by checking a photo ID. Yes, in my initial answer I didn't think about international flights or flights connecting to DC, but Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate international commerce, to regulate pretty much everything in DC, and to make all laws necessary to use that power.

      I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.

      They're not partisan with respect to different groups of people, but they're quite partisan when it comes to which side of an issue their going to be on (favoring more or less government restriction over speech, for instance, more relevantly, favoring more or less restrictions on government searches). When the ACLU sees a case in which it feels the government is perfectly within its rights to limit speech or make a search, the ACLU isn't going to argue that case for the government, they're going to remain silent on the issue, and 9 times out of 10 they're going to take the position that the go

    61. Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".

      Such roadblocks were to gather information about crimes, for instance, asking those stopped if they witnessed an accident. I found this article on the subject. You will note that in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447 that a "drug interdiction" roadblock was unconstitional. I saw no evidence that those stopped at informational roadblocks were required to show ID unless the police happened upon evidence that a given driver had committed a crime (e.g., drunk driving). These were, instead, just requests for witnesses to come forward.

      Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable.

      I must disagree. If it was voluntarily done by airlines, market pressure could lead to some carriers choosing to not require it. It could lead to others putting strong consumer privacy protections in place (e.g., not retaining data after flights end, not retaining biometric data, etc.). Private companies setting up their own rules for transactions is far different than federal legislation setting up those rules.

      Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is.

      To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law currently requiring airlines to require biometric IDs of any type (even photo) for people who wish to fly. There are "secret" rules that the FAA has apparently passed on to the airlines, but no legislative requirement for same.

      As to whether it "should" be unconstitutional, something either is or is not. The only way to determine that is to investigate the Constitutional interpretations made by the courts over the years. I believe that the courts should find it unconstitutional as it violates a "right to privacy" recognized by the Supreme Court in prior decisions. I also feel that it is a violation of the rights of citizens to not be subject to warrantless searches.

      I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble.

      Then let's close the books on that and put it behind us.

      In fact, other than most discrimination laws, the ACLU is generally in favor of interpreting the Constitution to give the government less power, not more.

      That's true, and it's their very nature: Protecting American Civil Liberties.

      Maybe "partisan" isn't the right word, but just because someone has more knowledge of the law that doesn't make them right in their interpretation.

      I also agree with you about that, but I also feel that it is unwise to summarily dismiss the opinions of knowlegeable people and organizations.

      In essence, we can talk about what is Constitutional in terms of what the Supreme Court has already ruled, or we can talk about it in terms of how the Supreme Court should rule, but we need to be careful not to confuse the two.

      But the two are very tightly linked. The concept of legal precedence is key to most Supreme Court decisions. How was a given Constitutional word, phrase, sentence, amendment, etc. interpreted in the past? Obviously, the Supreme Court is not infallible and sometimes they have to revisit decisions, but past decisions are key to deciding most new cases.

      Looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I feel that a federally mandated (or coerced) biometric national ID which allows your travels to be monitored, documented, and analyzed is not at all something with which the framers would have approved.

  3. passports by tsrimovsky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why can't we just use passports for this? Some sort of ID/tracking is a cost of travel any more. I just don't see why the feds need to get involved with state issues, since this doesn't really have anything to do with driving.

    1. Re:passports by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because requiring passports to travel within the United States would be doing the same thing totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did. But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different enough that those behind it aren't facing a hue and cry for impeachment.

    2. Re:passports by jspayne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh, and if there was a federal ID, the feds would have to pay for the infrastructure to distribute and support it. By mandating conformance for local ID's, the states get to pick up the bill.

      Jeff

    3. Re:passports by den_erpel · · Score: 1

      Those are the ID cards, not passports (which are international).

      but yep,

      the IDs are one of those things that government forgot to abolish after 1945 and everybody has to have with him in Europe. Except the UK of course, they still have to carry their passport whenever they go abroad.

      We on the other hand have a double system, a European standardised (more or less) ID card and a passport for extra-european travel.

      Our drivers license is some piece of paper, and it's funny that some places in the US only accept that easily duplicated paper thingie over the ID cards with counterfeit safegaurds :)

      --
      Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
    4. Re:passports by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different

      So what happens to people that don't drive and thus don't own a license for whatever reason?

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    5. Re:passports by yarbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least in CA, you can get an identification card from the DMV. AFAIK, you go through the same identification procedures that you go through when you get your drivers license, you just don't take any of the driving test stuff.

    6. Re:passports by whovian · · Score: 1

      By mandating conformance for local ID's, the states get to pick up the bill.

      That's a good point. And of course this would mean that driver's license fees will increase accordingly.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    7. Re:passports by russint · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the UK of course, they still have to carry their passport whenever they go abroad.

      The Swedes have to do that as well.

      --
      ^^
    8. Re:passports by hamelis · · Score: 1

      the bill makes provisions for that - states will have to issue similar ID cards to non-drivers if that person wishes to travel.

  4. Surprise! by ross_winn · · Score: 1

    This is functionally a national ID card. Since when did politicians start being honest about things? Those who wish there to be such a thing are going to use several avenues of approach to do so. We could just requires all citizens to have passports. It all works the same.

    --
    Ross Winn "not just another ugly face..."
    1. Re:Surprise! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      We could just requires all citizens to have passports. It all works the same.

      Of course we couldn't, because forcing all citizens to have passports would be unconstitutional. Withholding highway funding for states who don't turn their drivers' licenses into national ID cards, on the other hand, that's constitutional.

      The Constitution was a good idea while it lasted, but we've nearly reached the point where the lawyers have exploited all the loopholes in it. I only exaggerate a little.

    2. Re:Surprise! by ross_winn · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Act was also unconstitutional, and is slowly being overturned. However it is taking years, and being enforced as law in the interim. We are splitting hairs at this point, except for one point. The Constitution is a great idea, too bad our government doesn't have the stones to police constitutionality.

      --
      Ross Winn "not just another ugly face..."
    3. Re:Surprise! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Withholding highway funding for states who don't turn their drivers' licenses into national ID cards, on the other hand, that's constitutional.

      I'm not sure I'm up for moving to Montana.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  5. just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Papers please. what? no papers, off to the stockades with you!

  6. Godwin in 3... by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Informative

    Papers, please?

    1. Re:Godwin in 3... by mknewman · · Score: 1

      "Papers please". Pretty funny, and very sad. Marc

  7. Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good thing the terrorists didn't win, eh?

    1. Re:Whew by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that what Bush means when he says the terrorists only have to be right once? As bad as 9/11 was, there's only been one (and I'm sure there'll eventually be another one, if the terrorists are angry enough), but since then, we've been continuously defeating ourselves without another shot being fired from the enemy.

    2. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but since then, we've been continuously defeating ourselves without another shot being fired from the enemy.

      which is brilliant if it were planned that way - called 'destroying the enemy (here, the US) from within'. My guess is that it's a little bit of both - terrorists who were underestimated and a US that was a bit too smug US.
  8. Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It makes some sort of sense that there should be some standard requirents for driving licenses. But how is this going to have any effect on terrorism?

    1. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by cloak42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights. A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border. It seems strange to me that they think that they can get away with this, regardless of which political party they belong to (theoretically, the Republicans should be decrying this as a socialist movement, and the Democrats, well, they should just know better).

      But there's no question that this falls under the jurisdiction of the individual states. Hell, theoretically states could refuse to recognize a Federal driver's license.

    2. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Informative

      The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights.

      The thing is, Supreme Court precedent is strongly against this point of view. The problem is that the government isn't directly mandating a federal ID, but rather refusing highway funding to those states who don't participate. It's the reason we have a drinking age of 21 in the US, and South Dakota v. Dole answered the question of whether or not it's Constitutional.

      Frankly, with all the caving the Supreme Court has done over the last 200 years wrt states rights, we should just get it over with and abolish states rights altogether. Let the states exist like counties or incorporated cities, they basically already do.

    3. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border.

      Well, yes, but do any states refuse drivers permission to drive there if they have a license for a different state (assuming the driver meets the state's other requirements for driving, of course)? It makes sense that if they're going to be effective in all states, there should be at least some sort of general agreement or ruling about minimum standards.

    4. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by forDVfreedom · · Score: 1

      Love the title on this thread.... It is interesting that more and more laws are made and based on what the wrong doers are doing. That essentially is penalzing the honest citizens, and giving the true criminals satisfaction in knowing America and Americans are afraid, and scrambling for ways to keep them out. This my friends is the perfect set up for a game! Any law that can be made can be broken, or gotten around. I will yell till I am blue in the face and passing out from lack of air that the patriot act WILL create more crime. As good people concerned for our freedoms, we should fight this till the end! Write letters, inform your friends and family what the government is trying to degrade America to....be relentless! If enough people speak up, there is no way legislation can vote this into effect. This is only one portion of the patriot act that undermines our freedoms. Get educated about it and DO SOMETHING about it.

    5. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by llefler · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights.

      Going off on an odd tangent, I was watching 'Gods and Generals' over the weekend. Well, kind of watching it I should say. But it struck me that one general, I think it was Lee, was asked to command the Union army. His response was that his loyalty was with his; family, Virginia, and the Union, in that order. And since Virginia was choosing to secede, he would have to decline.

      These days people have more loyalty to a football team than they do to their state. Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    6. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.

      But really, should we care what the founding fathers wanted? They wrote the constitution the way they did, because it's what the states wanted. It should really be about what the people want. Sadly, it isn't about that either. It's all about what the federal government wants.

    7. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      But it struck me that one general, I think it was Lee, was asked to command the Union army. His response was that his loyalty was with his; family, Virginia, and the Union, in that order. And since Virginia was choosing to secede, he would have to decline.

      Yes, that was Bobbie Lee.

      These days people have more loyalty to a football team than they do to their state. Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.

      One must remember that before the War Between the States, United States was plural ("these United State" was the common phrase). After, it became singular ("the United States" - what a difference two letters make). The War that ended slavery pretty much ended States Rights. ON balance, it was a good thing.

      The Founding Fathers were practical enough to recognize that the States could not exist independently, thus the Union. They also recognized that the States DID exist, some having been in place for over 150 years at that point. It was impractical to expect that the average inhabitant of the Former British Colonies calling themselves "these United States" would suddenly think of themselves as Americans when they had been Virginians, or Georgians, or whatever all their lives.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      When you move from state to state, you have 30 days to get a new driver's license. And, yes, people have been ticketed for this. A cop pulled me over the night I came into Washington State, though I didn't get a ticket.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    9. Re:Why do all laws have to be about terrorists? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm noty talking about moving though. I'm just talking about driving. Clearly, the states expect their licenses to be valid for at lest 30 days in other states. This doesn't apply to any othe type of license that I can think of.

  9. If you dont like it, do something about it by Selecter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The best way for the average guy to protest this is to vote Third Party across the board on Election Day and deny the people responsible for this any perceived mandate they may have for this course of action.

    Any vote cast for Kerry or Bush is interpreted as support, no matter the voter's actual reason for doing so - to stop one or the other from winning, etc. A vote for either of them is a vote legitimizing these policies.

    I am voting Libertarian, but I hope you will vote Green, Constitution, Libertarian, or Socialist according to your beliefs. It is a great day and the time is now to "waste" your vote protesting these big brother policies from the duopoly.

    The only "wasted vote" is a vote for either Bush or Kerry. It's wasted becuase they dont give a shit what you think, and it shows.

  10. I am frightened by sofakingon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And I quote, "The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."

    This scares the SHIT out of me. Would i need to show my national ID before I get on my city bus? How about when I cross state lines? Or get on a ferry?

    PLEASE visit the Liberty Committee (Headed up by Congressman Ron Paul, who is a member of the Libertarian Party [even though he's on the Republican ticket]) at:

    They have auto generating generic emails that they will send to your congressmen and women. Make your voice heard. DO SOMETHING, AMERICA, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

    1. Re:I am frightened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This scares the SHIT out of me.

      I can see how it's a bad idea, I guess. But what are you afraid of? Will you be getting one, or is your fear enough to stop you from getting one?

      I just finally gave in and got a GG (fictional state) license after spending 6 months here driving with my LL (fictional state #2) one. Finally, the LL DMV sent me a notice that my driving privileges were going to be suspended unless I got insurance in LL or turned in my plates. Rather than pay for two separate insurance policies or risk getting charged with driving with a suspended license, I caved, because I couldn't answer for myself the question of just what I had to be afraid of.

    2. Re:I am frightened by sofakingon · · Score: 1
      See the 6th point of the Communist Manifesto, which is :

      Government control of Communication and Transportation.

      Last time I checked, in America I had the right to travel wherever or speak whatever I wanted, so long as it didn't injure someone or violate anyone else's right to do the same.

      'Nuff said?

    3. Re:I am frightened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non sequitur. You'd still have the same rights to travel, 'they' would just be able to reasonably verify you're not Usama.

    4. Re:I am frightened by llefler · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, in America I had the right to travel wherever or speak whatever I wanted, so long as it didn't injure someone or violate anyone else's right to do the same.

      Travel wherever you want maybe. Travel however you want, not any longer. Simply by having your name inserted on a secret list by an anonymous agency, you lose the right to travel by commercial airplane, and probably soon by train and bus as well.

      Local transportation will probably not be a problem, simply because of the logistics involved. But don't be surprised if new technologies are embraced that change that from never to sometime.

      GPS phones, RFID drivers' licences, automobile black boxes, national databases....

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    5. Re:I am frightened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're afraid because this happens to coincide with something the communists did? That's stupid.

    6. Re:I am frightened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non sequitur. You'd still have the same rights to travel, 'they' would just be able to reasonably verify you're not Usama.

      True freedom only comes with anonymity. As proof of that, I had to make this damn post as an AC because if people knew I was saying this, they would suggest I was supporting terrorists. So once again let me emphasize, true freedom ONLY COMES WITH ANONYMITY.

    7. Re:I am frightened by hamelis · · Score: 1

      Local transportation will probably not be a problem, simply because of the logistics involved.

      someday they'll get rid of cash (gov't dislikes it, untraceable->underground economy they can't tax), and the only way you'll be able to pay for the bus/subway/taxi is with the RFID chip embedded in your driver's license (or skull).

  11. May I See Your Papers, Please? by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Decades ago we Americans would decry the authoritarian governments around the world, such as the former Soviet Union for the specific practice of requiring citizens to show papers for travel internal to their country.

    If fear of terrorism and a mode of law enforcement that takes the "what's easiest for us?" mentality makes America into a police state, then the terrorist win and we'll be proven to both weak and stupid.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:May I See Your Papers, Please? by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right, but you see, in the USA, you only need papers if you're going to travel by airline, train, or car. There are still many legitimate means of travel that do not require papers, including the all-American Greyhound bus, bicycles, and hitchhiking. So, of course, we are not like Soviet Russia at all.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:May I See Your Papers, Please? by luvirini · · Score: 1

      well, I think is is only matter of time until you will need Id on those transportation methods also.

  12. national id v. driver's license by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Driver's licenses are not compulsory.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:national id v. driver's license by sofakingon · · Score: 1

      They will be, if not a Drivers License then a state ID that conforms to federal standards and is linked to a federal database. This is what WILL happen if this bill goes through. Read it for yourself.

    2. Re:national id v. driver's license by cei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but the Supreme Court recently said that failure to produce valid ID upon request can be grounds for arrest. That does seem to imply that it's compulsory...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    3. Re:national id v. driver's license by Phosphor3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Close, but wrong. Failure to identify yourself can be grounds for arrest.

    4. Re:national id v. driver's license by shalla · · Score: 1

      Driver's licenses are not compulsory.

      From the article:

      "The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."

      Sure, it's not compulsory if you never want to travel. Or you could opt for the lovely nondriver ID card. Wow, what a choice.

      I dunno about you, but it's a darn long walk to visit some of my friends.

    5. Re:national id v. driver's license by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a country of so much supposed freedom, why is a very common argument for any intrusion something like "if you don't like the requirement, you don't have to do the activity." That's freedom?

      What's it going to take before you realize you're wrong?

      Living is not compulsory.

    6. Re:national id v. driver's license by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I thought it was that failure to identify yourself can be grounds for a temporary "Terry stop".

    7. Re:national id v. driver's license by zenray · · Score: 1

      I recall a story where a 'big city' bycycle rider got a moving violation against him and part the mandatory penality was loss of your driver's license. When The State found out that this bycycle rider did not have a driver's license to suspend they made him take the tests and get one just so they could take it away from him.
      My point being when the law assumes that you have a driver's license that can be suspended the driver's license IS a National ID.

      --
      zenray
    8. Re:national id v. driver's license by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      When did I say that? I said nothing about the pro and cons of national id.

      My comment was commenting on the ability of the powers that be to slide things in under the radar by taking small modifications to existing laws or institutions. The Clinton administration did the same thing with healthcare after the spectacular flameout of the Clinton healthcare plan in '94.

      Executives in government and business seek loopholes to accomplish their aims, whatever they are. If the congress won't pass compulsory identification laws, then the powers that be will use the next closest thing... driver's licenses.

      As a one time victim of identity fraud, I think that identification tied to biometrics would solve alot more problems than it would create. Marketers (and the gov't via subpeona) already know everything about you, national id card or not.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    9. Re:national id v. driver's license by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Driver's licenses are not compulsory.
      Damn straight. I mean, everyone has a job that they can walk or bike to, right? If I want to go meet my friends downtown to see a concert or a ballgame, I can just pay $50 to hire a cab, right? My kids' private school provides them with a bus, so that I don't have to drive them, right? And the local grocery store delivers everything I need straight to my front door, right?

      Bull fucking shit that drivers' licenses are not compulsory. At least not if you expect to be a productive adult in the USA.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  13. Time to bring the hammer down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The american government is no longer an effective representation of the people. The constitution has become outmoded, as it is unequipped to deal with the manipulative political machine. It is time to bring the hammer down - a constitutional convention is required.

    1. Re:Time to bring the hammer down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ammending or replacing the Constitution is really not neccessary. All that is needed is to vote out the crooks in office and vote in people who will follow the Constitution we have. If we as citizens cannot handle that simple job, what makes you think we have the resolve to do something much more involved, like changing the constitution?

  14. Here's what you can expect : by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative


    The UK is being used as a testbed for biometric ID cards.

    Soon we will be issued them with our Passports & Driving Licences

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  15. national id by zxnos · · Score: 1

    is does function as a national id, just under a guise that more people will accept?

    i dont think americans will take to have fingerprints and retinal scans on cards. talk about identity theft.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  16. Right by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    So we can safely conclude that you do not write checks at your local QuickyMart; all of your transactions are via debit card or cash withdrawn from an ATM, since no merchant will take a check without a drivers licence (or State ID; which is the same thing save an 'x' in a field on the green screen).

    We know the government doesn't track ATM transactions, so you're safe.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Right by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't notice, the 21st century has arrived. Who writes checks at retail anymore?

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  17. I am a United States Citizen, in the US. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first time I am walking down the street minding my own busisness and some cop tells me to show some ID or go to jail is the last time I ever carry ID on my person.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    1. Re:I am a United States Citizen, in the US. by nusratt · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The first time I am walking down the street minding my own busisness and some cop tells me to show some ID or go to jail is the last time I ever carry ID"

      I feel the same, but the bad news is that it has already happened.

      U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right

    2. Re:I am a United States Citizen, in the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Caucasian?

      No problem, then.

      Sad - but frequently true.

  18. FEDERALISM IS DEAD! by putch · · Score: 1

    Long live federalism!

    --
    just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
  19. Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful


    From the story: "How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

    It isn't different. The driver's license name is the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction. 2) The "Patriot" Act, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of laws that most congress people passed without reading. And, 3) The "Peacekeeper" Missile, which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

    This kind of lying takes advantage of the fact that most U.S. citizens have to trust their government because they simply don't have time to understand what their government is doing.

    Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another.

    Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Have a quick look at the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that try to tell you a little about U.S. goverment corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. If you don't read about the subjects mentioned, you are not informed. If you don't like the books listed, pick your own.

    Even though most people simply don't have time to understand their government, it is still amazing how much distrust U.S. citizens have of their government, and yet they don't take control.

    There is good reason not to trust a more efficient national driver's license, because it would be used by the government to suppress political dissent. For example, see the New York Times article, F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies. Here's a quote: "Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes." There are many people whose jobs depend on their ability to fly. They may be forced to stop any analysis of government activity if they are harassed when they try to fly.

    That article discusses a few of the other abuses. If you didn't like the Vietnam War, and demonstrated against it, the FBI would go to your neighbors and friends and "investigate" you. Merely the investigation caused enough fear to discourage most people; they could not afford to lose friends and the support of neighbors. People would think, "If someone is being investigated, that person must have done something wrong."

    (Note that you can read that article at the New York Times web site, but only under extremely adversarial conditions. You can pay more than the entire cost of the newspaper in which the article was originally printed. Or, you can get a discount under plans which cause you to lose your money in a short time if you don't use the plans quickly enough. No one should underestimate the self-destructive rapacity of managers of ad-supported media.)

    Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. The U.S. government is only trying to make the data gathering more efficient. The fundamental problem is not whether or not a national ID card is a good idea, the problem is that, although the U.S. government functions well in many ways, the government is corrupt in many other ways.

    If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

  20. To Answer the Original Submitter by wolf31o2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How is this functionally different from a national ID card?

    Simple. I am not required by law to have a driver's license. In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around. As for getting on an airplane, I've travelled internationally, so I have a passport and I've not met an airline company that would not take one of those as a valid form of identification.

    1. Re:To Answer the Original Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you ever lived down south? You need to be able to drive to function normally.

    2. Re:To Answer the Original Submitter by Politburo · · Score: 1

      In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around.

      And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.

      Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation. I hope you like it, but liking it is optional, too. :)

    3. Re:To Answer the Original Submitter by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.

      You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.

      Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation.

      I certainly agree with your sentiment. Driving should be a right, not a privilege. Driver's licenses and license plates should be optional, not driving.

    4. Re:To Answer the Original Submitter by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.

      I'm 23 now, and have to show my ID about 90% of the time. I live in a college area, so enforcement is a little more strict. Around here, retailers of alcohol and tobacco are supposed to ask for ID from anyone who appears to be younger than 27.

  21. More law = more crime! by forDVfreedom · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see how the passage of the patriot act will create more crime? Every new law that is passed concerning Americans' freedom to live and work as honest citizens will create more crime. There is always a way to get around it, and more so for the criminal mind. This poses a fun game for criminals..gives them some other challenge to overcome. I also see it as a WIN for terrorism. What delight they must have in knowing they were responsible for sending America in such a spin that these freedom strickening laws are even being discussed! It really isn't the kind of message I think we should be sending to these anti-life people. Just as crime in America would rise, terrorism will in turn take more of a hold on the world. Here is an example of this......Imagine something like a bully at school. He seeks to make the life of other students rough to gain attention. Good or bad is not the point, as long as he is getting some recognition for his bully ways. My mom always told me when others make fun or try to upset you....make it known you dont like it, and don't let them know it upset you. Seems that terrorism can be fit into this situation. If terrorists see us fearful, and adapting law to keep them out, they will try harder to get in. Really people...if something is going to happen, it will....putting tags on Americans like dogs is not the solution. Many argue..If you aren't doing anything wrong then what is to hide?.. It's not really an issue of wrong doing. The question in response should be..What did I do wrong to be treated criminally? I hope more people can see the patriot act as bad news and bad policy that isn't a solution. It's more of a punishment to the majority that will create crime. I know I would give up my right to drive sooner than I would agree to be tagged like a criminal.

  22. Multipass by ericspinder · · Score: 1
    You can already use your passport for 'basic' identification. Mostly they are talking about making a common format for the state issued Id's (including Driver lic).

    Have you ever seen an Id book which is carried in most bars? It's a pain in the butt. Every state has a different form factor and security features. Sometimes just finding the date of birth can be a 'finding Waldo' experience, not to mention the expiration date.

    Orwellian concerns aside, this would be a great boon for security personel (inc bouncers), who right now have a potential of seeing (well) over 50 different forms of Identification for just U.S. citizens alone. However, I believe that couching this change as being 'needed to combat terrorism', is pathetic and weakens that arguement for when it is really needed (i.e. the Bush who cried Wolf).

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  23. But I already carry my fingerprints and retinas! by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why do I need to carry a piece of paper that has scans of my fingerprints and retinas? I always carry the real things with me!

    If the purpose it to store other information linked to the scans/prints, isn't it ridiculously vulnerable to store that data on a forgeable, able-to-be-mislaid or stolen piece of paper in my pocket rather than in a secure database inside a locked building?

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  24. My two cents by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    If given the choice between freedom and security, I would choose freedom.

    This is wrong. Driver's licenses are for driving. Social security cards are for the social security system. We do not need to make either one into a national identification card. This type of thing would only prove those conspiracy theorists from the 80s and 90s correct concerning new world order type stuff.

  25. Revelations 16-18 by epcraig · · Score: 1

    Are you taking it seriously yet?

    --
    Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
    1. Re:Revelations 16-18 by zoloto · · Score: 1

      it's revelation. the plurality is wrong. and if you think I typed this in you're out of your mind. CUT/PASTE is your friend, and pasted here for the lazy.

      CHAPTER 16

      God pours out plagues upon the wicked--The nations assemble for Armageddon--Christ comes, islands flee, mountains cease.

      1 AND I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

      2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a anoisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

      3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

      4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

      5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast ajudged thus.

      6 For they have ashed the bblood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are cworthy.

      7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

      8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

      9 And men were scorched with great heat, and ablasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

      10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of adarkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

      11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their apains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

      12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

      13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the afalse prophet.

      14 For they are the aspirits of bdevils, working cmiracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the dbattle of that great day of God Almighty.

      15 Behold, I come as a athief. Blessed is he that bwatcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

      16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue aArmageddon.

      17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

      18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great aearthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

      19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great aBabylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his bwrath.

      20 And every island fled away, and the amountains were not found.

      21 And there fell upon men a great ahail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

      CHAPTER 17

      John is shown that Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations, has become established throughout the earth.

      1 AND there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the ajudgment of the great bwhore that sitteth upon many cwaters:

      2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the ainhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her bfornication.

      3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a

  26. It's just a matter of time... by tropicflite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before everyone is 'chipped' at birth with some sort of non-removable multi-purpose chip which among other tasks tracks your position at all times.

    The chip will be your ID, your method of payment, and will interact with chips embedded in other humans and products so that everything you do will be documented in real-time.

    Perhaps the chip will enable the overlo.., um, government to 'correct' you if you're doing something wrong, such as getting into a high speed chase, or using p2p software.

  27. A foreign perspective. by Elamaton · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The "slippery slope" arguments associated with national ID's for the US always amuse me to some extent. I live in Finland, where everyone has some sort of "national ID" (or a multinational ID, even, for those of us with the new style EU driver's licenses), not biometric or RFID equipped, though. The same goes, I believe, with all of Scandinavia and at least most of Europe.

    Sure, our country, its associated government, and the life and people here in general are in many respects very different from the USA, but no one here ever even thinks to protest the existence of national ID's. It simply doesn't cause any problems here in anyone's daily life (and no, it's not intellectual laziness or submission to the Big Brother, either - people here like complaining about the tiniest "issues" and are very keen on bashing the government when necessary). Quite the contrary, it's considered a good thing to be able to verify who you are when you want to, as well as to be able to know with reasonable (not perfect) certainty that the person you are in contact is in fact who you think he is.

    I mean, sure you have to present the ID from time to time, like when opening bank accounts, or when buying alcohol and looking like you're underage, or making purchases over 50 euros in value with a credit card or a creditless "bank card" (I don't know an equivalent English term for that one, that's a direct translation), or somesuch. There simply is no tracking or snooping into our lives through ID cards. You can walk the streets and interact with people with near-total anonymity, pay in cash, etc. The driver's licenses in our pocket don't change that.

    A much worse form of espionage are the regular customer membership cards for various large retail chains - now there's efficient tracking for ya. And they're by no means alien to the USA, but I haven't seen much hubbub about those, even though they are solely a tool for consumer behavior analyzation.

    The fact that everyone has a nationally standardized means of identifying themselves doesn't automatically lead to all these worst-case scenarios presented in this thread and who knows how many others in past threads on the subject.

    Then again, maybe even average US citizens have some valid reasons to actually fear the emergence of national IDs, dunno. I suppose this thread will bring them out.

    1. Re:A foreign perspective. by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      creditless "bank card" (I don't know an equivalent English term for that one, that's a direct translation)

      It's a debit card.

      One difference between Finland and America is that Finland isn't that much bigger than one of our states. We have state ID cards here, and we use them much like you use your national ID cards. I guess a US national ID card wouldn't be that much different than a multinational European card, but I'ld be worried about having everyone's data in one database. That seems to be begging a security breach. Also, we're (the US) getting closer to requiring everyone at all times to having identification to show, despite the fact that it's against the Constitution. And more and more information on one little card and with that information being so paramount to daily life, it just makes identity theft a bigger and bigger problem.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    2. Re:A foreign perspective. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sure, our country, its associated government, and the life and people here in general are in many respects very different from the USA, but no one here ever even thinks to protest the existence of national ID's.

      It's rare to see the protest of state IDs (drivers' licenses) here. People have grown used to them.

      But the whole national ID card idea is new, and there are a lot of libertarian-minded people on Slashdot. Most of the people protesting a national ID card would protest drivers' licenses too, if it wasn't for the fact that people have grown so accustomed to them that there's virtually no chance of getting rid of them.

    3. Re:A foreign perspective. by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      Actually, anytime a police officer asks you for your identification, you are required to show it. Failure to do so is a criminal offense according to (at least) the State of Nevada and the US Supreme Court.

      It's easy for the government to keep tabs on you through your driver's license thanks to all the "sobriety checkpoints" you see around here, where the police stop everyone travelling along a certain street, demanding to see their driver's licenses. These checkpoints are also fishing expeditions with drug-sniffing dogs engaging in what amounts to warrantless searches of every car that passes through the checkpoint. And if you see the checkpoint and turn around, you are pulled over anyway.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    4. Re:A foreign perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live at least, the police are required to publish the dates and locations of sobriety checkpoints in advance. Thus it is easy enough to avoid if you really care to.

  28. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by schiefaw · · Score: 1
    The "Patriot" Missile [umn.edu], as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction.

    While I agree with most of your points, I do have one correction. The Patriot missile is an anti-air missile, not a weapon of mass destruction (in the normal sense of WOMD). Still an odd name, though.

    --
    Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
  29. Let's get over with by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Okay,let's just bite the bullet and get on with it: get our tracking/ID chips implanted, get our National Driver's lic. (does that mean the lic. is good anywhere in US?), have 666 (or whatever it's supposed to be) tattoed on our foreheads,and finally, let's all BEND OVER AND BE GOATSE'd!!!! Think your hemorrhoids bother you now? Ain't felt nothing yet!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  30. Unconstitutional by booch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not every train and airplane trip is interstate. The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    1. Re:Unconstitutional by RobertB-DC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not every train and airplane trip is interstate. The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.
      I got mod points today, but since there's no "+/1, Idealistic", I'll just reply.

      Not every car trip is interstate, either... most aren't. But when Florida tried to use color-coded highway signs, a federal agency said no:
      Florida's Department of Transportation is switching from its "color coded" U.S. highway signs to the standard black-and-white signs, under pressure from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Florida DOT argued that drivers could simply follow the color of the sign to their destination, but the FHWA said it would be forced to "withhold certain monetary funding if the state of Florida continued to use their color coded markers."
      It's the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

      This Federal ability has been a mixed bag. OSHA can only enforce worker safety statutes because of the broad interpretation of "interstate commerce". Same with auto safety, and even most of the civil rights we take for granted (thanks to those who went to jail for us, or worse, in the '60s). On the other hand, it's also brought the drinking age of 21 (a law of dubious usefulness, IMHO) and now, possibly, "standardized" driver's licenses.

      My thoughts: use Federal regulation to enhance freedom for individuals and restrict activities of corporations. But I'm just Green like that.
      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    2. Re:Unconstitutional by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.

      LMAO! From Wikard v. Filburn to Heart of Atlanta Model v United States to Katzenbach v McClung to Daniel v. Paul the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there need be very little tie-in to interstate commerce to regulate a wholly intrastate activity. United States v. Lopez has stemmed the tide a bit, but I highly doubt a case can be won against a law which regulates the intrastate portions of an interstate transportation company. Even if it could, do you think these companies are going to fight for your rights or are going to do whatever is most convenient for them? When you fly from San Francisco to LA do you have to show ID?

  31. How will this affect California's plans? by GQuon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How will this affect the glorious plans to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in California?

    Even without these new standards, were states allowed to not accept the driver's licenses of other states? This is similar to the issue of states accepting marriage licenses from states with some really kick-arse definition of marriage.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  32. national drivers license questions by gordona · · Score: 1

    Will there be a national drivers test? Will the TSA administer it? What happens if I can't parallel park?

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:national drivers license questions by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      What happens if I can't parallel park?
      Just move to Tennessee; you'll fit right in with everyone else who can't parallel park. Or use turn signals. Or stop at stop signs.
      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  33. 2004-10-05 17 National ID (rejected) by isotope23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    2004-10-05 17:44:39 National ID and backend database is on its way (Your Rights Online,Politics) (rejected)

    Dont you love it when /. rejects your stories only to have them appear a week later?

    I had a great doublespeak quote from the congressional record by john mccain on this.
    Of course i didnt bookmark it DOH.

    but he said something like this
    1.st sentence "with this bill we are not making a national id"
    next sentence "but we recognize that drivers licenses have become a defacto national id."

    here is another part of the congressional record on this from Joe lieberman :

    "Our lenient border policies with our neighbors to the north and south today constitute a vulnerability. Travelers may now cross these borders with no other proof of U.S. citizenship than a verbal statement. Individuals claiming to be Canadians enter our country from Canada without showing a passport. The policies are evidence of our good relations with our neighbors, but in the age of terrorism, that friendship must allow for better security for the benefit of both.

    Our amendment would require biometric passports, or an identification document just as secure, for everyone crossing into the United States, even U.S. citizens and our closest neighbors
    "

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./t em p/~r108wRaE7b:e176936:

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  34. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that the name "Peacekeeper missile" comes fro ma long line of heritage from the old West. Any American who associates a peacekeeper missile with true peace skipped grade school. Those who didn't skip their lessons generally associate it with a big-ass handgun common in the Wild West.

  35. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by Experiment+626 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction.

    False. Naming something Patriot does not automatically mean you must support it. If you root for the opposing team instead of the New England Patriots, does it make you un-American? Missiles have all sorts of names, some of which are meaningful, others of which are just catchy (Polaris, Trident, Tomahawk, etc.). If you don't like Poseidon missiles, they doesn't say much about your opinion of ancient Greek deities either.

    As for the "weapon of mass destruction" comment, this is ridiculous. WMD refers to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. If you want to define it to encompass any random missile, than Saddam Hussein certainly had WMD in the form of Scuds, and Kerry owes Bush a big apology. Or you could just be tossing phrases around with no idea what you are saying.

    The "Peacekeeper" Missile, which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

    This is one of the missiles where the name is actually fairly apt. The threat of nuclear annihilation made the prospect of all-out warfare too terrible. The cold war stayed cold because any direct attack from one superpower on another would have resulted in a situation nobody would win. Sure, "I won't attack your country because we would both die" is not nice as "I won't attack your country because I love you and would rather give you a hug", but even an uneasy peace between the major world powers is better than no peace at all. The point of a nuclear weapon is not to blow stuff up, it is that everyone else knows you could blow stuff up so they don't mess with you. If the U.S. uses its nuclear arsenal defensively, to deter attack, then names like the Peacekeeper make sense. If they had used it to blow up Baghdad instead of sending in ground troops, then your point about its name being a "lie" would have some validity.

  36. Re:But I already carry my fingerprints and retinas by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real purpose of fingerprints on drivers licenses is simply to put them in a database. That way if we find fingerprints at the scene of a murder, we can cross check them with the DMV. Linking them to other databases is just a side benefit for the authoritarians. That the cheapass thumbprint is pretty much useless for criminology is another matter...

    Everyone who works with children has had to sumbit full and complete fingerprints to the FBI for decades. But no one ever stopped to think that mandatory fingerprinting was wrong until it affected them. Sigh.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  37. More than one attempt at national ID by blamanj · · Score: 2, Informative

    I submitted a similar story last week [2004-10-05 18:44:25 National ID Card proposed (Index,Privacy) (rejected)] and when I saw this headline, I assumed it was about the same bill. Turns out it's not.

    There is another bill proposed by three Republicans and a Texas Democrat that would make the Social Security card a national ID, one that would also be linked to a country-wide database containing information about your "employability."

    However, since our SSNo. is also required for banking, tax, and medical records, the potential for database linking and tracking is even higher.

  38. Re:But I already carry my fingerprints and retinas by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    I suspect that fingerprints and retinal scans were editorial examples included to try to scare people, not in the actual law.

  39. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    It was only a Slashdot comment, posted at 6:53 in the morning. The major point is correct. Many bills before Congress are given misleading titles. I could only think of 3 that early in the morning. If you don't like the ones I picked, choose others, like this one: Congress Degrades National Parks. Here's a quote: "The National Park Enhancement and Revitalization Act, HR 4158, sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), has an appealing but deliberately misleading title."

    --
    Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

  40. It will be one of several nationl ID cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We already have one called a Social Security Card. Its not supposed to be a National ID card, but it is many circumstances. I wonder how many posters refuse to show their Social Security Card when asked by a medical facility for insurance, or gettting a job. How about credit application, or a loan?

    When a cop pulls you over do you refuse to show your drivers license? Its already used as ID now!

    We will have a Social Security Card as nation id for medical, and job related issues.

    We will have a state issued driver's license that conforms to National standards as your travel ID.

  41. It IS different from a National ID card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is different from a national ID card:

    Local taxpayers get stuck with the bill and Congressmen and the next President won't have to raise taxes.

    That's how it's different.

  42. SS not needed for medical treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've needed medical service several times.

    They usually want your insurance #, not your SS#. My insurance company is issuing new #s that do NOT contain my SS#.

    Places that do ask for SS# do it because it's tied to your credit report and that's how they can track deadbeats.

  43. how ... different from a national ID card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It SNOT!

  44. Citizen 15283495659zebra7 Reporting! by ddelrio · · Score: 1

    Forgive my speeding, sir! Yes, sir! I am aware that I ran a red light three years ago, sir! Yes, sir! I have apologized for chewing gum in class in the third grade, sir! Yes, sir! Very insensitive of me, sir! Local and federal authorities should be answering to the people--not the other way around. I was once stopped for speeding. I asked the officer, "When was the last time your radar was calibrated?" It's my right to ask--but the cop went ape-shit. "Are you questioning me, sir?!" I said, "No, officer--I'm questioning the accuracy of your instruments." Apparently, he didn't understand my question, because he asked me again, "ARE YOU QUESTIONING ME, SIR?!". He said "sir" with contempt rather than with respect--and never did he actually answer my question. On another occasion, after moving into a new apartment, I had a neighbor call the police with a noise complaint. I hadn't realized how thin the walls were. By the time the authorities showed up, the stereo was alread off. He knocked on the door and I said (through the door), "Yes? Is there a problem officer?" He said, "I want to talk to you. Open the door." I said, "Well, what's the problem?" He said, "Just open the door." I said, "Do you have a warrant?" He laughed! He said, "I don't need a warrant." I said, "Well, it's not for you." He yelled and demanded I let him in. Again I refused. He kept pounding for almost fifteen minutes. Finally, he kicked my door--hard--before he finally left. Our representatives and civil servants are forgetting themselves--and it's only getting worse.

  45. Citizen 15283495659zebra7 Reporting!* by ddelrio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Forgive my speeding, sir! Yes, sir! I am aware that I ran a red light three years ago, sir! Yes, sir! I have apologized for chewing gum in class in the third grade, sir! Yes, sir! Very insensitive of me, sir!

    Local and federal authorities should be answering to the people--not the other way around. I was once stopped for speeding. I asked the officer, "When was the last time your radar was calibrated?" It's my right to ask--but the cop went ape-shit. "Are you questioning me, sir?!" I said, "No, officer--I'm questioning the accuracy of your instruments." Apparently, he didn't understand my question, because he asked me again, "ARE YOU QUESTIONING ME, SIR?!". He said "sir" with contempt rather than with respect--and never did he actually answer my question.

    On another occasion, after moving into a new apartment, I had a neighbor call the police with a noise complaint. I hadn't realized how thin the walls were. By the time the authorities showed up, the stereo was alread off. He knocked on the door and I said (through the door), "Yes? Is there a problem officer?" He said, "I want to talk to you. Open the door." I said, "Well, what's the problem?" He said, "Just open the door." I said, "Do you have a warrant?" He laughed! He said, "I don't need a warrant." I said, "Well, it's not for you."

    He yelled and demanded I let him in. Again I refused. He kept pounding for almost fifteen minutes. Finally, he kicked my door--hard--before he finally left.

    Our representatives and civil servants are forgetting themselves--and it's only getting worse.

    *Sorry--this is a repost. I forgot the breaks!

  46. Your papers, herr terrorist? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    "How is this different from a national ID card"? How is this a *driver's license*? This is worse than an ID card: it's an internal passport! The Department of Fatherland Security has turned the completely useless operation of validating identity into the extremely oppressive operation of denying freedom of movement within our country to any who are excluded from those allowed. This doesn't keep us safe from any terrorists, like the 9/11/2001 planebombers all carrying valid and checked national IDs (passports). It doesn't even make us better drivers! And of course Mexican truck drivers will still be driving across the border, without US labor and training rules keeping them off our roads, because Bush loves NAFTA. This is the Gestapo, laying its snares. We're racing down the road in the fascistmobile, with no rearview mirror, or brakes.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  47. Re:Sad news... a sick counter-balance... by davidsyes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When a bomber or some radical FRAGS (from mere threatening whisper to outright ejection from corporeal existence) corrupt members of government, corporation, or capacity, maybe we should look the other way, or egg them on to be VERY, VERY selective and surgical about who they strike.

    After all, most of us civilians NO LONGER hold a vote power at the national election level. Our votes have been negotiated, bought, and sold by corporations, rich, and in-the-club investors and credits/favors exchangers.

    For terrorists to attack the common person who effectively is national-vote neutered or who faces being arrested, tortured or shot by-- a corrupt oligarchy, monarchy, theocracy or plutocracy pretending to heed the will of the people-- from voicing her/his conscience is to be a waste of limited resources. Just as military strikes aim to be surgical, terrorists could gain a SHIT LOAD of currency by minding whom they go after. Beheading employees is NOT the answer-- IF that employee is some low-level individual. However, insurgents, counter-insurgents, spies, spooks, attaches, and dignitarys carrying pouches, microdots, bugs and chips up their butts, or verbally passing high-level tactical, political, or similar messages are part of the "get-caught-and-you-COULD-die" game of spying. That IS PART OF THE GAME, and they SHOULD accept it and live with it, or not be part of that game. Terrorists' targetting of civilians only undermines their effectiveness because they REAL targets they hope to make capitulate have what WE, the PEOPLE, DON'T have:

    Security, body guards, protection, isolation, intel, weapons, frequently-changing-schedules...

    For saying this (which obviously is NOT classified, but IS spoken with PASSION, I guess I can look forward to MY conforming license to be "pending" indefinitely, hehhe...

    WHEW, that was ONE side of the scale...

    On the OTHER hand, (being I'm a Libra and always interested in counterbalancing things), for us civilians to BE (temporarily, but no longer) legit targets, we HAVE to have returned to us the duty and responsibility of being able to FIRE those corrupt C*$@suckers who put us in these precarious situations. (We need to change our mass-consumption habits, too, for this to work...) We need to shift the targetting back UPON ourselves so that we instantly don't want to be randomly chosen targets "going into the disintegration chamber", if you will. Once WE truly, TRULY taste being targetted until we MAKE our so-called "leaders" do OUR bidding instead of the other way around, THEN, we'll see terrorists (not the whacked out ones hating ALL 'merikuns, but mainly those who hate us for making incursions into their markets--EVEN if they let in, say, Japan, or China, or India, or Australia, but discriminate against the U.S. of A...) chill out, maybe because we give them room. If their kids want MTV, Coke, Jordache, and other crap, LET THEM get it AFTER the wonky terrorists/hyper-fundamentalists-gone-overboard, or the super extremists have died off naturally (and I mean NO predators or raprots, umm, raptors seeking them out in the night). I imagine if we lost our big eyes in the sky and rapid mobility, thereby putting us on somewhat equal terms, the US deathcount in Iraq would be more in line with the monthly averages in Vietnam, since surgical striking and laser beams were not NEARLy as accurate as today, and all that "tech" is giving US, the US a helluva tactical and strategic advantage that effectively makes soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen feel "safer" from mortal wounding...)

    Oh, hell, I digressed again... Motor Voter....

    Maybe the Motor-Voter thing should be MANDATORY, effectively IMMEDIATELY and who GIVES a goddamn what republicans or opponents to MV want. This could prevent the bullshit committed by georgy-porgy and jeb-jethro:

    -Citizens (or if that's too sticky, VOTE-ELEGIBLE persons) get a license of one color, consistent across state lines
    -non-vote-elegible motorists get a DL of ANOTHER color, consistent across st

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  48. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

    On that point, I agree completely. Congress gives bills titles that divert attention from the legislation's real purpose or make it politically dangerous to go against it.

    This is why my disagreement was entirely with regard to the naming of missiles. With weapon systems, it's more a matter of giving your side's stuff impressive names (Patriot, Eagle, Phantom, Aegis, etc.) and code-naming the other guy's stuff with dubious names (Fishbed, Backfire, Satan, Scud).

    As far as Congressional legislation though, you are absolutely correct.

  49. Code name games by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    "With weapon systems, it's more a matter of giving your side's stuff impressive names (Patriot, Eagle, Phantom, Aegis, etc.) and code-naming the other guy's stuff with dubious names (Fishbed, Backfire, Satan, Scud)."

    Interesting.

  50. Re:Sad news--the thing that SUCKS is that... by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The assholes at the DHLS won't even TELL you what landed you on the list. You're effectively being interfered with without being told of the charges.

    If you're TRULY innocent, even a rabble-rouser in word but not in physical act, you could land on that list, never get off, and if they know you're on a flight to points outside the US, they can effectively detain you.

    Worse, still, this kind of listing FORCES, COMPELS a subduing of the nations most vocal, outspoken types, for they who have money and time to travel will keep low. Some already have been, long before the DNF List, preferring to use proxies or lobbyists. But, for those like myself who "mouth from the hip" (umm, a poor play on "shoot from the hip"(sucking of any kind is NOT inferred in this context...)), we could be in deep travel-suspension.

    THIS is probably what the damned corruptos in office have been plotting, twiddling their thumbs over for months.

    Possible resolutions:

    If you're on the DNF List, and you have a clean record,

    --then an agent could fly with you and threaten to blast you with a TASER or a cyanide-needle, as case needs determine

    --the government could TELL you in timely fashion (especially now that they're getting booking information, but ad-hoc/last-minute flyers will be hit hardest) that you have to clear up some things before they un-highlight your name on the list

    --the list needs to be made ADAPTIVE: Just because you get ON the goddamned wretched thing doesn't mean you're SUPPOSED to be on it; once they satisfy that in the near term no real corroborative negative information is sticking to you, they can command the DNFL to silently de-highlight your name and maybe you wouldn't even KNOW you're on it; even the airport ticket or counter agents might never know

    --offer the DNFL people a group class charter plane, if they're all lucky enough to fly to general points in the general area; the plane could be shadowed, or the occupants could submit to being restrained to seats but that would be harsh, unusual, and cruel if stretches or bowel or bladder relief could not be facilitated; but REINFORCED DOORS between the cockpit and the pax would solve problems (as long as the cabin pressurization is not subject to abuse); hell, if some greedy, PHB airline officials long ago decided to install reinforced doors and electrical grids when they were cheaper (vs under emergency rush orders after 9/11) then 9/11 probably would have NEVER happened with airplanes-- it would have been something else, and we'd probably NOT have the damned No Fly List.

    Many of these problems are the result of bean counters not paying close attention to HISTORY. Some assholes tried to hijack El Al, and the Israelis basically said "NOT EVER AGAIN". The US has a few hijackings and some ASSHOLE insurance companies want to raise rates (as they should if screening is lousy) but the airliners negotiate in back rooms and plead (it's unforseeable; it's never happened before (despite prior incidents in other nations where they conveniently remove that incident from reporting cuz it wasnt' on US soil...))

    Now, here in the US, supposedly, we don't have enough sky marshalls on the planes. Airlines want to be REactive vs PROactive. The government (the current occupants/cabal and sulliers of the oval office) sees and grabs for more power, rather than FIXING our screwed-up foreign policy, energy policy, and play-favorites treatment of foreign nationals who starve or die daily from civil unrest.

    DAMN, too much of the brownies today! But, have I LIED anywhere in my writings?!

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  51. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by martinX · · Score: 1

    What the hell was codenamed "Fishbed". I can't stop laughing at the thought of it.

    Fishbed fishbed, roly poly fishbed...

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  52. already been done by dangermouse · · Score: 3, Informative
    Federal driver's license standards were actually enacted in 1997 (and set to go into effect in 2000), but in 1998 South Carolina successfully challenged the constitutionality of federal regulation of state drivers' licenses. It was different law, but the same principle, and in 1999 the Congress repealed the 1997 law.

    More detail here, under the "Constitutional Issues" section. (References are given.)

  53. True, drivers' licenses should be for driving... by aquarian · · Score: 1

    ...which is why foreigners driving on our roads, otherwise legally or not, should have drivers' licenses. Licensing enables insurance, driving records, and general management of the driving population, wherever they may come from.

    California does fingerprint, BTW.

  54. The "Big Three" would not approve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You can't use passports for two reasons.

    First, it would remind people of various facist regimes in the past.

    Second, the Big Three wouldn't like it. They worked hard to get intertwined in the heads of most sheeple the the concept of being authorized to operate a motor vehicle and the concept of evidence of identity. Too much money involved.

  55. Re:Driver's licenses are already a national ID car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell was codenamed "Fishbed".

    The Mig-21 jet. NATO gave all USSR planes names starting in F: foxhount, forget, fulcrum, flogger, foxbat, fishbed, farmer, flagon, and even fagot.

  56. Ferry tickets should be for fare... by GQuon · · Score: 1

    ...which is why illegal immigrants driving on our roads, with or without a California drivers' license, should be given car ferry tickets. Tickets enable accounting, calculating the number of passengers in case of an accident, statistics and so on.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  57. That would be by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    Who writes checks at retail anymore?
    Anyone who has a mortgage and realizes the risk of missing a payment. See, if some crook double-dips your debig card for an extra 2 grand when you buy a new Iron Horse, then you get a nice asspole from the bank when your mortgage payment fails to go through.

    No, you don't get your money back when you report the crime; you have to wait for the investigation to complete before that happens. That cash is "in your account" but you can't touch it; you can't use it to pay bills, keep your credit clean, or keep the repo man away.

    See what you get to look forward to when you move out of your Mom's house?

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:That would be by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      I own two houses, one outright, and have the capability to responsibly use credit accounts.

      If you can resist the temptation to run up stupid charges, its far better to let American Express or whatever bank float you money for 30 days and give you a couple of hundred dollars a year in kickbacks (gift certificates and swag) than use my your own cash.

      Whatever the scenario, if you are writing checks at retail, you're an idiot.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  58. I agree by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    ...and if you use a debit card, you are pretty must a waste of skin.

    --
    Yeah, right.